Genesis: From Paradise to Patriarchs

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

Home

1. A Walk Through the Book of Genesis

Introduction

Perhaps the most forthright and concise introduction I have ever heard about is the one which Readers Digest tells us occurred at the men’s night meeting of the Philomathic Club. The speaker didn’t receive the usual flower phrases of introduction. Instead, the woman simply said, “Get up, Gilbert.” The speaker was none other than the woman’s husband.

I probably feel the same way about introductions as “Gilbert” does. I especially dislike the introduction that goes like this: “And now it is my pleasure to introduce a man who needs no introduction.”

With this message we are commencing a study of one of the great books of the Bible, the book of Genesis. It does need an introduction. Derek Kidner says of this book,

There can scarcely be another part of Scripture over which so many battles, theological, scientific, historical and literary, have been fought, or so many strong opinions cherished.¹

Our attitudes and presuppostions which we bring to the book of Genesis will largely determine what we get from it. For this reason, we must devote our attention to some introductory matters.

Title

The title “Genesis” is a transliteration of the Greek word which is the title of the book of Genesis in the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament. In the Hebrew text, the word Bereshith, is the first word of the text, being translated, “in the beginning.”

Authorship

J. Sidlow Baxter, in his excellent work, Explore the Book, sums up the difficulty of authorship by the question, “Is it Mosaic, or a mosaic?”²

That, in a nutshell, is the issue.

Traditionally, Moses has been held to be the author of Genesis over the centuries. A number of inferential evidences favor this conclusion.³ It would appear from a number of passages (e.g., Exodus 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Leviticus 1:1; 4:1; 6:1,8,19,24; 7:22,28, etc.) that Moses wrote the other books of the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). It would indeed be unusual for the first word of Exodus to be “and” unless Moses wrote it as well.

In the New Testament, our Lord seemingly attributes the Pentateuch to Moses (Matt 8:4; 19:7,8; Mark 1:44; 7:10; 10:3,4; Luke 5:14; 16:29,31; John 5:45,46; 7:22,23). Other New Testament writers follow this same approach (Acts 3:22, 13:39; Rom 10:5,19; I Cor 9:9; II Cor 3:15). It is therefore hard not to conclude that Moses wrote all the Pentateuch, in spite of no one air-tight statement to this effect.

Critics have not been content with this conclusion, however. Beginning with J. Astruc (1753),⁴ “scholars” have attributed this book to the work of an unknown redactor who skillfully compiled the writings of four or more editors. Generally the four primary sources are referred to as J, E, D, and P. J is the “Yahwist”; E, the “Elohist”; D is the work of the Deuteronomist; and P, the priestly document.

Several lines of evidence are given to support the Graf-Wellhausen or Documentary hypothesis. First would be the different names which are employed for God.⁵ For those who hold to the Documentary hypothesis, the change from Elohim to Yahweh signals a change of author. One major flaw in this approach is that within “E” passages the word Yahweh is also employed (e.g. Genesis 22:11, 14; 28:17-22) and vice-versa.

Secondly, we are pointed to different expressions referring to some act, such as that of making a covenant. “Cut a covenant,” “give a covenant,” and “establish a covenant”⁶ are variously employed, by the different authors of the Pentateuch. This leaves the author with no opportunity for stylistic change or for a change in the nuance of a word. One would hate to write under such restrictions today.

Thirdly, we are told that the Pentateuch contains “doublets,” that is duplicate accounts of the same event.⁷ One such instance would be the two creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2. Worse yet are supposed “doublets” where there is any semblance of similarity between two accounts, such as Hagar’s two departures from home (Genesis 16, 21).

While multiple authorship⁸ or the use of existing documents⁹ should pose no great difficulty to the doctrine of the Bible’s inspiration and inerrancy, the Documentary hypothesis stands condemned on two counts. First, it is based upon the very thin ice of conjecture of scholars who are supposedly better informed than the author(s) of old; and secondly, it has placed most of the emphasis upon the isolation of fragments and their authors, rather than upon the interpretation of the text itself.¹⁰ They are more concerned about an alleged Redactor, than the Redeemer.

Thus, we must agree with the conclusion of Sir Charles Marston:

So J., E. and P., the supposed authors of the Pentateuch, are becoming mere phantom scribes and fetishes of the imagination. They have made Old Testament study unattractive, they have wasted our time, and they have warped and confused our judgments on outside evidence. It has been assumed that they possessed some sort of prescriptive right and authority superior to the Sacred Text. In the clearer light that Science is casting, these shadows that have dimmed our days of study and devotion are silently stealing away.¹¹

The Outline of the Book of Genesis

Nearly every student of the book of Genesis agrees that it falls logically into two sections: chapters 1-11 and 12-50. The first eleven chapters focus upon the ever widening ruin of man, fallen from his created perfection and coming under the judgment of the Creator. Chapters 12-50 describe God’s ever narrowing program of man’s redemption.

The first division of the book, chapters 1-11, can be summarized by four major events: the creation (chapters 1-2), the fall (chapters 3-5), the flood (chapters 6-9), and the confusion of languages of the tower of Babel. The last division of Genesis, chapters 12-50, can be remembered by its four main characters: Abraham (12:1-25:18), Isaac (25:19-26:35), Jacob (27-36), and Joseph (37-50).

While there are more complicated schemes for the book, this simple outline should assist you to think in terms of the book as a whole. Every incident, every chapter should be understood as it contributes to the argument of the book.

The Importance of the Book of Genesis

A surveyor must always begin from a point of reference. So, too, history must start at some definite place of beginnings. The Bible is, through and through, a historical revelation. It is the account of God’s activity in history. As such, it must have a beginning. The book of Genesis gives us our historical point of reference, from which all subsequent revelation proceeds.

In this book we find the “roots” of the inhabited world and the universe, of man and nations, of sin and redemption. Also, we find the foundation of our theology. Fritsch, in The Layman’s Bible Commentary has referred to Genesis as “the starting point of all theology.”¹² J. Sidlow Baxter has written,

The other writings of the Bible are inseparably bound up with it inasmuch as it gives us the origin and initial explanation of all that follows. The major themes of Scripture may be compared to great rivers, ever deepening and broadening as they flow; and it is true to say that all these rivers have their rise in the watershed of Genesis. Or, to use on equally appropriate figure, as the massive trunk and wide-spreading branches of the oak are in the acorn, so, by implication and anticipation, all Scripture is in Genesis. Here we have in germ all that is later developed. It has been truly said that “the roots of all subsequent revelation are planted deep in Genesis, and whoever would truly comprehend that revelation must begin here.”¹³

Genesis is particularly crucial in the light of the doctrine of progressive revelation. This doctrine attempts to define the phenomena which occurs in the process of divine revelation. Essentially initial revelation is general while subsequent revelation tends to be more particular and specific.

Let me try to illustrate progressive revelation by an examination of the doctrine of redemption. The first promise of redemption is definite but largely undefined in Genesis 3:15: “He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel.”

Later in Genesis we learn that the world will be blessed through Abraham (12:3). The line through which Messiah would come was through Isaac, not Ishmael; Jacob, not Esau. Finally in Genesis we see that Israel’s coming ruler will be of the tribe of Judah: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes, and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples” (Genesis 49:10).

Later on we learn that Messiah will be the offspring of David (II Samuel 7:14-16), to be born in the city of Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). Literally hundreds of prophecies tell in greater detail, the coming of the Messiah.

The striking realization is that Genesis (and the Pentateuch) contain the broad outlines of virtually every major area of theology. For those of us who tend to lose our sense of perspective between fundamental and incidental truths, a study of Genesis will tend to remind us of those areas of theology which are most fundamental and foundational.

Genesis also sheds light on contemporary events. The bitter struggle which is currently going on in the Middle East is explained in the book of Genesis. Abram, who wanted to help God along with His plan, took matters into his own hands. The result was the birth of a child to Sarai’s handmaid, Hagar. The Arabs of today claim to have descended from Ishmael.¹⁴

The Interpretation of Genesis

Francis Schaeffer mentions four different interpretations of the Genesis account of creation:

For some this material is simply a Jewish myth, having no more historical validity for modern man than the Epic of Gilgamesh or the stories of Zeus. For others it forms a pre-scientific vision that no one who respects the results of scholarship can accept. Still others find the story symbolic but no more. Some accept the early chapters of Genesis as revelation in regard to an upper-story, religious truth, but allow any sense of truth in regard to history and the cosmos (science) to be lost.¹⁵

How one approaches the book of Genesis largely determines what they will get from its study. I would like to mention three methods of interpretation which we must avoid.

Neo-orthodox theologians are willing to grant that the Bible contains truth, but will not go so far as to accept it as the truth. They suspect that throughout its transmission down through the ages it has become something less than inspired and inerrant. These untrue accretions which have become mixed with biblical truth must be exposed and expunged. This process is referred to as demythologizing Scripture. The great difficulty is that man determines what is truth and what is fiction. Man is no longer under the authority of the Word, but is the authority over the Word.

A second method of interpretation is called the allegorical approach. This method is barely one step removed from demythologizing. The biblical account is not nearly so important as the “spiritual” message conveyed by the passage. The difficulty is that the “spiritual message” seems to differ with every individual, and it is not tied in with the historical-grammatical interpretation of the text. In popular group studies this usually fits under the heading of “what this verse means to me.” The interpretation of a text should be the same for a housewife or a theologian, a child or a mature Christian. The application may differ, but the interpretation, never!

Closely related to the allegorical method of interpretation is the typological approach. No one questions that the Bible contains types. Some of these types are clearly designated as such in the New Testament (Rom 5:14; Col 2:17; Heb 8:5, etc.). Other types can hardly be questioned, while not specifically labeled as such. For example, Joseph seems to be a clear type of Christ.

Oftentimes in my experience people have “found” types where they seem not to exist. While the meaning of such interpretation may be one that conforms to Scripture (or may be taught elsewhere), there is no way to prove or disprove the type. The more spiritual one is the more types he or she seems to find. And who can question them? But in this search for types, the plain and simple interpretation is obscured or overlooked. Let us exercise great caution here.

I would like to suggest that we approach the book of Genesis as the book presents itself to us. I believe the first verse makes clear the way we must approach the entire work.

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).

Beside this verse I have written in the margin of my Bible, “This account either explains it all or it does not explain it at all.”

No, don’t tell me that I am seeing too much here. Some books begin, “… Once upon a time … ”

When we find such an introduction we immediately understand that we are reading a fairy tale. So also the conclusion, “… and they lived happily ever after.”

Genesis 1:1 is totally different. The mood is authoritative and declarative.

The claim implied by this verse is much like that of our Lord when He presented Himself to men. No one can logically tip their hat to Jesus Christ as a “good man,” “a wonderful example,” or a “great teacher,” He was either Who He claimed to be (the Messiah, the Son of God), or He was a fake and a fraud. There is no middle ground, no riding the fence with Jesus. Jesus does not deserve mere courtesy. He demands a crown or a cross.

So it is with this verse. We dare not call it good literature. It claims authority and veracity. From this verse one should either read on, expecting a revelation from God in this book, or he should set it aside as mere religious rhetoric.

Let us remember that no one witnessed the creation:

Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth! Tell Me, if you have understanding, who set its measurements, since you know? Or who stretched the line on it? Or where were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:4-7).

There are only two viable options as to where Genesis 1:1 (and the rest of the book) came from. Either it was a product of a human author’s imagination, or it is divinely revealed truth. If it is the former, we should value it only as a work of antiquity, on the same level as other ancient cosmogonies. If the latter, we must come on bended knee, willing to hear and obey it as an authoritative word from God.

This view of Genesis as divine revelation, the historical account of our origins, is that of the remainder of the Scriptures.

To Him who made the heavens with skill, for His lovingkindness is everlasting; to Him who spread out the earth above the waters, for His lovingkindness is everlasting; to Him who made the great Lights, for His lovingkindness is everlasting; the sun to rule by day, for His lovingkindness is everlasting, the moon and stars to rule by night, for His lovingkindness is everlasting (Psalm 136:5-9).

The One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these. It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands, and I ordained all their host. For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), “I am the Lord, and there is none else” (Isaiah 45:7,12,18).

For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression (I Tim 2:13-14; cf. also Matt 19:4-6; Rom 5:14f).

Our Approach to the Book of Genesis

We will therefore come to the book of Genesis as divine revelation. We shall endeavor to interpret the book literally, in the light of the culture and customs of its day. We will attempt to find eternal principles which are as true today as they were those many years ago. We will then suggest how these eternal truths relate to us in our own age.

This series will not be (Lord willing) a message marathon, persisting forever and ever, age without end. My purpose is to deal with Genesis on a chapter by chapter basis, keeping an understanding of the argument of the book as a primary goal.

I will not deal extensively with the theory of evolution in the first two chapters. This is for several reasons. First, I do not think this issue is within the primary thrust of the book. I would have to depart from the text and to speculate much to deal effectively with evolution. Secondly, I have little interest and little expertise in this scientific area.

(I refuse to attack scientists out of my own ignorance, and I do not wish to be “drawn offsides” so to speak by theories which are critical of divine revelation.) Thirdly, I wish to stay within the Bible’s emphasis and application when dealing with creation. For thousands of years evolution was not an issue. What did people learn from Genesis 1 and 2 all those years? Fourth, most Americans are either tired of hearing about evolution or don’t believe in it anyway: “Half of the adults in the U.S. believe God created Adam and Eve to start the human race.”¹⁶

The issue of creationism is ultimately not one over facts, but of faith:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened (Romans 1:20-21).

By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible (Hebrews 11:3).

I must say that I am eager to begin this study of Genesis. I would ask you to study the book carefully and prayerfully. Most of all, I would hope that in its study we would come to know God as did men like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph.

1 Derek Kidner, Genesis (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), p. 9.

2 J. Sidlow Baxter, Explore the Book (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960), I, p. 22.

3 For a more detailed analysis of the authorship of Genesis, cf. Kidner, pp. 15-26; Baxter, I, p. 22; H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942), I, pp. 5-9.

4 Kidner, p. 16.

5 Cf. Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1964), pp. 110-115.

6 Cf. Kidner, pp. 20-21.

7 Cf. Kidner, pp. 21-22; Archer, pp. 117ff.

8 As we have in Psalms or Proverbs, for example.

9 “No lack of such sources, oral and written, however, need be supposed for an author of the period indicated in section a. (pp. 15f.), since Abram had migrated from a country that was rich in traditions and genealogies, and Joseph (like Moses after him) had lived many years in the intellectual climate of the Egyptian court on the one hand (with access to, e.g., the detailed ethnography reflected in Genesis 10) and of the patriarchal society on the other, with ample opportunities of preserving these stores of information.” Kidner, pp. 22-23.

10 “With the study of Genesis on its own terms, that is, as a living whole, not a body to be dissected, the impression becomes inescapable that its characters are people of flesh and blood, its events actual, and the book itself a unity. If this is right, the mechanics of composition are matters of small importance, since the parts of this whole are not competing for credence as rival traditions, and the author of the book does not draw attention, as do the writers of Kings and Chronicles, to the sources of his information.” Ibid, p. 22.

11 Quoted by J. Sidlow Baxter, Explore the Book, I, p. 22.

12 As quoted by H. C. Leuphold, “Genesis,” The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975, 1976), II, p. 679. This excellent article has a helpful summary of the book, chapter by chapter.

13 Baxter, Explore the Book, I, p. 23.

14 Kidner, p. 127.

15 Francis A. Schaeffer, Genesis in Time and Space (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1972), p. 9.

16 “We Poll the Pollster,” Christianity Today, December 21, 1979, p. 14.

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_01_32k.mp3

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

2. The Creation of the Heavens and the Earth (Genesis 1:1-2:3)

Introduction

I want to be especially careful as we approach this first chapter of the book of Genesis. This past week I read an account of a man who attempted to quote Scripture from our passage as a proof text for smoking pot. Here is the account as given by Christianity Today a couple of years ago:

Arrested in Olathe, Kansas, for possession of the drug, Herb Overton based his defense on Genesis l:29: “and God said, … I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of the earth …”

Judge Earl Jones doubted Overton’s hermeneutics, however. According to a Chicago Tribune account, the judge told the Bible-quoting defendant: “As a mere mortal, I’m going to find you guilty of possession of marijuana. If you want to appeal to a higher authority, that’s fine with me.”¹⁷

We can all read of such an event and laugh about it. While Herb Overton’s error is comical, there may be a less obvious error of which many Christians may be guilty—and it is not a laughing matter.

This week my attention was arrested by a brief article in Eternity magazine entitled, “Evangelicalism’s Six Flaws.” Most of the article has me still scratching my head, but I was particularly troubled by this statement:

We have treated creation as a static occurrence—arguing whether or not God has created it in seven days, thus missing the point of the religious meaning of creation and the ongoing activity of God in history.¹⁸

As I have considered Robert Webber’s accusation, it seems to me that we evangelicals have made five major errors in the way we have handled Genesis over the past few years. Most of these errors are in part a reaction to the three-fold attack of atheistic evolution, comparative religion and literary criticism.¹⁹

(1) We have dealt with the creation account according to a scientific grid. Some recent theories and conclusions of scientists have challenged the traditional interpretation of the biblical creation accounts. In a conscientious effort to prove the Bible to be scientifically accurate, we have approached the first chapters of Genesis from a scientific point of view. The problem is that these chapters were not intended to give us an account of the creation that would answer all of the scientific problems and phenomenon.

Dr. B. B. Warfield has stated the problem well:

A glass window stands before us. We raise our eyes and see the glass; we note its quality, and observe its defects; we speculate on its composition. Or we look straight through it on the great prospect of land and sea and sky beyond. So there are two ways of looking at the world. We may see the world and absorb ourselves in the wonders of nature. That is the scientific way. Or we may look right through the world and see God behind it. That is the religious way.

The scientific way of looking at the world is not wrong any more than the glass-manufacturer’s way of looking at the window. This way of looking at things has its very important uses. Nevertheless the window was placed there not to be looked at but to be looked through; and the world has failed of its purpose unless it too is looked through and the eye rests not on it but on its God.²⁰

The author of Genesis has not written the creation account for the glass maker. Rather he urges us to look through the glass of his account to the Creator behind it all.

(2) We have used the creation account of Genesis as an apologetic, when its primary purpose is not apologetic. The apologetic use of the early chapters of Genesis, while of value,²¹ is not in keeping with the author’s purpose for writing. Genesis was written to the people of God, not unbelievers. Men who refuse to believe in creationism do not do so for lack of facts or proof (cf. Rom 1:18ff), or due to their greater knowledge (Psalm 14:1), but due to a lack of faith (Hebrews 11:3). Genesis is much more of a declaration than a defense.

(3) We have attempted to find in Genesis one the answers to mysteries which may or may not be explained elsewhere. We may wish to learn, for example, just where Satan’s fall and judgment fit into the creation account, but may not be given such information because it was not the purpose of the author to answer such questions.²²

(4) We have failed to study Genesis one in its historical context. I suppose that it is easy to commit such an error here. We may doubt that there is any historical background. Or we may conclude that this is precisely the purpose of the chapter—to give us a historical account of creation.

The background which is vital to our grasp of the meaning and message of creation is that of those who first received this book. Assuming Moses to be the author of Genesis, the book most likely would have been written sometime after the Exodus and before the entrance to the land of Canaan. What was the situation at the time of the writing of this creation account? Who received this revelation and what needs were to be met by it? This is crucial to rightly interpreting and applying the message of the creation.

(5) We have often failed to apply the first chapter of Genesis one in any way that is relevant to our own spiritual lives. As one of my friends put it, “We come to a message on Genesis chapter one expecting nothing more than to have our apologetic batteries recharged again.”

The creation account becomes a prominent theme throughout the Old and New Testaments. Here, as elsewhere, we cannot do wrong by allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. When the creation theme occurs in Scripture, it calls forth a response from men. We have frequently failed to call for any such response as we have taught Genesis chapter one.

The Historical Backdrop of Genesis 1

Revelation never is given in a historical vacuum. The Bible speaks to men in specific situations and with particular needs. We cannot rightly interpret Scripture or apply it to ourselves until we have answered the question, “What did this passage mean to those to whom it was originally given?” From archaeological studies much is known of the literature, culture, and religions of those who surrounded the Israelites. Understanding the contemporaries of the Israelites greatly enhances our grasp of the meaning of the creation account according to divine revelation as found in Genesis one.

First, we know that virtually every nation had its own cosmogony, or creation account(s). Somehow I had always thought that the account of Genesis one was something new and original. Actually this revelation came late compared to other near eastern nations. Antiquity had devoted a great deal of time and effort to its origins. The account of Genesis chapter one had to ‘compete,’ so to speak, with the other accounts of its day.

Secondly, there is an almost remarkable similarity between these pagan cosmogonies. From her study of twelve myths, Ms. Wakeman has identified three features always present: “1) a repressive monster restraining creation, 2) the defeat of the monster by the heroic god who thereby releases the forces essential for life, and 3) the hero’s final control over these forces.”²³

Third, while distressing to some, there is considerable similarity between the pagan creation myths and the inspired account of creation in the Bible.²⁴ The correspondence includes the use of some of the same terms (e.g. Leviathan) or descriptions (e.g., a man-headed sea monster), similar literary form,²⁵ and a parallel sequence of events at creation.²⁶

The explanation of these similarities by some are unacceptable. For example, we are told that these similarities evidence the fact that the biblical cosmogony is no different than any other ancient creation myth. Others would assure us that while there are similarities, the Israelites ‘demythologized’ these corrupted accounts to assure an accurate account of the origin of the earth and man.²⁷ Some conservative scholars simply call the correspondence coincidence, though this seems to avoid the difficulties, rather than to explain them. The most acceptable explanation is that the similarity is explained by the fact that all similar creation accounts attempt to explain the same phenomenon.

Early races of men wherever they wandered took with them these earliest traditions of mankind, and in varying Latitudes and climes have modified them according to their religions and mode of thought. Modifications as time proceeded resulted in the corruption of the original pure tradition. The Genesis account is not only the purist, but everywhere bears the unmistakable impress of divine inspiration when compared with the extravagances and corruptions of other accounts. The Biblical narrative, we may conclude, represents the original form these traditions must have assumed.²⁸

More important than the fact that the nations surrounding Israel had their own (perhaps older) accounts of creation, was the use to which these were put in the ancient Near East. Ancient cosmogonies were not carefully recorded and preserved out of a love for ancient history; they were the foundation of religious observance.

In the ancient world their deities were nature gods, sun gods, moon gods, rain gods, and so on.²⁹ In order to assure the on-going of the forces of nature and guarantee bountiful crops and growing herds of cattle, the creation myths were re-enacted every year.

Myth, therefore, in the ancient world was mimetically re-enacted in public festivals to the accompaniment of ritual. The whole complex constituted imitative magic, the effect of which was believed to be beneficial to the entire community. Through ritual aroma, the primordial events recorded in the myth were reactivated. The enactment at the appropriate season of the creative deeds of the gods, and the recitation of the proper verbal formulae, it was believed, would effect the periodic renewal and revitalization of nature and so assure the prosperity of the community.³⁰

From this background we can begin to realize how vital a role was played by cosmogony in the ancient Near East. Israel’s social and religious life, like that of her neighbors, was based upon her origin. The Genesis account of creation laid the foundation for the remainder of the Pentateuch.

In this light we can see the significance of the contest between the God of Israel and the ‘gods’ of Egypt. Pharaoh dared to ask Moses, “Who is the Lord that I should obey His voice to let Israel go?” (Exodus 5:2).

The answer of the Lord was a series of ten plagues. The message of these plagues was that Israel’s God is the creator of heaven and earth.

For I will go through the land of Egypt on that night and will strike down all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments—I am the Lord (Exo 12:12; cf. 18:11; Num 33:4).

It would seem that each plague was a direct affront to one of Egypt’s many gods. While a direct correlation of each plague to a specific god may be somewhat speculative,³¹ the battle of the gods is evident.

No wonder that the covenant sign of the Israelites was the keeping of the Sabbath:

But as for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, “You shall surely observe My Sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you.… It is sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever, for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed” (Exo 31:13,17).

Observing the Sabbath identified Israel with their God, the Creator Who ceased from labor on the seventh day.

The miracles of the Exodus, then, served a function similar to the signs and wonders performed by our Lord. They authenticated the message which was proclaimed. In our Lord’s case, it was the words He proclaimed and the inspired writers preserved. In the case of the Exodus, the Pentateuch was Moses’ written revelation of God which his miracles authenticated. The Exodus proved Yahweh to be the only God, the Creator and Redeemer. The Pentateuch provided the content for the faith of Israel, of which the creation account is the foundation.

Genesis 1:1-3

Many interpretations exist for the first three verses of the Bible, but we will briefly mention the three most popularly held by evangelicals. We will not spend a great deal of time here because our conclusions will be tentative and the differences have little bearing on the application of the text. Let me simply begin by saying that we who name the name of Christ as Savior must ultimately take Genesis 1:1 at face value on faith (Heb 11:3).

View 1: The Re-creation (or Gap) Theory. This view maintains that Genesis 1:1 describes the original creation of the earth, prior to the fall of Satan (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:12ff). As a result of Satan’s fall the earth lost its original state of beauty and bliss and is found in a state of chaos in Genesis 1:2. This ‘gap’ between verses 1 and 2 not only helps to explain the teaching of Satan’s fall, but it also allows for a considerable time period, which helps to harmonize the creation account with modern scientific theory. It does suffer from a number of difficulties.³²

View 2: The Initial Chaos Theory. Briefly, this view holds that verse one would be an independent introductory statement. Verse 2 would describe the state of the initial creation as unformed and unfilled. In other words the universe is like an untouched block of granite before the sculpter begins to fashion it. The creation is not in an evil state, as the result of some catastrophic fall, but merely in its initial unformed state, like a lump of clay in the potter’s hands. Verses 3 and following begin to describe God’s working and fashioning of the mass, transforming it from chaos to cosmos. Many respectable scholars hold this position.³³

View 3: Precreation Chaos Theory: In this view (held by Dr. Waltke), verse one is understood either as a dependent clause (“When God began to create … ”) or as an independent introductory summary statement (“In the beginning God created … ”). The creation account summarized in verse one begins in verse two. This ‘creation’ is not ‘ex nihilo’ (out of nothing), but out of the stuff existing in verse 2. Where this comes from is not explained in these verses. In effect, this view holds that the chaotic state does not occur between verses one and two, but before verse one of an unspecified time. The absolute origin of matter is, then, not the subject of the ‘creation’ account of Genesis 1, but only the relative beginnings of the world and civilization as we know it today.³⁴

We might summarize the difference between these three viewpoints in this fashion:³⁵

The Six Days of Creation
(1:1-31)

It is important to recognize that verses 2-31 do little more than expand upon verse 1. They do not fully (certainly not in a scientific fashion—who would have cared over the centuries until now?) explain creation. Neither do they prove it, for this is ultimately a faith issue. The facts upon which this faith must be based are simply stated.

There does seem to be a pattern to these six creation days, which many Bible students have observed. It can best be illustrated graphically:


Formlessness Changed to Form			Emptiness Changed to Habitation
vv 3-5	Day 1	Light	vv 14-19	Day 4	Luminaries (sun, moon, stars)
vv 6-8	Day 2	Air (upper expanse) Water (lower expanse)	vv 20-23	Day 5	Fish, Birds
vv 9-13	Day 3	Dry land plants	vv 24-31	Day 6	Animals, Man

Seen in this way, the first three days remedy the situation of formlessness described in Genesis 1:2. The 4-6 days deal with the state of ‘void’ or ‘emptiness’ of verse 2. There also seems to be a correlation between days 1 and 4, 2 and 5, 3 and 6. For example, the air and water receive corresponding life forms of fish and birds, though this should not be pressed too far.

Two other observations should be pointed out. First, there is a sequence to the six days. It is clear that this account is arranged chronologically, each day building upon the creative activity of previous days. Secondly, there is a process involved in the creation, a process involving the change from chaos to cosmos, disorder to order.

While God could have instantaneously created the earth as it is, He did not choose to do so. The clear impression given by the text is that this process took six literal days, and not long ages. Nevertheless, the eternal God is not nearly so concerned about doing things instantaneously as we are. The process of sanctification is only one of many examples of God’s progressive activity in the world.

The Meaning of
Creation for the Israelites of Old

Before we approach the question of what the creation should mean to us, we must deal with its meaning for those who first read these inspired words from the pen of Moses. The initial purpose of this account was for the Israelites of Moses’ day. What should they have learned? How should they have responded?

(1) The creation account of Genesis was a corrective to the corrupted cosmogonies of their day. We have already said that Egypt, for example, believed in a multiplicity of nature-deities. We need to recognize that Israel, due to her close and prolonged contact with the Egyptians, was not unaffected by their religious views.

“Now, therefore, fear the Lord and serve Him in sincerity and truth, and put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:14).

It was not enough to regard Yahweh merely as a god, one among many. Neither should He be conceived of as just the God of Israel. Yahweh is God alone. There is no other god. He is the Creator of heaven and earth. He is not merely superior to the gods of the surrounding nations; He alone is God.

The tendency to begin to confuse God with His creation was a part of the thinking of the ancient world. He must be regarded as the God of creation, not just God in creation. Every attempt to visualize or humanize God in the form of any created thing was a tendency to equate God with His creation. So it was, I believe, with Aaron’s golden calf.

(2) The creation account describes the character and attributes of God. Negatively, Genesis one corrects many popular misconceptions concerning God. Positively, it portrays His character and attributes.

God is sovereign and all-powerful. Distinct from the cosmogonies of other ancient peoples, there is no creation struggle described in Genesis one. God does not overcome opposing forces to create the earth and man. God creates with a mere command, “Let there be … ” There is order and progress. God does not experiment, but rather skillfully fashions the creation of His omniscient design.
God is no mere force, but a Person. While we must be awed by the transcendence of God, we should also be His immanence. He is no distant cosmic force, but a personal ever-present God. This is reflected in the fact that He creates man in His image (1:26-28). Man is a reflection of God. Our personhood is a mere shadow of God’s. In chapter two God provided Adam with a meaningful task and with a counterpart as a helper. In the third chapter we learn that God communed with man in the garden daily (cf. 3:8).
God is eternal. While other creations are vague or erroneous concerning the origin of their gods, the God of Genesis is eternal. The creation account describes His activity at the beginning of time (from a human standpoint).
God is good. The creation did not take place in a moral vacuum. Morality was woven into the fabric of creation. Repeatedly, the expression is found “it was good.” Good implies not only usefulness and completion, but moral value. Those who hold to atheistic views of the origin of the earth see no value system other than what is held by the majority of people. God’s goodness is reflected in His creation, which, in its original state, was good. Even today, the graciousness and goodness of God is evident (cf. Matt 5:45; Acts 17:22-31).

The Meaning
of Creation for All Men

The theme of God as Creator is prominent throughout Scripture. It is significant that the last words of the Bible are remarkably similar to the first.

And he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb, in the middle of its street. And on either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. And there shall no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His bond-servants shall serve Him; and they shall see His face, and His name shall be on their foreheads. And there shall no longer be any night; and they shall not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God shall illumine them; and they shall reign forever and ever (Revelation 22:1-5).

The truth that God is the Creator of heaven and earth is not merely something to believe, but something to which we must respond. Let me mention just a few implications and applications of the teaching of Genesis 1.

(1) Men should submit to the God of creation in fear and obedience. The heavens proclaim the glory of God:

The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge (Psalm 19:1-2).

Men should fear the all powerful God of creation:

By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their host. He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deeps in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the Lord; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast (Psalm 33:6-9).

The greatness of God is evident in the work of His hands—the creation which is all about us. Men should fear and reverence Him for Who He is.

Bless the Lord, O my soul! O Lord my God, Thou art very great; Thou art clothed with splendor and majesty, covering Thyself with light as with a cloak, stretching out heaven like a tent curtain. He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters; He makes the clouds His chariot; He walks upon the wings of the wind; He makes the winds His messengers, flaming fire His ministers. He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter forever and ever. Thou didst cover it with the deep as with a garment; the waters were standing above the mountains. At Thy rebuke they fled; at the sound of Thy thunder they hurried away. The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which Thou didst establish for them. Thou didst set a boundary that they may not pass over; that they may not return to cover the earth ( Psalm 104:1-9).

(2) Men should trust in the God of creation, to provide their every need.

Then after his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley). And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of God Most High. And he blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram of God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, Who has delivered your enemies into your hand.” And he gave him a tenth of all. And the king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give the people to me and take the goods for yourself.” And Abram said to the king of Sodom, “I have sworn to the Lord God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth that I will not take a thread or a sandal thong or anything that is yours, lest you should say, ‘I have made Abram rich.’ I will take nothing except what the young men have eaten, and the share of the men who went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their share (Genesis 14:17-24).

Abram offered tithes to Melchizedek on the basis of his profession that Abram’s God was “God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth” (verse 19,20). And yet while Abram gave a tithe to Melchizedek, he refused to benefit in any monetary way from the pagan king of Sodom, for he wanted this man to know that “God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth” was the One Who made him prosper.

We sing, “He owns the cattle on a thousand hills … I know that He will care for me.” That is good theology. The God Who is our Creator, is also our Sustainer. You see God did not wind up the universe and then leave it to itself, as some seem to say. God maintains a continual care over His creation.

He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, and vegetation for the labor of man, so that he may bring forth food from the earth, and wine which makes man’s heart glad, so that he may make his face glisten with oil, and food which sustains man’s heart. The trees of the Lord drink their fill. The cedars of Lebanon which He planted, where the birds build their nests, and the stork, whose home is the fir trees. The high mountains are for the wild goats; the cliffs are a refuge for the rock badgers. He made the moon for the seasons, the sun knows the place of its setting. Thou dost appoint darkness and it becomes night, in which all the beasts of the forest prowl about. The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their food from God. When the sun rises they withdraw, and lie down in their dens, man goes forth to his work and to his labor until evening (Psalm 104:14-23).

The New Testament goes an additional step by informing us that the Son of God was the Creator, and continues to serve as the Sustainer of the creation, holding all things together:

For in Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together (Colossians 1:16-17).

(3) Men should be humbled by the wisdom of God as evidenced in creation. Job had endured much affliction. But finally, enough was enough. He began to question the wisdom of God in his adversity. To his questioning God responded,

Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, ‘Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Now gird up your loins like a man, and I will ask you, and you instruct Me! Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth! Tell Me, if you have understanding, who set its measurements, since you know? Or who stretched the line on it? On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:1-7).

Job was challenged to fathom the wisdom of God in creation. He could not explain or comprehend it, let alone challenge it. How, then, could Job possibly question the wisdom of God’s working in his life. True, he could not see the purpose in it all, but his perspective was not God’s. Let any who would question God’s dealing in our lives contemplate God’s infinite wisdom as seen in creation, and then be silent and wait upon Him to do what is right.

If man should choose to ponder any question, let him attempt to fathom why an infinite God would so concern Himself with mere man:

When I consider Thy heavens, the work of Thy fingers, the moon and the Stars, which Thou hast ordained; what is man, that Thou dost take thought of him? and the son of man, that Thou dost care for him? Yet Thou hast made him a little lower than God, and dost crown him with glory and majesty! (Psalm 8:3-5).

(4) Man should find comfort in times of distress and difficulty, knowing that His creator is able and willing to deliver him.

Therefore, let those also who suffer according to the will of God entrust their souls to a faithful Creator in doing what is right (I Peter 4:19).

Why do you say, O Jacob, and assert, O Israel, “My way is hidden from the Lord, and the justice due me escapes the notice of my God”? Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the Lord, the creator of the ends of the earth does not become weary or tired. His understanding is inscrutable. He gives strength to the weary, and to him who lacks might He increases power. Though youths grow weary and tired, and vigorous young men stumble badly, yet those who wait for the Lord will gain new strength; they will mount up with wings like eagles, They will run and not get tired, they will walk and not become weary (Isaiah 40:27-31).

Thus says God the Lord, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it, and spirit to those who walk in it, ‘I am the Lord, I have called you in righteousness, I will also hold you by the hand and watch over you, and I will appoint you as a covenant to the people, as a light to the nations’ (Isaiah 42:5-6).

I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me; that men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun that there is no one besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other. The One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these (Isaiah 45:5-7).

(5) Man should respond to the God of creation with the praise that is due Him:

Let the glory of the Lord endure forever; let the Lord be glad in His works; He looks at the earth, and it trembles; He touches the mountains, and they smoke. I will sing to the Lord as long as I live; I will sing praise to my God while I have my being. Let my meditation be pleasing to Him; as for me, I shall be glad in the Lord. Let sinners be consumed from the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless the Lord, O my soul. Praise the Lord! (Psalm 104:31-35).

Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens; Praise Him in the heights! Praise Him, all His angels; Praise Him, all His hosts! Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him, all stars of light! Praise Him, highest heavens, and the waters that are above the heavens! Let them praise the name of the Lord, for He commanded and they were created. He has also established them forever and ever; He has made a decree which will not pass away (Psalm 148:1-6).

Come, let us worship and bow down; let us kneel before the Lord our Maker (Psalm 95:6).

O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is Thy name in all the earth, Who hast displayed Thy splendor above the heavens! (Psalm 8:1).

Conclusion

My friend, the teaching of Genesis one is a great and mighty truth. It is one that demands more than assent; it necessitates action. And yet, great as it is, it has been paled by the coming of Jesus Christ. Just as God proclaimed, let there be light, so God has once and for all spoken in these last days (Heb 1:1-2) in His Son, Who is the light:

For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ (II Corinthians 4:6).

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him; and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness; and the darkness did not comprehend it (John 1:1-5).

There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:9-13).

While God revealed Himself faintly in creation, He has disclosed Himself fully in His Son:

No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him (John 1:18).

We cannot avoid the biblical revelation that the God Who created heaven and earth, the God Who redeemed the Israelites from Egypt, is the God-man of Galilee, Jesus Christ. Just as He fashioned the first creation (Col 1:16), so He has now come to accomplish a new creation, through His work on the cross of Calvary:

Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come (II Corinthians 5:17).

Beyond this there will soon come a day when the heavens and the earth will be purged of the effects of sin and there will be a new heaven and a new earth:

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells (II Peter 3:10-13).

Are you ready for that day, my friend? Have you become a new creation in Christ? Genesis one reveals how God has taken chaos and fashioned it into cosmos—order and beauty. If you have never come to Christ, I can say with total confidence that your life is formless and empty; it is chaotic and lifeless. The same One Who turned chaos into cosmos can make your life anew.

17 “Pot Proof,” Christianity Today, September 22, 1978, p. 43.

18 “Evangelicalisms Six Flaws,” Eternity, January, 1980, p. 54. This article by the Staff of Eternity magazine is a summary of an article by Robert E. Webber, published in the October issue of New Oxford Review.

19 Dr. Bruce Waltke briefly describes this threefold attack:

First, there came the challenge of the scientific community. In the wake of Charles Darwin’s revolutionary hypothesis of evolution to explain the origin of species, the majority of the scientific community fell in with Darwin’s hypothesis against the Bible. They believed that they could validate Darwin’s theory by empirical data, but they thought that they could not do the same for the Bible.

The second challenge came from the comparative religionists who sought to discredit the biblical story by noting the numerous points of similarity between it and ancient mythological creation accounts from various parts of the near East being studied at that time. . . . According to his (Gunkel’s) view, the Hebrew version of creation was just another Near Eastern folk tale but in the process of time the transmitters of the story improved it by their creative and superior philosophical and theological insights.

The third challenge came from literary criticism. The case was stated most persuasively by Julius Wellhausen in his most influential classic, still available in paperback on book stands, entitled, Pro Legomena to the Old Testament. Here he argued that there were at least two distinct accounts of creation in Genesis l and 2 and that these two accounts contradicted each other at various points. Bruce Waltke, Creation and Chaos (Portland, Oregon: Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1974), pp. 1-2.

20 Benjamin B. Warfield, Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol. I, edited by John E. Meeker (Nutley, N.J. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1970), p. 108.

21 I must stress here that we should take seriously Peter’s instruction, “ . . . always being ready to make a defense to every one who asks you to give on account for the hope that is in you . . . ” (I Peter 3:15). Even here, in what might be called an exhortation for apologetic readiness, the message most needed by the unbeliever is the gospel of salvation through faith in Christ. My experience is that few are saved by the use of the Genesis account of creation as an apologetic. For those who are seriously considering the claims of Christ, but fear the Bible to be untrustworthy, such effort may well be worthwhile.

22 “First we can say, that the Book of Genesis does not inform us concerning the origin of that which is contrary to the nature of God, neither in the cosmos nor in the world of the spirit. Where does the opposite of Him that is good and bright originate? When we delve into the problem of the origin of evil in the moral realm, we come upon a great mystery. Suddenly, without explanation, in Genesis 3 an utterly evil brilliant, intelligent personality appears in the Garden of Eden masquerading as a serpent. The principle of origins, so strong in our minds, demands on explanation. But the truth is that the Book mocks us. Likewise, when we come to that which is negative in the cosmos, something devoid of form and dark, the Bible provides us with no information. Here are some of the secret things that belong to God” (Waltke, Creation and Chaos, p. 52). While I do not prefer Dr. Waltke’s choice of words (“the Book mocks us”), I do agree with his position that Genesis does not tell us all we might desire to learn.

23 Wakeman, as quoted by Waltke, Creation and Chaos , p. 6.

24 Waltke demonstrates the similarities between the biblical cosmogony with the creation myths of the ancient near east:

First, by a comparison of Psalm 74:13,14 with the Ugaritic Text 67:I: 1-3 (Waltke, p. 12).

Psalm 74:13-14: “Thou hast broken the sea with Thy might, even smashed the heads of the monster of the waters, Thou hast crushed the heads of Leviathan, even given him as food for the people. . . .”

Text 67: I . 1-3, 27-30: “When thou smitest Lotan (Leviathan) the evil dragon, even destroyest the crooked dragon, the mighty one of the seven heads. . . .”

Second, by a comparison of Isaiah 27:1 with the Ugaritic Text ‘nt:III: 38-39 (Waltke, p. 13):

Isaiah 27:1: “On that day God will visit, with his sword (that is) mighty and great and powerful, Leviathan the evil serpent, even Leviathan the crooked serpent, and slay the monster that is in the sea.”

Text ‘ni:III: 38-39: “The crooked dragon, the mighty one of the seven heads.”

25 Cf. Waltke, Creation and Chaos, pp. 33,35. Actually, this similarity in form between the biblical text of the Pentateuch and the ancient Near Eastern texts has proven to be a blessing to those who hold to a unified (Mosaic) authorship:

“Kitchen compared the Pentateuch with ancient Near Eastern texts and discovered that the same features used by the critics as a divining rod to divide up the Pentateuch were present in these texts, written on rock with no pre-history.” Waltke, pp. 41-42.

26 Ibid, p. 45.

27 “The most common explanation of those scholars who regard the world as a closed system without divine intervention is that Israel borrowed these mythologies, demythologized them, purged them of their gross and base polytheism, and gradually adapted them to their own developing and higher theology.” Ibid., p. 46.

28 Merrill F. Unger, Archaeology and the Old Testament, p. 37, quoted by Waltke, p. 46.

29 “In Canaan at the time of the Conquest, each city had its own temple dedicated to some force of nature. The name Jericho derives from the Hebrew word, yerah, which means “moon” for its inhabitants worshipped the moon, the god “Yerach.” Likewise, on the other side of the central ridge of Palestine, we find the city of Beth Shemesh, which means “Temple of the Sun” for Shamash, the sun god, was worshipped there.” Waltke, p. 47.

30 Sarna, Understanding Genesis, p. 7, as quoted by Waltke, p. 47.

31 “The knowledge extant concerning the practical everyday worship of the Egyp. pantheon is meager, and for all intents and purposes little or nothing is known about their metaphysical assumptions from the documented sources. It is obvious, however, that the twenty-two Egyp. provinces each had their respective religious center and totemic animal or plant. It is precisely the attributes of these deities that are involved in the plagues, but whether each of the plagues was thought to be the special domain of one or another of the Egyp. gods cannot be stated with certainty.” W. White, Jr. “The Plagues of Egypt,” The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975, 1976), IV, p. 806.

32 Cf. Waltke, pp. 21-25.

33 For example, E. J. Young, In the Beginning (Carlisle; Pennsylvania: Banner of Truth Trust, 1976), pp. 20ff.

34 “But what shall we say about the uncreated or unformed state, the darkness and the deep of Genesis 1:2? Here we enter a great mystery for the Bible never says that God brought these into existence by His Word. What can we say about them?” Bruce Waltke, p. 52.

35 Adapted from Waltke, p. 18.

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_02_32k.mp3

Biblical Topics:

Creation

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

3. The Meaning of Man: His Duty and His Delight (Genesis 1:26-31; 2:4-25)

Introduction

Within the last several weeks a rather frightening case was reported in the newspaper. Its implications are almost incredible. The suit involved an elderly gentleman who was apparently a bit senile, and who was also on dialysis. The family determined that the old gentleman had passed the time of productivity and, if he had the mental ability to reason it out properly, would have wished to terminate his meager existence. Had the nurses, who had grown to love this man, not protested, this man might be dead today.

We live in a frightening age. We now have awesome technological and biological powers in our hands, but no solid ethical or moral basis for the determination of how these powers are to be used. Not only have we made it convenient and inexpensive to kill children while still in the womb, there is actually serious discussion of issuing a life certificate which would pronounce an infant legally alive, just as one is now legally certified to be dead. This certificate would not be issued until after the birth of a child, when a complete battery of tests could be administered. Any ‘inferior’ or potentially non-productive infant would simply be rejected and not pronounced ‘alive’ and thus terminated. I am told that in some places of the world suicide is not considered a crime and counsel is now given to those who wish to pursue it—but not to convince them of the error of their ways!

In a day when the power of life and death seems to be more in the hands of men than ever before, we find our society in a moral vacuum in which these life and death decisions are to be made. The age-old philosophical questions about the meaning of life are no longer simply academic and intellectual—they are intensely practical and must be answered.

In the light of such issues, never have these verses in Genesis 1 and 2 been of more importance than they are today. In them we find the meaning of man. I have therefore entitled this message, The Meaning of Man: His Duty and His Delight. To rightly understand this passage is to grasp eternal principles which should determine many of our ethical and moral decisions. Beyond this, we are reminded anew of what it is that really makes our lives worthwhile.

While we have already dealt with the six days of creation in a very general way, it is important for us to understand the relationship between the first three chapters of Genesis. Chapter one outlines creation chronologically. (Actually verses 1-3 of chapter two should be included here also.)

God created the heavens and the earth, and all life in six days, while He rested on the seventh day. Man is pictured as the crown of God’s creation. In order to maintain a chronological format, only a very general description of man’s creation is given in verses 26-31.

Chapter two returns to this matter of the creation of man with a much more detailed account. Far from contradicting chapter one, as some scholars have suggested, it greatly compliments it. While it is stated that God created man, both male and female (1:26-27), it is described more fully in chapter 2. In chapter one man is given every plant to eat (1:29-30), in chapter two man is placed in a lovely garden (2:8-17). In the first chapter man is told to rule over all God’s creatures (1:26, 28), in the second man is given the task of naming God’s creatures (2:19-20). Contradictions between these two chapters must be contrived, for it is clear that the writer of the first chapter intended to fill out the details in the second.

Furthermore, chapter two serves as an introduction and preparation for the account of the fall in chapter three. Chapter two gives us the setting for the fall of man which is described in chapter three. We are introduced to the garden (2:8-9), the two trees, the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (2:9). The woman who was to be deceived is introduced in chapter two as well. Without chapter two the first chapter would be far too brief and the third would come upon us unprepared.

If chapter one is laid out in chronological fashion—that is in a sequence of seven days, chapter two is not chronological, but logical. Of course the events of chapter two fit into chapter one’s order, but the chapter is laid out differently. If chapter one is creation as seen through a wide angle lens, chapter two is viewed through a telephoto lens. In chapter one man is found at the top of a pyramid, as the crown of God’s creative activity. In chapter two man is at the center of the circle of God’s activity and interest.

Man’s Dignity
(1:26-31)

Since chapter two builds upon the bare details of 1:26-31, let us begin by considering these verses more carefully. Man, as we have said before, is the crown of God’s creative program. This is evident in several particulars.

First, man is the last of God’s creatures. The whole account builds up to man’s creation. Second, man alone is created in the image of God. While there is considerable discussion as to what this means, several things are implied in the text itself. Man is created in the image and likeness of God in his sexuality.

And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them (Genesis 1:27).

This is not to say that God is male or female, but that God is both unity and diversity. Man and woman in marriage become one and yet they are distinct. Unity in diversity as reflected in man’s relationship with his wife reflects one facet of God’s personhood.

Also, man somehow is like God in that which distinguished him from the animal world. Man, as distinct from animals, is made in the image and likeness of God. What distinguishes man from animal must therefore be a part of His reflection of God. Man’s ability to reason, to communicate, and to make moral decisions must be a part of this distinction.

Further, man reflects God in the fact that he rules over creation. God is the Sovereign Ruler of the universe. He has delegated a small portion of His authority to man in the rule of creation. In this sense, too, man reflects God.

Notice as well that it is man and woman who rule: “… and let them rule … ” (Genesis 1:26, cf. verse 28).

Them refers to man and his wife, not just the males He has made. While Adam has the function of headship (as evidenced by his priority in creation,³⁶ his being the source of his wife,³⁷ and his naming of Eve³⁸), Eve’s task was to be a helper to her husband. In this sense both are to rule over God’s creation.

One more point should be made here. There seems to be little doubt that in the provision God has made for man’s food, only vegetarian foods are included at this time:

Then God said, ‘Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life; I have given every green plant for food; and it was so’ (Genesis 1:29-30).

It was not until after the fall, and perhaps after the flood, that meat was given as food for man (cf. Genesis 9:3-4). Shedding of blood would have significance only after the fall, as a picture of coming redemption through the blood of Christ. In the Millennium we are told,

The wolf and the lamb shall graze together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; and dust shall be the serpent’s food. They shall do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain, says the Lord (Isaiah 65:25).

If I understand the Scriptures correctly, the Millennium will be a return to things as they once were before the fall. Thus, in the paradise of Eden, Adam and Eve and the animal kingdom were all vegetarians. How, then, can some speak of ‘survival of the fittest’ until after the creation of all things and the fall of man?

But more important than this is the fact that man’s dignity and worth are not imputed by man, but they are intrinsic to man as one who has been created in the image of God. Man’s worth is directly related to his origin. No wonder we are hearing such frightening ethical and moral positions proposed today.

Any view of man’s origin which does not view man as the product of divine design and purpose, cannot attribute to man the worth which God has given him. To put it another way, our evaluation of man is directly proportionate to our estimation of God.

I am no prophet, my friend, but I will venture to say that we who name the name of Christ are going to have to stand up and be counted in the days to come. Abortion, euthanasia, and bioethics, to name just a few, are going to demand ethical and moral standards. The bedrock principle upon which such decisions must be made, in my estimation, is the fact that all men are created in God’s image.

In this light, I can now see why our Lord could sum up the whole of the Old Testament in two commands,

And He said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and foremost commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself’ (Matthew 22:37-40).

The attitude of the future seems to be to love only those ‘neighbors’ who are the contributors to society, only those who may be considered assets. How different is the value system of our Lord, who said,

Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me (Matthew 25:40).

In my estimation, here is where we Christians are going to be put to the test. Some are strongly suggesting that those who our Lord called ‘the least’ are precisely those who should be eliminated from society. May God help us to see that man’s dignity is that which is divinely determined.

Man’s Duty
(2:4-17)

While Genesis 1 describes a progression from chaos to cosmos, or disorder to order, chapter two follows a different pattern. Perhaps the literary thread which runs throughout the passage is that of God’s creative activity in supplying those things which are deficient.

Verse 4 serves as an introduction to the remaining verses.³⁹ Verse 5 informs us of the deficiencies which are supplied in verses 6-17: No shrub, no plant, no rain, and no man. These are satisfied by the mist (verse 6) and the rivers (verses 10-14), the man (verse 7), and the garden (verses 8-9).

The deficiency of verses 18-25 is, simply stated, “no helper suitable for Adam” (cf. verses 18,20). This helper is provided in a beautiful way in the last part of chapter 2.

Again, let me emphasize that Moses goes not intend to give us a chronological order of events here, but a logical one.⁴⁰ His purpose is to more particularly describe the creation of man, his wife, and the setting into which they are put. These become key factors in the fall which occurs in chapter 3.

While as yet no rain had ever fallen, God provided the water which was needed for plant life. “But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground” (Genesis 2:6).

There is some discussion over this word ‘mist’ (‘ed). It could mean a mist or a fog, as some contend.⁴¹ The Septuagint used the Greek word pege, which means ‘spring.’ Some have understood the Hebrew word as being derived from a Sumerian word, referring to subterranean waters.⁴² It may be that springs flowed out of the ground and that vegetation was perhaps watered by irrigation or channels. This could even explain, in part, the work of Adam in keeping the garden.

The water being supplied, God created the garden, which was to be the place of man’s abode, and the object of his attention. It was well-supplied with many trees which provided both beauty and food.

And out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:9).

Specifically, two trees are mentioned, the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This latter tree was the only thing forbidden man.

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die’ (Genesis 2:16-17).

It is interesting that seemingly Adam, alone, is told by God that the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil must not be eaten. One can only conjecture as to how effectively God’s command to Adam was communicated to Eve. Could this explain Eve’s inaccurate appraisal in 3:2-3?

Into this paradise,⁴³ man was placed. While he was surely to enjoy this wonderland, he was also to cultivate it. Look again at verse 5:

Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth; and there was no man to cultivate the ground (Genesis 2:5).

When placed in the garden, Adam was to work there: “Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it” (Genesis 2:15).

Adam’s creation is described more fully in 2:7 than in chapter one. He was formed⁴⁴ from the dust of the ground. While this is a humbling fact, it is also obvious that man’s origin is not from the animal world, nor is man created in the same way as the animals. In part, Adam’s dignity stems from the fact that his life breath is the inspiration of God (verse 7).

Here was no mythical garden. Every part of the description of this paradise inclines us to understand that it was a real garden in a particular geographical location. Specific points of reference are given. Four rivers are named, two of which are known to us today. We should not be surprised, especially after the cataclysmic event of the flood, that changes may have occurred, which would make it impossible to locate this spot precisely.

I find it most interesting that the Paradise of Eden was a place somewhat different from what we envision today. First of all, it was a place of work. Men today dream of paradise as a hammock suspended between two coconut trees on some desert island, where work is never again to be contemplated. Furthermore, heaven is thought of as the end of all prohibitions. Heaven is frequently confused with hedonism. It is very self-centered and pleasure-oriented. While Adam’s state was one of beauty and bliss, it cannot be thought of as unrestricted pleasure. The forbidden fruit is a part of Paradise, too. Heaven is not the experiencing of every desire, but the satisfaction of beneficial and wholesome desires.

Servanthood is not a new concept in the New Testament. Meaningful service provides fulfillment and purpose for life. God described Israel as a cultivated garden, a vineyard (Isaiah 5:1-2ff.). Jesus spoke of Himself as the Vine and we as the branches. The Father tenderly cared for His vineyard (John 15:1ff.). Paul described the ministry as the work of a farmer (II Timothy 2:6).

While the church of the New Testament may be better described as a flock, nevertheless the image of the garden is not inappropriate. There is a work to be done for the child of God. And that work is no drudgery, no duty to begrudgingly carry out. It is a source of joy and fulfillment. Many today have no real sense of meaning and purpose because they are not doing the work that God has designed for them to carry out.

Man’s Delight
(2:18-25)

One deficiency remains. There is now adequate water, the beautiful and bountiful provision of the garden, and a man to cultivate it. But there is not yet a companion suitable for man. This need is met in verses 18-25.

The garden, with its pleasures and provisions for food and meaningful activity was not sufficient unless these delights could he shared. God would provide Adam with that which he needed most.

Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him’ (Genesis 2:18).

Adam’s mate was to be a very special creation, a ‘helper, suitable for him’ (verse 18). She was to be a ‘helper,’ not a slave, and not an inferior. The Hebrew word ezer is most interesting. It was a word that Moses obviously liked, for in Exodus 18:4 we are told that this was the name he gave to one of his sons.

And the other was named Eliezer (El=God), for he said, ‘The God of my father was my help (ezer), and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh’ (Exodus 18:4).

The other three times ezer is found used by Moses in Deuteronomy (33:7,26,29), it refers to God as man’s helper. So also in the Psalms (20:2; 33:20; 70:5; 89:19; 115:9; 121:1,2; 124:8; 146:5).

The point of the word as it is most often employed in the Old Testament is that the help given implies no inferiority whatsoever. In a way consistent with its usage, God is helping man through women. What a beautiful thought. How far above some conceptions this is.

Then also, she is a helper who ‘corresponds to’ Adam. One translation reads, “… I will make a helper like him.”⁴⁵

This is precisely opposite the point. Yet this is often what we consider the perfect wife—one who is just like us. Incompatibility is by divine design in many instances. As Dwight Hervey Small has correctly observed,

Incompatibility is one of the purposes of marriages! God has appointed conflict and burdens for lessons in spiritual growth. These are to be subservient to high and holy purposes.⁴⁶

Just as Eve was fashioned so as to correspond to Adam in a physical way, so she complimented him socially, intellectually, spiritually and emotionally.

As a result, when I counsel those who plan to marry, I do not seek to discover as many points of similarity as possible. Instead, I am concerned that each partner has an accurate view of what the other is really like, and that they are committed to the fact that God has joined them permanently. A recognition that God has made man and woman differently by design, and a determination to attain unity in this diversity is essential to a healthy marriage.

Before creating this counterpart, God first whet his appetite. The creatures which God had formed are now brought to Adam to name. This naming reflected Adam’s rule over the creatures, as God intended (cf. 1:28). It probably involved a careful study on Adam’s part to note the unique characteristics of each creature.⁴⁷

This naming process may have taken some time. In the process, Adam would observe that no mere creature could ever fill the void in his life. Further, I would use a little sanctified imagination to conjecture that Adam observed each creature with its mate, a wonderfully designed counterpart. Adam must have realized that he, alone, was without a mate.

At this moment of intense need and desire, God put Adam in a deep sleep,⁴⁸ and from his rib and attached flesh⁴⁹ fashioned the woman.⁵⁰ He then presented the woman to the man.

What excitement there is in Adam’s enthusiastic response:

And the man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man (Genesis 2:23).

I like the way the RSV renders Adam’s initial response, “at last … ”⁵¹

In this expression there is a mixture of relief, ecstasy, and delighted surprise. “This (for Adam has not yet named her) is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (verse 23a). The name of Adam’s mate is woman. The English translation nicely picks up the play on similar sounds. In Hebrews, man would be pronounced ’ish; woman would be ’ishshah. While the sounds are similar, the roots of the two words are different. Appropriately ’ish may come from a parallel Arabic root, conveying the idea of ‘exercising power,’ while the term ’ishshah may be derived from an Arabic parallel, meaning ‘to be soft’.⁵²

The divinely inspired commentary of verse 24 is of utmost import:

For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh (Genesis 2:24).

From the account it is imperative that a man leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife. What is the relationship between this command to leave and cleave and the creation of women? Verse 24 begins, “For this cause … ” What cause is this? We can understand the reason only when we explain the command. Man is to leave his parents, not in the sense of avoiding his responsibility to them (e.g. Mark 7:10-13; Ephesians 6:2,3), but in the sense of being dependent upon them. He must cease to live under their headship and begin to function alone as the head of a new home.⁵³

The woman is not commanded similarly because she simply transfers from one head to another. While she once was subject to her father, now she is joined to her husband. The man, however, has the more difficult transition. He, as a child, was dependent upon and submissive to his mother and father.

When a man marries he must go through the more radical transition from a dependent, submissive son to an independent (from a parents) leader, who functions as the head of the home.

As many have observed, the husband-wife relationship is permanent while the parent-child relationship is temporary. Even if the parents are unwilling to terminate the dependent relationship of son to parents, the son is responsible to do so. To fail to do so is to refuse the kind of bond necessary with his wife.

Now, perhaps, we are in a position to see the relationship of this command to the creation account. What is the reason for its mention here in Genesis? First of all, there are no parents to whom Adam or Eve have been born. Eve’s origin is directly from her husband, Adam. The union or bond between Adam and his wife is the union of coming from one flesh (Adam’s) and of becoming one flesh (in physical union). This bond is greater than that between parent and child. A woman is, of course, the product of her parents, as the man is of his. But the original union involved no parents, and the wife was a part of the flesh of her husband. This first marriage, then, is evidence of the primacy of the husband-wife relationship over that of the parent-child relationship.

The last verse is not incidental. It tells us a great deal that we need to know. “And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed” (Genesis 2:25).

We learn, for example, that a sexual side of this relationship was a part of the paradise experience. Sex did not originate with or after the fall. Procreation and physical intimacy were intended from the beginning (cf. 1:28). Also we see that sex could be enjoyed to its fullest in the divine plan. Disobedience to God did not heighten sexual pleasure; it diminished it. Today the world wishes to believe that they have invented sex and that God only seeks to prevent it. But sex, apart from God, is not what it could or should be.

Ignorance, if you will forgive me for saying so, is bliss. In our generation we are cool, if you prefer, sophisticated, only if we know (by experience) all there is to know about sex. “How naive are those who have never had sex before marriage,” we are led to believe. There are many things it is better not to know. Sex was never enjoyed so much as it was in sweet ignorance.

Later revelation does add much light to this text. Our Lord, significantly, quotes from chapter one and chapter two as though from one account (Matthew 19:4,5), a fatal blow to the source document critics.

The divine origin of marriage means it is no mere social invention (or convention), but a divine institution for man. Because God joins a man and woman in marriage, it is a permanent union: “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matthew 19:6).

The fact that Adam preceded his wife in creation and that Eve was brought forth from Adam also establishes the reasons why the husband is to exercise headship over his wife in marriage (cf. I Corinthians 11:8-9; I Timothy 2:13). The role of women in the church is not just Paul’s idea, restricted to the time and culture of the Corinthian Christians. The biblical role of women is established on the biblical account of creation (cf. also I Corinthians 14:34).

Conclusion

Having considered the passage in terms of its parts, let us focus our attention on this passage as a whole. No passage in all of the Bible so concisely defines the things which really count in life. Life’s meaning can only be grasped in relationship to the God Who has created man in His image and likeness. While this image has been distorted due to the fall, those who are in Christ are being renewed in Christ’s image:

… and that you be renewed in the Spirit of your mind, and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth (Ephesians 4:23,24).

… and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him (Colossians 3:10).

Furthermore, man’s meaning in life is not only found in the dignity which God has given him as being created in His image, but in the work which He gives him to do. Men often view work as a curse. While work has been affected by the fall (Genesis 3:17-19), it was given before the fall and is a means of blessing and fulfillment if it is done as unto the Lord (cf. Colossians 3:22-24).

Last, the institution of marriage is given by God to deeply enrich our lives. The work we are to do is much richer and fuller when we share it with God’s counterpart for us. Here, then, is the real essence of life—a recognition of our divinely ordained dignity, our duty, and our delight. Our worth, our work, our wife are all a source of great blessing if they are ‘in the Lord.’

36 I Timothy 2:13.

37 I Corinthians 11:8,12.

38 Genesis 2:23.

39 “Now it is a well-known fact that the book of Genesis is by its own author divided into ten sections, to each of which he gives the title ‘story’ (toledoth); cf. 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, (9); 37:2. This circumstance alone, plus the use of the round number ten, would definitely point to the fact that here the expression, ‘these are the toledoth’ must also be a heading. In all other instances of its use in other books the same fact is observable; cf. Num. 3:1; Ruth 4:18; I Chron. 1:29; it is as always a heading.” H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942), I, p. 110.

40 “Verse 4b takes us back into the time of the work of creation, more particularly to the time before the work of the third day began, and draws our attention to certain details, which, being details, could hardly have been inserted in chapter one: the fact that certain forms of plant life, namely the kinds that require the attentive care of man in greater measure, had not sprung up. Apparently, the whole work of the third day is in the mind of the writer.” Ibid., p.112.

“I have been very insistent that the first chapter is to be understood chronologically. What is seen by the order of development, the progression of thought. It is seen also by the chronological emphasis--day one, day two, and so on. You do not find that in the second chapter of Genesis. There, instead of giving a chronological order of statement, the Lord is stating matters step by step to prepare for the account of the temptation.” E. J. Young, In The Beginning, (Carlisle, Pennsylvania, The Banner of Truth Trust, 1976), p. 70.

41 Such appears to be the view of Leupold, I, pp. 113-114.

42 “What are we to understand by the ‘ed? Not a mist! The word is apparently related to a Sumerian word. It seems to refer to subterranean waters, and what we have here is either a breaking forth of water in some way from under the ground, or possibly a river overflowing its banks. I do not think we can be dogmatic here.” Young, pp. 67-68. Cf. also Derek Kidner, Genesis (Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1967), pp. 59-60.

43 “The word ‘Eden’ in Hebrew may mean a delight or a pleasure. I am not sure that that is what it means here. There is a Sumerian word that means a steppe, or a plain, a wide plain, and in the eastern part of this plain God planted a garden. Without being dogmatic I give my opinion that that is what ‘Eden’ means. So the garden is planted.” Young, p. 71.

44 “The verb employed here accords more with the “Yahweh” character of God; yatsar means to ‘mold’ or ‘form.’ It is the word that specifically describes the activity of the potter (Jer. 18:2ff). The idea to be emphasized is that with the particular care and personal attention that a potter gives to his task. God gives tokens of His interest in man, His creature, by molding him as He does.” Leupold, p. 115.

45 Cf. Leupold, p. 129.

46 Dwight Hervey Small, Design For Christian Marriage (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell, 1971), p. 58. Elsewhere Small remarks, “As Elton Trueblood has suggested, a successful marriage is not one in which two people, beautifully matched, find each other and get along happily ever after because of this initial matching. It is, instead, a system by means of which persons who are sinful and contentious are so caught up by a dream and a purpose bigger than themselves that they work through the years, in spite of repeated disappointment, to make the dream come true.” p. 28.

47 “For the expression to give names, in the Hebrew usage of the word ‘name,’ involves giving a designation expressive of the nature or character of the one named. This was not a crude fable, where, according to a Hebrew notion, the accidental ejaculations at the sight of new and strange creatures were retained as names for the future.” Leupold, p. 131.

48 “Tardemah is indeed a ‘deep sleep,’ not a state of ecstasy, as the Greek translators render; nor a ‘hypnotic trance’ (Skinner), for traces of hypnosis are not to be found in the Scriptures. A ‘trance’ might be permissible. The root, however, is that of the verb used in reference to Jonah when he sleeps soundly during the storm.” Ibid, p. 134.

49 “The word tsela translated ‘rib,’ definitely bears this meaning, (contra v. Hofman), although it is not necessary to think only of the bare bone; for, without a doubt, bone and flesh will have been used for her of whom the man afterward says ‘bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh,’” (v. 23). Ibid.

50 “The activity of God in fashioning the rib taken from man is described as a building (wayyi ‘bhen). Rather than being an indication of the work of a different author, the verb grows out of the situation as being the most appropriate. It would not have been seemly to use yatsar ‘to mold,’ a verb applicable in the case of clay, not of flesh. ‘Build’ applies to the fashioning of a structure of some importance; it involves constructive effort.” Ibid, p. 135.

51 Or, as Leupold suggests, “Now at length” (p. 136).

52 Leupold, pp. 136-137.

53 Caution must be exercised, I believe, in the application of Bill Gothard’s principle ‘chain of counsel.’ While the wise will seek counsel and some of that may well come from parents, undue dependence is a real danger. The problem is not so much with the principle, but with its application.

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_03_32k.mp3

Biblical Topics:

Man (Anthropology)

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

4. The Fall of Man (Genesis 3:1-24)

Introduction

If the fall of man were to have occurred in our times, one can hardly conceive of the consequences. I would imagine that the American Civil Liberties Union would immediately file suit—against God and in defense of Eve and her husband (the order of the two is not accidental), Adam. The suit would probably be pressed on the grounds of an illegal eviction. “And after all,” we would be told, “this alleged sinful act was performed in the privacy of the garden, and by two consenting adults.” But most of all we would be told that the crime (if indeed there was one) and the punishment were totally out of proportion. Could God really be serious in what this account claims to report? Because of a mere bite of some ‘forbidden fruit’ the man and woman are evicted and will suffer a lifetime of consequence? And more than this, that due to this one act the whole world and all mankind continue to suffer the evils about us?

Those who do not take the Bible seriously or literally have little difficulty here. They simply write off the third chapter of Genesis as a myth. To them it is merely a symbolic story which endeavors to account for things as they are. The details of the fall present no problems for they are not fact, but fiction.

Evangelicals probably have tended to console themselves with the reminder that this was the long ago and the far away. Since the fall occurred so long ago, we do not tend to face the issues that glare at us from this passage.

But several serious questions do arise in connection with the account of man’s fall. Why, for example, must Adam assume primary responsibility when Eve is the principle character in the narrative? To put the question in more contemporary terms, why did Adam get the blame when Eve did all the talking?

Furthermore, we must give thought to the severity of the consequences of man’s partaking of the forbidden fruit in the light of what seems to be a rather trifling matter. What was so evil about this sin that brought about such a harsh response from God?

The structure of the first chapters of Genesis demands this description of man’s fall. In Genesis chapters 1 and 2 we read of a perfect creation which received God’s approval as being ‘good’ (cf. 1:10,12,18,21). In chapter 4 we find jealousy and murder. In the following chapters mankind goes from bad to worse. What happened? Genesis 3 answers this question.

And so this chapter is vital because it explains the world and society as we observe it today. It informs us of the strategies of Satan in tempting men. It explains the reason for the New Testament passages that restrict women from assuming leadership roles in the church. It challenges us to consider whether or not we continue to ‘fall’ as did Adam and his wife.

Here is not a chapter that we will regret having studied, however. It does depict the entrance of sin into the human race and the severity of the consequences of man’s disobedience. But beyond man’s sinfulness and the penalties it demands, there is the revelation of the grace of God. He seeks out the sinner and provides him with a covering for sin. He promises a Savior through whom this whole tragic event will be turned into triumph and salvation.

Man’s Sin
(3:1-7)

The serpent suddenly appears in verse one rudely and without introduction. Adam, Eve, and the garden we are prepared to find, for we have seen them before. The serpent is said to be one of God’s creatures, therefore, we must take this creature literally. While it was an actual snake, later revelation informs us that the beast was being used by Satan, who is described as a dragon and serpent (cf. II Corinthians 11:3; Revelation 12:9; 20:2).

While we may wish to know the answers to questions pertaining to the origin of evil, Moses had no intention of supplying them for us here. The point God wishes to make is that we are sinful. To pursue more distant causes only removes our responsibility for sin from the focus of our attention.

Notice especially the approach which Satan takes here. He does not come as an athiest, or as one who would initially challenge Eve’s faith in God.⁵⁴ Satan may manifest himself as a Madalyn Murray O’Hair, but very often it is as an “angel of light” (II Corinthians 11:14). Satan often stands behind the pulpit, holding a Bible in his hand.

The wording of Satan’s inquiry is significant. The word ‘indeed’ (verse 1) is dripping with innuendo. The effect of it is this: “Surely God could not have said this, could He?” Also the word God (“Has God said,” (verse 1) is interesting. Moses has been using the expression “the Lord God,” Yahweh Elohim:

“Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made” (Genesis 3:1). But when Satan referred to the Lord God it was merely God. This omission is indicative of Satan’s rebellious attitude toward almighty God.

Satan’s initial approach is to deceive, not deny; to cause doubts, not disobedience. Satan came to Eve as an inquirer. He deliberately distorted the command of God, but in such a way as to imply, “I may be wrong here, so correct me if I am mistaken.”

Now Eve should have never begun this conversation. It was a complete overturn of God’s chain of authority. That chain was Adam, Eve, creature. Adam and Eve were to express God’s rule over His creation (1:26). Eve would no doubt have rebuked such a conversation if it were not for the manner in which it was initiated by Satan.

Had Satan begun to challenge the rule of God or Eve’s faith in Him, her choice would have been an easy one. But Satan erroneously stated God’s command. He stated the question so as to appear that he was misinformed and needed to be corrected. Few of us can avoid the temptation of telling another that they are wrong. And so, wonder of wonders, Eve has begun to walk the path of disobedience while supposing that she was defending God to the serpent.

Did you notice that Satan has not mentioned either the tree of life or the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? What a subtle attack! His question brought the forbidden tree to the center of Eve’s thinking, but without any mention of it. She brought it up. By his question Satan has not only engaged Eve in dialogue, but he has also taken her eyes off of the generous provisions of God and caused her to think only of God’s prohibition. Satan does not wish us to ponder the grace of God, but to grudgingly meditate upon His denials.

And this is precisely what has imperceptibly taken place in Eve’s thinking. Eve has revealed her change of attitude by several ‘Freudian slips.’ While God said, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely” (2:16), Eve said, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat” (3:2). Eve omitted “any” and “freely,” the two words which emphasized the generosity of God.

Likewise Eve had a distorted impression of the severity of God in prohibiting the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. She expressed God’s instruction in these words: “You shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die” (3:3). But God had said, “But from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die” (2:17).

While exaggerating the prohibition to the point where even touching the tree was evil, Eve had unconsciously downplayed the judgment of God by omitting the word ‘surely,’ and by failing to report that death would come on the day of the offense. In other words, Eve emphasized God’s severity, but underestimated the fact that judgment would be executed surely and soon.

Satan’s first attack on the woman was that of a religious seeker, in an effort to create doubts about the goodness of God and to fix her attention on what was forbidden as opposed to all that was freely given. The second attack is bold and daring. Now in place of deception and doubt there is denial, followed by the slander of God’s character: “And the serpent said to the woman, ‘You surely shall not die!’” (Genesis 3:4).

God’s words of warning were not to be understood as the promise of certain punishment, but as the mere threats of a self-centered deity.

We may wonder at the dogmatism of Satan’s denial, but it is my opinion that this is precisely what weakened Eve’s opposition. How could anyone be wrong who was so certain? Many today, my friend, are convinced more of the dogmatic tone of a teacher than they are by the doctrinal truthfulness of his teaching. Dogmatism is no assurance of doctrinal accuracy.

Satan’s fatal blow is recorded in verse 5: “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5).

Many have tried to determine precisely what Satan is offering in verse 5. “Your eyes will be opened,” Satan assures them. In other words, they are living in a state of incompletion, of inadequacy. But once the fruit is eaten, they would enter into a new and higher level of existence: they would become “like God.”⁵⁵

As I understand Satan’s assertion, the statement is deliberately elusive and vague. This would stimulate the curiosity of Eve. To know ‘good and evil’ may be to know everything.⁵⁶ But how could Eve possibly grasp the specifics of the offer when she did not know what ‘evil’ was.

One of my friends tells me that women are, by nature, more curious than men. I do not know if this is so, but I know that I have an active curiosity as well. The mysteriousness of this possibility of knowing more and living on some higher plane surely invites speculation and consideration.

I find an illustration on this play upon human curiosity in the book of Proverbs:

The woman of folly is boisterous, she is naive, and knows nothing. And she sits at the doorway of her house, on a seat by the high places of the city, calling to those who pass by, who are making their paths straight; ‘Whoever is naive, let him turn in here,’ and to him who lacks understanding she says, ‘stolen water is sweet; and bread eaten in secret is pleasant’ (Proverbs 9:13-17).

The women of folly is herself naive and unknowing, but she entices her victims by offering them a new experience, and the fact that it is illicit simply adds to the appeal (verses 16-17). That is the kind of offer which Satan made to Eve.

Satan, I believe, leaves Eve with her thoughts at this point. His destructive seeds have been planted. While she has not yet eaten the fruit, she has already begun to fall. She has entered into a dialogue with Satan and now she is entertaining blasphemous thoughts about God’s character. She is seriously contemplating disobedience. Sin is not instantaneous, but sequential (James 1:13-15), and Eve is well on her way.

Notice that the tree of life is not even mentioned or considered. Here before Eve were the two trees, the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Seemingly it was not a choice between the one or the other. She only saw the forbidden fruit. It, alone, appeared to be ‘good for food and a delight to the eyes’ (verse 6), and yet in 2:9 we were told that all the trees had these features in common. But Eve had eyes only for what was forbidden. And this tree offered some mysterious quality of life which appealed to the woman.

Satan lied outright in assuring Eve that she would not die, but he simply failed to tell her the fine print in his promise of what the forbidden fruit would offer. Having studied that tree for some time (I would imagine), she finally determined that the benefits were too great and the consequences were unreasonable and therefore unlikely. At that moment she snatched the fruit and ate it.

One may shake his head at Eve’s action, but the real wonder is that Adam seemingly without hesitation succumbed to Eve’s invitation to share her disobedience. Moses employs 5 3/4 (Gen. 3:1-6a) verses to describe the deception and disobedience of Eve, but only a part of one sentence to record Adam’s fall (Gen. 3:6b). Why? While I am not as dogmatic on this possibility as I once was, two words of Moses could give us the answer: “with her” (verse 6):

When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eye, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate (Genesis 3:6).

Is it possible that Eve was never alone with the serpent?⁵⁷ Could it be that Moses, by these two words, ‘with her,’ is informing us that Adam was present throughout the entire event, but never opened his mouth? If he were there, listening to every word and assenting by his silence, then it is little wonder that he simply took the fruit and ate it when it was offered by Eve.

It is something analogous to my wife and I sitting in the family room. When the doorbell rings, my wife gets up to answer it while I keep on watching my favorite TV program. I can overhear my wife letting in a vacuum cleaner salesman and listening with increasing interest to his sales pitch. I do not want to stop watching my program, so I let the conversation continue, even to my wife signing a contract. If she were then to come into the room and say to me, “Here, you have to sign this, too,” it will come as no shock if I sign it without protest. By default I have allowed my wife to make a decision and I have chosen to go along with it.

If Adam were not present throughout the entire dialogue between the serpent and his wife, one can still conceive of how it may have happened. Eve independently could have eaten the fruit and then hastened to tell her husband of her experience. I can well imagine that Adam would want to know two things. First, he would want to know if she felt any better—that is, did the fruit have any beneficial effect on her. Secondly, he would want to know it if had any detrimental effect. After all, God had said that they would die that very day. Had she found the fruit pleasurable and as yet sensed no harmful effect, Adam would surely be inclined to follow his wife’s example. What a tragic error!

Verses 7 and 8 are particularly informative, because they instruct us that sin has its consequences as well as its punishment. God has not yet prescribed any punishment for the sins of Adam and Eve, and yet the consequences are inseparably coupled with the crime. The consequences of sin mentioned here are shame and separation.

The nakedness which Adam and Eve shared without guilt was now a source of shame. Sweet innocence was lost forever. Remember, there was no man in the garden but the two of them. But they were ashamed to face each other without clothing. Not only could they not face each other as they had before, but they dreaded facing God. When He came to have sweet fellowship with them, they hid themselves in fear.

God had said that they would die in the day that they ate the forbidden fruit. Some have puzzled over this promise of judgment. While the process of physical death began on that fateful day, they did not die physically. Let us recall that spiritual death is separation from God:

And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power (II Thessalonians 1:9).

Isn’t it amazing that the spiritual death of Adam and Eve occurred immediately—that is, there was now a separation from God. And this separation was not one imposed by God; it was initiated by men.

I must digress to say that the spiritual death experienced by Adam and his wife is the same as that of today. It is the alienation of man from God. And it is that which man himself chooses. It is his preference. Hell is God’s giving men both what they want and what they deserve (cf. Revelation 16:5-6).

God Seeks, Sifts, and Sentences Man
(3:8-21)

The separation which Adam and Eve brought about is that which God seeks to bridge. God sought out man in the garden. While Satan’s question was designed to bring about the fall of man, God’s questions seek his reconciliation and restoration.

Notice that no questions are asked of the serpent. There is no intention of restoration for Satan. His doom is sealed. Take note also of the order or sequence here. Man fell in this order: serpent, Eve, Adam. This is the opposite of God’s chain of command. While God questioned in the order of authority (Adam, Eve, snake), He sentenced in the order of the fall (snake, Eve, Adam). The fall was, in part, the result of the reversal of God’s order.

Adam is first sought by God with the question, “where are you?” (verse 9). Adam reluctantly admitted his shame and fear, probably hoping that God would not press him on this issue. But God probed more deeply, seeking an admission of wrongdoing: “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” (verse 11).

Thrusting at least a part of the responsibility back upon the Creator, Adam blurted out, “The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate” (verse 12).

Both Eve and God must share in the responsibility for the fall, Adam implied. His part was mentioned last and with as little detail as possible. And so it will always be with those who are guilty. We always find mitigating circumstances.

All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight, but the Lord weighs the motives (Proverbs 16:2).

Then Eve is questioned, “What is this you have done?” (verse 13).

Her response was little different (in essence) than her husband’s: “The serpent deceived me, and I ate” (verse 13).

It was true, of course. The serpent did deceive her (I Timothy 2:14), and she did eat. The guilt of both, while a feeble effort to excuse or at least diminish human responsibility was made, had been clearly established.

Such must always be the case, I believe. Before punishment can be meted out, the wrong-doing must be proven and acknowledged. Otherwise punishment will not have its corrective effect on the guilty. The penalties are now prescribed by God, given in the order of the events of the fall.

The Serpent Sentenced (vss. 14-15)

The serpent is first addressed and his punishment established. The creature, as the instrument of Satan, is cursed and subject to an existence of humiliation, crawling in the dust (verse 14).

Verse 15 addresses the serpent behind the serpent, Satan, the deadly dragon: “And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; … ” (Rev 12:9).

There is to be, first of all, a personal animosity between Eve and the serpent: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman” (verse 15).

Such enmity is easy to comprehend. But this opposition will broaden: “And between your seed and her seed” (verse 15).

Here, I believe God refers to the battle of the centuries between the people of God and the followers of the devil (cf. John 8:44ff).

Finally, there is the personal confrontation between the seed⁵⁸ of Eve, the Messiah, and Satan: “He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel” (verse 15).

In this confrontation Satan will be mortally wounded while the Messiah will receive a painful, but not fatal wound.

How beautifully this prophecy portrays the coming Savior, Who will reverse the events of the fall. This is that of which Paul wrote in retrospect in the fifth chapter of Romans:

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam’s offense, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ (Romans 5:14-17).

While the prophecy of verse 15 is somewhat veiled, it becomes more and more evident in the light of subsequent revelation. It comes as little surprise, then, to learn that the Jews, according to the Targum, regarded this passage as Messianic.⁵⁹

The Woman’s Penalty (vs. 16)

It is only fitting that since Satan attacked mankind through the woman that God would bring about man’s salvation and Satan’s destruction through her. This has already been revealed to Satan in verse 15. Every child born to woman must have troubled Satan.

While salvation would come through the birth of a child, it would not be a painless process. Woman’s sentence comes at the center of her existence. It deals with the bearing of her children. But in the midst of her labor pains she could know that God’s purpose for her was being realized, and that, perhaps, the Messiah would be born through her.

In addition to labor pains, the woman’s relationship to her husband was prescribed. Adam should have led and Eve should have followed. But such was not the case in the fall. Therefore, from this time on women were to be ruled by men: “Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (verse 16).

Several things must be said concerning this curse. First of all, it is one which is for all women, not just Eve. Just as all women must share in the pains of childbirth, so they must be subject to the authority of their husbands. This does not in any way imply any inferiority on the part of women. Neither does it justify the restriction of voting rights or withholding equal pay and so on.

For those who refuse to submit to the biblical teaching concerning the role of women in the church—that women must not lead or teach men, and not even speak publicly (I Corinthians 14:33b-36; I Timothy 2:9-15)—let me say this. The role of women in the church and in marriage is not restricted to Paul’s teaching, nor is it to be viewed as only related to the immoral context of Corinth. It is a biblical doctrine, which has its origin in the third chapter of Genesis. That is why Paul wrote,

Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says (I Corinthians 14:34).

To those men and women who wish to disregard God’s instruction I must say, that is precisely what Satan desires. Just as he drew Eve’s attention to the restriction of the one tree, so he wants women to ponder the restriction placed upon women today. “Throw off your shackles,” he urges, “Find self-fulfillment.” “God is keeping you from what is best,” he whispers. And it is a lie! God’s rules have reasons, whether we understand them or not.

For the men, I hasten to add that this verse (and the biblical teaching on the role of women) is no proof text for male superiority or for some kind of dictatorship in marriage. We are to lead by love. Our leadership is to be at our own personal sacrifice, seeking what is best for our wife (Ephesians 5:25ff). Biblical leadership is that patterned after our Lord (cf. Philippians 2:1-8).

The Punishment of Men (vss. 17-20)

Just as Eve’s punishment related to the center of her life, so is the case with Adam. He had been placed in the garden, now he will have to earn a living from the ground “by the sweat of his brow” (verses 17-19).

You will notice that while the serpent is cursed, it is only the ground which is cursed here, and not Adam or Eve. God cursed Satan because He does not intend to rehabilitate or redeem him. But already the purpose of God to save men has been revealed (verse 15).

Not only will Adam have to battle the ground to earn a living, he will eventually return to dust. Spiritual death has already occurred (cf. verses 7-8). Physical death has begun. Apart from the life which God gives, man will simply (though slowly) return to his original state—dust (cf. 2:7).

Adam’s response to God’s penalties and promise is revealed in verse 20: “Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.”

I believe this act evidenced a simple faith on the part of Adam. He accepted his guilt and punishment, but focused upon the promise of God that through the offspring of woman the Savior would come. Eve’s salvation (and ours as well!) would come through her submission to her husband and through the bearing of children. Adam’s naming the woman, Eve, which means ‘living’ or ‘life’ showed that life would come through Eve.

God is not just a God of penalties, but of gracious provision. Thus, He made for Adam and his wife garments from the skins of animals to cover their nakedness. A veiled prophecy of redemption through the shedding of blood is not, in my opinion, an abuse of this verse.

A Severe Mercy
(3:22-24)

Satan’s promise had, in a backhanded way, come true. Adam and Eve had, in a sense, become like God in the knowing of good and evil (verse 22). But there is a great difference as well as some similarity. Both man and God knew good and evil, but in a vastly different way.

Perhaps the difference can best be illustrated in this way. A doctor can know of cancer by virtue of his education and experience as a doctor. That is, he has read of cancer, heard lectures on cancer, and seen it in his patients. A patient, also, can know of cancer, but as its victim. While both know of cancer, the patient would wish he had never heard of it. Such is the knowledge which Adam and Eve came to possess.

God had promised salvation to come in time through the birth of Messiah, who would destroy Satan. Adam and Eve might be tempted to gain eternal life through the eating of the fruit of the tree of life. They had chosen knowledge over life. Now, as the Israelites too late tried to possess Canaan (Numbers 14:39-45), so fallen man might attempt to gain life through the tree of life in the garden.

It would seem that had Adam and Eve eaten of the tree of life they would have lived forever (verse 22). This is the reason God sent them out of the garden (verse 23). In verse 24 the ‘sending out’ of the two is more dramatically called ‘driving out.’ Stationed at the entrance of the garden are the cherubim and the flaming sword.

“How cruel and severe,” some would be tempted to protest. In today’s legal jargon, it would probably be called ‘cruel and unusual punishment.’ But think a moment, before you speak rashly. What would have happened had God not driven this couple from the garden and banned their return? I can answer it in one word—hell. Hell is giving men both what they want and what they deserve (cf. Revelation 16:6) forever. Hell is spending eternity in sin, separate from God:

And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power (II Thessalonians 1:9).

God was merciful and gracious in putting Adam and Eve out of the garden. He kept them from eternal punishment. Their salvation would not come in a moment, but in time, not easily, but through pain—but it would come. They must trust Him to accomplish it.

Conclusion

I cannot help but think of Paul’s words when I read this chapter, “Behold then the kindness and severity of God” (Romans 11:22).

There is sin, and there is judgment. But the chapter is interlaced with grace. God sought out the sinners. He sentenced them as well, but with a promise of salvation to come. And keeping them from hell on earth, He provides them with a covering for the time and full redemption in time. What a Savior!

Before we focus our attention on the application of this chapter to our own lives, consider for a moment what this Passage would mean to the people of Moses’ day. They had already been delivered out of Egypt and had been given the Law. They had not yet entered into the promised land.

The purpose of the books of Moses (which includes Genesis) is given in Deuteronomy chapter 31:

And it came about, when Moses finished writing the words of this law in a book until they were complete, that Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, ‘Take this book of the law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may remain there as a witness against you. For I know your rebellion and your stubbornness; behold, while I am still alive with you today, you have been rebellious against the Lord; how much more, then, after my death? Assemble to me all the elders of your tribes and your officers that I may speak these words in their hearing and call the heavens and the earth to witness against them. For I know that after my death you will act corruptly and turn from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days, for you will do that which is evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking Him to anger with the work of your hands’ (Deuteronomy 31:24-29).

In many respects Eden was a type of the promised land and Canaan was the antitype. Canaan, like Paradise, was a place of beauty and plenty, a ‘land of milk and honey’ (cf. Deut 31:20). Israel would experience blessing and prosperity so long as they were obedient to the Word of God (Deut 28:1-14). If God’s laws were set aside, they would experience hardship, defeat, poverty, and be cast out of the land (28:15-68). In effect, Canaan was an opportunity for Israel to experience, to a limited degree, the blessings of Eden. Here, as in Eden, God’s people were faced with a decision to make: “See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity” (Deut 30:15).

Genesis chapter three is far from academic or mere history. It was a word of warning. What happened in Eden would again occur in Canaan (cf. Deuteronomy 31:16ff.). They would be tempted to disobey, just as Adam and Eve were. Serious consideration of this chapter and its implications were essential to Israel’s future.

The chapter is distinctly prophetic as well, for Israel disobeyed and chose the way of death, just as the first couple in the garden. As Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden, Israel was put out of the land. But there is hope as well, for God promised a Redeemer, Who would be born of woman (Gen 3:15). God would chasten Israel and bring her back to the land (Deut 30:1ff.). Even then Israel would not be faithful to her God. She must look to the Messiah of Genesis 3:15 to bring her final and permanent restoration. Israel’s history, then, is summarized in Genesis 3.

For us there are many applications. We must not be ignorant of Satan’s devices (II Corinthians 2:11). The manner of his temptation is repeated in the testimony of our Lord in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-12). And so he will continue to tempt us today.

Genesis chapter three is vital to Christians today because it alone explains things as they are. Our world is a blend of both beauty and beastliness, of loveliness and that which is ugly. The beauty which remains is evidence of the goodness and greatness of the God Who created all things (cf. Romans 1:18ff). The ugliness is the evidence of man’s sinfulness (Romans 8:18-25).

From what I can tell, the present state of God’s creation was one of the crucial elements in Darwin’s move from orthodoxy to doubt and denial. He did not behold the orderliness of creation and say to himself, “Oh, this must have occurred by chance.” Instead, he looked at the cruelty and ugliness and concluded, “How could a loving, all-powerful God be responsible for this?” The answer, of course, is found in this text in Genesis chapter three: man’s sin has turned God’s creation inside-out.

The only solution is for God to do something to bring about redemption and restoration. This has been accomplished in Jesus Christ. The penalty for man’s sins have been borne by Him. The consequences for Adam’s sins need not destroy us. The choice which confronts us is this: Do we wish to be united with the first Adam or the last? In the first Adam we are constituted sinners and are subject to physical and spiritual death. In the last we become new creatures, with eternal life (physical and spiritual). God has not placed two trees before us, but two men: Adam and Christ. We must decide with whom we will identify. In one of these two our eternal future rests.

There is much to be learned here about sin. Essentially sin is disobedience. Notice that the initial sin did not seem very serious. It might be thought of as a trivial thing. The seriousness of sin can be seen in two significant facts, which are clear from our text.

First, sin is serious because of its roots. The eating of the forbidden fruit was not the essence of the sin, but merely its expression. It is not the source of sin, but its symbol. The partaking of that fruit is similar to the sharing of the elements, the bread and the wine, of the Lord’s table, that is, the act expresses something much more deep and profound. So the root of the sin of Adam and Eve was rebellion, unbelief, and ingratitude. Their act was a deliberate choice to disobey a clear instruction from God. It refused to gratefully accept the good things as from God and the one prohibition as for their good as well. Worst of all, they viewed God as being evil, miserly and threatened, as Satan had portrayed Him.

Secondly, sin is serious because of its fruits. Adam and Eve did not experience a higher form of existence, but shame and guilt. It did not provide them with more to enjoy, but spoiled what they previously experienced without shame. Worse yet, it brought about the downfall of the entire race. The beginnings of the effects of the fall are seen in the rest of the Bible. We see the results of that sin today, in our lives and in society. The result of sin is judgment. That judgment is both present and future (cf. Romans 1: 26-27).

Let me tell you, my friend, that Satan always emphasizes the present pleasures of sin while keeping our minds from their consequences. Sin is never worth the price. It is like the rides at the State Fair: the ride is short and the price is high—incredibly high.

But let us not concentrate upon the sins of Adam and Eve. We should not be shocked to learn that the temptations are the same for men today as in the garden. And the sins are the same as well.

Madison Avenue has taken up the cause of the evil one. Advertising urges us to forget the many blessings we have and to concentrate upon what we do not possess. They suggest that life cannot be experienced fully without some product. For example, we are told, “Coke adds life.” No, it doesn’t; it simply rots your teeth. And then we are urged not to consider the cost or the consequences of indulging ourselves with this one more thing which we need. We can ‘charge it to MasterCard.’

I suspect that there is a bit of a smile forming on your face. You may suppose that I am really getting far afield. Consider what the Apostle Paul tells us about the meaning of Old Testament truths to our present experience:

For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness. Now these things happened as examples for us, that we should not crave evil things, as they also craved (I Corinthians 10:1-6).

What kept Adam and Eve from everlasting blessing was their desire to have pleasure at the cost of unbelief and disobedience. Such, Paul writes, was also the case with Israel (I Cor 10:1-5). The same temptations face us, but God has given us sufficient means to be have victory. What are these means?

(1) We are to understand that denials (doing without, prohibitions) come from the hand of a good and loving God:

No good thing does He withhold from those who walk uprightly (Psalm 84:11).

(2) We must realize that denials are a test of our faith and obedience:

And you shall remember all the way which the Lord your God has led you in the wilderness these forty years, that He might humble you, testing you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not. And He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord. Your clothing did not wear out on you, nor did your foot swell these forty years. Thus you are to know in your heart that the Lord your God was disciplining you just as a man disciplines his son (Deuteronomy 8:2-5).

Doing without is not God’s keeping us from blessing, but preparing us for it:

By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God, than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin; considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward (Heb 11:24-26; cf. Deut 8:6ff)

(3) When we are kept from those things which we think we want we must be careful not to meditate upon what is denied, but upon what is graciously given, and by Whom. Then we must do what we know to be God’s will.

But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you, in order that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the Lord your God (Deut 20:17-18).

Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, shall guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if any thing worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things. The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things; and the God of peace shall be with you (Philippians 4:6-9).

Almost daily we find ourselves repeating the sins of Adam and Eve. We ponder what we are forbidden to have. We begin to distrust the goodness of God and His graciousness to us. We worry about things that are really inconsequential. And often, in unbelief, we take matters into our own hands.

Many times I find Christians seriously contemplating sin, knowing it is wrong, and realizing that there will be consequences, but foolishly supposing that the pleasure of sin is greater than its price. How wrong! That was the error of Adam and Eve.

May God enable us to praise Him for those things which He forbids and to trust Him for those things which we need and He promises to provide.

54 I like the way Helmut Thielicke puts this:

“The overture of this dialogue is thoroughly pious, and the serpent introduces himself as a completely serious and religious beast. He does not say: “I am an atheistic monster and now I am going to take your paradise, your innocence and loyalty, and turn it all upside down.” Instead he says: “Children, today we’re going to talk about religion, we’re going to discuss the ultimate things.” How the World Began (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1961), p. 124.

55 Some point out that ‘God’ (‘like God”), in verse 5, is the name Elohim, which is plural. They suggest that we should translate it, “You shall be like gods.” Such a possibility, while grammatically permissible, does not seem worthy of consideration. The same word (Elohim) is found in the first part of verse 5, where God is referred to.

56 “So far as knowledge of good and evil is concerned, one must remember that the Hebrew yd’ (‘to know’) never signifies purely intellectual knowing, but in a much wider sense an ‘experiencing,’ a ‘becoming acquainted with,’ even an ‘ability.’ ‘To know in the ancient world is always to be able as well’ (Wellhaussen). And secondly, ‘good and evil’ may not be limited only to the moral realm. ‘To speak neither good nor evil’ means to say nothing (Gen 31.24,29; 2 Sam 13.22); to do neither good nor evil means to do nothing (Zeph 1:12); to know neither good nor evil (said of children or old people) means to understand nothing (yet) or (any longer) (Deut 1:39; 2 Sam. 19:35 f.) “Good and evil” is therefore a formal way of saying what we mean by our colorless ‘everything’; and here too one must take in its meaning as far as possible.” Gerhard Von Rad, Genesis (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961), pp. 86-87.

57 “She partakes of the fruit, she gives to her husband, and he eats also. Someone may ask: ‘Where was Adam all the time?’ The Bible does not tell us. I assume he was present there, because she gave the fruit to him: ‘her husband was with her.’ More we cannot say for the simple reason that the Bible does not say more.” E. J. Young, In the Beginning (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1976), p. 102.

58 The word seed (zera) can be used collectively as well as individually (cf. Genesis 4:25; I Samuel 1:11; II Samuel 7:12). Here in Genesis 3:15 it is used in both senses, I believe. Kidner states, “The latter, like the seed of Abraham, is both collective (cf. Rom 16:20) and, in the crucial struggle, individual (cf. Gal 3:16), since Jesus as the last Adam summed up mankind in Himself.” Derek Kidner, Genesis (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), p. 71.

59 H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942), I, p. 170.

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_04_32k.mp3

Biblical Topics:

Hamartiology (Sin)

Man (Anthropology)

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

Suffering, Trials, Persecution

5. The Fruits of the Fall (Genesis 4:1-26)

Introduction

When we sin we often do so with the futile hope that we shall obtain the maximum amount of pleasure at the minimum penalty. It seldom works that way, however.

I once heard the story of a man and his wife who decided to go to a drive-in movie. They thought the price was too high and plotted to put one over on the management of the theater. When they were within a short distance of the drive-in, the husband climbed into the trunk of the car. The arrangement was that his wife would let him out after she was inside the theater.

All went off as planned, at least as far as getting past the ticket seller was concerned. But when the wife got to the back of the car to let her husband out of the trunk, she discovered that he had the trunk keys in his pocket. In desperation she had to call the manager, the police, and the rescue squad. Neither saw the movie and the trunk had to be cut open. Such is the path of sin. The ride is short and the price is high.

At first glance, the taking of the forbidden fruit and eating of it seemed like a trivial matter, a mere misdemeanor. But Genesis chapter three makes it clear that it was a matter of gravity. Man had chosen to believe Satan rather than God. Adam and Eve had concluded that God was unduly harsh and severe. They decided to seek the path of self-fulfillment as opposed to servanthood .

The serpent had suggested, indeed, he had boldly asserted, that no harmful effects would be experienced in disobedience to God, only a higher level of existence. But in this fourth chapter of Genesis we quickly see that Satan’s promises were blatant lies. Here the real wages of sin begin to appear.

The Fruit of the
Fall in the Life of Cain
(4:1-15)

The sexual union of Adam and Eve produced a first child, a son whom Eve named Cain. This name is probably to be understood as a play on words. It sounds similar to the Hebrew word, Qanah, which means ‘to get’ or ‘to acquire.’ In today’s vernacular this son would probably have been named ‘Got.’⁶⁰

The significance of the name is that it reflects Eve’s faith, for she said, “I have gotten (Qaniti, from Qanah) a manchild with the help of the Lord” (Genesis 4:1).

While there is some discussion among Bible scholars as to the precise meaning of this statement,⁶¹ Eve acknowledged the activity of God in the gift of her son. I believe that Eve understood from the prophecy of Genesis 3:15 that one of her offspring would bring about her redemption. Perhaps she looked upon Cain as her redeemer. If so she was destined for disappointment.

While she may have been mistaken in her hopes for a speedy victory over the serpent by her firstborn child, she was correct in looking for God’s deliverance through her seed. She was, therefore, correct in general but mistaken in particular.

Eve’s optimism seems to have waned by the time of the birth of her second son, Abel. His name meant ‘vanity,’ ‘breath,’ or ‘vapor.’ Perhaps Eve had learned by this time that the consequences of sin were not to be quickly done away with. Life would involve struggle and a good measure of seemingly futile effort. Cain was the symbol of Eve’s hope; Abel, of her despair.

Abel was a keeper of flocks, while Cain was a tiller of the soil. Nowhere does Moses imply that one of these occupations is inferior to the other. Neither is this account some kind of predecessor to the television shows which have worn thin the theme of the struggle between the dirt farmers and the cattlemen.

Cain’s problem is not to be found in his means of livelihood, but in the man himself:

So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the Lord of the fruit of the ground. And Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and for his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard … (Genesis 4:3-5a).

The Israelites who first read these words of Moses would have little difficulty in grasping the problem with the sacrifice of Cain. They received this as a part of the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible. As such, they understood that man could not approach God without the shedding of sacrificial blood. While there were non-bloody sacrifices,⁶² man could only have access to God through shed blood. Cain’s offering fell short of God’s requirements of the Law.

“But Cain did not have such revelation!” someone may object. Quite true. But then we must all admit that none of us knows what revelation he did have. Any speculation on the subject is just that—mere conjecture.

Having said this, I must point out that it is not necessary for Moses to have told us. His contemporaries had more than sufficient basis to grasp the significance of shed blood, because of the meticulous prescriptions of the Law regarding sacrifices and worship Christians of our own time have the advantage of seeing the matter much more clearly in the light of the cross, and from the realization that Jesus was “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).

While we do not know what God revealed to Adam or to his sons, we are assured that they knew what they were to do. This is clear from God’s words to Cain:

Then the Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it (Genesis 4:6-7).

God’s question clearly implies that Cain’s anger was ill-founded. While we do not know the specifics of what ‘doing well’ involved, Cain did. Cain’s problem was not one of lack of instruction, but of insurrection and rebellion against God.

Cain, like so many people today, wanted to come to God, but he wanted to do it his way. This may work at the hamburger stand. They may let you do it ‘your way’ as the commercial says, but God will not. As a friend of mine says, ‘You can go to heaven God’s way, or you can go to hell any way you please.’

Notice that Cain was not an irreligious person. He believed in God, and he wanted God’s approval. But he wanted to come to God on his terms, not on God’s. Hell, as I have said before, will be populated with religious people.

Cain did not want to approach God through shed blood. Cain preferred to offer God the fruit of his labors. He had a green thumb, and bloodstained hands had no appeal to him. Men today differ little. Many are those who, like the demons (cf. James 2:19), believe in God, and who acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God. But they refuse to submit to Him as Lord. They refuse His sacrificial and substitutionary death upon the cross as the payment for their sins. They wish to come to God on their own terms. The message of the gospel is very clear: there is no approach to God except through that which Christ has earned through the death of the cross.

Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me’ (John 14:6).

… And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12).

… And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness ( Hebrews 9:22).

… but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ (I Peter 1:19). (Cf. also Luke 22:20; Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25; 5:9; Ephesians 1:7).

How gracious God was to seek out Cain and to gently confront him with his sinful anger. How clear was the message of restoration and the warning concerning the danger he faced. But the counsel of God was rejected.

This week a friend of mine pointed out to me the wisdom of God’s rebuke. How easy it would have been for God to have corrected Cain by comparing him with Abel. That is the way we parents often handle the discipline of our children. But God did not say “Why don’t you worship me like your brother Abel does?” God pointed Cain to the standard which He had set, not to the example of his brother. Nevertheless, Cain made the connection. Cain’s offering was not accepted; Abel’s was. God gently admonished Cain and instructed him that the way to win His approval was to submit to the divine pattern of approach to God. Cain concluded that the solution was to eliminate his competition—to murder his brother.

One thing must be clear. It was not just the sacrifice that was the problem. Much more, it was the person who sought to present the offering. Moses tells us,

And the Lord had regard for Abel and for his offering, but for Cain and his offering He had no regard (verse 4b,5a).

The source of the problem was Cain, and the symptom was the sacrifice.

Verse 7 is pregnant with implications:

If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it (Genesis 4:7).

The way to get over his depression was to change his performance. He would feel better as he did better. In one sense Cain was right in being angry with himself. He was wrong in his animosity toward his brother and his God.

If Cain chose to ignore God’s gentle prodding, let him be fully aware of the dangers ahead. Sin lay waiting for him like a crouching animal. It wanted to master him, but he must master it.⁶³ Cain is faced with a decision and held accountable for his choice. He need not succumb to sin, just as we should not, because God always gives sufficient grace to resist temptation (cf. I Corinthians 10:13).

When the two men were in the open field (seemingly where there could be no witness, cf. Deuteronomy 22:25-27), Cain killed his brother. God now came to Cain in judgment.

Then the Lord said to Cain, ‘Where is Abel your brother?’ And he said, ‘I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?’ (Genesis 4:9).

Cain’s insolence is incredible. Not only does he lie in denying any knowledge of Abel’s whereabouts, he seems to rebuke God for the question. There may even be a sarcastic play on words to the effect, “I don’t know. Shall I shepherd the shepherd?”⁶⁴

The ground was cursed on account of Adam and Eve (3:17). Now the earth has been stained with the blood of man, and that spilled by his brother. That blood now cries out to God for justice (4:10). God, therefore, confronts Cain with his sin. The time for repentance has passed and now the sentence is passed on Cain by the Judge of the earth.

It is not the ground which is cursed again, but it is Cain.

And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you cultivate the ground, it shall no longer yield its strength to you; you shall be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth (Genesis 4:11-12).

Cain had been blessed with a ‘green thumb.’ He had attempted to approach God through the fruits of his labor. Now God cursed him in the area of his strength and sin. Never again will Cain be able to sustain himself by tilling the soil. While Adam had to earn his living by the sweat of his brow (3:19), Cain could not survive by farming. For him the curse of chapter three had been intensified. For Adam farming was difficult; for Cain it was impossible.

Cain’s response to the first rebuke of God had been sullenness and silence, followed by sin. Cain is no longer silent once his sentence has been pronounced, but there is no indication of repentance, only regret.

And Cain said to the Lord, ‘My punishment is too great to bear! Behold, Thou hast driven me this day from the face of the ground; and from Thy face I shall be hidden, and I shall be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and it will come about that whoever finds me will kill me’ ( Genesis 4:13-14).

Cain’s words have a familiar ring to any parent. At times a child is truly sorry for his disobedience. At other times he is only sorry that he was caught, and bitterly bemoans the severity of punishment he is to receive. All Cain does is to repeat his sentence bitterly, and express his fear that men will treat him as he did his brother.

God assured Cain that while human life meant little to him, He valued it highly. He would not even allow Cain’s blood to be shed at this time.⁶⁵ We cannot be sure about the exact nature of the sign that was appointed for Cain. It could have been a visible mark, but it seems more likely that it may have been some kind of event that confirmed to Cain that God would not allow him to be killed.⁶⁶

Verse 15 has a two-fold purpose. The first is to assure Cain that he would not die a violent death at the hand of man. The second is a clear warning to anyone who should consider taking his life. Notice the words, “Therefore whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold” (Genesis 4:15), are not spoken to Cain, but of Cain. God did not say, “Whoever kills you,” but “Whoever kills Cain.”

A partial genealogy is given of the line of Cain. Moses employed this, I believe, to evidence the ungodliness of Cain (and the sinfulness of man commenced at the Fall) in his descendants, and to serve as a contrast to the genealogy of Adam through Seth in chapter 5.

Cain settled in the land of Nod. After the birth of his son, Enoch, Cain established a city named after his child. It would seem that the founding of this city was an act of rebellion against God, who had said he would be a vagrant and a wanderer (4:12).

Lamech manifests mankind at his lowest point of descent.

And Lamech took to himself two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other, Zillah. And Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. And his brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe. As for Zillah, she also gave birth to Tubal-cain, the forger of all implements of bronze and iron, and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah. And Lamech said to his wives, ‘Adah and Zillah, Listen to my voice, you wives of Lamech, give heed to my speech, for I have killed a man for wounding me; and a boy for striking me; if Cain is avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.’ (Genesis 4:19-24).

Lamech appears to be the first to have departed from the divine ideal for marriage as described in chapter two. One wife was not sufficient for him so he took two, Adah and Zillah.

We would expect Moses to have only condemning words for Lamech. Surely nothing good could come from such a man. And yet, it is from his offspring that great cultural and scientific contributions come. One son became the father of nomadic herdsmen, another was the first of a line of musicians, and another was the first of the great metal workers.

We must pause to observe that even man at his worst is not without the ability to produce that which is deemed beneficial to mankind. We should also hasten to say that man’s contributions can quickly and easily be adapted to the ruin of men. Music can entice and allure men into sin. The skills of the metal worker can be used to produce implements of sin (e.g. idols, cf. Exodus 32:1ff.).

To the ungodly, the line of Cain was the source of much that was praiseworthy. But the real fruits of sin are revealed in the words of Lamech to his wives. Adam and Eve had sinned, but repentance and faith are implied after their sentence was pronounced. Cain murdered his brother Abel, and while he never fully repented, neither could he defend his actions.

Lamech brings us to the point in the history of man where sin is not only committed boldly, but boastfully. He bragged to his wives of his murder. More than this he boasted that his sin was committed against a mere youngster who had only struck him. This murder was brutal, bold, and volatile. Worst of all, Lamech shows a disdain and disregard for God’s word: “If Cain is avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.” (Genesis 4:24).

God had spoken these words to assure Cain that he would not be killed by the hand of man. He also warned men of the seriousness of such an act. These words were spoken to reveal the fact that God valued human life. Lamech twisted and distorted them as a boast to his violence and aggressive hostility toward man and God. Here man has quickly plummeted to the bottom of the barrel!

A Glimmer of Grace
(4:25-26)

In Romans chapter 5 the apostle Paul has much to say about the fall of man in the book of Genesis. But in this same chapter we find these words of hope: “But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Romans 5:20).

Sin surely abounded in the line of Cain, but the chapter will not end without a glimmer of the grace of God.

And Adam had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a son, and named him Seth, for, she said, ‘God has appointed me another offspring in place of Abel; for Cain killed him.’ And to Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men began to call upon the name of the Lord (Genesis 4:25-26).

Eve had hoped for salvation through her first son, Cain. It would surely not come from him or from his descendants. Neither could it come from Abel. But another son was given whose name, Seth, means “appointed.” Not only was he a substitute for Abel (verse 25), he was the seed through whom the Savior would be born.

Seth, too, had a son, Enosh. It began to become clear that the deliverance Adam and Eve hoped for was not to be soon, but it was nevertheless certain. And so it was that in those days men began ‘to call upon the name of the Lord’ (verse 26). I understand this to be the commencement of corporate worship.⁶⁷ In the midst of a perverse and crooked generation there was a believing remnant that trusted in God and hoped for His salvation.

Conclusion

The New Testament is by far our best commentary on this chapter and informs us of its principles and practical applications.

This account is not simply the record of two men who lived in the long ago and the far away. My Bible informs me that it is the description of two ways, the way of Abel and the way of Cain.

Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah! (Jude 11).

Jude warns his readers of those who are spiritual counterfeits (verse 4). They are not saved, but they endeavor to pass as believers and to pervert the true faith and to divert men from experiencing the grace of God. In verse 11 these men are described as being like Cain. They are like him in that they are rebels who hide under the banner of religion.

Let me simply say that the world is full of religion today, and hell will be full of religionists. There is a substantial difference, however, between those who are righteous and those who are religious. Those who are truly saved are those who, like Abel, approach God as a sinner, and who grasp the fact that only through the shed blood of the perfect Lamb of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, are they saved. All others attempt to win God’s approval by offering up the works of their hands. The ‘way of Cain’ is an ever increasing line of those who want to get to heaven ‘their way’ and not His way.

The irony of the way of Cain is that it is clearly marked. While they appear to offer good works to God, their hearts are corrupt.

For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another; not as Cain, who was of the evil one, and slew his brother. And for what reason did he slay him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother’s were righteous (I John 3:11-12).

Those who are evil cannot stand those who are truly righteous. They proclaim brotherly love but they fail to practice it. It is no wonder, then, that the religious leaders of Jesus’ day rejected Him and put him to death with the help of the Gentiles. This is what John explained in his gospel.

In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness; and the darkness did not comprehend it.… There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him (John 1:4-5; 9-11).

For those who would walk in the way of Cain there is little reason for hope. There may be the illusory gains of culture or technology, but they must ultimately suffer the fate of Cain. They must spend their days away from the presence of God and they will find their days on earth full of sorrow and regret ultimately.

We can rejoice that there is another better way, and that is the way of Abel.

By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks (Hebrews 11:4).

In order that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house of God; yet, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation (Luke 11:50-51).

And to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel (Hebrews 12:24).

That which made the difference between Cain and Abel was faith. Abel trusted not in himself, but in God. His sacrifice was a better sacrifice because it evidenced his faith and it reflected that the object of his faith was God. No doubt he also had some grasp of the value of the shed blood of an innocent victim.

But Abel was more than an example of an early believer, he was, according to our Lord, a prophet. Perhaps by his lips, but surely by his works, he proclaimed to his brother the way of access to God. He was also a prophet in that he predicted in his death the fate of many who would come later with a word from God to unbelieving men.

While God valued the blood of Abel that was shed for his faith, it is not to be compared with that better blood that was shed by Jesus Christ. Abel’s blood was a testimony to his faith. Christ’s blood is the cleansing agent by which men are purged of their sins and delivered from the penalty of eternal separation from God. Have you come to trust in the blood of Christ as God’s provision, His only provision for your sin? Why not do so today.

60 Cf. H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker-Book House, 1942), I, p. 189.

61 Literally Eve replied, “I have gotten a son, the Lord.” Does she believe that she has begotten the Savior? This is possible, of course. Perhaps more likely she has acknowledged that God has enabled her to bear a child, a child through whom her deliverance may soon come.

62 “The offering here is a minha, which in human affairs was a gift of homage or allegiance and, as a ritual term, could describe either animal or more often cereal offerings (e.g. I Sa. 2:l7; Lu. 2:1).” Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p. 75.

63 These words are nearly identical with those in verse 16 of chapter three: “Yet your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.” Is God here suggesting that the same temptation (or at least the same tempter) which Eve and Adam failed to resist is now facing Cain?

64 Gerhard VonRad, Genesis (Philadephia: The Westminster Press, 1972), p. 106.

65 It is not until chapter nine that God instituted capital punishment. It would seem that the greater punishment for Cain was a ‘life sentence’ as a vagabond and wanderer, than to have put him to death.

66 VonRad suggests a tattoo or something similar (page 107). The same word for sign is found in 9:13 and 17:11.

67 “Since this calling out by the use of the name definitely implies public worship, we have here the first record of regular public worship. Private worship is presupposed as preceding. The great importance of public worship, both as a matter of personal necessity as well as a matter of public confession, is beautifully set forth by this brief record.” Leupold, p. 228.

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_05_32k.mp3

Biblical Topics:

Hamartiology (Sin)

Man (Anthropology)

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

6. Coming to Grips with Genealogies (Genesis 5:1-32)

Introduction

My parents were privileged to spend a year teaching in Taiwan. While they were in Taipei, they met a young Chinese man who wanted to learn to speak and read English more fluently. My father agreed to meet with ‘Johnny’ once a week. My father assured Johnny that there would be no charge for the English lessons and informed him that the text for their studies would be the gospel of Matthew. Incidentally, Johnny was saved in chapter 16.

One of the tapes which my folks sent us from Taiwan at Christmas time contained a recording of Johnny reading Matthew in English. If you can imagine it, he was reading the genealogy of Matthew chapter 1. What an introduction to the English language and to the Bible!

The genealogies have never been the best read portions of the Word of God. Ray Stedman tells the story of an old Scots minister who was reading from the first chapter of Matthew’s gospel.

He started reading, ‘Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac beget Jacob, and Jacob begat Judah,’ and he looked on ahead and saw the list to follow and said, ‘and they kept on begetting one another all the way down this page and halfway into the next.’⁶⁸

If we are honest, that is what most of us do with the genealogies of the Bible—we skip them. In my teaching through the book of Genesis, I must admit I seriously considered doing the same thing, merely passing by Genesis chapter 5. Leupold, in one of the classic commentaries on the book of Genesis has this word of advice to preachers: “Not every man would venture to use this chapter as a text.”⁶⁹

And believe me, not all have. There is a verse of Scripture which will not let us pass by Genesis 5 without a serious study of this genealogy: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (II Timothy 3:16).

And so we must deal with this chapter in Genesis in order to discern its profit and benefit to us. In the few years that I have preached the Bible I have learned that the inadequacy is not the text of Scripture we preach, but in the teacher who presents it.

Understanding Genealogies

The fifth chapter of Genesis is only one of many genealogies contained in Scripture. Learning from this chapter will encourage us and instruct us as we approach the other numerous genealogies of the Bible. And, conversely, the other genealogies give us considerable insight as we approach this particular account. Let us, then, give our attention to the purpose of genealogies in general, before we turn our attention to our text.

The genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are not at all unique in the ancient times. The Egyptians had king lists and so did the Sumerians. The Hittites had royal offering lists, the historical and chronological value of which is beyond doubt.⁷⁰ These ancient Near Eastern genealogies are very instructive in determining the correct interpretation of the biblical records.

For one thing, we learn that genealogies were not intended to be used as a chronology.⁷¹ At first glance, the one who reads Genesis chapter 5 would think that one only need add up the numbers contained here in order to establish the age of civilization upon the earth. Ussher, for example, arrived at the date of 4004 B.C. for the events of Genesis chapter 1.

The naming of individuals did not necessarily imply that a continuous sequence was to be assumed. Often names were omitted and genealogical lists were selective.⁷²

“The expression ‘A begat B’ does not always imply direct parentage.”⁷³ Matthew 1:8 states that ‘Joram begat Uzziah,’ but from the Old Testament (II Kings 8:25; 11:2, 14:1,21) we learn that Joram was the father of Ahaziah, who fathered Joash, father of Amaziah father of Uzziah. Thus ‘begat’ can mean ‘begat the line culminating in.’⁷⁴ As Kitchen states, “Terms like ‘son’ and ‘father’ can mean not only ‘(grand)son’ and ‘(grand)father,’ but also ‘descendant’ and ‘ancestor’ respectively.”⁷⁵

The arrangement of the genealogies into a neat and clean pattern also suggests something other than a chronological indicator. Matthew’s genealogy of Christ, for example (Matthew 1:1-17) is arranged into three successions of 14 generations each. And this genealogy is known to be selective.

The numbers in the genealogies of the Ancient Near East were usually of secondary importance.⁷⁶ The primary purpose was to establish one’s family identity, one’s roots. Nowhere in Genesis 5, the Bible, or elsewhere were the numbers ever totaled to establish any kind of chronology. Sometimes the numbers of one account differ from those of another.⁷⁷ While there are many explanations for this, one is that these numbers were given only as an approximation. Exact figures did not serve the purpose of the genealogy. While we dare not say that the numbers are not literal, we simply point out the way such numbers were used in the Ancient Near East.⁷⁸

Let us then carefully consider the words of the great scholar, Dr. B. B. Warfield, when he writes:

These genealogies must be esteemed trustworthy for the purposes for which they are recorded; but they cannot safely be pressed into use for other purposes for which they were not intended, and for which they are not adapted. In particular, it is clear that the genealogical purposes for which the genealogies were given, did not require a complete record of all the generations through which the descent of the persons to whom they are assigned runs; but only an adequate indication of the particular line through which the descent in question comes. Accordingly it is found on examination that the genealogies of Scripture are freely compressed for all sorts of purposes; and that it can seldom be confidently affirmed that they contain a complete record of the whole series of generations, while it is often obvious that a very large number are omitted. There is no reason inherent in the nature of the scriptural genealogies why a genealogy of ten recorded links, as each of those in Genesis v. and xi. is, may not represent an actual descent of a hundred or a thousand or ten thousand links. The point established by the table is not that these are all the links which intervened between the beginning and the closing names, but that this is the line of descent through which one traces back to or down to the other.⁷⁹

The Meaning of Genesis 5

If we cannot learn the age of the earth from the genealogy of Genesis chapter 5, what are we to gain from its study? The more I have considered this passage the clearer it becomes that it must be interpreted in the light of its context. A significant part of that context is the genealogy of Cain in chapter 4. The meaning and application of the genealogy of chapter 5, then, is gained by a comparison and contrast of chapter 4.

Normally, we are told that chapter 4 gives us the genealogy of Cain while in chapter 5 Moses describes the godly line of Seth. In one sense this is true. Surely chapter 4 depicts an ungodly descent while chapter 5 records the history of the line through whom the Savior will come.

Technically, however, chapter 5 is not the account of the lineage of Seth, but of Adam.

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created. When Adam had lived an hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth (Genesis 5:1-3).

I have puzzled over the seeming repetition of these introductory verses. Why would Moses tell us what we already know? Notice that these verses are not attached to the genealogy of chapter 4, but of that in chapter 5. Cain’s genealogy comes to a dead end. It begins with ungodly Cain, ends with wicked Lamech, and is ‘washed out’ by the flood.

Moses begins chapter 5 with the terminology of chapters 1 and 2 (e.g., ‘created,’ ‘in the likeness of God,’ ‘male and female,’ ‘blessed them’) in order to indicate to the reader that God’s purposes and program for man begun in the first chapters are to be carried out through Adam’s seed, but not through the line of Cain; rather through Seth. The whole of chapter 5 is a description of the ever-narrowing line through which Messiah will come.

The contrast spiritually between the two lines is obvious. It can easily be illustrated by the two ‘Lamechs’ of chapters 4 and 5. Lamech (the son of Methushael, 4:18) of Cain’s lineage was the initiator of polygamy (4:19). Worse than this he was a murderer who boasted of his crime (4:23) and made light of God’s words to Cain (4:24).

The Lamech of chapter 5 (the son of Methuselah and the father of Noah) was a godly man. The naming of his son revealed his understanding of the fall of man and the curse of God upon the ground (cf. 5:29). It also indicated his faith that God would deliver man from the curse through the seed of Eve. I believe Lamech understood that this deliverance would specifically come through the son God had given him.

In the account of Cain’s descendants no numbers were employed, while the line of Seth has a definite numerical pattern. Figures in chapter 5 typically supplied: (1) the age of the individual at the birth of the son named; (2) the years lived after the birth of the son;⁸⁰ and (3) the age of the man at his death. Essentially the life of the person falls into two parts, B.C., and A.D.: Before the child and after the delivery of the child. This division is not without significance.

The length of the lives of the men in chapter 5 is unusually long, but every effort to explain this fact in some way other than taking the numbers literally has proven futile. Conditions were undoubtedly different prior to the flood.

Moses surely intended the length of the lives of these men to impress us. This is undoubtedly one of the reasons why they were so prominently included. The long length of life would facilitate the population of the earth. My wife and I have had six children in our 17 years of marriage. Imagine what could be done in 900 years?

Furthermore Moses would reveal by this that man was originally intended to live many years, even after the fall. Surely the promise of a millennial kingdom in which men would live to a ripe old age (cf. Isaiah 65:20) is buttressed by this chapter. Length of life was nothing new, but simply something regained.

The main contrast between the lines of Cain and Seth is that of the emphasis of each. Cain’s line is credited with what might be called ‘worldly progress’ and achievements. Cain built the first city (4:17). From his descendants came the technological and cultural contributions. Metal workers, ranchers, and musicians were of this line.

Now what is it that is emphasized about the line of Seth? No mention is made of any great contributions or achievements. Two things marked out the men of chapter 5. First of all, they were men of faith (cf. Enoch, 5:18, 21-24; Lamech, 5:28-31). These men looked back and grasped the fact that sin was the root of their troubles and travail. They looked forward to a redemption that God was to provide through their offspring.

That brings us to the second contribution of these men of chapter 5—they produced godly seed through whom the purposes and program of God would continue. Now we are not told that every child of theirs was godly. But we do know that these were godly men and that through them and their children a line was continued which culminated in Noah. While the rest of mankind would be destroyed in the flood, through Noah, the human race (and more than this, the seed of Eve) would be preserved. The hope of men rested in the preservation of a godly seed.

What a lesson this would be to the Israelites. When they reached the land of Canaan they would encounter a people vastly different from the Egyptians. While the Egyptians despised the Israelites and would not consider intermarriage, the Canaanites would invite it (cf. Genesis 46:34; Deuteronomy 7:1ff; Numbers 25:1ff). To intermarry with the Canaanites would be to turn from the God of Israel. To intermix with the Canaanites would mean to pollute the godly line through which Messiah was to come.

God had promised to bless the faith and obedience of the Israelites. He would give them rain, crops and cattle (Deuteronomy 28). It could well be that the nation would put their trust, not in the living God, but in the technology of the Canaanites. Horses and chariots may have been the latest technological advance in warfare, but God had forbidden Israel to accumulate such arms. They must trust in Him (cf. Exodus 15:4; Deuteronomy 17:14ff; Joshua 11:6). Alliances with pagan nations may have been the way of the world, but it was not God’s way (II Kings 18,19).

We may be surprised that such an emphasis upon death occurs in the genealogy of chapter 5, while it is not mentioned in the fourth chapter. Would it not have been more fitting to have emphasized death in conjunction with the ungodly line of Cain?

The first thing we must recognize is the significance of death in the context of the book of Genesis. God had told Adam that they would surely die in the day they ate of the forbidden fruit (2:17). Satan boldly denied this and assured Eve that this was not so (3:4). Chapter 5 is a grim reminder that the wages of sin is death and that God keeps His Word, in judgment and in salvation.

But why not stress the relationship between sinfulness and death? Why not emphasize death in chapter 4? Let me suggest an explanation. In chapter 4 it would seem that death was not a popular subject. I believe that Cain found comfort in the fact that he had fathered a son in whose name he also founded a city. In addition, his offspring were responsible for great cultural and technological contributions.⁸¹ These ‘monuments’ to Cain may have given him some kind of comfort.

The sad reality was vastly different, however. As the writer in Proverbs has said, “The memory of the righteous is blessed, but the name of the wicked will rot” (Proverbs 10:7).

The greatest tragedy was not that the men of chapter 4 died, for so did those of chapter 5. The tragedy is that the offspring of Cain did not survive the judgment of God, but that Noah, the seed of Seth, did. All men will die, but some will be raised to everlasting torment while the people of faith will spend eternity in the presence of God (cf. John 5:28,29; Revelation 20). Outward appearances would indicate that the children of this world ‘have it made,’ but the ultimate reality is vastly different.

Death did come to the godly seed of Seth. This is repeated eight times in chapter 5. But Enoch is a type of all those who truly walk with God. Death will not swallow them up. They will be ushered into the eternal presence of God, in whose fellowship they will dwell forever. Death can be looked squarely in the face by the true believer, for its sting has been removed by the work of God in the death of Christ Jesus, the ‘seed of the woman’ (Genesis 3:15).

Application

I cannot leave these verses without pointing out their relevance to men today. The most important factor in all the world, according to Moses, which determines men’s destiny is not the contributions which he makes to culture or civilization (important as this may be). Whether or not you have made a reputation for yourself is of little eternal consequence. The critical element for every man named in these chapters was this: was His name to be found in God’s book?

Moses began chapter 5 with these words: “This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God” (Genesis 5:1).

I am reminded of these words of the last book of the Bible,

And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of Life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. And death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:12-15).

What determined ancient men’s destiny was whether or not his name was in the book of the generations of Cain or of Seth. And what determined the names of those who are listed in chapter 5 was their recognition of personal sin and their faith in God to provide the salvation He promised.

And so it is today, my friend. The ultimate question is this, in whose genealogy are you to be found? Are you still in Adam or are you in Christ (cf. Romans 5)? If you acknowledge that you are a sinner, deserving of God’s eternal punishment and you are trusting in the righteousness of Christ and His death on your behalf, you are in Christ. Your name is in the book of life. If you have not done this, you are in Adam. While your works may have impressed men, they will not meet the standard of God for eternal life. In which book is your name to be found?

Secondly, I am reminded in this chapter that the measure of a man, in God’s eyes, is to be evidenced in his children. This is why elders are to be evaluated in part, by their effectiveness as parents (cf. I Timothy 3; Titus 1).

How this should change our priorities and values. Cain built for his son, but Seth built into his son. Cain sacrificed his sons to success. Seth found success in his sons. How often we need to be reminded of the words of the Psalmist.

Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it; Unless the Lord guards the city, The watchman keeps awake in vain. It is vain for you to rise up early, to retire late, to eat the bread of painful labors; For He gives to His beloved even in his sleep. Behold, children are a gift of the Lord, The fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one’s youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; They shall not be ashamed, When they speak with their enemies in the gate (Psalm 127).

The Psalmist is reminding the workaholics that striving for success often sacrifices that which is of the highest value. And he tells us that children, which are God’s great gift to men, are not given in striving but in sleep, not in rising early and retiring late, but in resting in the faithfulness of God.

What a commentary Genesis 5 is on the difficult words of Paul in the book of I Timothy:

Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression. But she shall be saved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint (I Timothy 2:11-15, verse 15 my translation⁸²).

The women who abide by Paul’s teaching may protest, “But how can I find fulfillment under such prohibitions, and how can I make any significant contribution to the church?” Paul says, in effect, “The most important work of all is for a godly woman to raise godly children.”

And lest we apply this only to women, let me suggest that it is equally true for the men as well, even if this is not the primary intent of Paul here. Fathers, are you sacrificing your children for success in the business world, or for success in Christian ministry? There is no more important calling than that of raising godly children. If we fail here, we have failed of our highest calling.

There are those, I know, who do not, or who cannot, have children. Let me assure you that we are not in the same shoes as the Israelites of old. The godly line was preserved, and the Messiah has come through the seed of women. But it is vital to the purpose of God that a righteous remnant continue through the years to carry on the work of God for man and through man. We must, therefore, continue to beget spiritual children and to nurture them in the truths of God’s Word. Let us all take this task seriously.

68 Ray Stedman, The Beginnings (Waco: Word Books, 1978), p. 47.

69 H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942), I, p. 248.

70 K. A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1966 ), pp. 35-36.

71 “0n a more careful scrutiny of the data on which these calculations rest, however, they are found not to supply a satisfactory basis for the constitution of a definite chronological scheme. These data consist largely, and at the crucial points solely, of genealogical tables; and nothing can be clearer than that it is precarious in the highest degree to draw chronological inferences from genealogical tables.” “The Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race,” B. B. Warfield, Biblical and Theological Studies (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1968, p. 240.

72 “Such a mixture of continuous and selective genealogy is in no way abnormal. Besides the obvious example of Matthew 1:1-17, the Abydos King List in Egypt silently omits three entire groups of kings (Ninth to early Eleventh, Thirteenth to Seventeenth Dynasties and the Amarna pharaohs) at three separate points in an otherwise continuous series; other sources enable us to know this.” Kitchen, p. 38.

73 Ibid.

74 Ibid., pp. 38,39.

75 Ibid., p. 39.

76 Cf. J. N. Oswalt, “Chronology of the Old Testament,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, revised edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1979), I, p. 674.

77 In Genesis 5 there are considerable variations between the Massoretic Text (the Hebrew text of the Old Testament), the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), and the Samantan Pentateuch. To compare these figures one should consult the chart in ISBE, I, p. 676, contained in the article on the chronology of the Old Testament.

78 ‘‘The same observation applies to a second class of data: random chronological statements, e.g., the statement in Gen. 15:13 concerning the duration of the Egyptian sojourn, or that in I K. 6:1 covering the time elapsed between the Exodus and the building of Solomon’s temple. While there is no warrant for disregarding such statements, neither is it necessary to assume that they are precise chronological computations. In the premonarchial society especially, long term chronological records are highly unlikely because of their lack of importance. Rather, approximations arrived at in various ways can be expected, and the use of round numbers, particularly, would suggest some degree of approximation. It is the significance of these numbers for the biblical writers that the interpreter must understand before he attempts to build an absolute chronology upon them.” ISBE, I, p. 674.

79 Warfield, pp. 240-241.

80 This is not to say that other sons and daughters were not born to the men of chapter 5. They may or may not have had faith in God, and they may or may not have been born prior to the son specified as being born at a certain age in the life of his father.

81 I do not wish to be understood to say, as some seem to,* that the godly should forsake all efforts to improve the quality of life by enriching it with moral, social, cultural and technological contributions. These contributions I understand as a part of God’s command to man to ‘subdue the earth’ (Genesis 1:28, etc.). The point here is that ancient man’s comfort and consolation should not abide in these achievements, but in the promise of God’s salvation, and God’s faithfulness to accomplish it. *Cf. W. H. Griffith Thomas, Genesis, A Devotional Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1946), p. 63.

82 Verse 15 is my translation, which best reflects the Greek. The word ‘women’ supplied by the NASV here is literally ‘she’ (singular). The ‘they’ of the NASV is plural and thus should refer to its antecedent ‘children,’ which is also plural.

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_06_32k.mp3

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

7. The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men (Genesis 6:1-8)

Introduction

Attempts to produce a master race did not begin with Adolf Hitler, nor have they ended with him. Our generation seems to have a fixation on super human. Superman, the Bionic Man, the Bionic Woman, Hulk, and many other television characters contribute to the same theme. And this super-race is not to be understood as dominating only the realm of fiction. It is almost frightening to realize that genetic scientists are seriously working to create the master humans, while abortions can be employed to systematically eliminate the undesirables. I read an article in the paper the other day which gave an account of one organization that makes available to certain women the sperm of contributing Nobel Prize winners.

It is much more difficult to determine the ultimate outcome of these attempts than it is to find the origin of the movement. It’s inception is recorded in the sixth chapter of the book of Genesis. I must say as we begin to study these verses that there is more disagreement here per square inch than almost anywhere in the Bible. By-and-large it is the conservative scholars who have the most difficulty with this passage. That is because those who don’t take the Bible either literally or seriously are quick to call the account a myth. Conservative scholars must explain the event for what Moses claimed it to be, an historical event. While great differences arise in the interpretation of this passage, the issue is not one that is fundamental—one that will affect the critica1 issues which underlie one’s eternal salvation. Those with whom I most heartily disagree here are usually my brothers in Christ.

Who are the ‘Sons of God’?

The interpretation of verses 1-8 hinges upon the definition of three key terms, ‘the sons of God’ (verses 2,4), ‘the daughters of men’ (verses 2,4), and the ‘Nephilim’ (verse 4). There are three major interpretations of these terms which I will attempt to describe, beginning with that which, in my mind is the least likely, and ending with the one that is most satisfactory.

View 1: The Merging of the Ungodly Cainite with the Godly Sethites

The ‘sons of God’ are generally said by those who hold this view to be the godly men of the Sethite line. The ‘daughters of men’ are thought to be the daughters of the ungodly Cainite. The Nephilim are the ungodly and violent men who are the product of this unholy union.

The major support for this interpretation is the context of chapters 4 and 5. Chapter four describes the ungodly generation of Cain, while in chapter five we see the godly Sethite line. In Israel, separation was a vital part of the religious responsibility of those who truly worshipped God. What took place in chapter six was the breakdown in the separation which threatened the godly seed through whom Messiah was to be born. This breakdown was the cause of the flood which would follow. It destroyed the ungodly world and preserved righteous Noah and his family, through whom the promise of Genesis 3:15 would be fulfilled.

While this interpretation has the commendable feature of explaining the passage without creating any doctrinal or theological problems, what it offers in terms of orthodoxy, it does at the expense of accepted exegetical practices.

First and foremost this interpretation does not provide definitions that arise from within the passage or which even adapt well to the text. Nowhere are the Sethites called the ‘the sons of God.’

The contrast between the godly line of Seth and the ungodly line of Cain may well be overemphasized. I am not at all certain that the line of Seth, as a whole, was godly. While all of the Cainite line appears to be godless, only a handful of the Sethites are said to be godly. The point which Moses makes in chapter 5 is that God has preserved a righteous remnant through whom His promises to Adam and Eve will be accomplished. One has the distinct impression that few were godly in these days (cf. 6:5-7, 12). It seems that only Noah and his family could be called righteous at the time of the flood. Would God have failed to deliver any who were righteous?

Also, the ‘daughters of men’ can hardly be restricted to only the daughters of the Cainites. In verse 1 Moses wrote, “Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them” (Genesis 6:1).

It is difficult to conclude that the ‘men’ here are not men in general or mankind. It would follow that the reference to their ‘daughters’ would be equally general. To conclude that the ‘daughters of men’ in verse two is some different, more restrictive group is to ignore the context of the passage.

For these reasons and others,⁸³ I must conclude that this view is exegetically unacceptable. While it meets the test of orthodoxy it fails to submit to the laws of interpretation.

View 2: The Despot Interpretation

Recognizing the deficiencies of the first view, some scholars have sought to define the expression ‘the sons of God’ by comparing it with the languages of the Ancient Near East. It is interesting to learn that some rulers were identified as the son of a particular god. In Egypt, for example, the king was called the son of Re.⁸⁴

In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for God, Elohim, is used for men in positions of authority:

Then his master shall bring him unto the judges who acted in God’s name (Exodus 21:6, following the marginal reading of the NASV).

God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers (literally, the gods, Psalm 82:1, cf. also 82:6).

This interpretation, like the fallen angel view, has its roots in antiquity.⁸⁵ According to this approach the ‘sons of God’ are nobles, aristocrats, and kings.

These ambitious despots lusted after power and wealth and desired to become ‘men of a name’ that is, somebodies (cf. 11:4)! Their sin was ‘not intermarriage between two groups—whether two worlds, (angels and man), two religious communities (Sethite and Cainite), or two social classes (royal and common)—but that the sin was polygamy.’ It was the same type of sin that the Cainite Lamech practiced, the sin of polygamy, particularly as it came to expression in the harem, the characteristic institution of the ancient oriental despot’s court. In this transgression the ‘sons of God’ frequently violated the sacred trust of their office as guardians of the general ordinances of God for human conduct.⁸⁶

In the context of Genesis 4 and 5 we do find some evidence which could be interpreted as supportive of the despot view. Cain did establish a city, named after his son Enoch (verse 4:17). Dynasties would be more easily established in an urban setting. So, also, we know that Lamech did have two wives (verse 4:19). Although this is far from a harem, it could be viewed as a step in that direction. Also the view defines ‘the daughters of men’ as womankind, and not just the daughters of the Cainite line.

In spite of these factors, this interpretation would probably never have been considered had it not been for the ‘problems’ which the fallen angel view is said to create. While pagan kings were referred to as sons of a foreign deity, no Israelite king was so designated. True, nobles and those in authority were occasionally called ‘gods,’ but not the ‘sons of God.’ This definition chooses to ignore the precise definition given by the Scriptures themselves.

Further, the whole idea of power hungry men, seeking to establish a dynasty by the acquisition of a harem seems forced on the passage. Who would ever have found this idea in the text itself, unless it were imposed upon it? Also, the definition of the Nephilim as being merely violent and tyrannical men seems inadequate. Why should these men be sorted out for special consideration if they were merely like all the other men of that day (cf. 6:11,12)? While the despot view does less violence to the text than does the Cainite/Sethite view, it seems to me to be inadequate.

View 3: The Fallen Angel Interpretation

According to this view, the ‘sons of God’ of verses 2 and 4 are fallen angels, which have taken the form of masculine human-like creatures. These angels married women of the human race (either Cainites or Sethites) and the resulting offspring were the Nephilim. The Nephilim were giants with physical superiority and therefore established themselves as men of renown for their physical prowess and military might. This race of half human creatures was wiped out by the flood, along with mankind in general, who were sinners in their own right (verse 6:11,12).

My basic presupposition in approaching our text is that we should let the Bible define its own terms. If biblical definitions are not to be found then we must look at the language and culture of contemporary peoples. But the Bible does define the term ‘the sons of God’ for us.

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, Satan also came among them (Job 1:6).

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came among them to present himself before the Lord (Job 2:1).

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:7, cf. Psalm 89:6; Daniel 3:25).

Scholars who reject this view readily acknowledge the fact that the precise term is clearly defined in Scripture.⁸⁷ The reason for rejecting the fallen angel interpretation is that such a view is said to be in violation of both reason and Scripture.

The primary passage which is said to be problematical is that found in Matthew’s gospel, where our Lord said, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:29-30).

We are told that here our Lord said that angels are sexless, but is this really true? Jesus compared men in heaven to angels in heaven. Neither men nor angels are said to be sexless in heaven but we are told that in heaven there will be no marriage. There are no female angels with whom angels can generate offspring. Angels were never told to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ as was man.

When we find angels described in the book of Genesis, it is clear that they can assume a human-like form, and that their sex is masculine. The writer to the Hebrews mentions that angels can be entertained without man’s knowing it (Hebrews 13:2). Surely angels must be convincingly like men. The homosexual men of Sodom were very capable of judging sexuality. They were attracted by the ‘male’ angels who came to destroy the city (cf. Genesis 19:1ff, especially verse 5).

In the New Testament, two passages seem to refer to this incident in Genesis 6, and to support the angel view:

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; (II Peter 2:4).

And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day (Jude 6).

These verses would indicate that some of the angels who fell with Satan were not content with their ‘proper abode’ and therefore began to live among men (and women) as men. God’s judgment upon them was to place them in bonds⁸⁸ so that they can no longer promote Satan’s purposes on earth as do the unbound fallen angels who continue to do his bidding.

The result of the union between fallen angels and women is rather clearly implied to be the Nephilim. While word studies have produced numerous suggestions for the meaning of this term, the biblical definition of this word comes from its only other instance in Scripture, Numbers 13:33:

There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.

I understand the Nephilim in Genesis 6 to be a race of super-humans who are the product of this angelic invasion of the earth, while the Nephilim of Numbers 13:33 are a strictly human race of giants, with great military prowess.⁸⁹

This view not only conforms to the biblical use of the expression ‘sons of God,’ it also best fits the context of the passage. The effects of the fall were seen in the ungodly offspring of Cain (chapter 4). While Cain and his descendants were ‘in Satan’s pocket,’ Satan knew from God’s words in Genesis 3:15 that through the seed of the woman God was going to bring forth a Messiah who would destroy him. We do not know that the entire line of Seth was God-fearing. In fact we would assume otherwise. Noah and his immediate family alone seem to be righteous at the time of the flood.

Genesis 6 describes a desperate attempt on the part of Satan to attack the godly remnant that is named in chapter 5. So long as a righteous seed is preserved, God’s promise of salvation hangs over the head of Satan, threatening of his impending doom.

The daughters of men were not raped or seduced as such. They simply chose their husbands on the same basis that the angels selected them—physical appeal. Now if you were an eligible woman in those days, who would you choose? Would you select a handsome, muscle-bulging specimen of a man, who had a reputation for his strength and accomplishments, or what seemed to be in comparison a ninety-pound weakling?

Women looked for the hope of being the mother of the Savior. Who would be the most likely father of such a child? Would it not be a ‘mighty man of renown,’ who would also be able to boast of immortality? Some of the godly Sethites did live to be nearly 1000 years old, but the Nephilim did not die, if they were angels. And so the new race began.

Does God Change His Mind?

While verses 1-4 highlight the angelic invasion in the beginning of a new super-race, verses 5-7 serve notice that mankind in general was deserving of God’s destructive intervention into history—the flood. But it is here that we come upon a very serious problem, for it would almost appear that God changed His mind, as though the creation of man was a colossal error on His part. Let us, then, address the question, “Does God change His mind?” Several factors must be considered.

First, God is immutable, unchanging in His person, His perfections, His purposes, and His promises.

God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent; has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? (Numbers 23:19).

And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind, for He is not a man that He should change His mind (I Samuel 15:29, cf. also Psalm 33:11; 102:26-28; Hebrews 1:11-12; Malachi 3:6; Romans 11:29; Hebrews 13:8; James 1:17).

Second, there are passages in which God “appears” to change His mind.

And the Lord said to Moses, ‘I have seen this people, and behold, they are an obstinate people. Now then let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them, and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation. So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people (Exodus 32:9-10,14).

When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God repented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it (Jonah 3:10).

The Lord changed His mind about this. ‘It shall not be,’ said the Lord. The Lord changed His mind about this. ‘This too shall not be,’ said the Lord God (Amos 7:3,6).

Third, in those cases where God “appears” to change His mind, one or more of these considerations may apply:

a. The expression, “God repented” is an anthropomorphism, that is, a description of God which likens God’s actions to man’s. How else can man understand then by thinking of God in human terms and comparisons? God’s ‘change of mind’ may only be the way it looks from man’s perspective. In both Genesis 22 (cf. verses 2, 11-12) and Exodus 32, that which God proposed was a test. In both cases, His eternal purpose did not change.

b. In cases where either judgment or blessing are promised, there may be an implied or stated condition. The message preached by Jonah to the Ninevites was one such instance:

Then Jonah began to go through the city one day’s walk; and he cried out and said, ‘Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown.’ Then the people of Nineveh believed in God; and they called a fast and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least of them. When the word reached the king of Nineveh, he arose from his throne, laid aside his robe from him, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat on the ashes. And he issued a proclamation and it said, ‘In Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles: Do not let man, beast, herd, or flock taste a thing. Do not let them eat or drink water. But both man and beast must be covered with sackcloth; and let men call on God earnestly that each may turn from his wicked way and from the violence which is in his hands. Who knows, God may turn and relent, and withdraw His burning anger so that we shall not perish?’ (Jonah 3:4-9).

What the Ninevites hoped for Jonah knew for a fact. They cried for mercy and forgiveness in case God might hear and forgive. When the Ninevites repented and God relented, Jonah was hopping mad:

But it greatly displeased Jonah, and he became angry. And he prayed to the Lord and said, ‘Please Lord, was not this what I said while I was still in my own country? Therefore, in order to forestall this I fled to Tarshish, for I knew that Thou art a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, and one who relents concerning calamity.’ (Jonah 4:1,2).

Jonah knew God to be loving and forgiving. The message he preached implied one exception. If Nineveh repented, God would forgive them. This is what Jeremiah had written, saying,

At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it (Jeremiah 18:7-10).

c. While God’s decree cannot be altered, we must grant that God is free to act as He chooses. While God’s program may change His purposes do not, “For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29).

God promised to bring His people into the land of Canaan. Due to their unbelief the first generation did not possess the land, but the second generation did. When Jesus came He offered Himself to Israel as the Messiah. Her rejection has made possible the offer of the gospel to the Gentiles. Nevertheless, when God’s purposes for the Gentiles have been accomplished, God will once again pour out His grace and salvation upon the Jews. God’s program changes, but not His purposes (cf. Romans 9-11).

d. While God’s will (His decree) cannot and does not change, He is free to change His emotions. Genesis 6:6-7 describes the response of God to human sin. Grief is love’s response to sin. God is no stoic; He is a person Who rejoices in men’s salvation and obedience, and Who grieves at unbelief and disobedience. While the purpose of God for mankind never changed, His attitude did. Surely a Holy God must feel differently about sin than about obedience. That is the point of verses 6 and 7. God is grieved about man’s sin and its consequences. But God will accomplish His purposes regardless. While such a state was ordained from eternity past, God could never rejoice in it, but only regret man’s wickedness and willfulness.

A similar illustration is the emotional response of our Lord in the garden of Gethsemane (cf. Matthew 26:36ff). The Lord Jesus had in eternity past, purposed to go to the cross to purchase man’s salvation. Yet when the moment for His agony drew near He dreaded it. His purpose did not change, but His emotions did.

The Meaning of this
Passage for Ancient Israel

For the Israelites of old this passage would teach several valuable lessons. First, it provided them with an adequate explanation for the flood. We can see that this super-race had to be eliminated. The flood was not only God’s way of judging sinful men, but of fulfilling His promise to bring salvation through the seed of the woman. Had the intermingling of angels and men gone unchecked, the godly remnant would have ceased to exist (humanly speaking). Second, this passage would illustrate the word of God to the serpent, Adam and Eve: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed;” (Genesis 3:15a).

Israel dared not forget that there was an intense struggle going on, not just between the Cainites and the Sethites, but between Satan and the seed of the woman. While we are accustomed to such emphasis in the New Testament, the Old has few direct references to Satan or his demonic assistants (cf. Genesis 3; Deuteronomy 32:17; I Chronicles 21:1; Job 1,2; Psalm 106:37; Daniel 10:13; Zechariah 3:1,2). This passage would be a vivid reminder of the accuracy of God’s word.

Third, it underscored the importance of maintaining their racial and spiritual purity. God’s believing remnant must be preserved. When men failed to perceive the importance of this, God had to judge them severely. As the nation entered the land of Canaan, few lessons could be more vital than that of the need for separation.

The Meaning of
Genesis 6 for Christians Today

While the New Testament has much more to say about the activities of Satan and his demons, few of us seem to take our spiritual warfare seriously. We really believe that the church can operate on human strength and wisdom alone, or with a little help from God. We often attempt to live the spiritual life in the power of the flesh. We urge people to rededicate their lives and redouble their efforts, but we fail to remind them that our only strength is that which God supplies.

The battle today between the sons of Satan and the sons of God (in the New Testament sense—John 1:12; Romans 8:14,19) is even more intense than it was in the days of old. Satan’s doom is sealed, and his days are numbered (cf. Matthew 8:29). Let us, then, put on the spiritual armor by which God equips us for the spiritual warfare of which we are a part (Ephesians 6:10-20).

Second, let us learn that Satan attacks us through similar instruments today. I am not aware of any instances in our times when fallen angelic beings have invaded the earth in human form to further Satan’s cause. Nevertheless Satan still works through men.

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their deeds (II Corinthians 11:13-15).

Just as Satan sought to corrupt men by disclosing himself (or rather, his angels) in the form of superior human beings, so he works through ‘angels of light’ today. We are inclined to suppose that Satan works most often and most effectively through the reprobate. We almost expect to find Satan in the pathetic demonic or in the hopeless derelict. It is easy to attribute such tragedy to Satan. But Satan’s best work and, in my estimation, his most frequent work is through those seemingly moral, devout, and pious talking men who stand behind the pulpit or sit on the governing board and talk about salvation in terms of society rather than souls, and by means of works rather than faith. Satan continues to advance his cause through men who are not what they appear to be.

Finally, notice that Satan does his best work in the very areas where men and women place their hope of salvation. When the angel-men proposed to the daughters of men they appeared to be the most promising fathers. If these creatures were immortal, then would their offspring not be so also? Was this the way God was going to overrule the fall and the curse? So it must have seemed to these women.

That is precisely what Satan does today. Oh, he is not above promoting himself through atheism or other ‘ism’s,’ but he finds great success in the arena of religion. He wears his most pious expression and uses religious terminology. He does not seek to abolish religion only to abort it by cutting out its essential element, faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ as the substitute for sinful men. He will readily join any religious cause so long as this ingredient is omitted, or distorted, or lost in a maze of legalism or libertinism. Watch out, my friend, for Satan in the realm of religion. What better way to sidetrack souls and to blind the minds of men (II Corinthians 4:4)?

Where is your hope for immortality? Is it in your offspring? That way did not work for Cain. Is it in your work? Do you wish to build an empire or to erect a monument to your name? It will not last. All of these things perished in the flood of God’s judgment. Only faith in the God of the Bible and, specifically, faith in the Son He has sent will give you immortality and liberate you from the curse. The only way to become a son of God is through the Son of God.

Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me’ (John 14:6).

83 A more serious problem for this prevalent view is posed by verse 4. From all appearances, the giants (nephilim) and mighty men (gibborim) are the offspring of the marriages of the ‘sons of God’ and the ‘daughters of men.’ As Kline says:

“It is not at all clear why the offspring of religiously mixed marriages should be Nephilim-Gibborim, however these be understood within the range of feasible interpretation . . . But his (the biblical author’s) reference to the conjugal act and to childbearing finds justification only if he is describing the origin of the Nephilim-Gibborim. Unless the difficulty which follows from this conclusion can be overcome, the religiously mixed marriage interpretation of the passage ought to be definitely abandoned.”

To summarize the problem: “Why does one find the kind of offspring mentioned in verse 4 if these are just religiously mixed marriages?” Manfred E. Kober, The Sons of God of Genesis 6: Demons, Degenerates, or Despots?, p. 15. Kober quotes here Meredith G. Kline, “Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1-4,” Westminster Theological Journal, XXIV, Nov. 1961-May 1962, p. 190.

84 “In Egypt the king was called the son of Re (the sun god). The Sumero-Akkadian king was considered the offspring of the goddess and one of the gods, and this identification with the deity goes back to the earliest times according to Engell. In one inscription he is referred to as ‘the king, the son of his god.’ The Hittite king was called ‘son of the weather-god,’ and the title of his mother was Tawannannas (mother-of-the-god). In the northwest Semitic area the king was directly called the son of the god and the god was called the father of the king. The Ras Shamra (Ugaritic) Krt text refers to the god as the king’s father and to king Krt as Krt bn il, the son of el or the son of god. Thus, on the basis of Semitic usage, the term be ne ha elohim, the ‘sons of god’ or the ‘sons of gods,’ very likely refers to dynastic rulers in Genesis 6.” “An Exegetical Study of Genesis 6:1-4,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, XIII, winter 1970, pp. 47-48, as quoted by Kober, p. 19.

85 “In an excellent article presenting this view, Kline writes that this view anciently rose among the Jews that the ‘sons of God’ of Genesis 6 were men of the aristocracy, princes, and nobles, in contrast to the socially inferior ‘daughters of men.’ This interpretation came to expression, for example, in the Aramaic Targums (the Targums of Onkelos rendered the term as ‘sons of nobles’) and in the Greek translation of Symmachus (which reads ‘the sons of the kings or lords’) and it has been followed by many Jewish authorities down to the present.” Kober, pp. 16-17, referring to Kline, p. 194.

86 Kober, p. 16, quoting Birney, p. 49 and Kline, p. 196.

87 For, example, W. H. Griffith Thomas, who holds the Cainite/Sethite view, says:

“Verse 2 speaks of the union of the two lines by inter-marriage. Some writers regard the phrase ‘sons of God’ as referring to the angels, and it is urged that in other passages--e.g. Job i. 6; Ps. xxix. 1; Dan. iii. 25--and, indeed, always elsewhere in Scripture, the phrase invariably means angels.” Genesis: A Devotional Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946), p. 65.

88 Is this bondage not that which the demons feared in Mark 5:10 and Luke 8:31?

89 Does the fact that the Nephilim are mentioned after the flood mean that this practice continued after the flood? Some have thought so, emphasizing the phrase ‘and also afterward’ (Genesis 6:4). If so, we would have to say that this practice did not threaten the promise of God at this time. It would intensify the importance of not intermarrying with any of the Canaanites, among whom the Nephilim were to be found.

Personally, I do not think the super-race ever appeared after the flood. The expression Nephilim, as I view it, is not synonymous with this, super race, but descriptive of it. It simply refers to the fact of great physical stature, just as the other expressions (‘mighty men,’ ‘men of renown’) refer to their reputation and military prowess. I do not think that we must find super-human creatures in Numbers 13:33, but only giants. The word Nephilim is thus defined in Numbers by Moses as referring to great physical stature. No technical name is given to the super-race, only descriptions which could be used elsewhere for other non-angelic creatures.

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_07_32k.mp3

Biblical Topics:

Angelology

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

8. The Flood (Genesis 6:9-8:22)

Introduction

The world knows little about the Bible, but few are unaware of Noah’s ark. There are jokes about it, pictures of it, movies about the search for the ark, even ceramic representations of it. A knowledge of the flood is almost universal, even apart from the biblical account of the book of Genesis.

“But it seems as if we must conclude that the Genesis flood at least engulfed all of mankind, if not the whole earth, because of certain indications in the Genesis narrative and because on all continents and among almost all peoples of the earth flood accounts have been found. These accounts all refer to a destructive flood occurring early in the respective tribal histories. In each case one or a few individuals were saved and were charged with repopulating the earth. To date, anthropologists have collected between 250 and 300 such flood stories.⁹⁰

This familiarity with the story is the greatest obstacle to our benefiting from a study of it in Genesis. We come to the text with our minds made up, thinking that there is little or nothing new about it that should change our thinking or behavior.

For example, we would suppose that the theme of the story is that of judgment and destruction and, to a degree, this is true. Hollywood would make much of this event. We would see all kinds of sinful acts graphically portrayed on the screen. When the plot could no longer sustain lust producing scenes, the focus would turn to destruction and violence. Families would be severed by raging torrents. Mothers would be torn apart from their babies. Buildings would shatter and collapse in the deluge.

While this may seem to be the thrust of the account, not one descriptive word can be found of the actual process which resulted in agony, suffering and death. Not one scene is played before our eyes of such devastation. Judgment is certainly a theme in this event, but, thank God, there is a much greater theme, that of the saving grace of God. While we dare not ignore the warnings of this text, let us not lose sight of its encouragement either.

While some have fixed their attention on the sin and devastation of the flood, others have concentrated on the mechanics of the deluge as over against its meaning. While I am certain that there is much of interest here to the scientific mind, let me simply caution you that much of that which is proposed in the name of science is still theory and speculation. I do not in any way wish to discredit or discourage such efforts. I only desire to say that we dare not build our lives on it, and to point out that this kind of approach does not focus on the principle purpose of the account of the Genesis flood.

A detailed analysis of the event is not the purpose of this lesson, but rather a broad view of the meaning and message of the flood for men of all ages. With this in mind, let us turn our attention to this event.

Preparation
(6:9-7:5)

Broadly speaking this section deals with the necessary preparations for the flood. The reasons for the flood are given in verses 9-12. Revelation concerning the flood is given to Noah in verses 13-21. The order to enter the ark is given in Genesis 7:1-4. Genesis 6:22 and 7:5 records the obedience of Noah to the divine instructions.

Verses 9-12 of chapter 6 and the concluding verses of chapter 8 are the most crucial of this passage because they underscore the reasons for the flood and God’s underlying purpose for history. For this reason we shall devote the majority of our attention to the introductory and concluding verses concerning the flood and to the New Testament passages dealing with this same subject.

While the flood was intended for the destruction of mankind, the ark was designed to save Noah and his family and to ensure the fulfillment of the divine purpose for the creation and the divine promise of salvation of Genesis 3:15. The key to our understanding of the event is to grasp the contrast between Noah and those of his generation.

Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God (Genesis 6:9).

What an epitaph! Noah was a righteous man. Noah’s character is described by two words, righteous and blameless. The word righteous (Hebrew: saddiq)

… is a word commonly used in reference to men. It means that they conform to a standard. Since Noah conformed to the divine standard, he met with God’s approval. However, the term is basically forensic. Therefore, though there be divine approval, that does not imply perfection on Noah’s part. It merely implies that those things that God sought in man were present in Noah.⁹¹

Without any pretense of perfection, Noah was a man who took God at His word. He met God’s expectations for man, while the rest of mankind was wicked.

The second expression used of Noah is ‘blameless’ (verse 9). The Hebrew word is tamim. “Since the Hebrew root involves the idea of ‘complete,’ we are justified in concluding only that there was an all-sided life, well rounded out in all its parts, with no essential quality missing.”⁹²

Stepping back from these two technical expressions, Moses summarized the righteousness of Noah by writing, “Noah walked with God” (Genesis 6:9).

Here is emphasized the fellowship between Noah and God, the intimacy of their union. Here also is reflected the continuity of the relationship. It was a daily walk, it was a dependable one.

Undoubtedly the relationship between Noah and God was based upon the revelation surrounding the creation of man and his fall. More particularly, it would include the promise of redemption in Genesis 3:15. Very possibly it involved other revelation that is not recorded for us by Moses.

The righteousness of Noah was based more upon his faith in God than in a fear of the consequences of disobedience, I believe. To my knowledge, Noah had no idea that divine judgment was to be meted out upon the earth until God disclosed it to him personally (verses 13ff). This revelation of the outpouring of divine wrath was given as a result of the relationship Noah had with God. Had men been aware of the flood that was coming, they may well have obeyed God out of mere fear of punishment. The relationship between Noah and God was not motivated by such fear, but by faith. Faith, not fear, is the biblical motive for a relationship with God (although there is such a thing as godly fear).

Let us be very clear about the righteousness of Noah. It was that righteousness which resulted from faith.

By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith (Hebrews 11:7).

It was not Noah’s works which preserved him from judgment, but grace. “But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord” (Genesis 6:8). Salvation has always been by grace, through faith; not of works, but unto good works (Ephesians 2:8-10).

In contrast to Noah’s righteousness was man’s rottenness: “Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth” (Genesis 6:11,12).

Noah, alone, was righteous in his day. “Then the Lord said to Noah, “Enter the ark, you and all your household; for you alone I have seen to be righteous before Me in this time” (Genesis 7:1).

What this says of his family I do not know, but one can hardly believe that all who were in the ark would not have believed in God, at least after the flood! There was no other righteous person to be brought into the ark, for no one else walked with God. All of those who were said to be righteous in chapter 5 died before the flood occurred.

In and of themselves men were rotten or corrupt. What God determined to destroy was already self-destroyed.⁹³ Man’s relationship to his fellow man could be summed up in the word ‘violence’.

I want you to note that Moses nowhere specifies the sins of this age. Such might incite our curiosity or lusts. More than this, I do not believe that the people of that time were destroyed because they had become a totally decadent society. The sinner who beats his wife, or practices homosexuality, or exists with only a bottle on skid-road is not necessarily the most wicked person in the eyes of God. I suspect that there were many among those who perished who were religious. I imagine that the society of that time was little different in its character than many others, with one notable exception—it seemingly had no restraint. The point is that men who are polite, clean-shaven, kind to older ladies, and so on, but who cheat on their income taxes or make a profit at the expense of someone’s dignity, are just as much sinners as those whose sins are socially acceptable.

The primary expression of man’s sin is in his rebellion and independent spirit toward God. He supposes that while God may exist, He does not care about man’s conduct or beliefs. If God does care, He does little about it. And worst of all is the conclusion that it is none of God’s business anyway.

Notice the condemnation of God of this kind of attitude:

Then He said to me, ‘The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is very, very great, and the land is filled with blood, and the city is full of perversion; for they say, “The Lord has forsaken the land, and the Lord does not see!” But as for Me, My eye will have no pity nor shall I spare, but I shall bring their conduct upon their heads’ (Ezekiel 9:9).

Man’s evil inclinations are fanned into a blazing inferno by the suggestion or belief that while God may exist, He neither cares about sin nor intervenes into human history to deal with it. Such thinking is fatal.

God did not conceal His purposes from Noah. To him He revealed His determination to destroy the wicked civilization of that day and yet to preserve both Noah and the seed through whom the promise of salvation would be realized. To Noah it was revealed that this destruction would come about by a flood, and that salvation for him and his family would be by means of an ark.⁹⁴

While all of the instructions for the ark would not need to be recorded for us, we should notice that the details given are specific, even to the matter of the gathering of food. The ark was an incredible vessel, 450 feet in length, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high (6:15). It would serve to save both man and animals.

The Preservation of Man and Animals
(7:6-8:19)

The ark, now complete, having been constructed over many years according to the divine design, is entered at God’s command (7:1) by both man and animals. Before the flood began, God shut the door. I would imagine that had God not done so, Noah would have opened it to those who later wanted in, but the day of salvation must come to an end.

The source of water seems supernatural. It may well be that it had never rained before (cf. 2:6). Now the rain came in torrents. In addition the ‘fountains of the deep’ (7:11) were opened. Water, both from above and below, came forth for forty days (7:12). The waters prevailed on the earth for a total of 150 days (7:24), and then subsided over a period of months. Five months after the flood commenced the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (8:4; cf. 7:11). It took considerable time for the waters to recede and for the ground to be dry enough to walk on. It was a little more than a year that Noah and his family spent on the ark. At the command of the Lord they gladly (I am certain) disembarked.

The Promise
(8:20-22)

Noah’s first act upon setting foot on the earth was to offer sacrifices to God. It was a further evidence of his faith, and surely an expression of his gratitude for the salvation that God had provided.

In response to the sacrifice of Noah, God made a solemn promise. I want you to understand, however, that this was a commitment made within the Godhead—it is a promise God resolved to Himself. The expression of this determination is given to Noah in chapter 9. This is what God purposed within Himself:

And the Lord smelled the soothing aroma; and the Lord said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done. While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease (Genesis 8:21-22).

God’s resolve is that He will never again curse the ground or destroy every living thing as He has just done. Why would God make such a commitment? Surely He was not sorry for what He had done. Sin had to be judged, did it not?

The problem with the flood was that its effect was only temporary. The problem was not with creation, but with sin. The problem was not with men, but with man. To erase the slate and start over is inadequate, for what is needed is a new man for creation. This is what creation eagerly awaits.

For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God (Romans 8:20-21).

God has therefore determined to deal differently with sin in the future. While sin has suffered a temporary setback at the flood, it will be dealt a fatal blow at the coming of Messiah. It is at this time that men will become new creatures (II Corinthians 5:17). After men are dealt with, a new heaven and a new earth will be provided as well (II Peter 3:13).

God’s promise of ultimate and final salvation is renewed in response to Noah’s expression of faith through a sacrificial offering. Until that day when this salvation is accomplished, God assures man that measures like the flood will not occur again.

The Meaning of the
Flood for Men of All Ages

First of all, the flood is a reminder to us of the matchless grace of God. While unbelievers found judgment, Noah found grace (Genesis 6:8).

To a certain extent, all of the people of that day experienced the grace of God. It was not until 120 years after the revelation of a coming judgment that it actually came upon men. That 120 year period was an age of grace in which the gospel was proclaimed.

The difference between Noah and those who perished was their response to God’s grace. Those who perished interpreted God’s grace as divine indifference. They concluded that God neither cared nor troubled Himself at the occasion of men’s sin.

Noah, on the other hand, recognized grace for what it really is—an opportunity to enter into an intimate relationship with God, and at the same time, to avoid divine displeasure and judgment. Noah’s years were spent in walking with God, building the ark, and proclaiming God’s Word.

The grace of God is clearly evidenced by this promise: “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease” (Genesis 8:22).

Here is the irony of our day. As in the days of Noah, the perishing unbeliever looks at life as it is and asks “How could God be there at all and not do anything to right things—to set things in order?” He concludes that God is either dead, apathetic, or incapable of dealing with the world as it is, disregarding the warning of II Peter 3:8,9:

But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow about His promises, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance (II Peter 3:8,9).

As Noah, the believer recognizes that life as it is a reflection of the sovereign control of a gracious God over all of life:

The continuation of all things as they have been—day and night, summer and winter, springtime and harvest—causes the Christian to bow the knee to God in praise and submission to His providential care. The non-Christian, however, has twisted this promise of God’s providential care into an excuse for sin:

Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation’ (II Peter 3:3-4).

They fail to recognize that men are given this time to repent and to be reconciled to God. But just as the time of grace finally expired in Noah’s day, so it will for men today:

Our Lord taught that the days preceding the flood would be just like those preceding His final appearance to judge the earth:

For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, they were marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be (Matthew 24:37-39).

These days were not described in terms of debauchery or decadence, but of normality—business as usual. Men in the last days will be doing what they always have. There is nothing wrong with eating and drinking, giving in marriage, or buying and selling. What is wrong is doing so without God, and supposing that we may sin as we please without paying its penalty. The age of grace will end. Let us respond rightly to God’s grace.

Second, we are instructed in the matter of the wrath of God. We learn from the flood that while God’s wrath is slow, it is also certain. Judgment must eventually be meted out to those who reject God’s grace.

Be very clear that while wrath and judgment are certain, they do not delight the heart of God. Nowhere in this passage is there one scene of suffering and anguish described in detail. Even Noah’s eyes were kept from beholding the torment suffered by those who died in the flood. The ark had no portholes, nor picture windows to look out on the destruction God wrought. The only opening was that at the top of the ark to allow light to shine in.

God does not delight in judgment, nor does He needlessly dwell upon it, but it is a certainty for those who resist His grace. Do not deceive yourself, my friend, there is a time when the offer of salvation will be withdrawn.

Sometime ago I visited a women who was dying of cancer. I was unable to share the gospel with her on my first visit because she had to be taken to therapy. When I knocked at the door on my second visit, her husband came and opened it far enough for me to see the woman, obviously failing in her sickness. When he asked her if she wanted to talk to me, she shook her head no. I never saw her again before her death.

Many people seem to think that they will wait until one foot is in the grave and the other is on a banana peel to be saved. It usually doesn’t happen that way. God still closes the door of salvation. When we have lived our lives in sin and rebellion against God, we most often will not be given the luxury of making a deathbed decision. It sometimes happens, I grant, but seldom.

Then, too, God’s judgment is often allowing things to take their own course. The account of the flood seems almost like creation reverted to the conditions of the second day of creation (cf. Genesis 1:6-7).

In the book of Colossians we are told that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe (Colossians 1:16-17). Men who reject God live as though God did not exist at all. In the Great Tribulation, God is going to give men seven years to discover what living without God is like. God’s restraining and controlling hand will be withdrawn and chaos will reign. God’s judgment is often giving men both what they want and what they deserve—the natural consequences of their deeds.

Finally, let us consider the subject of the salvation of God. In the case of Noah we must observe that God’s way of salvation was restrictive. God provided only one way of salvation (an ark) and only one door. Men could not be saved any way they wished, but only God’s way. Such is the salvation which God offers men today.

Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me’ (John 14:6).

The salvation of the ark was also instructive. It provides us with a picture of the salvation that was accomplished in Christ. It was for those in Moses’ day a type of Christ. The difference between those who were saved and those who perished in the flood was the difference between being in the ark and being outside it.

Those who were saved and those who died all went through the flood. But those who survived were those in the ark which sheltered them from the effects of God’s divine displeasure on sin. Those outside the ark, as well as those within, knew the ark existed and were informed that God had warned of a judgment to come. Some chose to ignore these facts, while Noah acted upon them.

So it is today. God has said that there must be a penalty for sin—death. Those who are in Christ by faith have suffered the wrath of God in Christ. On the cross of Calvary the wrath of God was poured out upon the sinless Son of God, Jesus Christ. Those who trust in Him have experienced the salvation of God in Christ. Those who refuse to trust in Him and be in Him by an act of the will, must suffer the wrath of God outside of Christ, our ark. Knowing about Christ no more saves a man than knowing about the ark saved men in Noah’s day. It is being in the ark, being in Christ, that saves!

God’s way of salvation was not a glamorous one. I believe that many would have been on board the Queen Mary if Noah had built it, but not on the ark. There was little appeal to the eye on that ark, but it was sufficient for the task of saving men in a flood.

Many refuse to be saved if it cannot be achieved in some glorious way, one that is appealing and acceptable. I would not want to spend a year cooped up with noisy, smelly animals any more than you, but that was God’s way.

Our Lord Jesus, when He came to offer salvation to men, did not come as One Who had great personal magnetism or appeal either. As Isaiah spoke of Him 700 years before His coming,

He has no stately form or majesty that we should look upon Him, nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him (Isaiah 53:2).

Many would come to salvation if it appealed to them in the flesh. God’s salvation is not of this kind.

Sometimes Christians fail at this same point. They think that God’s way is a glorious one all the way. All miracles and magnificence. No suffering, no pain, no agony, no heartache. I must tell you that God’s way is not always as glorious as we might wish, but it alone is the way of deliverance and peace and joy.

And this salvation which God provided was one that was entered into by faith in God’s revealed Word. Noah probably never had seen rain, nor heard the clap of thunder. But God said that there was to be a flood and that he was to build an ark. Noah believed God and acted on his faith.

Noah’s faith was no academic faith—a mere faith in principle, but an active faith—a faith in practice. He spent 120 years building that ark, committing himself to the God he knew. Our faith, too, must be active.

Noah, we are told, was a preacher. I do not believe that he often spoke from behind a pulpit, but from behind a plank and a hammer. It was Noah’s lifestyle that condemned the men of his day and warned of the judgment to come. Noah’s whole life was shaped by his certainty that judgment was coming.

We who are Christians know that our Lord will again return to judge the world. I wonder how much it has affected our daily lives? Can your neighbors and mine tell that we are living in the light of a coming day of judgment and of salvation. I sincerely hope so.

90 Howard F. Vos, Genesis and Archaeology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1963), p. 32. Vos, in the following pages gives an excellent summary of some of the most significant ancient accounts and suggests their relationship to the Genesis account.

91 H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942), I, pp. 264-265.

Leitch further defines the concept of righteousness:

“In its general use, it represents any conformity to a standard whether that standard has to do with the inner character of a person, or the objective standard of accepted law. Thayer suggests the definition, ‘the state of him who is such as he ought to be.’ In the wide sense, it refers to that which is upright or virtuous, displaying integrity, purity of life, and correctness in feeling and action.” A. H. Leitch, “Righteousness,” The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975, 1976), V, p. 104.

92 Leupold, I, p. 265.

93 “The Hebrew for corrupt(ed) (or ‘destroyed’) also makes it plain that what God decided to ‘destroy’ (13) had been virtually self-destroyed already.” Derek Kidner, Genesis (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), p. 87.

94 Interestingly, the word used in this account for the ark (teba), is found only elsewhere in Exodus chapter 2 of the ‘ark’ into which the baby Moses was placed by his mother to preserve the child from the Egyptians.

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_08_32k.mp3

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

Dispensational / Covenantal Theology

9. The Noahic Covenant—A New Beginning (Genesis 8:20-9:17)

Introduction

Ours is not an age that desires to make long-term commitments. The covenant of marriage is often avoided, and vows that are made lack the permanence and commitment of former days. Guarantees are given for a very short period. Contracts are often vaguely worded or are undermined by loopholes and fine print.

Strangely, Christians seem to think that clear, contractual agreements are somehow unspiritual, especially between two believers. ‘A man should be as good as his word,’ we are told. And so he should.

It is interesting to observe that the infinite, all-powerful, changeless God of the universe has chosen to deal with men in the form of covenants. The Noahic Covenant of Genesis chapter 9 is the first biblical covenant of the Bible. While the word ‘covenant’ appears in Genesis 6:18, it refers to the Noahic Covenant of chapter 9.

This Noahic Covenant is important to us for a number of reasons. As I deliver this message, it is raining outside, and rather heavily, too. If the Noahic Covenant were not still in effect, you and I would be greatly concerned. The calm which we experience is a direct result of the covenant God initiated centuries ago with Noah.

The Noahic Covenant, in addition to the fact that it is still in force today, also provides us with a pattern for all of the other biblical covenants. As we come to understand this covenant, we will more fully appreciate the significance of all of the covenants, and especially the New Covenant instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ.

Finally, the Noahic Covenant lays down the foundation for the existence of human government. It addresses in particular the matter of capital punishment. It is here that our consideration of this much debated subject must begin.

The Divine Commitment
(8:20-22)

You will be aware that these last verses of Genesis chapter eight were discussed in my last message. While these three verses are not a part of the Noahic Covenant, they surely are a prelude to it. Therefore, we must begin our study with them.

Technically, Genesis 8:20-22 is not a promise which God gave to Noah. Rather it is a purpose confirmed in the heart of God.

And the Lord smelled the soothing aroma; and the Lord said to Himself, ‘I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living things as I have done’ (Genesis 8:21).

These are not words spoken to Noah, they are purposes reaffirmed in the mind of God. Covenant theologians place much emphasis on two or three theological covenants: the covenant of works, the covenant of grace, and the covenant of redemption.⁹⁵ All of these covenants, while they may well be ‘biblical’ in essence, are implicit, rather than explicit. Covenant theologians usually tend to emphasize these implied theological covenants at the expense of the clearly biblical covenants, such as the Noahic Covenant. On the other hand, dispensational theologians often stress the biblical covenants and disparage the theological covenants.

In Genesis chapters 8 and 9 both elements are to be found. The eternal purpose of God to save men was made long before the days of Noah (cf. Ephesians 1:4; 3:11; II Thessalonians 2:13; II Timothy 1:9, etc.). What we find in Genesis 8:20-22 is not the creation of God’s purpose to save men, but the confirmation of that purpose in history. Just as God reaffirmed His purpose here, such recommitment is often good for men as well (cf. Philippians 3:8-16).

The covenant of God with Himself was occasioned by the sacrifices offered up by Noah (Genesis 8:20). God’s resolve was to never again destroy the earth by a flood (cf. 9:11). I understand the words, “… I will never again curse the ground on account of many… ” (verse 21), to be parallel with the following expression, “… and I will never again destroy every living thing as I have done” (verse 21).⁹⁶

The reason for God’s resolve is based upon the nature of man: “For the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21).

Righteous Noah (6:9) will soon be found naked in a drunken stupor (9:21). No matter how many times the earth’s slate is wiped clean by a flood, the problem will remain if but one man exists. The problem is within man—it is his sinful nature. His predisposition toward sin is not learned, it is innate—he is “evil from his youth.” As a result, a full restoration must begin with a new man. This is what God historically purposed to accomplish.

This purpose is partially expressed in verse 22: “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.”

A New Beginning
(9:1-7)

Ray Stedman titles these verses (and verses 8-17) “Rules of the Game,”⁹⁷ and I think he has truly caught the significance of this section. A new beginning, with a new set of rules, is evident by the similarity of these verses to Genesis chapter one.

Here (Genesis 9:1) and there (Genesis 1:28) God blessed His creatures and told them to be fruitful and multiply. Here (Genesis 9:3) and there (Genesis 1:29-30) God prescribed the food man could eat.

There are differences, however, which indicate that the new beginning is to be different from the old. God pronounced the original creation ‘good’ (cf. 1:21, 31). The world of Noah’s day received no such commendation, for the men who possessed it were sinful (8:21).

Adam was charged to subdue the earth and to rule over the animal kingdom (1:28). Noah was given no such command. Instead, God placed in the animals a fear of man by which man could achieve a measure of control over them. (The reason my dog obeys me—when he does—is because he fears me.)

While Adam and his contemporaries seem to have been vegetarians (Genesis 1:29-30; cf. 9:3), Noah and his descendants could eat flesh (9:3-4). There was, however, one stipulation. They could not eat the blood of the animal, for the life of the animal was in its blood. This was to teach man not only that God values life, but that He owns it. God allows man to take the life of animals in order to survive, but they must not eat the blood.

One may puzzle that flesh could be eaten after the flood, but not before (or so it seems). It may be that conditions on the earth so changed that protein was now necessary for life. More likely, man must be brought to the realization that, because of his sin, he could only live by the death of another. Man lives by the death of animals.

Most important of all, man is taught to reverence life. Men before the fall were obviously men of violence (cf. Genesis 6:11) who, like Cain (Genesis 4:8), and Lamech (Genesis 4:23-24), had no regard for human life. This is more emphatically stated in verses 5 and 6 of chapter 9:

And surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.

The life of man was precious and belonged to God. It was God’s to give and His alone to take. Animals which shed man’s blood must be put to death (verse 5, cf. Exodus 21:28,29). Men who willfully take the life of another must be put to death ‘by man’ (verse 6; cf. Numbers 35:33).⁹⁸

In addition to murder, suicide is prohibited by God’s command in these verses. Life belongs to God—not only the life of animals and of others, but our own as well. We must realize that suicide is taking our life into our own hands when God says it belongs to Him. In the words of Job, “The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away” (Job 1:21).

This passage seems to shed light on the controversial subject of abortion also. Man is not to shed the blood of man. The life of man is in the blood (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:11). Aside from many other considerations, must we not conclude that at the time a fetus has blood, it has life? Must we not also acknowledge that to shed this blood, to destroy this fetus, is to violate God’s command and to be subject to the death penalty?⁹⁹

Man is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27; 9:6). In view of this fact, murder is much more than an act of hostility against man—it is an affront to God. To attack man is to attack God in Whose image he was created.

We have said that murder is sin because life belongs to God. We have also shown that murder must be severely dealt with because the victim is a person created in the divine image. One further reason for capital punishment remains in this passage: man must shed the blood of the murderer because he is also a part of the divine image. “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man” (verse 6).

God did not take the life of Cain when he killed his brother, Abel. I believe God allowed Cain to live so that we could see the consequences of allowing the murderer to go free. Lamech could kill a young lad for what may have been a mere insult and boast of it (Genesis 4:23-24). The men who died in the flood were men of violence (6:11). God did punish sin, but He delayed the execution until the days of the flood so that we could learn the high price of allowing the murderer to go free.

Now that all mankind had perished because of his sin, God could require society to take the life of the murderer. In this act of capital punishment, man would act on behalf of God—he would reflect the moral image of God, namely, His indignation and sentence upon the murderer.

Man (and by this I understand Moses to be referring to society and its governmental agency) is required to execute the murderer to reflect the moral purity of His Creator. Government acts in God’s behalf in punishing the evildoer and rewarding those who do good:

Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behaviors but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of Gods an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil (Romans 13:1-4).

The ‘sword’ which Paul mentions in verse 4 is the sword used by the executioner to carry out capital punishment. Our Lord Himself gave testimony to the fact that government had been given the task of executing law-breakers:

Pilate therefore said to Him ‘You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?’ Jesus answered, ‘You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason, he who delivered Me up to you has the greater sin’ (John 19:10-11).

The command concerning capital punishment is, I believe, the cornerstone of any society of sinful men. The animal kingdom is to be controlled, to a great extent, by means of their fear of man (9:2). Man’s sinful tendencies, also, are kept in check by his fear of the consequences. Any society which loses its reverence for life cannot endure long. For this reason, God instituted capital punishment as a gracious restraint upon man’s sinful tendency toward violence. Because of this, mankind can live in relative peace and security until God’s Messiah has dealt the death blow to sin.

And so a new age has dawned. Not an age of naive optimism, but one to be lived by clear commands. And, as we shall see in the following verses, one that has a hope for the future.

The Noahic Covenant
(9:8-17)

God’s covenant with Noah and his descendants displays many of the characteristics of subsequent covenants which God had made with man. For this reason, we shall highlight some of the covenant’s more obvious features.

(1) The Noahic Covenant was initiated and dictated by God. The sovereignty of God is clearly seen in this covenant. While some ancient covenants were the result of negotiation, this one was not. God initiated the covenant as an outward expression of His purpose revealed in Genesis 3:20-22. God dictated the terms of the covenant to Noah, and there was no discussion.

A friend of mine owned a car that was ‘on its last leg.’ With my encouragement, he went to a car lot to find something more dependable. He found a car which showed promise but decided to give the matter more deliberation. When he got into his old car to leave, it wouldn’t start. As you can imagine, my friend was in no position to bargain. He took the other car without any negotiation concerning the price. That was precisely the situation of Noah. And I might add, would we dare to question God’s terms today? I think not!

(2) The Noahic Covenant was made with Noah and all successive generations: “And God said, ‘This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creation that is with you, for all successive generations;’” ( Genesis 9:12).

This covenant will remain in force until the time when our Lord returns to the earth to cleanse it by fire (II Peter 3:10).

(3) This is a universal covenant. While some covenants involve a small number, this particular covenant includes “all flesh.” That is, all living creatures, including man and animals:

Now behold, I Myself do establish My covenant with you, and with your descendants after you; and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you; of all that comes out of the ark, even every beast of the earth (Genesis 9:9,10).

(4) The Noahic Covenant is an unconditional covenant. Some covenants were contingent upon both parties carrying out certain stipulations. Such was the case of the Mosaic covenant. If Israel kept the law of God, they would experience the blessings and prosperity of God. If not, they would be expelled from the land (Deuteronomy 28). The blessings of the Noahic covenant were not conditional. God would give regularity of seasons and would not destroy the earth by a flood simply because He said so. While certain commands were given to mankind in verses 1-7, these are not viewed as conditions to the covenant. They are technically not included as a part of the covenant.

(5) This covenant was God’s promise never again to destroy the earth by a flood: “and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh” (Genesis 9:15).

God will destroy the earth by fire (II Peter 3:10), but only after salvation has been purchased by the Messiah and the elect are removed, even as Noah was protected from the wrath of God.

(6) The sign of the Noahic Covenant is the rainbow:

I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. And it shall come about, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shalt be seen in the cloud and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh (Genesis 9:13-15).

Every covenant has its accompanying sign. The sign of the Abrahamic Covenant is circumcision (Genesis 17:15-27); that of the Mosaic Covenant is the observance of the Sabbath day (Exodus 20:8-11; 31:12-17).

The “sign” of the rainbow is appropriate. It consists of the reflection of the rays of the sun in the particles of moisture in the clouds. The water which destroyed the earth causes the rainbow. Also, the rainbow appears at the end of a storm. So this sign assures man that the storm of God’s wrath (in a flood) is over.

Most interesting is the fact that the rainbow is not designed so much for man’s benefit (in this text, at least) but for God’s. God said that the rainbow would cause Him to remember His covenant with man. What a comfort to know that God’s faithfulness is our guarantee.

Conclusions and Application

For the Israelites who first received this revelation from God, the Noahic Covenant gave reasons for a number of the rules laid down in the Mosiac Law. The laws pertaining to capital punishment, for example, found their origin and explanation in Genesis chapter 9. The meticulous matters concerning blood take on added meaning in the light of this chapter.

The prophets of old referred to the Noahic Covenant as well. Isaiah reminded the nation, Israel, of God’s faithfulness in keeping the Noahic Covenant:

“‘For this is like the days of Noah to Me; when I swore that the waters of Noah should not flood the earth again, so I have sworn that I will not be angry with you, nor will I rebuke you. For the mountains may be removed and the hills may shake, but My lovingkindness will not be removed from you, and My covenant of peace will not be shaken,’ says the Lord who has compassion on you” (Isaiah 54:9-10).

At the time of Isaiah’s writing there seemed to be little grounds for hope as a nation. Isaiah reminded the nation that their hope was as sure as the Word of God. God’s promise of coming redemption should be viewed in the light of His faithfulness in keeping His covenant with Noah and his descendants.

The language of Genesis chapter nine was employed by Hosea to assure God’s people of their restoration:

“In that day I will also make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, the birds of the sky, and the creeping things of the ground. And I will abolish the bow, the sword, and war from the land, and will make them lie down in safety” (Hosea 2:18).

Jeremiah also spoke of God’s future blessings by reminding men of God’s faithfulness in keeping the Noahic Covenant:

“Thus says the Lord, Who gives the sun for light by day, and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; the Lord of hosts is His name: ‘If this fixed order departs from before Me,’ declares the Lord, ‘then the offspring of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before Me forever.’ Thus says the Lord, ‘If the heavens above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out below, then I will also cast off all the offspring of Israel for all that they have done,’ declares the Lord” (Jeremiah 31:35-37; cf. also 33:20-26; Psalm 89:30-37).

The Israelites could look forward to the salvation which God would bring to pass. We can look backward to that which God has accomplished by His Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ. While Israel awaits the complete fulfillment of God’s covenant in the Millennium, they may do so with confidence in the God Who keeps His commitments. We, too, as Christians can be fully assured of God’s faithfulness.

The Noahic Covenant in many ways foreshadowed the New Covenant. Consequently, the New Covenant fulfilled much that the Noahic Covenant anticipated. The shedding of blood took on new meaning in the Noahic Covenant. The shedding of Christ’s blood at Calvary suddenly brought the ninth chapter of Genesis into full focus.

Since all of the biblical covenants culminate in the New Covenant which greatly overshadows them, let us take a few moments to compare the features of the New Covenant with the Noahic Covenant.

The New Covenant is promised in Jeremiah 31:30-34:

But every one will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge. ‘Behold, days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,’ declares the Lord. ‘But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,’ declares the Lord, ‘I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,’ declares the Lord, ‘for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more’ (Jeremiah 31:30-34).

Our Lord instituted this covenant by His death on the cross of Calvary. The sign of the covenant is the Lord’s table:

And while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body.’ And He took a cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is to be shed on behalf of many for forgiveness of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom’ (Matthew 26:26-29).

The writer to the Hebrews stressed that the New Covenant superseded the Old (Mosaic) Covenant and is vastly superior to it.

The New Covenant, like the Noahic, was initiated by God, and it was accomplished by Him. While all flesh have benefited from the common grace of God promised in the Noahic Covenant, only those who are ‘in Christ’ benefit from the blessings of the New Covenant. It is the New Covenant ‘in His blood,’ that is experienced by those who have trusted in the shed blood of Christ, the Lamb of God, for the forgiveness of sins and the gift of eternal life. Our Lord said to his followers:

Jesus therefore said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life; and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink’ (John 6:53-55).

By this He meant that one must not only acknowledge Christ’s deity and the death that He died for sinners, but must also make this a vital part of his life by trusting only in Christ for salvation.

The only condition for entering into the blessings of the New Covenant is the expression of personal faith in Christ by receiving Him:

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name (John 1:12).

And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life (I John 5:11-12).

Like the Noahic Covenant, those who are under the New Covenant have no need to fear the future outbreak of divine wrath. While the Noahic Covenant guaranteed all flesh that God would never again destroy all life by a flood, the New Covenant assures man that he will not face the outpouring of divine wrath through other means, such as fire (II Peter 3:10).

… and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel (Hebrews 12:24).

What a wonderful comfort covenants are. They permit man to know exactly where he stands with God. Do not try to negotiate your own contract with God, my friend. You may face God’s eternal wrath by reliance upon yourself, or you may experience divine forgiveness and eternal life through faith in Christ. The terms which God has laid down for peace are very clear. Have you surrendered to Him? May God enable you to do so.

95 “The theology of the Reformed churches, in the place which it gives to the covenants, has its prototype in patristic theology as systematized by Augustine of Hippo. It represents the whole of Scripture as being covered by two covenants: (1) the covenant of works, and (2) the covenant of grace. The parties to the former covenant were God and Adam. The promise of the covenant was Life. The proviso was perfect obedience by Adam. And the penalty of failure was death. To save man from the penalty of his disobedience, a second covenant, made from all eternity, came into operation, namely, the covenant of grace. Throughout the OT period there were successive proclamations of this covenant.” “Covenant Theology,” Baker’s Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960), p. 144.

96 One would initially expect the reference to the cursing of the ground to refer to Genesis 3:17 and 5:29. Both theologically (cf. Romans 8:19-23) and practically we know the curse of 3:17 has not been removed. Any gardener knows this from experience.

The word for ‘curse’ in Genesis is Qalal, while in 3:17 and 5:29 the word is Arur. Interestingly, both words are employed in Genesis 12:3. The curse of the ground in Genesis 8:21 is the flood which destroyed every living thing, not the curse of Genesis 3:17.

97 Ray Stedman, The Beginnings (Waco: Word Books, 1978), pp. 116-130.

98 Other Scripture makes it clear that only deliberate and premeditated murder is in mind. God made provision for those who accidentally killed another in the cities of refuge (cf. Deuteronomy l9:1ff).

99 The death of a fetus, as in other instances, may have mitigating circumstances and thus not all abortions could be called murder, just as all deaths cannot be so defined. In general, however, the deliberate destruction of the life of a fetus is murder, I believe.

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_09_32k.mp3

Biblical Topics:

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

10. The Nakedness of Noah and the Cursing of Canaan (Genesis 9:18-10:32)

Introduction

The command of God to destroy the Canaanites has troubled Christians and non-believers alike:

Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you, in order that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you could sin against the Lord your God (Deuteronomy 20:16-18).

While the killing of the Canaanites will probably always cause us to be uneasy on the subject, Genesis chapter 9 gives us a great deal of insight into the problem.

You should understand that this command was far more difficult for the Israelites of old than for us today. Had God not hardened the hearts of the Canaanites so that they refused to seek a treaty with Israel (cf. Joshua 11:20), Israel very likely would not have aggressively sought to obey the Lord’s command to kill them.

We may fail to appreciate the situation which Israel faced as they prepared to possess the land from the Canaanites; they had little or no contact with these pagan peoples. The Israelites would have found it very difficult to grasp the reasons for being utterly merciless with their enemies, the Canaanites. Genesis chapter 9 puts this matter into perspective. It explains the origin of the nations with whom Israel must relate in some fashion throughout its history. In particular, this account explains the moral depravity of the Canaanites which necessitates their extermination.

Genesis 9 is crucial for another reason, also. It is a passage which has long been employed to justify slavery and, in particular, the sinful subjugation of the Black peoples throughout the centuries. The curse of Ham, we are told, is simply being fulfilled as the Blacks live out their lives in servitude to the other races, particularly the Whites. As we shall see, this interpretation cannot be maintained by any careful consideration of our text.

The Cursing of Canaan
(9:18-29)

The verses we are considering should be understood in the context of the section in which they are found. Genesis 9:18 begins a new division which continues to chapter 11, verse 10. Moses wrote of the repopulation of the earth through the sons of Noah. Genesis 9:20-27 explains the three-fold division of the race for its spiritual dimensions. While the Canaanites are under God’s curse, Shem will be the line through whom the Messiah will come and Japheth will find blessing in union with the line (and the seed, ultimately the Messiah) of Shem.

Chronologically, chapter 10 should follow the confusion at Babel (11:1-9). Those verses in chapter 11 explain the reason for the dispersion of the nations. Chapter 10 describes the results of that dispersion. But chapter 10 is given first to allow the emphasis to fall upon the narrowing of the godly line down to Abram.

After the flood, Noah began to farm the land by planting a vineyard. The result of his toil was the fruit of the vine, wine. While the first mention of wine is not without its negative connotations, we should not conclude that, due to its abuse here, the Bible consistently or without exception condemns its use (cf. Deuteronomy 14:24-26; I Timothy 5:23).

Many have been troubled at the deplorable condition of Noah, the man who before the fall was described as a “righteous man, blameless in his time” (6:9). Some have suggested that fermentation may not have occurred until after the flood, and that Noah was simply suffering the innocent results of his inventive efforts.

While we should not seek to excuse Noah, we must recognize that Moses did not emphasize the guilt of Noah, but rather the sin of Ham. Some have suggested various types of evil took place within Noah’s tent. While the language employed might leave room for certain sexual sins (cf. Leviticus18). I do not personally find any reason for assuming any misconduct on the part of Noah beyond the indiscretion of drunkenness and its result in nakedness. Perhaps the best description of Noah’s conduct and condition is that of the word “unbecoming.”

I am impressed with the way in which Moses reported this incident, with a minimum of details and description. To have written any more would have been to perpetuate the sin of Ham. Hollywood would have taken us inside the tent in wide-screen technicolor. Moses leaves us outside with Shem and Japheth.

It would seem that Ham and his two brothers were alerted to Noah’s condition so that all three of them were standing outside the tent: “And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside” (Genesis 9:22).

While Shem and Japheth refused to go inside, Ham had no reservations about entering the tent. Whatever the failing of Noah, he was inside his own tent, in privacy (9:21). That is the way Shem and Japheth wanted it. Ham entered in, violating the principle of privacy, yet not to assist his father but to be amused at his expense.

Ham did nothing to preserve the dignity of his father. He did not see to it that Noah was properly covered. Instead he went outside to his two brothers and graphically described the folly which had overtaken their father. It seems to me that Ham also may have encouraged Shem and Japheth to go into the tent to see this for themselves.¹⁰⁰

The lengths to which Shem and Japheth went in order not to see their father seem almost extreme in our sexually permissive society. But then, our televisions have desensitized us to nakedness or rudeness. There is nothing which is not advertised, even products which once were considered very private.

Taking “the” garment, the one which Noah should have been wearing, upon their shoulders, they went backward into the tent. Without looking upon their father, they covered him and left the tent.

In the morning, when Noah awoke from his drunkenness, he knew what had happened. We do not know how he learned of this. Perhaps he was alert enough to remember the events of the previous night. One thing I am certain about—Shem and Japheth did not tell Noah, or anyone else. I suspect that the story was well known around the camp the next morning, and probably due to Ham. If Ham did not hesitate to tell his brothers, why hesitate to tell all?

Regardless of Noah’s source of information, his response was one with broad implications. Canaan, the youngest son of Ham, was cursed. He was to be the lowest servant¹⁰¹ to his brothers. While some understand the “brothers” of verse 25 to refer to his fellow man, I believe it refers specifically to Canaan’s earthly brothers, the other sons of Ham. In this way, Canaan’s curse is intensified in these three verses. In verse 25, Canaan will be subservient to his brothers; in verses 26 and 27, to his father’s brothers, Shem and Japheth.

Viewed in this way, it is impossible to see any application of this passage to the subjugation of the Black people of the earth. Ham was not cursed in this passage, but Canaan. Canaan was not the father of the Black peoples, but of the Canaanites who lived in Palestine and who threatened the Israelites.

In verse 26, it is not Shem who is blessed, but his God: “He also said, ‘Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant” (Genesis 9:26).

By this, the godly line is to be preserved through Shem. From his seed the Messiah was said to come. The blessing comes not from Shem, but through Shem. The blessing flows out of the relationship which he has with Yahweh, the covenant God of Israel. And the servitude of Canaan is one of the evidences of this blessing.

The Lord will cause your enemies who rise up against you to be defeated before you; they shall come out against you one way and shall flee before you seven ways. The Lord will command the blessing upon you in your barns and in all that you put your hand to, and He will bless you in the land which the Lord your God gives you. The Lord will establish you as a holy people to Himself as He swore to you, if you will keep the commandments of the Lord your God, and walk in His ways (Deuteronomy 28:7-9).

Just as Shem’s blessing consists in his relationship to Yahweh, Japheth will be blessed in his relationship to Shem.

May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant (Genesis 9:27).

The name “Japheth” is thought to mean ‘to enlarge’ or ‘to make wide.’¹⁰² By a word play, Noah blessed Japheth by using his own name.¹⁰³ The blessing of Japheth is to be found in relationship to Shem and not independently. This promise is stated more specifically in chapter 12, verse 3: “And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

God promised to bless Abram, and the other nations in him. All who blessed Abram would experience God’s blessing, while all who cursed him would be cursed. Again, Canaan will be subjected at those times when Japheth is found in union with Shem.

There is a clear correspondence between the activities of Ham, Shem, and Japheth and the curses and blessings which follow them. Shem and Japheth honored God when they acted together to preserve the honor of their father. Ham dishonored both his father and his God by relishing the humiliation of Noah. So Ham was cursed and Shem and Japheth were blessed in cooperative unity.

The problem which must arise from the cursing of Canaan is this: Why did God curse Canaan for the sin of Ham? Beyond this, why did God curse the Canaanites, a nation, for the sin of one man?

The explanation which best seems to answer these questions is that the words of Noah convey not only a cursing, and a blessing, but a prophecy. While it is true that the sins of the fathers are visited on the sons, this is only “to the third and fourth generations” (Exodus 20:5). If this principle were to be applied, all the sons of Ham should have been cursed.

By prophetic revelation, Noah foresaw that the moral flaws evidenced by Ham would be most fully manifested in Canaan and in his offspring. Knowing this, the curse of God falls upon the Canaanites because of the sinfulness Noah foresaw.¹⁰⁴ The emphasis thus falls upon the fact that the Canaanites would be cursed because of their sin, not due to Ham’s. I think this explains why Canaan is cursed and not Ham, or the rest of his sons.

The words of Noah, then, contain a prophecy. Canaan will most reflect the moral flaws of his father, Ham. And the Canaanites will manifest these same tendencies in their society. Because of the sinfulness of the Canaanites foreseen by Noah, the curse of God is expressed. The character of these three individuals and their destiny will be corporately reflected in the nations which emerge from them.

The Table of the Nations
(10:1-32)

Much work has been done on this chapter, but we shall restrict our efforts to the highlights. As we have previously mentioned, the confusion of Babel chronologically precedes this chapter.

The order in which Moses dealt with the three sons of Noah reflects the purpose and the emphasis of Moses. Japheth is dealt with first because he is least important to the theme being developed. Ham is next discussed because of the important part the Canaanites played in the history of Israel. Shem is mentioned last because he is the principle person of the chapter. He is the one through whom the “seed of the woman” will come. The godly line will be preserved through Shem.

The table of the nations evidences a selectivity which is also subservient to the purpose of the account. Only those nations are described who will play a key role in the national development of Israel in the land of Canaan.

In general, the identity of the descendants of the three sons of Noah is known. From Japheth come the Indo-Europeans, the best known of which would be the Greeks. Even secular Hellenistic history looks to Iapetos as their forefather.¹⁰⁵ Leupold tells us:

… the Japhethites are seen to be spread abroad over a well-defined area extending from Spain to Media and pretty much in one straight line from east to west.¹⁰⁶

Most of us would be of the line of Japheth.

Ham was the forefather of those who made up great cities and empires, including Babylon, Assyria, Ninevah, and Egypt. Put was probably the father of the Black peoples. From Canaan come those nations which made up those known generally as the Canaanites:

And Canaan became the father of Sidon, his first-born, and Heth and the Jebusite and the Amorite and the Girgashite and the Hivite and the Arkite and the Sinite and the Arvadite and the Zemarite and the Hamathite; and afterward the families of the Canaanite were spread abroad (Genesis 10:15-18; cf. Deuteronomy 20:17).

Their territory was that in close proximity to Israel:

And the territory of the Canaanite extended from Sidon as you go toward Gerar, as far as Gaza; as you go toward Sodom and Gomorrah and Admah and Zeboiim, as far as Lasha (Genesis 10:19).

Shem is the forefather of the Shemites. We must be careful not to confuse the designation with those peoples who speak Semitic languages. The Semitic languages include peoples of both Shem and Ham.¹⁰⁷ Ross states the descendants of Shem as “… families stretching from Asia Minor to the northern mountains of the Tigris region, to Sumerian U, to the Persian Gulf, and ultimately to North India.”¹⁰⁸

The most prominent of Shem’s descendants is Eber, the father of Peleg (10:25), the forefather of Abram (cf. 11:14-26).

The purpose of chapter 10 is best summarized by Cassuto. It was:

(a) to show that Divine Providence is reflected in the distribution of the nations over the face of the earth not less than in other acts of the world’s creation and administration; (b) to determine relationship between the people of Israel and the other peoples; (c) to teach the unity of post-diluvian humanity, which, like antediluvian mankind, was wholly descended from one pair of human beings.¹⁰⁹

Conclusion

Genesis chapters 9 and 10 were vital to the nation Israel as it anticipated the occupation of the promised land of Canaan. The cursing of Canaan explained the source of the moral depravity of the Canaanites of their day. More than any other people, their sexual depravity is evidenced by archaeological findings. Albright has written,

Comparison of the cult objects and mythological texts of the Canaanites with those of the Egyptians and Mesopotamians forces one conclusion, that Canaanite religion was much more completely centered on sex and its manifestations. In no country has so relatively great a number of figurines of the naked goddess of fertility, some distinctly obscene, been found. Nowhere does the cult of serpents appear so strongly. The two goddesses Astarte (Ashtaroth) and Anath are called ‘the great goddesses which conceive but do not bear.’¹¹⁰

In addition to explaining the reason for the extermination of the Canaanites, Genesis chapter 10 helps to identify the Canaanites:

Now the Canaanites are treated, because Moses knew that Israel’s associations with these people were destined to be many (cf. 15:16), and Israel must also definitely know who were Canaanites and who not, because of Israel’s duty to drive them out of the land of Canaan (Deut. 20:17 and parallels).¹¹¹

Sadly, we must realize that Israel failed to fully apply the teaching of this passage. They did not completely destroy the Canaanites and they sometimes intermarried, to their own detriment.

There is a great lesson in this portion of Scripture for us:

Now these things happened as examples for us, that we should not crave evil things, as they also craved. And do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written, ‘THE PEOPLE SAT DOWN TO EAT AND DRINK, AND STOOD UP TO PLAY.’ Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day. Nor let us try the Lord as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents. Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer. Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall (I Corinthians 10:6-12).

I have agonized over this passage because somehow it did not seem to intersect my life with great force. Suddenly it occurred to me that this is precisely the point of the story of the nakedness of Noah for men today.

We have found it very difficult to be greatly impressed by the fact that Noah lay drunk and naked in his tent. After all, some would tell us, did his sin hurt anyone? Was his nakedness not in the privacy of his tent? We are more struck by the ‘extreme’ measures taken by Shem and Japheth than we are of Noah’s nakedness, are we not?

Because of this, scholars have tried to find a more shocking sin that was committed inside that tent. Some have suggested that Ham witnessed the sexual intimacy of his mother and father. Others have taught that Ham committed a homosexual act with his semi-conscious father. But none of this is demanded by the text.

Our great problem today is that we have almost no sense of identification with the attitudes or actions of Noah’s two godly sons, Shem and Japheth. We feel no shame and no shock at the report of Noah inside his tent. And the reason is the real shock of the passage: We are a part of a society that senses no shame and no shock at moral and sexual indecency. Virtually every kind of sexual intimacy is portrayed upon the movie and television screen.

Even abnormal and perverted conduct has become routine to us. Without any sense of indecency the most intimate and private items are advertised before us and our children.

Do you see the point? We are not troubled by Noah’s nakedness because we are so much farther down the path of decadence that we hardly flinch at what happened in this passage. Now, my friend, if the condemnation of God fell upon Ham’s actions and upon those who walked in his ways, what does that say to you and to me? God forgive us for being beyond the point of shockability and shame. God save us from the sins of the Canaanites. God teach us to value moral purity and to be ruthless with sin. May we refuse to let it live among us, just as Israel was taught in this text.

There is another level of application. Most of us tend to think of godliness in terms of the sins we commit or shun. This account informs us that one test of Christian character is our response to the sins of others. Ham was seemingly amused by Noah’s sin, rather than appalled by it. Isn’t that what happens in our living rooms on our television sets? We do not find horror in sin, but humor.

How are we to respond to sinners today? Are we to kill them like Israel did the Canaanites? The New Testament gives us some clear instruction on this matter:

And do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret (Ephesians 5:11-12).

Brethren, even if a man is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, looking to yourselves, lest you too be tempted (Galatians 6:1).

Above all, keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins (I Peter 4:8).

… save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh (Jude 23).

Unlike Ham, we are to practice the principle of privacy which Paul reiterated in Ephesians 5:12. Some sins should not be scrutinized. We should not explore them, and neither should we share what we know with others. This principle, I believe, was followed by Moses as he briefly and without detail or descriptive embellishments, recorded the sin of Noah and its consequences. Much is made of the consequences, while little is said of the circumstances. Let us learn from this.

Notice that in this passage in Ephesians we are taught to expose the unfruitful deeds of darkness (4:11). This is not to be done by exploiting sin or by dwelling on darkness, but by living as lights, shining in a darkened world.

… until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be hidden, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; ( Ephesians 4:13-14).

Sin is exposed by righteousness, not by reporting the deeds of wickedness.

In Galatians 6:1 we are taught to restore the one who has fallen into sin. Here Paul emphasized the attitude of the mature who would undertake this obligation. The person must be handled with a gentle spirit, one which is all too well aware of his own weaknesses in this same area.

Peter taught us that sin is best dealt with when it is known to the fewest number of people. Love does not cover sins in the way that we saw at Watergate. That was a cover up. It sought to keep illegal actions from public scrutiny. The covering of which Peter wrote is that which endeavors to keep the sin at its smallest scale, so that those guilty may find forgiveness and reconciliation, while others will not be tempted or hindered by a knowledge of that sin.

Finally, Jude reminds us of the hatred we must have for the sin and the desire of holiness to remain pure to the glory of God. We are not to hate the sinner, but the sin. We are not to stand aloof from the one who has fallen, but to snatch him away as from fire.

In conclusion, I find in these three men, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, a picture of men throughout the history of God’s dealings with men. In Genesis chapter 12 we find the line through whom the Savior will come being narrowed to the offspring of Abraham. Men will be blessed or cursed by their response to him (Genesis 12:1-3).

At Calvary we find the epitome of man’s sin evidenced. Shem was present in the Jewish religious leaders who wanted the Messiah dead and out of the way. Japheth was present in the Romans who participated jointly with the Jews to crucify the Lord of glory. And Ham was also present in Simon of Cyrene, who bore the cross of Jesus in servitude (cf. Luke 23:26).

We have a choice to make, for we may either experience the blessings of Japheth or the curse of Canaan. The righteous seed has finally culminated in the coming of Messiah, of the seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15), of the seed of Shem (Genesis 9:26) and of Abram (12:2-3). In Christ, by submission to Him and faith in Him as God’s provision of forgiveness and righteousness for sinners, we may experience the blessing of Japheth. By despising Christ and rejecting Him—by persisting in our sins, we come under the curse of Canaan for all eternity.

May God enable you to find salvation and blessing in Christ Jesus.

100 Some have accused Ham of committing a homosexual act with Noah, while he was in his drunken stupor. Our text says that Ham “saw the nakedness of his father” (verse 22). While the expression ‘to uncover the nakedness of another’ can be a euphemism for sexual relations (cf. Leviticus 18:6ff), this is not the language employed in our text. Furthermore, there is a contrast in our passage between Ham, who saw the nakedness of Noah, and Shem and Japheth, who did not (Genesis 9:23). The description of how they turned their faces so as not to see Noah in his condition strongly implies that seeing or not seeing was the essence of the situation. The suggestion that Ham saw Noah and his mother in the midst of sexual relations has the same weaknesses.

101 The expression “servant of servants” (verse 25) is similar to that of ‘Lord of Lords’ or ‘king of kings.’ It is an emphatic way to express an extreme either of sovereignty, or of servitude.

102 “Both the ancients and the moderns have explained this word in the sense of ‘make wide’ on the basis of Aramaic usage, . . . and this appears to be the correct interpretation.” U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1964), II, pp. 168-169.

103 Shem means ‘name’ and is likely a word play also.

104 This is the conclusion of Leupold, who writes, “But how about the Justice of this development of history? From our point of view most of the difficulties are already cleared away. We render ‘Cursed is Canaan’ not ‘be’ (A.V.); and ‘servant of servants shall he be,’ not in an optative sense may he be. The evil trait, displayed by Ham in this story, had, no doubt, been discerned by Noah as marking Canaan, the son, more distinctly. Cannan’s whole race will display it more than any of the races of the earth. To foretell that involves no injustice. The son is not punished for the iniquity of the father. His own unfortunate moral depravity, which he himself develops and retains, is foretold.” H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942), I, p. 350.

105 “The primal ancestor of these peoples was Hellen, who was descended from Prometheus, whose father was the titan, Iapetos (Japheth).” Allen Ross, The Table of the Nations (unpublished doctoral dissertation: Dallas Theological Seminary), 1976, p. 365, as quoting Neiman, “The Date and Circumstances of the Cursing of Canaan,” p. 126.

106 Leupold, Genesis, I, p. 362.

107 For a more detailed analysis, cf. Ross, pp. 371 ff.

108 Ross, p. 375.

109 Cassuto, II, p. 175.

110 William F. Albright, “Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands,” Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, 20th ed., p. 29, as quoted by Louis B. Hamada, Prophetic Implications of Noah’s Curse on Canaan (unpublished thesis: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1978), p. 24.

111 Leupold, Genesis, I, p. 372.

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_10_32k.mp3

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

11. The Unity of Unbelief (Genesis 11:1-9)

Introduction

Posing for the camera of Playboy magazine cost a 26 year-old stewardess her job recently. The tragedy, as reported in the Dallas Morning News,¹¹² was not her release, but in her reasons for her decision. She had learned that lung surgery was needed and the outcome might not be good. She decided to pose so that the world would remember her.

I admire this young woman’s honesty, but I am grieved by her decision. While most people are not so candid about their motives, the world is filled with people who desperately wish to be remembered. All of us are inclined to build monuments to ourselves in one way or another.

Men must face what has come to be referred to as the ‘mid-life syndrome.’ We reach those middle years when we begin to realize that most of what we intended to do has not yet been accomplished. And we can no longer deny the fact that the better part of life has been lived. Often at this crisis point men feverishly begin to build monuments by which they will be remembered.

This is why the account of Babel, found in Genesis chapter 11, is so important for us. It exposes the underlying cause for building monuments. Better yet, it gives us the cure and teaches us how to face the future with peace of heart.

The temptation is great to refer to this incident on the plain of Shiner as ‘the tower of Babel.’ While all that we have learned about this event may incline us to focus on the tower, it was not the primary evil, but only a symptom. Cassuto, in his commentary on Genesis, refused to title the section in the traditional way because he recognized the real villain.¹¹³ Once we appreciate the wisdom of Cassuto, we will arrive at the heart of the story, and its application to us today.

Conditions Prior to
the Confusion of Tongues
(11:1)

Verse one highlights a particular condition of mankind which is not in and of itself evil: “… and the whole earth used the same language and the same words” (Genesis 11:1). We would assume, since mankind came from a common ancestor, namely Noah, that all men spoke a common language.¹¹⁴ Moses began the account of the confusion of languages by drawing our attention to this fact.

Now there is nothing wrong with a common language. It is not evil, nor is it the cause of evil. Communication was greatly enhanced by it. It facilitated community life and was the foundation for unity. Potentially, a common language could have drawn men and women together in the worship and work of God. Practically, it was perverted to promote disobedience and unbelief. God’s gift of language, like other gifts of His grace, was misused. Sinful man cannot do anything but misappropriate God’s gifts of grace.

Our attention is thus drawn to the fact of a common knowledge, not because we would be unaware of it, but because it was the occasion for the evil that followed. Also, it was the condition which God changed in order to prevent this evil which men conspired to achieve.

The Intentions of Man
(11:2-4)

Man had migrated to the fertile plain in the land of Shinar and there settled down. “And it come about as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shiner and settled there” (Genesis 11:2).

It would seem that the offspring of Noah had decided to trade in their tents for a townhouse.¹¹⁵ Yet in the prophecy of Noah we read, “May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant” (Genesis 9:27).

Leupold observes that the word “journeyed” in Genesis 11:2 literally meant ‘to pull up stakes.’¹¹⁶ Urban life has not been presented in a favorable light thus far in Genesis. Cain built a city and named it after his son Enoch (Genesis 4:17). God had said that he should live as a vagrant and a wanderer (4:12). Nimrod, a descendent of Ham, seemed to be an empire builder also (10:9-12). In fact, it is possible that Nimrod was the leader in the movement to settle in Shinar and build this city with its tower.¹¹⁷

Settling in the valley of Shinar was an act of disobedience. God had commanded men to spread out and fill the land, not to congregate in cities:

And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.… And as for you, be fruitful and multiply; populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it’ (Genesis 9:1,7).

In verses 3 and 4 the intentions of man are spelled out:

And they said to one another, ‘Come, let us make bricks and burn them thoroughly.’ And they used brick for stone, and they used tar for mortar. And they said, ‘Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name; lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth’ (Genesis 11:3,4).

Verse 3 informs us of the intensity of man’s intentions to build a city and a tower. A Palestinian Jew, especially one who had just come from Egypt, would expect any building project to employ stone and mortar. These materials were not plentiful and thus it was necessary to substitute fire-hardened brick for stone and tar for mortar.¹¹⁸

These men did not begin to build without counting the cost. They anticipated the obstacles and were determined to overcome them. The resolve of mankind to build the city despite the difficulties tells us of the intensity of this endeavor. Some have seen in verse 4 a strong religious flavor, as though men were trying to get to God by building a tower.

And they said, ‘Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name; lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth’ (Genesis 11:4).

I do not think such claims can be substantiated. It is hard to believe that Moses would have left such matters to mere inference. The expression, “will reach into heaven,” is not so much spiritual as it is special. It simply implies great height. Such is its connotation in other passages:

Where can we go up? Our brethren have made our hearts melt, saying, ‘The people are bigger and taller than we; the cities are large and fortified to heaven. And besides, we saw the sons of the Anakim there’ (Deuteronomy 1:28; cf. 9:1; Psalm 107:26).

No great emphasis is placed upon the tower. It is considered a part of the city. While the Mesopotamian ziggurats of later times were distinctly religious,¹¹⁹ no such indication is given in our text. The purpose for building the city and its imposing tower is best explained in the statement, “… and let us make for ourselves a name; … ” (verse 4).

Arrogance, rebellion, and pride seem to be the root of men’s activities here.¹²⁰

As is often the case, we do not reveal our true motives until the very last. I think this is true in our text. The last statement of the people of ancient Babel is the key to our passage: “… lest we be scattered over the face of the whole earth” (verse 4).

These people could not conceive of blessing and security coming as a result of dispersion, even though God commanded it. They felt most secure when they were living in close proximity. They saw the future as brighter when they could leave posterity a monument to their ingenuity and industry.¹²¹

While rebellion, pride, and unbelief are evident in the story, the underlying problem is one of fear. Richardson put his finger on this when he wrote:

The hatred of anonymity drives men to heroic feats of valour or long hours of drudgery; or it urges them to spectacular acts of shame or of unscrupulous self-preferment. In the worse forms it attempts to give the honour and the glory to themselves which properly belong to the name of God.¹²²

These men of old must have known of God’s command and of His covenant. Otherwise why would they have feared being scattered? But all they had was a promise from God. Their hopes were on abstract words, nothing concrete, and so they placed their faith in bricks and tar.

The following verses record the response of God to man’s disobedience:

And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. And the Lord said, ‘Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. ‘Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.’ So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city (Genesis 11:5-8).

As Cassuto has observed,¹²³ this passage is an example of literary artistry. Man’s intentions are curbed by divine intervention.

Verses 5 and 6 have been disturbing to many because they may seem to diminish the sovereignty of God. There is the appearance that God has let a situation get nearly out of control before He was even aware of it. It looks as though one of the angels has informed God of the incident at Babel and God has hastily descended to investigate the matter. Any such conception has missed the point of the writer.

These verses are a beautifully fashioned satire on the folly of man’s activities. Men had commenced to build a city with a high tower that they thought would make a name for them. Moses is suggesting to us that man’s thoughts and efforts, no matter how lofty, are insignificant to God. While the top of the tower may, from the vantage point of earth, seem to pierce the clouds, to the infinite, almighty God it was a barely visible dot on the earth. It was as though God would have to stoop to view it.¹²⁴ If God should have to ‘descend’ to scrutinize this city, it was due to the insignificance of it all, not God’s inability to keep up with His creation.

If verse 5 describes the investigation of God, verse 6 informs us of God’s appraisal of the situation.

And the Lord said, ‘Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them’ (Genesis 11:6).

The evil does not lie in the fact that all men spoke one language. This only provided the occasion for man’s sinfulness to express itself more easily. Yet it did suggest a means of reversing man’s plans.

The completion of this city would in no way threaten the rule of God. Obviously, it would violate the command of God for man to disperse and fill the earth. Verse 6 explains the impact which the success of man’s plans to build this city would have on man. Men would conclude that since they were able to build this city despite many obstacles, they could do anything they set their minds to. A bit of that mentality was evidenced when man first set foot on the moon. I recall that something like this was said: “One small step for man, one giant step for mankind.” When man’s ingenuity was successfully employed to overcome the many barriers to reaching the moon’s surface, man felt that no problem was beyond a human solution.

In the days of the offspring of Noah at Babel, men placed their confidence in bricks and mortar and the work of their hands. In our time we are just a bit more sophisticated. We trust in transistors, integrated circuits, and technology. We feel that if we can put a man on the moon, nothing can keep us from solving any problem.

It is this attitude of arrogant self-confidence and independence of God which God knew was inevitable if man succeeded. Because of this, God purposed to thwart man’s plans: “Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language that they may not understand one another’s speech” (Genesis 11:7).

What we see here is not so much a punishment being meted out as preventive measures being taken. The mechanics of the confusion of language can only be guessed at, but the outcome is evident. The project came to an abrupt halt, a monument to man’s sin.

Conditions After the Confusion of Tongues
(11:9)

That which man most feared had come to pass.

“Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of the whole earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of the whose earth” (Genesis 11:9).

The irony of this event is that what men most desired would have destroyed them, and what they most dreaded would prove to be a part of their deliverance.

At one time in history the name Babel (Bab-ili) meant in Babylonian “the gate of God.”¹²⁵ By means of a play on words God changed its name to “confusion” (Balal).¹²⁶

Conclusion

In this brief narrative we find some principles which are vital to true believers in any age.

(1) Man’s plans will never thwart God’s purposes. God had commanded mankind to “fill the earth” (Genesis 9:1). Man preferred to cloister rather than to comply with God’s command to spread out. In spite of man’s greatest efforts, God’s purposes prevailed. My friend, men of every age have learned that God’s will cannot be resisted. You may be destroyed, but God will not be diverted from His purposes. Such was the conclusion to which Saul was forced:

And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads’ (Acts 26:14).

A friend of mine used to say, “Is that brick wall getting any softer, or is my head just getting bloodier and bloodier?”

No man can thwart the will of God. A life lived in resistance to the revealed Lord of God must end in frustration and failure. No one can succeed at resisting God.

(2) Unity is not the highest good, but purity and obedience to the Word of God. Ecumenism is the watch word of religion today, but it is a unity at the cost of truth. Some regard unity as a goal worthy of any sacrifice. God does not. In fact, the Israelites of old were soon to learn that the Canaanites, unlike the Egyptians (cf. Genesis 46:33-34), were eager to unite with the chosen people of God (cf. Genesis 34:8-10, Numbers 25:1ff.). Unity and peace must never be attained at the price of purity. God’s people are to be holy, even as He is holy (Leviticus 11:44f; I Peter 1:16).

True unity can only occur in Christ (John 17:21; cf. Ephesians 2:4-22). This unity is to be diligently preserved (Ephesians 4:3). But oneness in Christ results in division from those who reject Christ (Matthew 10:34-36). We must separate ourselves from those who deny the truth (II John 7-11; Jude 3). There can be no true unity with those who deny our God.

(3) The communication gap created in Genesis chapter 11 can only be bridged by Christ. The Old Testament prophets recognized the ongoing effect of Babel, and spoke of a day when it would be reversed:

‘For then I will give to the peoples purified lips, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord, to serve Him shoulder to shoulder. From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia My worshipers, My dispersed ones, will bring My offerings. In that day you will feel no shame because of all your deeds by which you have rebelled against Me; for then I will remove from your midst your proud, exulting ones, and you will never again be haughty on my holy mountain’ (Zephaniah 3:9-11).¹²⁷

The phenomenon of tongues in Acts chapter two indicates the ‘first fruits’ of the renewal which is yet to be realized in full.

Frankly, I am deeply troubled at the ignorance of Christians today regarding the communication gap we experience in our relationships. The communication breakdown has its roots in Genesis chapter 11. Many wives silently agonize at the way their husbands fail to comprehend what they are trying to tell them, and at their failure to disclose their innermost feelings. While Christ is the answer to this dilemma, most of us fail to grasp the fact that it is a problem which threatens our relationships.

(4) Superficial relationships and artificial activity will inevitably miss the meaning of life. Someone has said that the definition of the ‘upper crust’ is, ‘a few crumbs with a little dough to hold them together.’ What is it that holds your life together? How tragic that the Babylonians of old found their security in a city and put their hope in fired bricks and tar.

What frightens me most is that the church has often fallen into the same trap as the world. We find ourselves creating programs to keep people busy and to give them the false security of involvement and activity. While programs are not antithetical to life, they are often a substitute for living faith and devotion and power. In many churches, God could have died 50 years ago and we would still not know it.

I cannot but help think of the church building program as I have considered the tower of Babel. How often we enter into a building program, thinking that it will give people a cause to get excited about, and that a lovely building will somehow attract new members.

God help us to avoid the artificiality of Babel. It is a counterfeit religion that has no life and no ultimate worth.

(5) The Word of God, and not the works of our hands, is the only thing worthy of our faith. The men of Babel began to look at work as the cure rather than the curse. They believed that the work of their hands could assure them of some kind of immortality beyond the grave. Here, I suspect, is the driving force behind the workaholic. He cannot ever rest because he (or she) is never certain that a large enough monument has been built.

Is this not that of which the Psalmist has written?

Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it; unless the Lord guards the city, the watchman keeps awake in vain. It is vain for you to rise up early, to retire late, to eat the bread of painful labors; for He gives to His beloved even in his sleep. Behold, children are a gift of the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one’s youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; they shall not be ashamed, when they speak with their enemies in the gate (Psalm 127:1-5).

Did you notice the reference in verse two to the ‘bread of painful labors’? Surely it is a reflection of the curse in Genesis chapter three, “By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, … ” (Genesis 3:19a).

The Psalmist knew that work could never give man the rest and peace for which he toiled, but only trusting in that which God would provide. God’s blessing would come through the children which God would give in rest and intimate fellowship (Psalm 127:3-5). Is this not what the people of Babylon needed to understand?

Human endeavor is never satisfying, never fulfilling. Only work which is done for the Lord and in His strength brings lasting satisfaction.

The woman at the well in John chapter 4 sought water to quench her thirst. Jesus offered that which would forever satisfy:

Jesus answered and said to her, ‘Everyone who drinks of this water shall thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life’ (John 4:13-14).

That ‘meat’ which was greater than mere food was to do the will of the Father:

In the meanwhile the disciples were requesting Him, saying ‘Rabbi, eat.’ But He said to them, ‘I have food to eat that you did not know about.’ The disciples therefore were saying to one another, ‘No one brought Him any thing to eat, did he?’ Jesus said to them, ‘My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to accomplish His work’ (John 4:31-34).

Have you found the satisfaction and rest which God has provided in Jesus Christ? It alone can satisfy the longings of man.

This “rest” is that for which Lamech, the father of Noah, looked for in the seed of his son:

Now he called his name Noah, saying, ‘This one shall give us rest from our work and from the toil of our hands arising from the ground which the Lord has cursed’ (Genesis 5:29).

God has now provided a salvation for men in the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary. He has assured men that to as many as believe upon Him—that trust Him for forgiveness of sins and eternal life—they shall be saved. That is enough. And that is the only basis for hope beyond the grave.

(6) Much of what man does on this earth is a monument to his insecurity. This passage has impressed me more than ever before because of the intense insecurity of man. I have often felt that the root of man’s sinful actions is willful rebellion or active aggression against God. Man does rebel against God, but the root of much of his disobedience is based upon his insecurity.

Behind the facade of achievement, accomplishment, bravado and self-assurance is the haunting spectra of leaving this life with no certainty of what is to follow. That, in my estimation, is the real reason for the building of the city of Babel and its tower. The people of that day were willing to make nearly any sacrifice to have some hope of immortality. They saw this in the name they could make for themselves.

Have you ever stopped to think about the role insecurity may play in the things you devote time and energy to? Christians who do not fathom the grace of God and His sovereign control are plagued by the insecurity of supposing that God’s work and will is conditioned by our faithfulness, rather than by His. Our insecurity may be the motive for much of our Christian service. If only we can do more for the Lord, we shall feel more secure and certain of His blessing. Such activity is little different than that of those who lived on the plain of Shinar.

We preachers must learn a very important lesson here also. We want to see results from our work. We may be insecure in what God has called us to do. Because of our own insecurity, we may urge others to work harder in Christian activity, and we may motivate this activity by playing upon the wrong motives of guilt and insecurity. These motives are always wrong reasons for Christian service. Service should be based upon gratitude, not guilt or fear.

As Paul has written, “I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies … ” (Romans 12:1a).

The problems we have discussed are complex, but the solution is simple. We should do what the children of Noah should have done, simply trust and obey. This is the way to have blessing in Jesus.

112 “People,” The Dallas Morning News, p. 3a, April 23, 1980.

113 I am grateful to U. Cassuto, who has put the tower of Babel in its proper perspective when he wrote,

“The tower is only a detail in the episode--part of the gigantic city that men sought to build in order to achieve their goal. Not without reason, therefore, does the end of the story refer only to the suspension of the building of the city but not of the construction of the tower (v. 8: and they left off building the city). Hence I did not put at the head of this narrative the usual title ‘The Tower of Babel’ or ‘The building of the Tower of Babel’; I used instead the expression customarily employed in Jewish Literature, ‘The Story of the Generation of Division,’ which best fits the intention and the content of the text.” U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1964), II, p. 226.

114 “Literally, the text reads ‘one words,’ i.e., the words were common to all, indicating that all shared them, supporting the translation ‘one vocabulary.’ Syntax (Language) and vocabulary were a single comprehensible wholly understood by all. Communication was swift, and ideas and plans were quickly propagated.” Harold G Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p, 131.

115 “There was also a natural nomadic element, for they were journeying from place to place. The conditions of agricultural life would doubtless necessitate a great deal of movement. In their journeyings they at last arrived at the land of Shinar, the plain in which Babylon was afterwards situated (chap. x. 10). The fertility of this plain would be of special value, and we are not surprised to read that ‘they dwelt there.”’ W. H. Griffith Thomas, Genesis: A Devotional Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946), p 108.

116 H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942), I, p 384.

117 “Again, as this event in all probability took place in the lifetime of Nimrod, the first individual who is recorded to have aspired to dominion over his fellow-men, and as it is express by said of him that ‘the beginning of his kingdom was Babel,’ nothing is more natural than to suppose that he was the Leader in this daring enterprise, and that it was in great measure a scheme of his for obtaining the mastery of the world.” George Bush, Notes on Genesis (Minneapolis: James and Klock Publishing Co., 1976, Reprint), p. 183.

118 “Here Moses inserts an explanatory statement before he lets us hear the rest of their purpose by dwelling upon the unique nature of the materials used--unique for such as are in rocky Palestine with its innumerable stones. For the builders purpose to use their burnt brick in place of stone and bitumen for mortar. Abundant remains of similar structures display how very accurate the author is in his statement. For more substantial buildings not the sun-dried but the kiln-dried bricks were used, and bitumen sealed the joints. Such structures cohere very firmly to this present day. To a non-Babylonian such a mode of building would seem strange as well as particularly worthy of notice.” Leupold, Genesis, I, pp. 385-386.

119 “These ziggurats, over thirty of which are known to exist, were composed of successively smaller stages or stories of sun dried or burnt brick, on top of which was constructed a temple.” Howard F. Vos, Genesis and Archaeology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1963), p. 46.

120 “In Genesis 9:1 God specifically told Noah and his sons, ‘Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish (literally, ‘fill’) the earth.’ In direct disobedience, their descendants were concerned lest they be scattered over the earth and in pride sought to build a city and tower as a rallying point and to symbolize or memorialize their greatness. This God could not condone. Genesis does not say that they intended to enter heaven by means of this tower or that they intended to use it for worship purposes. The Hebrew simply calls it a mighty (‘tower’), which could be used for defense or a number of other purposes, and there is no indication that the builders planned to erect a temple on it so that the structure could serve as a ‘link between earth and heaven’ as the ziggurats did. Moreover, the Genesis narrative implies that such towers had not been built before and that this would therefore be something unique in the experience of man.” Ibid., pp. 46-47.

121 “The primeval history reaches its fruitless climax as man, conscious of new abilities, prepares to glorify and fortify himself by collective effort. The elements of the story are timelessly characteristic of the spirit of the world. The project is typically grandiose; men describe it excitedly to one another as if it were the ultimate achievement--very much as modern man glories in his space projects. At the same time they betray their insecurity as they crowd together to preserve their identity and control their fortunes (4b).” Derek Kidner, Genesis, An Introduction and Commentary (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), p. 109.

122 Alan Richardson, Genesis 1-11, Introduction and Commentary (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1953), p. 128, as quoted by Allen Ross, The Table of Nations in Genesis (Unpublished Doctor’s Dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1976), pp. 292-293.

123 In this short narrative we have a fine example of biblical literary art. It comprises two paragraphs, of almost equal size, that constitute an antithetic parallel to each other in form and content. The first begins with a reference to the situation that existed at the outset (v. i), and thereafter describes what men proceeded to do (vv. 2-4). The second recounts what the Lord did (vv. 5-8), and concludes with a reference to the position created at the end of the episode (v. 9).” Cassuto, Genesis, II, pp. 231-232.

124 “As I have explained in the introduction, there is a satiric allusion here: they imagined that the top of their tower would reach the heavens, but in God’s sight their gigantic structure was only the work of pigmies, a terrestrial not a celestial enterprise, and if He that dwells in heaven wished to take a close took at it, He had to descend from heaven to earth.” Ibid., pp. 244-245.

“‘Yahweh must draw near, not because he is nearsighted, but because he dwells at such tremendous height and their work is so tiny. God’s movement must therefore be understood as a remarkable satire on man’s doing.”’ This is a quote by Proksch, cited by Gerhard Von Rad, Genesis (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), p. 149.

125 Ross, p. 299.

126 ‘‘Babel (Babylon) called itself Bab-ili, ‘gate of God’ (which may have been a flattering reinterpretation of its original meaning); but by a play of words Scripture super-imposes the truer label balal (‘he confused’).” Kidner, Genesis, p. 110.

127 Ross understands the ‘pure lip’ of verse 9 to refer to one common language: “Spoken of in the singular, the ‘pure lip’ must mean the language barriers will be broken down to make one universal tongue. The second idea in the expression means that their speech will be cleansed.” Ross, p. 258. fn. 1. Unfortunately the NASB renders the expression as a plural, “purified lips.”

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_11_32k.mp3

Biblical Topics:

Faith

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

12. The Call of Abram (Genesis 11:31-12:9)

Introduction

Chapter 12 begins a new division in the book of Genesis. The first eleven chapters have often been called ‘primeval history.’ The last chapters are known as ‘patriarchal history.’ While the effect of man’s sin has become increasingly widespread, the fulfillment of the promise of God in Genesis 3:15 has become more selective. The Redeemer was to come from the seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15), then from the descendants of Seth, then Noah, and now Abraham (Genesis 12:2-3).

Theologically, Genesis chapter 12 is one of the key Old Testament passages, for it contains what has been called the Abrahamic Covenant. This covenant is the thread which ties the rest of the Old Testament together. It is critical to a correct understanding of Bible prophecy.

In Genesis chapter 12 we come not only to a new division and an important theological covenant, but most of all to a great and godly man—Abraham. Nearly one-fourth of the book of Genesis is devoted to this man’s life. Over 40 Old Testament references are made to Abraham. It is of interest to note that Islam holds Abram second in importance to Mohammed, with the Koran referring to Abraham 188 times.¹²⁸

The New Testament in no way diminishes the significance of the life and character of Abraham. There are nearly 75 references to him in the New Testament. Paul chose Abraham as the finest example of a man who is justified before God by faith apart from works (Romans 4). James referred to Abraham as a man who demonstrated his faith to men by his works (James 2:21-23). The writer to the Hebrews pointed to Abraham as an illustration of a man who walked by faith, devoting more space to him than any other individual in chapter eleven (Hebrews 11:8-19). In Galatians chapter 3 Paul wrote that Christians are the ‘sons of Abraham’ by faith, and therefore, rightful heirs to the blessings promised him (Galatians 3:7,9).

As we turn our attention to Genesis chapter 12 let us do so with an eye to Abraham as an example of the walk of faith. In particular, I want to underscore the process which God employed to strengthen Abram’s faith and make him the godly man he became. Most of the errors so popular in Christian circles concerning the nature of the life of faith can be corrected by a study of the life of Abraham.

The Circumstances
Surrounding the Call of Abram
(Joshua 24:2-3; Acts 7:2-5)

Moses did not give us all the background needed to properly grasp the significance of the call of Abram, but it has been recorded for us in the Bible. Stephen clarifies the time that Abram was first called of God. It was not in Haran, as a casual reading of Genesis 12 might incline us to believe, but in Ur. As Stephen stood before his unbelieving Jewish brethren, he recounted the history of God’s chosen people, beginning with the call of Abraham:

And he said, ‘Hear me, brethren and fathers! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran and said to him, “Depart from your country and your relatives, and come into the land that I will show you”’ (Acts 7:2-3).

While not all Bible students agree on the location of Ur,¹²⁹ most agree that it is the Ur of southern Mesopotamia, on what used to be the coast of the Persian Gulf. The site of the great city was first discovered in 1854, and has since that time been excavated, revealing much about life in the times of Abram.¹³⁰ While the actual period that Abram lived in Ur may be a matter of discussion, we can say with certainty that Ur was justified in its boast of being a highly developed civilization. There are ample evidences of elaborate wealth, skilled craftsmanship, and advanced technology and science.¹³¹ All of this tells us something of the city which Abram was commanded to leave. In the words of Vos,

Regardless of when Abraham left Ur, he turned his back on a great metropolis, setting out by faith for a land about which he knew little or nothing and which could probably offer him little from a standpoint of material benefits.¹³²

If the city which Abram was told to leave was great, the home he left behind seems to have been less than godly. I would have assumed that Terah was a God-fearing man, who brought up his son, Abram, to believe in only one God, unlike the people of his day, but this was not so. Joshua gives us helpful insight into the character of Terah in his farewell speech at the end of his life:

And Joshua said to all the people, ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, “From ancient times your fathers lived beyond the River, namely, Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, and they served other gods”’ (Joshua 24:2).

So far as we can tell, then, Terah was an idolater, like those of his days. No wonder God commanded Abram to leave his father’s house (Genesis 12:1)!

Abram’s age was not a factor in favor of leaving Ur for some unknown land either. Moses tells us that Abram was 75 when he entered the land of Canaan. Think of it. Abram would have been on social security for over ten years. The ‘mid-life crisis’ would have been past history for him. Rather than thinking of a new land and a new life, most of us would have been thinking in terms of a rocking chair and a rest home.

We are not inclined to be impressed with Abram’s age because of the length of men’s lives in olden times, but Genesis chapter 11 informs us that man’s longevity was much greater in times past, than in Abram’s day. Abram died at the ripe old age of 175 (25:7-8), a much shorter time than Shem (11:10-11) or Arpachshad (11:12-13). One purpose of the genealogy of chapter 11 is that it informs us that men were living shorter lives, and having children younger. Abram was, in our vernacular, ‘no spring chicken’ when he left Haran for Canaan.

All of this should remind us of the objections and obstacles which must have been in the mind of Abram when the call of God came. He left Haran, not because it was the easiest thing to do, but because God intended for him to do it. Having said this, I do not wish to glorify Abram’s faith either, for as we shall see, it was initially very weak. The obstacles were largely overcome by the initiative of God in the early stages of the life of Abram. This remains to be proven.

The Command of God

The call of Abram is recorded for us in Genesis 12:1: “Now the Lord said to Abram, ‘Go forth from your country, and from your relatives and from your father’s house, to the land which I will show you.’”

A better rendering of the first sentence of this call is found in the King James Version and in the New International Version, both of which read, “The Lord had said to Abram, … ”

The difference is important. Without it we are inclined to think that the call of Abram came at Haran, rather than at Ur. But we know from Stephen’s words that the call came to Abram at Ur (Acts 7:2). The pluperfect tense (had said) is both grammatically legitimate and exegetically necessary. It tells us that verses 27-32 of chapter 11 are parenthetical,¹³³ and not strictly in chronological order.

The command of God to Abram was in conjunction with an appearance of God.¹³⁴ While Moses mentioned only an appearance of God after Abram was in the land (12:7), Stephen informs us that God appeared to Abram while in Ur (Acts 7:2). In the light of all the objections which might be raised by Abram, such an appearance should not be unusual. God also appeared to Moses at the time of his call (Exodus 3:2, etc.).

In one sense, the command of God to Abram was very specific. Abram was told in detail what he must leave behind. He must leave his country, his relatives, and his father’s house. God was going to make a new nation, not merely revise an existing one. Little of the culture, religion, or philosophy of the people of Ur was to be a part of what God planned to do with His people, Israel.

On the other hand, God’s command was deliberately vague. While what was to be left behind was crystal clear, what lay ahead was distressingly devoid of detail: “… to the land which I will show you.”

Abram did not even know where he would settle. As the writer to the Hebrews put it, “… he went out, not knowing where he was going” (Hebrews 11:8).

The faith to which we are called is not faith in a plan, but faith in a person. Much more important than where he was, God was concerned with who he was, and in Whom he trusted. God is not nearly so concerned with geography as He is with godliness.

The relationship between the command of God to Abram in verse 1 and the incident at Babel in chapter 11 should not be overlooked. At Babel men chose to disregard the command of God to disperse and populate the earth. They strove to find security and renown by banding together and building a great city (11:3-4). They sought blessing in the product of their own labors, rather than in the promise of God.

The command of God to Abram is, in effect, a reversal of what man attempted at Babel. Abram was secure and comfortable in Ur, a great city. God called him to leave that city and to exchange his townhouse for a tent. God promised Abram a great name (what the people of Babel sought, 11:4) as a result of leaving Ur, leaving the security of his relatives, and trusting only in God. How unlike man’s ways are from God’s.

The Covenant with Abram
(12:2-3)

Technically, the covenant with Abram is not found in chapter 12, but in chapters 15 (verse 18) and 17 (verses 2,4,7,9,10,11,13,14,19,21) where the word covenant appears. It is there that the specific details of the covenant are spelled out. Here in chapter 12 the general features of the covenant are introduced.

Three major promises are contained in verses 2 and 3: a land; a seed; and a blessing. The land, as we have already said, is implied in verse 1. At the time of the call, Abram did not know where this land was. At Shechem, God promised to give ‘this land’ to Abram (12:7). It was not until chapter 15 that a full description of the land was given:

On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates: … ’ (Genesis 15:18).

This land never belonged to Abram in his lifetime, even as God had said (15:13-16). When Sarah died, he had to buy a portion of the land for a burial site (23:3ff.). Those who first read the book of Genesis were about to take possession of the land which was promised Abram. What a thrill that must have been for the people of Moses’ day to read this promise and realize that the time for possession had come.

The second promise of the Abrahamic Covenant was that of a great nation coming from Abram. We have already mentioned the significance of Psalm 127 in relation to the efforts of man at Babel. Real blessing does not come from toil and agonizing hours of labor, but from the fruit of intimacy, namely children. Abraham’s blessing was largely to be seen in his descendants. Here was the basis for the ‘great name’ that God would give to Abram.

This promise demanded faith on the part of Abram, for it was obvious that he was already aged, and that Sarai, his wife, was incapable of having children (11:30). It would be many years before Abram would fully grasp that this heir that God had promised would come from the union of he and Sarai.

The final promise was that of blessing—blessing for him, and blessing through him. Much of Abram’s blessing was to come in the form of his offspring, but there was also the blessing that would come in the form of the Messiah, who would bring salvation to God’s people. To this hope our Lord, the Messiah, spoke, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad” (John 8:56).

Beyond this, Abram was destined to become a blessing to men of every nation. Blessing would come through Abraham in several ways. Those who recognized the hand of God in Abram and his descendants would be blessed by contact with them. Pharaoh, for example, was blessed by exalting Joseph. Men of all nations would be blessed by the Scriptures which, to a great extent, came through the instrumentality of the Jewish people. Ultimately, the whole world was blessed by the coming of the Messiah, who came to save men of every nation, not just the Jews:

Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith that are sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘All the nations shall be blessed in you.’ So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer (Galatians 3:7-9)

The Compliance of Abram
(11:31-32, 12:4-9)

I am greatly distressed by the glamorizing of heroes, especially by Christians. The giants of the faith seem to be sterling characters with no evident flaws, with machine-like discipline, and unfaltering faith. I do not find such people in the Bible. The heroes of the Bible are men with ‘like passions’ (James 5:17) and feet of clay. That is my kind of hero. I can identify with men and women like this. And, most important, I can find hope for a person like myself. Little wonder that men like Peter and not Paul, are our heroes, for we can see ourselves in them.

Abram was a man like you and me. Moses’ account of his initial steps of faith makes it evident that much was to be desired, and to be developed in him. God called him in Ur, but Abram did not leave his father’s house or his relatives. Now Abram did leave Ur and go to Haran, but it appears to me that this was only because his pagan father decided to leave Ur. There may well have been political or economic factors which made such a move expedient, apart from any spiritual considerations.

Much of Abram’s first moves were neither purposeful nor pious, but rather were a more passive response to external forces. God providentially led Terah to pull up roots at Ur and to move toward Canaan (11:31). For some reason, Terah and his family stopped short of Canaan, and remained in Haran. Since Abram was unwilling or unable to leave his father’s house, God took Abram’s father in death (11:32). Now Abram obeyed God by faith and entered into the land of Canaan, but only after considerable preparatory steps had been taken by God.

I am saying that Abram obeyed God in faith, but it was a very little faith, and a very late faith. But does such a claim contradict the words of Scripture? Is this inconsistent with the words of the writer to the Hebrews?

By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going (Hebrews 11:8).

At least two things must be said in response to this question. First, the emphasis of Hebrews 11 is on faith. The writer wished to stress here the positive aspects of the Christian’s walk, not his failures. Therefore, the failures are not mentioned. Secondly, consistent with this approach, the author does not stress the timing of Abram’s obedience. He simply wrote, “… Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out.” Let us remember that Abram did go to Canaan, just as Moses went to Egypt, but not without considerable pressure from God.

We should not find this discouraging, but consistent with our own reluctance to put our future on the line in active, aggressive, unquestioning faith. Abraham was a man of great faith—after years of testing by God. But at the point of Abram’s call, he was a man whose faith was meager; real, but meager. And if we are honest with ourselves, that is just about where most of us are. In our best moments, our faith is vibrant and vital, but in the moments of testing, it is weak and wanting.

Once in the land of Canaan, the route taken by Abram is noteworthy. It should first of all be said that it was the route we would have expected him to have taken if he were going in that direction. A look at a map of the ancient world of patriarchal times would indicate that Abram traveled the well-trodden roads of his day.¹³⁵ This route was that commonly traveled by those who engaged in the commerce of those days.

This I believe to be a significant observation, for many Christians seem to feel that God’s way is the way of the bizarre and the unusual. They do not expect God to lead them in a normal, predictable fashion. The lesson we may need to learn is this: very often the way God would have us go is the most sensible way that we would have chosen anyhow. It is only when God wishes us to depart from the expected that we should look for guidance that is spectacular or unusual.

Cassuto has suggested that the places mentioned (Shechem, Bethel, the Negev) are significant. He believes that the land is thus divided into three regions: one extending from the northern border to Shechem, the second from Shechem as far as Bethel, and the third from Bethel to the southern boundary.¹³⁶

Jacob, after his return from Paddan-aram, came first to Shechem (33:18). Later he was instructed to go up to Bethel (35:1; cf. verse 6). At both Shechem and Bethel he built altars, like Abram, his grandfather (33:20; 35:7).

When Israel went into the land of Canaan, to possess it under Joshua, these same key cities were captured:

So Joshua sent them away, and they went to the place of ambush and remained between Bethel and Ai, on the west side of Ai; … (Joshua 8:9).

Then Joshua built an altar to the Lord, the God of Israel, in Mount Ebal (Joshua 8:30).

Cassuto concludes that Abram’s journey unknowingly outlined the territory which would belong to Israel, and that the places he stopped symbolically forecast the future conquest of the land.¹³⁷ In an additional comment, Cassuto adds the fact that these places were also religious centers of Canaanite worship.¹³⁸ In effect, Abram’s actions of building altars and proclaiming the name of the Lord prophesied the coming time when true religious worship would overcome the pagan religion of the Canaanites. While the exact meaning of the expression, ‘called upon the name of the Lord’ may not be known, worship is surely described. It is difficult to believe that Abram’s public act of worship was not noted and viewed with particular interest by the Canaanites. Personally I believe that there is some kind of missionary function being carried out by Abram. As such, it would have been an act flowing from faith.

Conclusion:
Characteristics of the Life of Faith

From these events in the early stages of Abram’s growth in grace several principles are found which depict the walk of faith in every age, and certainly in our own.

(1) Abram’s faith was commenced at the initiative of God. The sovereignty of God in salvation is beautifully illustrated in the call of Abram. Abram came from a pagan home. To our knowledge, he had no particular spiritual qualities which drew God to him. God, in His electing grace, chose Abram to follow Him, while he was going his own way. Abram, like Paul, and true believers of every age, would acknowledge that it was God Who sought him out and saved him, on the basis of divine grace.

(2) Abram’s spiritual life continued through the sovereign work of God. God is not only sovereign in salvation, but sovereign in the process of sanctification. Had Abram’s spiritual life depended solely upon his faithfulness, the story of Abram would have ended very quickly. Having called Abram, it was God Who providentially brought Abram to the point of leaving home and homeland and entering Canaan. Thank God our spiritual lives are ultimately dependent upon His faithfulness and not ours.

(3) The Christian’s walk is a pilgrimage. Abraham lived as a pilgrim, looking for the city of God:

“By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow-heirs of the some promise; for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (Hebrews 11:9-10).

Our permanent home is not to be found in this world, but in the one that is to come, in the presence of our Lord (cf. John 14:1-3). That is the message of the New Testament (cf. Ephesians 2:19, I Peter 1:17, 2:11).

The tent is thus the symbol of the pilgrim. He does not invest heavily in that which will not last. He dare not become too attached to that which he cannot take with him. In this life we cannot expect to fully possess what lies in the future, but only to survey it. The Christian life is not knowing exactly what the future holds, but knowing Him Who holds the future.

(4) The Christian walk is rooted in the reliability of the Word of God. When you stop to think about it, Abram had no concrete, tangible proof that a life of blessing lay ahead, outside of Ur, away from his family. All he had to rely upon was God, Who had revealed Himself to him.

In the final analysis, that is all anyone can have. There are, of course, evidences for the reasonableness of faith, but at the bottom line we simply must believe what God has said to us in His Word. If His ‘Word is not true and reliable, then we, of all men, are most miserable.’

But isn’t that enough? What more should we require than God’s Word? The other day I heard a preacher put it very pointedly. He quoted the shopworn saying, ‘God said it. I believe it. That settles it.’ The preacher said it could be said even shorter. ‘God said it, and that settles it, whether you believe it or not.’ I like that. The Word of God is sufficient for man’s faith.

God has said that all men are sinners, deserving of, and destined to eternal punishment. God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, the One Abram looked for in the future, to die on the cross to suffer the penalty for man’s sin. He alone offers man the righteousness necessary for eternal life. God said it. Do you believe it?

(5) The Christian walk is simply doing what God has told us to do and believing that He is leading us as we do so. God told Abram to leave without knowing where the path of obedience would lead, but believing that God was leading as he went. Do not expect that God will indicate each turn in the road with a clearly marked sign. Do what God tells you to do in the most sensible way you know how. Faith is not developed by living life by some kind of map, but by using God’s Word as a compass, pointing us in the right direction, but challenging us to walk by faith and not by sight.

As Abram went from place to place, the will of God must have seemed like a riddle. But as we look back upon it, we can see that God was leading all the way. No stop along the path was irrelevant or without purpose. Such will be the case as we can look back upon our lives from the vantage point of time.

(6) The Christian walk is a process of growth in grace. We often read of Abraham, the man of faith, supposing that he was always that kind of man. I would hope that our study of the initial period of his life indicates otherwise. How long have you been a Christian, my friend? One year? Five years? Twenty years? Do you realize that it was probably years from the time Abram was called in Ur until he ended up in Canaan. Do you know that after Abram entered the land of Canaan it was another 25 years until he had his son, Isaac? Can you fathom the fact that after leaving Haran for Canaan, God worked in Abram’s life for one hundred years? Christian faith grows. It grows through time and through testing. Such was true in Abram’s 1ife.¹³⁹ Such is the case with every believer.

May God enable us to grow in grace as we walk the path which He has ordained, and as we continue to study the growth of the faith of Abram over many years.

128 S. Schultz, “Abraham,” The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975, 1976), I, p. 26.

129 Cyrus Gordon has suggested that the true Ur of Genesis 11:31 is to be found in northern Mesopotamia, probably northeast of Haran. Gordon’s view is discussed, but rejected by Howard F. Vos, Genesis and Archaeology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1963), pp. 63-64. Gordon’s view is held by Harold G. Stiflers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), pp. 133-134.

130 Cf. Vos, Genesis and Archaeology, pp. 58-64.

131 “The city of Ur on the lower Euphrates River was a large population center, and has yielded extensive information in the royal tombs which were excavated under the direction of Sir Leonard Wooley and the sponsorship of the British Museum and the museum of Pennsylvania University. Although no direct evidence of Abraham’s residence is available, it is significant that the city of Ur reflects a long history preceding Abraham’s time, possessing an elaborate system of writing, educational facilities, mathematical calculations, business and religious records, and art. This points to the fact that Ur may have been one of the largest and wealthiest cities in the Tigris-Euphrates area when Abraham emigrated northward to Haran.” Schultz, “Abraham,” ZPEB, I, p. 22.

132 Vos, p. 63.

133 “Although it may appear from a superficial reading of the account in Genesis (11:31-12:1) that God called Abraham while in Haran, thereby contradicting Stephen’s account that God called Abraham in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran, the two accounts can be harmonized by noting that Genesis 11:27-32 is a parenthetical account of Terah introduced by a waw disjunctive, and that Genesis 12:1, introduced by a waw consecutive, carries on the main narrative which was discontinued in Gen. 11:26.” Bruce Waltke, Unpublished Class Notes, Dallas Theological Seminary, pp. 14-15.

134 Cassuto, the great Jewish scholar disagrees. He said in his comments on Genesis 12:7,

“Outside the Land, it was given to Abraham only to hear the Divine voice (v. 1); but here, in the land destined to be specifically dedicated to the service of the Lord, he was also vouchsafed the privilege of a Divine vision.” U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1964), II, p. 328. We must remember that Cassuto, as a Jew, did not regard the New Testament to be authoritative. Thus, he seems to have rejected Stephen’s words flatly.

135 Haran, for example, in Assyrian (harranu) meant ‘main road.’ Waltke, class notes, p. 14.

136 Cassuto, Genesis, II, p. 304.

137 “Now we can understand why the Torah stressed, in all their detail, Abram’s journeys on entering the land of Canaan, at first as far as Schechem, and subsequently up to Ai-Bethel. Scripture intended to present us here, through the symbolic conquest of Abram, with a kind of forecast of what would happen to his descendants later.” Cassuto, Genesis, II, pp. 305-306.

138 Ibid, p. 306.

139 “. . . Abram’s early history is partly that of his gradual disentanglement from country, kindred and father’s house, a process not completed until the end of chapter 13.” Derek Kidner, Genesis (Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p. 113.

“Abram’s life is a growth in faith developed under delayed fulfillment of divine promises. He is promised a seed and when that seed is delayed, he must somehow see meaning in that delay and learn faith in God. When he is promised a land, and when that land is not given, he must look beyond the promise to its Maker so that he may understand. When he is commanded to sacrifice Isaac, he must obey with a willing heart of love, yet somehow see through to balance the command with the promise of the seed of a nation and leave the outcome to God and to find in God all sufficiency. Through all of his experiences he must come to see God as the origin of all that will endure.” Stagers, Genesis, p . 135.

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_12_32k.mp3

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

13. When Faith Fails,... (Genesis 12:10-13:41)

Introduction

I have entitled this message “When Faith Fails,…” but I wonder if most Christians really believe that their faith can fail. A little thought should remove any doubts. What is worry, but a failure of faith? Worry estimates circumstances from the perspective of the person who faces the future apart from believing in a sovereign God Who is also a loving Father.

Worry’s bedfellow, fear, is also a failure of faith. Worry finds its concern in the distant and often unlikely future. Fear faces the problem eyeball to eyeball. The disciples were not worried on the storm-tossed waves of Galilee; they were scared to death. And our Lord rebuked them by unveiling the failure of their faith:

And He said to them, ‘Why are you so timid? How is that that you have no faith?’ (Mark 4:40).

Faith does fail; at least, my faith does. So what happens when it does? Do I lose my salvation? Does God’s work in my life come to a screeching halt, waiting for my faith to return? The incident in Abram’s life described in Genesis 12:10-13:4 gives us an encouraging word, and one that is desperately needed by those whose faith will fail.

Abram Faces a Famine
(12:10)

True faith in God is a faith that grows. In Genesis, and in God’s program for men today, faith grows as it is tested. For Abram, the first test was that of a famine.

Now there was a famine in the land; so Abram went down to Egypt to sojourn there, for the famine was severe in the land (Genesis 12:10).

I suspect that Abram, as an immature saint, had no idea that suffering and trials were a part of God’s curriculum in the school of faith. While Abram believed in God, he knew little of Him. He may have thought that the God Who called him was not able to control nature. In the pagan pantheon, the ‘gods’ had various limited powers. Perhaps his ‘god’ was not one to be bothered with matters like rain or crops. It never seemed to occur to Abram that God was not only greater than the famine, but the giver of it, as a test of faith.

Egypt seemed to be the logical solution. After all, God had sent Abram forth “not knowing where he was going” (Hebrews 11:8). Perhaps God wished him to continue southward on into Egypt. Another factor was that Egypt was less susceptible to famines. Egypt was much like Ur. Each was blessed by a great river system which allowed for irrigation. Both lands were much less dependent upon rain than was the land of Canaan.

For the land, into which you are entering to possess it, is not like the land of Egypt from which you come, where you used to sow your seed and water it with your foot like a vegetable garden. But the land into which you are about to cross to possess it, a land of hills and valleys, drinks water from the rain of heaven, a land for which the Lord your God cares; the eyes of the Lord your God are always on it, from the beginning even to the end of the year (Deuteronomy 11:10-12).

Farming in Canaan was much more a matter of faith than in Ur or Egypt.

Nowhere is Abram directly condemned for his decision to go down to Egypt, but later developments make it clear that his actions did not stem from faith.¹⁴⁰ Abram did not consult God, but acted independently. No altars were built in Egypt to our knowledge, nor are we told that Abram ever called on the name of the Lord there. His request of Sarai also reflects his spiritual condition. It would thus be safe to say that Abram’s faith failed in the face of that famine.

Abram Faces the Future
(12:10-13)

It would seem that Abram made his decision to go to Egypt without considering the consequences. Just outside the border of Egypt Abram began to contemplate the dangers which lay ahead.

Sarai was a very beautiful woman,¹⁴¹ and there was good reason to fear the fate of a foreigner whose wife was so attractive.¹⁴² The husband was easily expendable in such circumstances. Abram thus appealed to his wife to accept his solution to this problem of his safety. He proposed that Sarai pose as his sister, so that he would not be killed.

Much has been written concerning Abram’s request. Some have thought that Abram was willing to see his wife married off to an Egyptian for his safety, as well as the dowry it would bring him. This, I believe, goes too far. More likely is the explanation of Cassuto,¹⁴³ who suggests that Abram asked his wife to pose as his (eligible) sister so that when the men of the land asked for her hand, he could stall for sufficient time for them to leave the land.

It really was an ingenious plan. One of the local men would come to Abram to ask for his sister’s hand in marriage. Abram would consent but insist upon a long engagement (long enough for the famine to end). During this time Sarai would remain at Abram’s home where their marriage could secretly continue and the safety of Abram was assured. It seemed that the benefits were great and the liabilities of such a scheme were minimal.

Such a plan was evil for several reasons. First of all, it tended to ignore the presence and power of God in Abram’s life. God had promised the ends, but seemingly He was unable to provide the means. He promised a land, a seed, and a blessing. Now it seemed as though Abram was left to his own devices to procure them.

One must wonder if there were traces of the pagan religion of the Mesopatomians underlying Abram’s actions. Did Abram suppose, like the pagans, that each nation had its own god? Once out of the land God had promised Abram, was his God no longer able to provide for him and protect him? Such thoughts would enter the pagan mind.

Abram’s plan was wrong because it jeopardized the purity of his wife and the promise of God. God had promised to make of Abram a great nation. From Abram a great blessing to all nations, the Messiah, would come. Now Abram was willing to run the risk of another man taking Sarai as his wife. How, then, could she be the mother of Abram’s seed?

Abram was wrong as well because he looked to his wife to bring him blessing when God had promised to bring a blessing to others through Abram: “And I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, and so you shall be a blessing; and I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse” (Genesis 12:2-3).

Abram was clinging to his wife’s petticoat for protection and blessing, rather than to the promises of God.¹⁴⁴

Finally, Abram’s plan was wrong because his fears were hypothetical and his ethics were situational. Look carefully at Abram’s fears—they were all future. He had not yet entered the land (12:11), and what he feared was all stated in terms of the future (12:12-13).

Here is a clear-cut case of situational ethics. Situation ethics first of all poses a hypothetical problem which has no alternatives except ones that are morally unacceptable. The lesser of the evils is then justified in the light of the circumstances.

Abram was not wrong in considering the possibility that someone would appreciate his wife as beautiful and desire her for a wife. It was not even wrong to suppose that someone might even kill him to marry her. Abram was wrong to assume that this would happen and that the only way to prevent it was to lie. Nowhere is the promise and the protection of God considered. Sinful deception is therefore begun before any real danger is ever experienced.

Abram’s Fears are Fulfilled
(12:14-16)

Someone is sure to protest: “But Abram’s fears were not hypothetical. It happened just as Abram had feared.” Not really! Abram was not the victim of what he feared; he was the cause of what came to pass. Abram’s fear of the future, and his faithless plan of action actually caused the event that followed. Much of what we fear is self-fulfilled.

It is true that Sarai was noted as a beautiful woman and this was reported to Pharaoh. But what was most crucial in what followed was the claim from both Abram and Sarai that she was his sister, and therefore eligible for marriage. While we can only conjecture as to Pharaoh’s action, if the truth were known, he felt fully justified in taking the sister of Abram into his harem.

God worked in Abram’s life in a remarkable way. Abram supposed that the possibilities of escape from the dangers in Egypt were only as numerous as those he had considered. Abram made his decision on the assumption that he could foresee the outcome of his actions. God taught Abram the painful lesson that the possibilities for the future are more numerous than we can predict. And so Abram is faced with a dilemma that he never considered.

It was all well thought out and neatly planned. Sarai would pose as his sister, and Abram would put off any marriage until the famine was over and they were gone. But Abram’s plan considered only the men of Egypt: “and it will come about when the Egyptians see you, that they will say, ‘This is his wife; and they will kill me, but they will let you live” (Genesis 12:12).

Never had it entered Abram’s mind that Pharaoh might be interested in Sarai. While Abram could put off the plans of others, Pharaoh would not take no for an answer. He took her into his palace, awaiting the time of the consummation of the union.

There is no evidence of a physical relationship between Pharaoh and Sarai. While the preparation period would normally have been at the home of Abram, in this case it would be at the palace. Sarai would likely undergo a relatively long period of preparation for her presentation to Pharaoh. Such was the custom in those days:

Now when the turn of each young lady came to go in to King Ahasuerus, after the end of her twelve months under the regulations for the women—for the days of their beautification were completed as follows: six months with oil of myrrh and six months with spices and the cosmetics for women—the young lady would go in to the king in his way: anything that she desired was given her to take with her from the harem to the king’s palace. In the evening she would go in and in the morning she would return to the second harem, to the custody of Shaashgaz, the king’s eunuch who was in charge of the concubines. She would not again go in to the king unless the king delighted in her and she was summoned by name (Esther 2:12-14).

Can you imagine the lonely, agonizing nights Abram must have spent, wondering what was going on in the palace? Abram had asked Sarai to lie so that it would go well with him (verse 13). And it did go well. Pharaoh sent many gifts to Abram and treated him royally. The only thing which kept Abram from enjoying his treatment was the realization of what it meant. Pharaoh was giving these things to Abram as a dowry. It did go well with Abram, but without Sarai, his wife. Prosperity is never a blessing without the peace which comes from being right with God.

Divine Deliverance and Royal Rebuke
(12:17-19)

Significantly, God had not yet been mentioned in this event until verse 17. Abram was allowed to fail and to flounder until his situation was seemingly hopeless. We are not told that he cried to God for help.

Without warning, God intervened in the life of Abram. Pharaoh and his household are struck by some kind of plague. Its symptoms may have been such as to suggest that the nature of the offense was sexually related. We are given no details here of the plague, nor of how its meaning was discerned.¹⁴⁵

Abram was confronted by Pharaoh and roundly rebuked. Abram had no excuse or explanation. So far as we are told, he did not utter a word in his defense. No doubt this was the wise thing to do in the light of Abram’s offense. Pharaoh was not one to be challenged or angered unnecessarily.

The irony of the situation is obvious. Here is a pagan correcting a prophet (cf. 20:7). It was a royal rebuke that Abram would painfully remember. How sad, however, that Abram could not speak, for this no doubt hindered any testimony to his faith in the living God Who had called him. The Christian’s conduct does greatly affect his credibility.

Abram’s Restoration
(12:20-13:4)

How different reality was from the faithless reasonings of Abram. While in Egypt, Sarai’s purity was protected and Abram’s life was preserved. More than this, all of his possessions were kept intact. And to top it off, Abram and those with him were escorted back to the land of Canaan.

And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him; and they escorted him away, with his wife and all that belonged to him. So Abram went up from Egypt to the Negev, he and his wife and all that belonged to him; and Lot with him. Now Abram was very rich in livestock, in silver and in gold (Genesis 12:20-13:2).

How foolish Abram’s fears must have appeared in the light of history. In order to avoid a famine, Abram was forced to face a Pharaoh. The might of Egypt was not employed against him, but was commanded to assure his safe arrival in Canaan. Indeed, Abram left Egypt even richer than he had come. But none of this was the result of Abram’s faithless and dishonest actions. It was the product of divine grace and providential care.

Verses 3 and 4 recount the retracing of Abram’s steps in reverse order. First he came to the Negev, then finally to Bethel and Ai. And when he returned to the altar he had formerly built, he once again offered sacrifices and called upon the name of the Lord.

Conclusion

Cassuto stresses the fact that Abram’s sojourn strikingly parallels Israel’s sojourn of the future.¹⁴⁶ While the occasion for Israel’s presence in Egypt may not have been noble, God’s protection was provided there and they were eventually brought out with great spoils.

Famines would continue to be a part of the life of God’s people in the land to which they were going. But they must learn that famines come from God as a test of faith. If the people of God wish not to face famine, they must face Pharaoh. No matter what circumstance we may be in God is greater than any famine or any Pharaoh. The purity of God’s people must never be jeopardized, for in those days the Messiah was yet to appear for the salvation of His people.

There are many principles in this passage which should greatly strengthen the believer of any age. We shall suggest several.

(1) When God promises the ‘ends,’ He also provides the means. Abram believed God would give him a land, a seed, and a blessing. But in his time of faithlessness he supposed that God did not provide the means. God always provides for what He promises. There is a secular song which is entitled “Workin’ Like the Devil, Servin’ the Lord.” Many Christians seem to believe it. That is not God’s way.

(2) Our faith fails because our God is too small. We know that Abram’s faith failed. We also have seen that this failure did not frustrate God’s plan for his life. But we should be greatly helped to understand why Abram’s faith failed. I think the answer is obvious: Abram’s faith failed because His ‘god’ was too small.

As you know, J. B. Phillips some years ago wrote a book entitled, Your God is Too Small. Personally, I believe that Phillips put his finger on the reason why our faith is so fallible. The emphasis today falls largely upon our faith, rather than upon its object. As someone has said, I may have a little bit of faith in a 747 and be able to fly from here to Europe. On the other hand, I may have a great deal of faith in some homemade contraption which I have built in my garage. That will not get me across the Atlantic Ocean, no matter how great my faith in it may be.

Abram did not know His God well. And this was both normal and natural. He did not seem to think that his God was greater than famine, greater than Pharaoh. What Abram needed was not lessons in increasing his faith, but an increase in his faith by learning the greatness of his God. I believe much of our problem of little faith would be solved by knowing the God we serve more intimately. Abram did not have a Bible to help him, but we do.

(3) Situation ethics is wrong because it refuses to believe in the sovereignty of God. Situation ethics always supposes some kind of hypothetical circumstance in which there is no solution that is morally right. But God’s Word clearly tells us that God never puts us in a situation where we must sin:

No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it (I Corinthians 10:13).

The underlying error of situationalism is that it refuses to accept a sovereign God Who is able to deliver His people, regardless of their circumstances. Release from the slavery of Egypt under the cruel hand of Pharaoh was impossible, humanly speaking. When Israel stood trapped between the attacking armies and the Red Sea, there was no hope apparent. But the God we serve is a sovereign God. He is able to deliver His people from situations which appear to demand a sinful response.

(4) There are no short-cuts to godliness. Abram was taken aback by a famine, supposing that God’s way should not include adversity. But Abram was to learn that God designs the tests of life to develop our faith, not to destroy it.

Leaving Canaan for Egypt, in my estimation, was an attempt on Abram’s part to short-cut the test of the famine. As we have previously said, God forced Abram to face Pharaoh in place of the famine. But beyond this, we must see that, in the end, Abram had to go back to the place where he departed from the revealed word of God. Abram’s last act of faith and obedience was at the altar he built between Bethel and Ai. The end of Abram’s sojourn in Bypath Meadow was at this same altar between Bethel and Ai.

Have you ever considered side-stepping the path in which God has called you to walk? You may, of course, but the way will never be easy. The way of the transgressor is never easy (Proverbs 13:15). And, in the final analysis, we must resume wherever we left off. You cannot defeat God’s program and purposes for your life, my friend. At best, you can only delay them. And even this is a delusion, for in our failures many lessons of faith are learned.

(5) When our faith fails …God doesn’t. Our faith, like Abram’s will fail. But the blessed truth of God’s Word is that when our faith fails, God doesn’t.

Abram chose to doubt God’s presence and power in the face of a famine. His actions were those which showed he was willing to sacrifice principle for self-preservation. In spite of Abram’s failure of faith, God preserved him and even prospered him. Ultimately, God brought Abram to the place that he should have been.

This principle of God’s faithfulness in the face of our failure is one that applies to us today as well: “If we are faithless, He remains faithful; for He cannot deny Himself” (II Timothy 2:13).

Here is the beauty of divine election. God has ultimately chosen us to be His children. (This applies, of course, only to those who believe in Christ for eternal salvation.) Just as He saved us in spite of ourselves, so He also sanctifies us in spite of ourselves. Our eternal security, our salvation, our sanctification rests in His faithfulness, not ours. Here is great comfort for those whose faith will fail.

But someone is sure to point to the verse immediately before II Timothy 2:13: “If we endure, we shall also reign with Him; if we deny Him, He also will deny us” (II Timothy 2:12).

There is a great deal of difference between doubt (faithlessness) and denial (rejection). Abram did not reject God; he simply failed to believe that God was able or willing to act in his behalf. No doubt Abram thought that God only “helped those who helped themselves.”

My understanding is that a true Christian cannot and will not ever renounce Jesus Christ as their Savior. But we will find times where our faith succumbs to doubt. Trials, tests or adversity may momentarily overwhelm our faith and cause us to doubt, and thus to act in violation to God’s revealed will. Such, I believe, was the case with Abram.

I do not mean for us to take this matter of failure lightly. When men do not purposefully act in accord with the revealed will of God, His purposes are not thwarted. God providentially acts to ensure the fulfillment of His purposes. While we may find ourselves precisely where God wanted us all along (providentially), we will never look back on our sin and unbelief with a smile on our face. Disobedience is never a delight to the Christian. Those long, lonely nights in the house of Abram were not worth the dowry of Pharaoh. Failure is always painful, but it never thwarts God’s purposes for his children.

May God use this truth to keep us from careless Christianity, as well as to comfort us when we do experience a failure of our faith.

140 “The Bible does not condemn his action but the results condemn it; so we are to learn by cause and effect relationships.” Harold Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 143.

“Yet all the indications are that Abram did not stop to enquire, but went on his own initiative, taking everything into account but God. His craven and tortuous calculations are doubly revealing, both of the natural character of this spiritual giant (cf. Jas 5:l7a) and of the sudden transition that can be made from the plane of faith to that of fear.” Derek Kidner, Genesis (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), p.116.

141 Abram, we are told, left Haran for Canaan at the age of 75 (12:4). We know from 17:17 that Sarai was ten years younger than Abram, making her about 65 at the time of this event. How could her beauty be so great at this age? Sarah died at the age of 127 (23:1). In her day, she was simply at the early stages of middle age. Her beauty was so striking she appeared even younger than she was. This satisfies the matter to my satisfaction, at least. Cf. Kidner, p. 117.

142 Stigers has an interesting footnote on this point: “PABH, p. 55 does state that a certain papyrus document states that the Pharoah had a husband killed that he might have the beautiful wife. Modern times do not have a ‘corner’ on such deeds!” Stigers, Genesis, p. 141, fn. 10.

143 U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1964), II, pp. 348-352.

144 A comment should also be made concerning Sarai’s participation in this scheme. I agree with Leupold, who has written, “Sarai’s acquiescence, however, seems to grow out of the idea that there actually is no other safe course to follow. She was as sadly deficient in faith as he himself on this occasion.” H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942), I, p. 425.

It is true that Peter commended Sarah, and used her as an example for Christian women, especially in the matter of submissiveness. But Peter did not refer to her actions in chapter 11, but rather to chapter 18 and her respectful reference to Abraham as her ‘lord’ at the time when she learned that she and Abram were to have a child of their own. Never is the Christian to sin because someone in higher authority has commanded it (cf. Daniel 3, 6; Acts 5:29).

145 The account of a similar repetition of this sin is found in chapter 20, and may shed some light on our text in chapter 12. Cf. especially 20:17-18.

146 Cassuto, Genesis, II, pcf. 334 ff.

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_13_32k.mp3

Biblical Topics:

Faith

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

14. Lot Looks Out For Number One (Genesis 13:5-18)

Introduction

This week, as I was preparing for this message, I was reminded of a recent best seller entitled, Looking Out For Number One. Thinking that this book might provide me with some illustrative material, I went to the library to check it out. All the volumes were missing from the shelf. I take it that many today are operating on this premise.

Lot never read any books on the subject, but he had it down to a science, as we can see from the account of Moses in Genesis chapter 13. Here, the time for Lot and Abram to separate had come. In their parting we find a contrast between these two saints in their motives and actions, a contrast which serves as a warning for those who think that God blesses those who look out for themselves at the expense of others.

A Relationship Is Strained
(13:5-7)

As they came out of Ur with Terah, Abram and Lot seemed inseparable, even when God had commanded Abram to leave his relatives behind.

Now the Lord said to Abram, ‘Go forth from your country, and from your relatives and from your father’s house, to the land which I will show you;’ (Genesis 12:1).

But finally, the ties between the two were weakening. Essentially their separation was caused by three factors which are recorded in verses 5-7:

Now Lot, who went with Abram, also had flocks and herds and tents and the land could not sustain them while dwelling together; for their possessions were so great that they were not able to remain together. And there was strife between the herdsmen of Abram’s livestock and the herdsmen of Lot’s livestock. Now the Canaanite and the Perizzite were dwelling then in the land (Genesis 13:5-7).

The first problem was the success of both men as keepers of flocks. Both Abram (13:2) and Lot (13:5) had prospered. Now their flocks and herds had become so large that they could no longer dwell together (13:6). This was especially true for nomadic tribesmen who must travel about looking continually for pasture for their sheep and cattle.

The second problem was the strife which seemed to be steadily growing between the herdsmen of Abram and Lot (13:7). Each man’s herdsmen sought water and the best pasture for the animals of their master. This competition inevitably led to conflict between the herdsmen of Lot and Abram.

It would probably not be far from the facts to suggest that some irritation already had become evident between Abram and Lot themselves. This may be implied by Abram’s words in verse 8. This also would be true to life. Whenever there is contention between followers, there most often will be strife between the leaders also.

If the first problem is the success of both Abram and Lot, and the second is the resulting strife, the third is the fact that the land where they sojourned was shared with others; namely the Canaanites and the Perrizites (13:7).

It is all too easy to forget that none of the land of Canaan as yet belonged to either Abram or Lot. When Abram and Lot separate in this chapter, they part paths; they do not divide real estate. They are both living in a land which is occupied by the Canaanites and Perrizites.

This seemingly incidental remark from the pen of Moses not only reminds us that Abram was a sojourner, dwelling in a land that would some day belong to his seed, but it may also suggest that the strife which existed between he and Lot was a poor testimony to those who looked on with interest. Further, Abram and Lot not only had to share pasture between themselves, but were at the mercy of those who had prior claim to the land.

I smile as I read these verses, for God works in strange and sometimes humorous ways to accomplish His will. Long before, God had told Abram to leave his country and his relatives. At that time, leaving Lot was mainly a matter of principle. Abram was to do it because God had said to. Now, years later, Abram reluctantly acknowledged that a separation must take place, not as a matter of principle, but out of practical expediency.

My friend, one way or the other God’s will is going to be done. It could have been done by Abram in Ur, but it was not. God providentially brought an irritation and competition between Abram and Lot which forced a separation to occur. Sooner or later, God’s purposes will come to pass. If we do not see the need for obedience, God will create one. You can count on it.

A Request Is Made
(13:8-9)

No doubt the problem which caused Abram and Lot to separate had long been evident. I would imagine that Abram had frequently discussed it with Sarai, his wife. The text does not tell us any of this, but I suspect that Sarai’s words were to Abram the same as countless wives have reserved for such a time as this: “I told you so.”

Often, the course of action which is inevitable is obvious to our mate long before we are willing to accept the reality of our circumstances. Sarai may well have posed a very different solution than the one Abram formulated. She might have said to Abram, “Tell Lot to hit the trail.” “God didn’t call Lot to Canaan, Abram, but you.” “Let him leave!” All of this, of course, is mere conjecture on my part. But any student of human nature would have to find it at least a realistic possibility.

Abram’s solution could not have been more gracious or godly. His motivation seems to be ethically, and not economically, based.

Then Abram said to Lot, ‘Please let there be no strife between you and me, nor between my herdsmen and your herdsmen, for we are brothers. Is not the whole land before you? Please separate from me; if to the left, then I will go to the right, or if to the right, then I will go to the left’ ( Genesis 13:8-9).

More than anything, Abram wanted to maintain peace and heal the strife which had come between himself and Lot. The overriding principle is that of the unity of brotherhood that must be preserved. Strangely, though very practically, this unity is to be preserved by separation. Someone must leave, either Abram or Lot.

Seemingly, it was obvious that they must separate. The only question was who would leave, and where would he go? Abram left that decision to Lot. Whichever way Lot chose, Abram would act correspondingly. The offer gave Lot the advantage, and left Abram vulnerable.

A Resolution and Its Results
(13:10-13)

It would seem that both men were standing on a high spot from which all of the surrounding land was visible when Abram made his offer to Lot. Lot’s decision was made on the basis of cool calculation. With the eye of an appraiser, he looked over the land, weighing the advantages and disadvantages of the options:

And Lot lifted up his eyes and saw all the valley of the Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere—this was before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah—like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt as you go to Zoar. So Lot chose for himself all the valley of the Jordan; and Lot journeyed eastward. Thus they separated from each other (Genesis 13:10-11).

As the father of five children, I can appreciate what went into the look of Lot as he surveyed the land about them. Any of my children could work for the Bureau of Standards. With a mere glance, each can easily gauge the quantity of root beer in any glass. Without any apparent effort they reach out for a glass and the first to grab always ends up with the largest, no matter how small the difference. That same kind of look was evident in the eyes of Lot.

He fixed his gaze on the beautiful Jordan valley. Its beautiful green evidenced the presence of the plentiful waters of the Jordan for irrigation. The parched hills and dusty ground beyond were of little interest. There was scarcely any water there.

Literally, this Jordan valley was a paradise. It was just like that ‘garden of the Lord’ (13:13). It, too, seems to have been provided for by irrigation, rather than rain (Genesis 2:6, 10ff.). The Jordan valley was also like the land of Egypt. One did not have to live by faith in such a place for water was abundant, and one did not have to look to God for rain.

And so Lot’s choice was made, clearly the shrewd decision, and seemingly the choice that gave him the decided edge in the competition between himself and Abram. It was, in my mind, a selfish decision—one that took all of the best and left Abram with that which seemed worthless.

The simplest and fairest separation would have been to make the Jordan river the boundary between the two men. What would have been more fair than to have chosen one side of the river to dwell in and to leave the other to Abram? But Lot chose ‘all the valley of the Jordan’ (verse 11). He did a masterful job of looking out for number one. He could have written a book on that subject.

Abram and Lot have now separated. Abram dwelt in Canaan, while Lot edged more and more closely to Sodom.

Abram settled in the land of Canaan, while Lot settled in the cities of the valley, and moved his tents as far as Sodom (Genesis 13:12).

Lot had considered very carefully the economic factors of his decision, but he totally neglected the spiritual dimensions. God had promised to bless Abram, and others through him as they blessed Abram (Genesis 12:3). As Lot went his way, I believe he patted himself on the back for putting one over on old Abe. He must have been soft in the head to give such an advantage to Lot, and Lot was just sharp enough to cash in on it. But in the process, he did not bless Abram, but belittled him. That necessitated cursing and not blessing (Genesis 12:3).

Furthermore, Lot had not considered the consequences of living in the cities of the valley. While the soil was fertile and water was plentiful, the men in those cities were wicked. The spiritual cost of Lot’s decision was great. And, in the final analysis, the material benefits all become losses, too.

Lot did not intend, I believe, to actually live in the cities of the valley. At first, he simply set off in that general direction (cf. verse 11). But once our direction is set, our destination is also determined for it is now only a matter of time. While Lot lived in his tents at first (13:2), before long he has traded in his tent for a townhouse in Sodom (19:2,4,6). He may have lived in the suburbs initially, but at last he lived in the city (19:1ff).

Some decisions may not seem very significant, but they set a particular course for our lives. The decision may not seem very important, but its final outcome can be terrifying and tragic. And often the appearance is that his choice is one that is certain to be to our advantage. Material prosperity should never be sought at the cost of spiritual peril.

How time can change our perspective of prosperity! When the decision was made to settle in the Jordan valley, it was a virtual paradise (13:10). Moses, however, included a parenthetical remark which put this beauty in a very different light: “This was before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah” (Genesis 13:10).

How different things appear in the wake of divine judgment. A beautiful paradise, and so it was—until God brought down fire and brimstone upon it (19:24). From that day on it was a wasteland.

Far more than the loss of his possessions and his prosperity, Lot paid a terrible price for his short-lived pleasure. According to Peter, Lot’s soul was continually vexed by what he saw in that city (II Peter 2:7). Even when the saint is surrounded by sensual pleasure, he cannot enjoy sin for long. And more tragic than anything, Lot paid for his decision in his family. His wife was turned to salt because of her attachment to Sodom (19:26). His daughters seduced Lot and caused him to commit incest, no doubt a reflection on the moral values they had learned in Sodom (19:30ff.).

Reassurance for Abram
(13:14-17)

It is of interest that God did not speak to Abram (so far as Scripture informs us, at least) until after he had made his decision to separate. This fact is not incidental, but fundamental, for we read, “And the Lord said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, … ” (Genesis 13:14).

God’s call of Abram (12:1-3), so far as we can discern, was to Abram alone. So also was the confirmation in chapter 13. God had commanded Abram to leave his relatives (12:1). Blessing could not come apart from obedience to God’s revealed will, and neither would reassurance. Humanly speaking, the only thing which stood in the way of divine blessing was human disobedience. God removed that barrier by providentially separating Lot, and now the promise of God is restated.

‘… Now lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward; for all the land which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendants forever. And I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that if anyone can number the dust of the earth, then your descendants can also be numbered. Arise, walk about the land through its length and breadth; for I will give it to you’ (Genesis 13:14b-17).

Lot had ‘lifted up his eyes’ (verse 10) and beheld the land before him with the eyes of one weighing financial promise, Abram was commanded to look through the eyes of faith in God’s promise.

Abram here may have stood on some elevated spot, surveying the land that was his, and perhaps also that land which Lot had chosen to occupy. If I had been standing in Abram’s sandals, I would have had many second thoughts. Had I not given up my golden opportunity? Did Sarai think that I had played the part of the fool? Had I failed her; had I failed God in my decision? A look at the luxuriant green of the Jordan valley against the brown barrenness of the waterless hills might have inspired such thoughts.

Yet God assured Abram that all the land he beheld was to be given him. Lot may have chosen to live in Sodom, but God had not given it to him for a possession, nor would He. Lot was to be a sojourner in Sodom (cf. 19:9) and not for long, either. Giving Lot the advantage was not giving up his hopes for the future, for it is ultimately God Who brings blessing to men by His sovereign choice.

As Abram stood, looking over the land, he could perhaps see the rich black dirt of the Jordan valley where Lot was headed. Also he could see the dust which blew about him, typifying the land where he would live. But God used that very dust as a testimony to the blessings that would come. His seed would be as plentiful as the dust which dominated the land where he lived. No longer was he to look on that dust with doubt, but with hope, for it was to be the symbol of future blessing.

God’s final word to Abram in this visitation was to survey the land which would someday be his. For now he was not to possess it, but to inspect it with the eye of faith. The promise, “For I will give it to you” (verse 17) is future. It was not until the occupation of the land by the Israelites under Joshua that this promise was fulfilled. God’s promises take time to be possessed, and this is because God has planned it that way.

How gracious God is to speak words of comfort and reassurance when all appearance of blessing seems out of reach. How good to be reminded that God’s Word is reliable and that His promises are as certain as He is sovereign.

Abram’s Response
(13:18)

Abram’s response revealed a growing faith in the God Who called him. He moved his tents toward Hebron, settling near the oaks of Mamre. It was a plot of ground which belonged to another, not Abram (cf. 14:3), but it was where God wanted him to be. There Abram built an altar and worshipped his God.

How different were the paths of these two men after they separated. The one was almost imperceptibly edging closer and closer to the city of Sodom, to live among godless and wicked men, and all for the sake of financial gain. The other was living the life of the sojourner, dwelling on those barren hills, with his hope in the promises of God. One lives in his tent and builds an altar of worship; the other trades in his tent for an apartment in the city of wicked men. Here was a decision which bore heavily on the destiny of two men, but, far more, on the destiny of their offspring.

Conclusion

The decisions reached by Abram and Lot are the same as those which confront every Christian. We must decide whether to trust in the sovereignty of God or in our own schemes and devices. We must determine whether to trust in the ‘uncertainty of riches’ or in the God Who ‘richly supplies us’ (I Timothy 6:17). We must decide whether to invest in the ‘passing pleasures of sin’ or the future ‘reward’ which is promised by God (Hebrews 11:25-26).

These decisions are clearly contrasted in the separation of Lot and Abram. Lot chose to act on the basis of utility; Abram on the basis of unity. For the sake of unity, Abram was willing to be taken advantage of (cf. I Corinthians 6:1-11, esp. verse 7).

Abram acted on the ground of faith in a God Who had promised to provide. Lot chose to direct his life on the uncertain foundation of financial security. Abram was greatly blessed, and Lot lost it all.

Lot chose to dwell in a city which seemed like paradise (13:10), but was filled with sinners. Abram decided to live in a deserted place, but where he could freely worship his God.

Abram beautifully illustrates the truth of two New Testament facts. First, he provides a commentary on these words, spoken by our Lord:

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God (Matthew 5:5,9 NIV).

Abram was a man of meekness. He was not a man of weakness, as chapter 14 demonstrates. He did not have to forcefully snatch blessing, but faithfully wait for it from God’s hand. He was one who was given to peace, rather than to sacrifice it for prosperity.

Then, too, we find this incident in the life of Abram instructive when compared to these words from the apostle Paul:

Abram was successful because he was a servant. He did not get ahead in life because he climbed the hill of success over the wreckage of men’s lives who got in his way. He was exalted by God because he placed the interests of others ahead of his own.

He did not consider Lot better than himself, as some translations wrongly suggest. Surely our Lord, Who is the supreme example of humility, did not consider fallen and sinful men better than He, the infinite, sinless God. Rather, He asked to secure their benefit at His expense. He looked to God for blessing and for justice (cf. I Peter 2:23).

The world’s way of getting ahead is to look out for number one. That was Lot’s way, as well. God’s way to blessing is looking up to Number One, and looking out for others (cf. Matthew 22:36-40). Such a life can only be lived by faith. Such a life can only cause our faith in God to grow.

The beginning point for every man, woman, and child is to look to God for salvation. We cannot, we dare not, trust in our own shrewdness to get us entrance into God’s kingdom. Often what we perceive to be ‘paradise’ is soon to be destroyed by divine wrath. Faith recognizes our sinfulness and trusts in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary for eternal security and blessing. Our own best efforts are doomed to destruction. Only what God promises and provides will endure.

May God enable each of us to trust in Him, and not in ourselves.

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_14_32k.mp3

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

15. The Rescue of Lot (Genesis 14:1-24)

Introduction

I suffer from an incurable fascination with sermon titles. I regret already having written the message for Genesis chapter 13 because I now have a new title for it. It should have been, ‘‘Abram had a Lot to Lose.” Chapter 14 could then be, “Abram had a Lot to Gain.” Perhaps chapter 15 would be, “Abram had a Lot to Learn.” So much for titles.

On our local Christian radio station there is a program which attempts to give ‘another view of the news.’ I appreciate this effort because the Christian should certainly see much more than the secular analysts do in the news of our time. For example, great catastrophes, such as the eruption of Mount St. Helen and the earthquakes in California, may foreshadow the signs of the end times (cf. Matthew 24:7). The rapid increase in crime and lawlessness may be viewed as fulfilling the moral conditions of the last days (cf. II Timothy 3:1-7). The outbreak of war, the threat of it elsewhere, and the alignment of nations all are of great significance to the alert Christian (cf. Ezekiel 38; Daniel 12; Matthew 24:6-8).

There is, of course, a secular side of the news. It deals mainly with the facts and figures, the details and descriptions of the events which have occurred. Explanations for these events are almost always humanistic and economic in nature.

For the Christian there should be another dimension—the spiritual side of history. If God is sovereign in history, as the Bible claims Him to be (cf. Psalm 2; Proverbs 21:1; Daniel 2:21; Acts 4:23-31), then His hand is to be seen as guiding history to achieve His purposes.

Such is the case in Genesis chapter 14. Here, for the first time in the Scriptures, patriarchal and secular history intersect.¹⁴⁷ On the surface, this incident is merely an international power struggle to ensure economic supremacy by the control of a crucial trade route. The ‘other side of the news’ is that this event serves as a commentary on Genesis chapter 13 and as an opportunity for instruction, both for Lot and Abram. While Lot seems to have learned little, Abram’s faith is matured.

The Sacking of
Sodom and the Loss of Lot
(14:1-12)

The first 11 verses of chapter 14 might puzzle the 20th century reader for they are strangely secular. Worse yet, they seem remote, disinteresting, and dull. They contain an account of the power struggle between two opposing coalitions of kingdoms.

The first block of nations was that of the four Mesopotamian kings of the east (14:2). Chedorlaomer, king of Elam (modern Iran), seems to have been dominant.¹⁴⁸ Shinar was the region of ancient Babylon (cf. Genesis 10:10). The second alliance was made up of five kings, including the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah (14:2).

After 12 years as vessels of the four eastern kings, the five southern kings attempted to throw off their shackles. The eastern kings could not allow such rebellion to go unpunished. This revolt did not go unnoticed by others in the same plight (cf. 14:5-7). The economic results of ignoring the insurrection were too devastating to contemplate. The five southern kings controlled the territory through which the ‘way of the kings’ passed. This was the land bridge through which commerce between Egypt and the four eastern kingdoms must pass. Whoever controlled this land bridge maintained a monopoly on international trade.

The route taken by the Mesopotamian kings has been the subject of considerable criticism.

It reveals a wide sweep to the east and south and then around to the southwest; then northeast to the western side of the Dead Sea, and lastly the troops swarm down upon their final objective, the cities in the Vale of Siddim.¹⁴⁹

Two explanations seem to satisfy the objections which have been raised. I believe both of them together reveal the wisdom of Chedorlaomer’s strategy. First, the route of the conquest seems to be the ‘way of the kings,’ the trade route which the Mesopotamian kings sought to insure.¹⁵⁰ The rebellion of the five southern kings may well have prompted similar acts from the other kingdoms. The four Mesopotamian kings thus sought to restore their sovereignty over the entire length of the trade route.

Secondly, the four kings sought to deal with the rebel kingdoms one at a time. By securing their position first with these other kingdoms the danger of attack from the rear was removed. The noose seems to be drawing tighter about these rebels as the account progresses.¹⁵¹ It may have been hoped that as victories continued to pile up for the four kings that a surrender would be preferable to defeat for the five southern kings.

The kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, with their allies, must have decided it was more noble to suffer defeat in war than to have to back down by surrendering. The troops dug in for all-out battle in the valley of Siddim (14:8). The rebel kingdoms must have offered little resistance to the invasion. As they retreated from the enemy, some fell into the tar pits of the valley, others fled to the hills (14:10).

Sodom and Gomorrah were sacked. Everything and everyone that could be carried off was. That is the secular side of the news. But why is so much emphasis placed upon the details and description of this event?

The answer is only to be found in the ‘other side of the news,’ the spiritual dimension. Apart from the facts and figures, the strategies and the speculations of human reasoning, there was a spiritual purpose. This international incident is not to be understood only in terms of power struggle and economic forces. It was a part of the program of the sovereign God for the lives of two of His people, Lot and Abram.

The remark which, to the unenlightened eye, seems casual and incidental is foundational:

“And they also took Lot, Abram’s nephew, and his possessions and departed, for he was living in Sodom” (Genesis 14:12).

What a commentary on the decision of Lot in chapter 13. Lot had chosen to act on the basis of economic self-interest, and had thus disregarded the covenant God had made with Abram (12:1-3). What Lot should have learned is that “he who lives by the sword, also dies by it.” Economic self-interest was the motive of the kings of both alliances, both southern and Mesopotamian.

All that Lot seemed to have gained by taking advantage of Abram was lost in an instant, and seemingly by chance. He was caught in the middle of an international incident. Can you imagine the thoughts which went through Lot’s mind as he and his family and all their goods were being carted off to a distant land? He who had been so shrewd was now a slave, and all because of his selfish choice.

Also do you notice that Lot was said to have been living in Sodom (verse 12)? When we left him in chapter 13 he was first living in the valley of the Jordan, heading eastward (13:11). Then he moved his tents as far as Sodom (13:12). At last Lot is one of them, at least so far as the victors were concerned.

Lot Rescued By His Uncle Abram
(14:13-16)

One of those who escaped from Chedorlaomer found Abram and reported Lot’s fate to him.

Then a fugitive came and told Abram the Hebrew. Now he was living by the oaks of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and brother of Aner, and these were allies with Abram (Genesis 14:13).

Noteworthy is the designation of Abram as “the Hebrew.”¹⁵² It seems that he was beginning to become well-known by those who lived in that land. Abram was dwelling by the Oaks of Mamre. Mamre and his two brothers, Eshcol and Aner, had formed an alliance with Abram (verse 13).

Assembling his forces, and those of his allies,¹⁵³ Abram hastily pursued the captors of Lot.

And when Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he led out his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and went in pursuit as far as Dan (Genesis 14:14).

One cannot really be certain that it was Abram’s faith that prompted him to undertake such a risky venture while seemingly so greatly outnumbered. At least we must be careful of reading an act of faith into the text. Nowhere is Abram’s motive clearly stated.

There were a number of good reasons to ignore the report of the fugitive altogether. As Sarai no doubt suggested, the odds were not in Abram’s favor. Such a campaign could be suicide. Also, Lot got exactly what he had asked for. He chose to live in Sodom—let him learn his lesson in Elam or Babylon. He deliberately chose to take advantage of his uncle, Abram; now let him pay the price.

Whether it was a matter of faith or honor I cannot tell for sure. (Personally, I lean more toward family honor. I see Abram as a man something like Ben Cartwright on the TV series “Bonanza.”) We now see that the meekness of Abram revealed in his dealings with Lot was not weakness. For whatever reasons, Abram went after his nephew. Because of His promise to Abram (12:1-3), God protected and prospered him.

And he divided his forces against them by night, he and his servants, and defeated them, and pursued them as far as Hobah, which is north of Damascus. And he brought back all the goods, and also brought back his relative Lot with his possessions, and also the women, and the people (Genesis 14:15-16).

Abram, it would seem, had a great military mind. He employed a forced march and a surprise attack from various positions. As appearances would have it, Abram was the commander of his own men, as well as those of his allies. Pursuit was vigorous and extensive, until the victory was complete and the spoils entirely recovered. Everything was recovered: the possessions, the people, and the prodigal—Lot.

The King of Sodom
and the King of Salem
(14:17-24)

Perhaps no test a man faces is greater than that of success:

The crucible is for silver and the furnace for gold, and a man is tested by the praise accorded him (Proverbs 27:21).

One can hardly fathom the temptation the triumphal return of Abram presented to him. His reception must have been the ancient counterpart to a ticker tape parade in New York City. If the king of Sodom came out to meet Abram, how much more those of the city, who hoped for the return of their loved ones.

Then after his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley) (Genesis 14:17).

If the king of Sodom had some appropriate words for the occasion, he had to wait to say them for out of nowhere the king of Salem appeared with the words Abram most needed to hear:

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of God Most High. And he blessed him and said, ‘Blessed be Abram of God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand.’ And he gave him a tenth of all (Genesis 14:18-20).

I believe it was providential that Melchizedek’s appearance interrupted the meeting of Abram and the king of Sodom. When Melchizedek had finished his task he apparently departed and then the king of Sodom spoke.

Melchizedek is a crucial figure in this account because he put Abram’s victory in proper theological perspective.¹⁵⁴ There was no back-slapping or politicking. Melchizedek was a king and a priest, not a king and a politician. His words were intended to remind Abram that the victory was God’s, and that his success was a result of God’s blessing. In effect, Melchizedek’s words were a reminder of the covenant God had made with Abram when he called him from Ur to Canaan:

Now the Lord said to Abram, ‘Go forth from your country, and from your relatives and from your father’s house, to the land which I will show you; And I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great and so you shall be a blessing; and I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed’ (Genesis 12:1-3).

Abram’s response was a testimony to his faith in the one God worshipped by he and Melchizedek. His tithe was tangible evidence that it was God Who deserved the glory.

Many have resorted to verse 20 as a proof-text for tithing: “… And he gave him a tenth of all.” We are told that this is the first instance of tithing, and that it occurred before the Law was given. Therefore, the practice of tithing goes beyond the Law and thus is binding on Christians today. I believe this to be fallacious thinking.

We are led to believe that Abram tithed to Melchizedek, giving him a tenth of all his possessions. But when Moses wrote, “… he gave him a tenth of all,” what did he mean by all—all what?

This may come as a shock to you, but Abram did not give a tithe of his possessions. First of all, Abram was not at home, with his possessions, but on his way back home, with the possessions of the king of Sodom and his allies. The writer to the Hebrews informs us of the content of Abram’s tithe:

Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils (Hebrews 7:4).

Imagine this scene. Abram is met by the king of Sodom, who, no doubt, heaps praises upon him. The king of Salem arrives who urges Abram to give the glory to God. And then the king of Sodom stands wide-eyed and open-mouthed as Abram gives a tenth of the best spoils of Sodom to Melchizedek. What a witness to the glory of God and the sinfulness of Sodom! That, my friend, is no example of biblical tithing.

The king of Sodom knew well that “to the victor belongs the spoils.” In addition, he had already witnessed a tenth of the goods being given to the king of Salem (Jerusalem). The best bargain this pagan could hope to strike was to get back the people and to surrender the possessions to Abram:

And the king of Sodom said to Abram, ‘Give the people to me and take the goods for yourself’ (Genesis 14:21).

How tempting this offer must have been to Abram. By all rights, and even by the request of the king of Sodom, the spoils were his. In a way it was poetic justice. Lot had chosen Sodom for its promise of material blessings. Lot had seemingly gotten the best of Abram, and now God was giving it back to Abram to whom it should have belonged in the first place.

Abram’s words must have been an even greater shock to the king of Sodom than his act of sharing the spoils with Melchizedek:

And Abram said to the king of Sodom, ‘I have sworn to the Lord God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth, that I will not take a thread or a sandal thong or anything that is yours, lest you should say, “I have made Abram rich”’ (Genesis 14:22-23)

Where would you suppose Abram found the words that he spoke to the king of Sodom? From the king of Salem—where else? Melchizedek referred to his God and Abram’s as “God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth.” This was an unusual designation for God (El Elyon—cf. the margin of verses 19, 20, NASV), and yet Abram used it—the same words as Melchizedek had spoken.

The arrival of the king of Salem, I believe, was a turning point for Abram because it brought his victory into perspective. While men may give glory to men, the saint must give the glory to God for any victory ultimately is His, not ours.

For this reason, Abram could not accept the offer of keeping the goods of Sodom. Abram, like Melchizedek, was now jealous for God’s glory to be His alone. To accept anything from a pagan king would be to give him the opportunity to suppose that his giving was responsible for Abram’s success. The price of such goods was too high and so Abram refused what was rightfully his.

This is a wonderful conviction to which Abram has come, but notice that he does not cram his convictions down the throats of his allies:

I will take nothing except what the young men have eaten, and the share of the men who went with me, Aner, Eschol, and Mamre; let them take their share (Genesis 14:24).

What the men have eaten of Sodom’s goods is not to be repaid. But also what the others are entitled to, who are not related to God by faith, should not be withheld.

Conclusion

Perhaps more than anything the event in Genesis 14 provides us with a divine commentary on the decisions made in chapter 13. Lot chose Sodom and self-interest, and nearly lost everything because of it. Abram chose to pursue peace and thereby was given a military victory. Lot relied on himself and became a slave. Abram trusted God and become a prominent figure among his brethren. How different our decisions appear in the light of history. History weighs the decisions of men.

This passage also reminds us of the sovereignty of God in the affairs of men. God is in control of history. The events which appear to be only secular often have a much deeper spiritual purpose and significance. What seems to be a tragic situation in which Lot is caught between two competing political systems is really the purpose of God being worked out for the benefit of two men (primarily), Lot and Abram. There is, my Christian friend, another side of the news.

I am reminded by the appearance of Melchizedek that there are no “Lone Rangers” in the Christian faith. There are times when we feel as though no one else is keeping the faith, but such impressions are self-deception (cf. I Kings 19:14,18). Here was a godly king/priest, Melchizedek, whom we have not seen before, nor after, but he is a true believer.

God works through men, my friend. While we may like to be self-sufficient, this is not God’s way. At a critical point in the life of Abram, God sent a man to set him straight and to keep him from taking success too seriously. Thank God for the men and women God uses in our lives, and for the fact that He uses us to minister to others at crucial times in life.

There is also the reminder that in the matter of giving and receiving, the most important issue is the glory of God. If we give to receive glory, our gifts are of no benefit (cf. Matthew 6:2-4). If we prosper at the hand of those who reject God and who take the glory themselves, God’s glory is veiled to men. Let us be most cautious in this matter of money and material things. Some may take money, even from the devil, but Abram would not.

Finally, this event provides us with a beautiful illustration of the salvation of God. Lot chose to go his own way, seeking his own interests over the promise of God to bless men through Abram. As a result of his self-seeking, Lot had to face the consequences of his sin. Rather than peace and prosperity he found shame and slavery.

At the point where Lot was able to do nothing to correct his errors or to free himself from bondage, Abram, at great personal risk, won the victory and won his release. Saving Lot was the sole reason for Abram’s daring rescue. In spite of Lot’s disregard for Abram, Abram rescued him from the consequences of his own sin.

All of us, the Bible says, have sinned.

… for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).

We have all gone our own way:

All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way (Isaiah 53:6a).

The good news of the gospel is that God sent His son, Jesus Christ to rescue us from our sins. The consequences and penalty for our sins were suffered by Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary.

Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried, Yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him (Isaiah 53:4-6).

Have you trusted in Him? Will you acknowledge your willfulness and waywardness and your need to be released from the bondage of sin? God’s rescue mission has succeeded, and its benefits are free for all who believe that salvation is in Christ alone.

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:16).

And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12).

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23).

The one who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the witness that God has borne concerning His Son. And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life (I John 5:10-12).

147 “For the first time, the biblical events are expressly co-ordinated with external history.” Derek Kidner, Genesis (Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p. 118.

148 “Elamite and Babylonian domination of Palestine had been effective for twelve years. Chedorlaomer the Elamite was at the time in question sovereign also over Babylon, a fact with which historical records agree.” H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942), I, p. 450.

149 Ibid, p. 451.

150 “The route of the conquest has a continuous history from c. 2500 B.C. down to present times. Along it from end to end have been found tells, some quite large, indicating that the route indeed is actual and historical, giving ample incitation to the cupidity of the invaders. It came to be called in later times ‘The King’s Way!’ (Num. 20:17; 21:22).” Harold Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), D. 148.

151 “The simplest of all explanations is that the army coming from the east wanted to eliminate the possibility of an attack from the rear by unfriendly groups. These unfriendly groups were either unsubdued opponents or subjugated opponents known to be restive and inclined to side with other revolters. . . . It shows the line being drown closer and closer about Sodom and Gomorrah. We are made to sense the apprehension of the revolting cities; and they turn around from point to point as reports come pouring in about the defeat of the groups being attacked.” Leupold, Genesis, I, p. 401, p. 149.

152 “Abram is for the first time called “the Hebrew.” It has been considered by some that “Hebrew” is not equivalent to Habiru, though others, including Kenyon, find them possibly equivalent. One characteristic occupation of the Habiru was that of mercenary soldier, and Abram fits that picture in his rescue of Lot. The name “Hebrew” thus is a memorial epithet of this rescue, not indeed of disapprobation, but in the best sense. As indicated by the contents of the cuneiform documents, Abram again is found to fit into his age.” Stigers, Genesis, p. 149.

153 Verse 24 informs us that men from Eschol, Mamre, and Aner accompanied Abram on this military campaign, for they were to share in the spoils.

154 Some may puzzle at the fact that I have not delved into the typological significance of Melchizedek. The writer to the Hebrews does so (Hebrews 5,7) reflecting on the event in Genesis, combined with the prophecy of Psalm 110:4. The reason I have not dealt with the typological importance of Melchizedek is that, for Moses, Melchizedek’s typical significance was secondary, not primary. It was supplemental to, and not fundamental to, the literal, historical, grammatical meaning of the text. The typological meaning of any text is a fringe benefit, but it is not to supplant the literal interpretation of the text. The typical meaning may never have entered the mind of the writer (only the mind of God), but the literal meaning was the writer’s intended message.

Português

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_15_32k.mp3

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

16. The Focal Point of Abram’s Faith (Genesis 15:1-21)

Introduction

In Genesis chapter 15 we come to one of the high-water marks of Old Testament revelation, summarized for us in verse 6: “Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.”

Up to this point, Abram’s faith has been more general in its nature. It has rested primarily upon the call of God as recorded in chapter 12:

Now the Lord said to Abram, ‘Go forth from your country, and from your relatives and from your father’s house, to the land which I will show you; and I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; and so you shall be a blessing; and I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse (Genesis 12:1-3).

God seldom allows our faith to remain general, however, and so we face crises points which bring our faith from the abstract to the concrete, and from the general to the specific. Such is the case with Abram in this chapter.

Abram’s Hope for an Heir
(15:1-6)

God’s words to Abram¹⁵⁵ are far from what we would have expected in such circumstances: “Do not fear, Abram, I am a shield to you; your reward shall be very great” (Genesis 15:1).

Why would Abram possibly be afraid? He had just won a great victory over Chedorlaomer and the three other eastern kings (Genesis 14:14-15). Because of this, he had, no doubt, received considerable recognition, even from the pagan king of Sodom (14:17, 21-24). What fear could haunt Abram’s faith at such a time of victory?

It is possible that Abram feared future military reprisals from Chedorlaomer and his allies. He may have won the battle, but had he won the war? The word of God to Abram, “I am a shield to you,” could very well be aimed at subsiding this fear of future military conflict.

This cannot be Abram’s greatest concern, especially in view of the remaining verses. Abram’s victory was not so sweet in the light of one question which seemed to overshadow all else, “What good is success, without a successor?”

Abram’s response to God confirms this: “And Abram said, ‘O Lord God, what wilt Thou give me, since I am childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?’ And Abram said, ‘Since Thou hast given no offspring to me, one born in my house is my heir’” (Genesis 15:2-3).

In the Ancient Near East there was a well-attested practice to ensure an heir, even if no son were born to the man.¹⁵⁶ The childless couple would adopt one of the servants born into the household. This ‘son’ would care for them in their old age and would inherit their possessions and property at the time of their death. At this low point in Abram’s faith, it was the best for which he thought he could hope.

God had promised Abram far more than that which he could provide for himself. Eliezer was not the heir that He had promised. His descendants were to come from his own reproductive cells. He would have a son of his own.

Then behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying, ‘This man will not be your heir; but one who shall come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir’ (Genesis 15:4).

To reassure Abram, God took him outside and drew his attention to the stars in the heavens. This is how numerous the offspring of Abram would be through his son that would surely come (verse 5).

Verse 6 describes Abram’s response to divine revelation: “Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness” (Genesis 15:6).

The translation of the NASV is somewhat unfortunate. The first word ‘then’ attempts to convey the idea that Abram responded to God’s promise of a son by belief. In this sense, it is a good translation. The difficulty which arises, is that ‘then’ may convey more than it should. Verse 6 is the first time the word ‘believe’ is used. It is also the first time that Abram is said to have been reckoned as righteous. It would be easy to conclude that Moses meant that this is the first time Abram had faith in God, and that he is here ‘saved’ (to use the New Testament word).

In the book of Hebrews we read: “By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going” (Hebrews 11:8).

Here the writer to the Hebrews intends us to understand that Abram ‘believed’ God before chapter 15, even as he left Ur to enter the land of Canaan.

The solution is not as difficult as it may seem. The grammar of verse 6 indicates that Abram’s faith did not begin here.¹⁵⁷ Not only did he previously believe, he continued to believe. The ‘then’ of our translation may therefore be a little too strong.

But why did Moses wait until this point to tell us that Abram believed, and that he was justified by faith? Luther’s answer, I believe is most satisfactory. Abram’s faith is not mentioned until now in order to emphasize the fact that a saving faith is one that focuses upon the person and work of Jesus Christ.¹⁵⁸ Here Abram’s faith is focused upon the promise of a son, through whom blessing will come to the whole world. While we may not fully determine how complete Abram’s understanding of all this was, we must not overlook the words of the Savior: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad” ( John 8:56).

While Abram had believed in God, here his faith is more clearly defined and focused. Here his faith is in the promise of God to provide the blessing of a son, and blessings through Him. It is at this point that God chose to announce that Abram’s faith was a saving faith.

Notice three things about this faith of Abram:

(1) First of all, it was a personal faith. By this I mean that Abram believed in the Lord. He did not merely believe about God, but in Him. Herein is the distinction between many professing Christians and those who are possessing Christians—genuinely reborn by faith in the person of Christ.

(2) Second, Abram’s faith was a propositional faith. While Abram believed in the person of God, his faith was based upon the promises of God. Many believe in the god of their own definition. Abram believed in the God of revelation. The covenant God made here with Abram (verses 12ff) gave Abram specific propositions on which to base his faith and his practice.

(3) Abram’s faith was also a practical faith. By this I mean that Abram’s belief was one that necessitated action. Clearly, Abram’s works did not initiate his salvation, but they did demonstrate it (cf. James 2:14ff.). Also, Abram’s faith was related to a very practical and sensed need—the need for a son. God does not ask us to believe in the abstract, but in the everyday matters of life.

When Moses says that Abram’s faith was reckoned for righteousness it does not mean that Abram’s faith was, in some fashion, exchanged for righteousness. Abram’s faith, like ours today, was not something which he conjured up by mental or spiritual effort. Faith itself is a gift (Ephesians 2:8-9). His faith was in the coming child and in his offspring, one of whom would be the Messiah. It was because Abram looked to the One God would provide for righteousness that God declared him to be righteous. Technically speaking, salvation (and faith) are a gift, but righteousness comes through the legal process of imputation. Abram was legally declared righteous by God because he trusted in Him Who was righteous. The righteousness of Christ, imputed to Abram because of his God-given faith, saved him.

God’s way of saving men is not new. It has not changed from Old Testament times to New. Always, God has saved men by grace, through faith. There is no other way. While Abram was saved by faith in the One Who would come, we are saved by faith in this One Who has come. That is the only difference.

Reassurance Concerning
the Land Abram Would Possess
(15:7-21)

Having dealt with Abram’s greatest need for reassurance—namely that of an heir, God went on to strengthen Abram’s faith concerning the land he would possess: “And He said to him, ‘I am the Lord who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to possess it’” (Genesis 15:7).

Abram’s question does not seem to reflect disbelief, but wonder at how this will be accomplished: “And he said, ‘O Lord God, how may I know that I shall possess it?” (Genesis 15:8).

The tone seems similar to that of Mary when told she will be the mother of Messiah: “And Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I am a virgin?’” (Luke 1:34).

God did not rebuke Abram for his question, but confirmed His promise by a covenant.

So He said to him, ‘Bring Me a three year old heifer, and a three year old female goat, and a three year old ram, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.’ Then he brought all these to Him and cut them in two, and laid each half opposite the other; but he did not cut the birds. And the birds of prey came down upon the carcasses, and Abram drove them away ( Genesis 15:9-11).

In the ancient world of Abram, legal and binding agreements were not put on papers written by lawyers and signed by the parties involved. Instead, the two parties would arrive at a mutually acceptable agreement, and then they would formalize it in the form of a covenant.

The covenant was sealed by the dividing of an animal (or animals). In fact, the technical term literally means ‘go cut a covenant.’ The animal(s) was cut in half and the two parties would pass between the halves. It seems that in this oath, the men acknowledged that the fate of the animal should be theirs if they broke the terms of their agreement.

So we see that these verses do not describe the process of animal sacrifice, but the legal act of making a binding agreement. Verses 9-11 set the stage for the final ratification of this covenant.

Some time seems to have passed between the preparation of the animals and the final ratification (cf. verse 11). Toward the end of this delay, Abram fell into a deep, trance-like state: “Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold, terror and great darkness fell upon him” (Genesis 15:12).

The “terror and darkness,” in my estimation, was more than that occasioned by an awareness of God’s presence. I believe it was the normal response to the horrors of the revelation of the treatment of Abram’s children in the next 400 years. Abram’s descendants would possess the land of Canaan, but not until after a considerable delay and many difficulties:

And God said to Abram, ‘Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years. But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve; and afterward they will come out with many possessions’ (Genesis 15:13-14).

Very carefully, Egypt remains unnamed as the land where this bondage would occur. Not only did Abram not need to know this, but such knowledge could have been detrimental before this bondage came to pass. It was no problem for those who read these words of Moses to know the land of which he spoke. Indeed, they had just come forth from Egypt. What a strange thing it must have been for those Israelites who were brought out of Egypt to read this prophecy which so accurately described their experience.

There seems to be two reasons for the 400-year delay before the land of Canaan would be possessed. First, the children of Abraham would not yet be able (or numerous enough) to possess the land earlier. Also the people of the land were not yet wicked enough to thrust out: “Then in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete” (Genesis 15:16).

Here is an important principle, and one that governs the possession of the land of Canaan. God owns the land of Canaan (Leviticus 25:23), and He lets it out to those who will live according to righteousness. When Israel forgot their God and practiced the abominations of the Canaanites (cf. II Chronicles 28:3, 33:2), God put them out of the land also.

In the light of the present debate over who has legitimate claim in the land of Israel, let us remember this principle. It is God who owns the land, not the Jews, nor the Arabs. God will not allow the Jews to possess the land and live wickedly any more than He will the Gentiles.

Over the next 400 or more years from the time of this revelation, two programs were simultaneously at work. The Canaanites were growing more and more wicked, and their day of reckoning was steadily approaching. At the same time, the nation of Israel was about to be born, growing rapidly in number, and in spiritual maturity, preparing for the day of possession.

Is this not a picture of our own day as well? Has God not said that in the last days wickedness would intensify (cf. II Thessalonians 2:1-12; II Timothy 3:1-9; II Peter 3:3ff.)? At the same time, God is purifying and preparing us for His return (cf. Ephesians 5:26-27; Colossians 1:21-23; I Peter 1:6-7). The wicked will receive recompense for their sin, and the saints will be rewarded for righteousness.

When God had spoken of Abram’s peaceable death at a ripe old age and the fate of his offspring, He ratified the covenant concerning the land that would belong to Israel:

And it came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces. On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates: the Kenite and the Kenizzite and the Kadmonite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Rephaim and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Girgashite and the Jebusite’ (Genesis 15:17-21).

This covenant is distinctive because only God, in the appearance of a smoking oven and a flaming torch, passed between the divided carcasses of animals. This was done to signify that the covenant was unilateral and unconditional. No conditions were placed upon Abram for its fulfillment.

The geographical boundaries have been clearly defined, and even the peoples who were to be dispossessed were named. God committed Himself to a very specific course of action. What more reassurance could be asked?

Conclusion

The bottom line for Abram was that God’s promise was now much more specific. Abram would have a son of his own through whom blessings would be poured out. Abram’s offspring would be very numerous and, in time, would possess the land. But before this, they would go through a time of delay and great difficulty.

The essence of Abram’s faith was that while he waited for the promise of future blessings, he was content in the meantime with the presence of God. Abram did not come out on the short end of the stick. Abram’s great reward was God Himself: “I am a shield to you; your very great reward” (Genesis 15:1, NASV, marginal reading).

Our theology has been greatly distorted in recent days. We are invited to come to Christ as Savior because of all that He can and will do for us. We may have come to Him for His presents, rather than His presence.

Abram was neither cheated nor short-changed in the delay of God and in the difficulties he and his offspring faced. Abram was blessed, for if God is our portion, that is enough.

The day before I delivered this message I performed the funeral for one of the young women in our church. She was a lovely young woman, a model wife and mother. She was twenty-eight years old when she died in her sleep. We still do not know the medical explanation for her death.

For the funeral message, I chose Psalm 73 as the text. In it the psalmist confesses his perplexity at the fact that so often the righteous seem to suffer (verse 14) while the wicked prosper (verses 3-12). When the writer looks at the eternal destiny of man, he realizes that God ultimately sets matters straight. The requirements of justice are often not fully met until eternity is entered. Heaven and hell are thus required by righteousness. Without them, justice is not satisfied.

This leads the psalmist to the conclusion that the ultimate good in life is not freedom from pain of suffering or poverty, but knowing God:

Nevertheless I am continually with Thee; Thou hast taken hold of my right hand. With Thy counsel Thou wilt guide me, and afterward receive me to glory. Whom have I in heaven but Thee? And besides Thee, I desire nothing on earth. My flesh and my heart may fail; But God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.… But as for me, the nearness of God is my good; I have made the Lord God my refuge, that I may tell of all Thy works (Psalm 73:23-26, 28).

Here, then, is the key to understanding the blessing that is to be found in delay and difficulty: while prosperity often leads us away from God (cf. Psalm 73:7-12), affliction draws us closer (Psalm 73:25-26).

If nearness to God is the highest good, then suffering is good also, if it enhances our intimacy with Him. And prosperity is evil if it inclines us away from the good of knowing God.

That, I believe, is the key to Genesis chapter 15. Abram’s faith is strengthened by specific revelation concerning his son and the soil his offspring will inherit. But even beyond this, he is brought to the realization that faith cannot be separated from suffering, for God uses this to draw men into intimate fellowship with Himself.

Faith is seldom strengthened by success (cf. verse 1), but by believing God in the midst of delays and difficulties.

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Just as it is written, ‘For Thy sake we are being put to death all day long; we were considered as sheep to be slaughtered.’ But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:31-39).

Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance, and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you may not grow weary and lose heart. You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin; and you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons, ‘My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor faint when you are reproved by Him; for those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, and He scourges every son whom He receives.’ It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, that we may share His holiness. All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness. Therefore, strengthen the hands that are weak and the knees that are feeble, and make straight paths for your feet, so that the limb which is lame may not be put out of joint, but rather be healed (Hebrews 12:1-13).

155 The expression found in verse 1, “the word of the Lord came to . . . ” is first employed here in the Old Testament. It is commonly used to introduce a divine revelation given to one of God’s prophets (e.g., I Samuel 15:10). We should remember that Abram is later called a prophet (Genesis 20:7). This would seem to indicate that Moses understood this revelation to have come to Abram for his benefit and ours.

156 The discovery of a number of adoption tablets at Nuzi, has greatly aided our understanding of Abram’s words: “One ‘adoption tablet’ reads: ‘The tablet of adoption belonging to {Zike}, the son of Akkuya: he gave his son Shennima in adoption to Shuriha-ilu, and Shuriha-ilu, with reference to Shennima, (from) all the lands . . . (and) his earnings of every sort gave to Shennima one (portion) of his property. If Shuriha-ilu should have a son of his own, as the principal (son) he shall take a double share; Shennima shall then be next in order (and) take his proper share. As long as Shuriha-ilu is alive, Shannima shall revere him. When Shuriha-ilu {dies}, Shennima shall become the heir.’” Mesopotamian Legal Documents, translated by Theophile J. Meek, in Pritchard, ANET, p. 220., as quoted by John J. Davis, Paradise to Prison: Studies in Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975), p. 185.

157 “The form is unusual, perfect with waw, not as one would expect, imperfect with waw conversive. Apparently, by this devise the author would indicate that the permanence of this attitude is to be stressed: not only: Abram believed just this once, but: Abram proved constant in his faith . . . ” H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids Baker Book House, 1942), I, p. 477.

158 “We feel our answer must take the same form as Luther’s, who points out that justification by faith is first indicated in the Scriptures in a connection where the Savior is definitely involved, in order that none might venture to dissociate justification from Him.” Leupold, Genesis, I, p. 479.

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_16_32k.mp3

Biblical Topics:

Faith

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

17. When Women Wear the Pants (Genesis 16:1-16)

Introduction

Several weeks ago Bill Gothard came to Dallas to speak to 2600 pastors. There he made a statement that was condemning to all of us. He said that, by far, the greatest complaint of pastors’ wives was that their husbands were failing to take the spiritual leadership in their homes.

Stories abound to authenticate this charge. The most common is the one in which the pastor is downstairs praying about the Lord’s leading in moving on to another church while his wife is upstairs packing his bags.

Not long ago, I read the account of how the pastor of one of the great churches in America was called. He had been asked to serve as a supply preacher by this large church. Fearing that accepting would indicate an intention to campaign for this coveted position, he declined. But his wife disagreed and accepted the invitation for him. Fulfilling this commitment, the man later accepted the call and became the pastor of this same church.

Not all such situations work out so well, as our text in Genesis 16 teaches. Abram, the man of faith, revealed that he had feet of clay even in his own home. The devastating results of his passivity in the face of pressure should serve to warn us all.

While here Abram is shown to have failed by listening to his wife, let me quickly say that many of us fail because we don’t listen to our wives when we should. Do not come to this text as a club to employ on your wife, men, for that is a serious error. Let us not come to this passage to prooftext our preconceived ideas and prejudices, but to enlighten our hearts and minds, and thus, to grow in faith.

Sarai’s Proposal
(16:1-6)

The first six verses are not merely a condemnation of Sarai’s attitudes and actions. In reality we find a concert of sins with Abram, Sarai, and Hagar all contributing to the discord which results. Nevertheless, it was Sarai who initiated this particular sequence of events, and thus we must begin with her.

Sarai, Abram’s wife, was prevented from having children. An heir was perhaps the one thing any ancient man would desire above all else. This was especially true of Abram, for he had been told that a great nation would originate with him:

“And I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; and so you shall be a blessing” (Genesis 12:2).

Sarai felt personally responsible for the absence of this son. She assumed that since she had not given birth to a child, and her age seemed to prohibit it, something else must be done to enable Abram to have a child through another woman. She must have been thinking in this fashion: “Now behold, the Lord has prevented me from bearing children” (Genesis 16:2).

Abram could thus father a child, although Sarai would not be the mother.

The culture of that day provided the means to accomplish Sarai’s intentions. Ancient documents reveal that when a woman could not provide her husband with a child, she could give her female slave as a wife and claim the child of this union as her own.¹⁵⁹

The consequences of Sarai’s plan inform us that such a proposal was wrong. Several evidences of this sin can be demonstrated. First of all, Sarai seems to have considered it her responsibility to produce a son for Abram. No basis for this assumption can be seen in Scripture:

In the Abrahamic covenant here given, Abram was commanded to do one thing—leave Ur. God, on the other hand, had promised to guide Abram (verse 1), to make him a great nation (verse 2), and to bless the Earth through him (verse 3). Nowhere is either Abram or Sarai given the responsibility for producing the son. Implied, at least, is the assurance that God will provide a son.

Sarai’s words betray a reluctance to accept the fact that God sovereignly prevented her from having a son: “Now behold the Lord has prevented me from bearing children. Please go in to my maid; perhaps I shall obtain children through her” (Genesis 16:2).

Here is the sin of presumption. Failing to trust God to provide a son, she forced the situation by pressuring Abram into taking Hagar as his wife.

Strangely, the great commentator, Leupold, attempts to diminish Sarai’s guilt by stressing her faith in the promise of God¹⁶⁰ and her self-sacrifice in giving Hagar to her husband.¹⁶¹ I do not agree with either explanation. Nowhere is there any expression of faith in the promise of Genesis 12:1-3. It seems to me that she wanted to remove the social stigma of barrenness, and to strengthen their relationship by giving a son to Abram, even if it involved the sacrifice of principle.

While monogamy may not be clearly commanded, it was presented as that which was original and ideal (Genesis 2:18-25). The first mention of polygamy is far from complimentary (cf. Genesis 4:19ff.). Further on in the book more than one wife is always accompanied by conflict and competition (cf. Genesis 29:30ff.).

In my estimation Sarai did not act in faith, but in presumption. Her primary concern seems to be with the social stigma upon her barrenness. She may well have persisted in her proposal until Abram gave in. Faith never tries to force God to act, nor to act in God’s place, nor to accomplish what is supernatural in the power of the flesh.

We have been hard on Sarai. Some may think too hard. But while Sarai was the instigator of this fiasco, Abram was at fault, also. Indeed, in some ways this sin can be traced back to Abram’s unbelief, when he left Canaan and went down to Egypt (Genesis 12:10-13:4). Is it mere coincidence that Hagar was Egyptian?

Now Sarai, Abram’s wife had borne him no children, and she had an Egyptian maid whose name was Hagar (Genesis 16:1).

The probability is great that Hagar was a gift from Pharaoh to Abram, a part of the dowry for Sarai: “Therefore he treated Abram well for her sake; and gave him sheep and oxen and donkeys and male and female servants and female donkeys and camels” (Genesis 12:16).

The chickens always come home to roost. I believe that Hagar was one of the consequences of Abram’s failure of faith in chapter 12. While Sarai may have been the prodder in chapter 16, the proposal was only possible, thanks to Abram’s decision to sojourn in Egypt.

In chapter 16 Abram is more of a pushover than a patriarch. His wife never mentioned God or the covenant He had made with Abram. Faith did not seem to be a factor, nor was God’s will ever sought. What a time for Abram to stand firm, but instead he fizzled. Seemingly with little or no protest, he passively followed the instructions of his wife. She wanted an heir. She planned the honeymoon. Abram did as he was told.

‘Abram listened to his wife,’ we are told (16:2). Listen in the Old Testament is often a synonym for obedience. Abram’s failure was not in listening, but in heeding her instructions without weighing their implications. I doubt that Abram really did ‘listen’ in the sense of grasping what Sarai was trying to say. Was she asking for reassurance of Abram’s love, even if she could not provide him with a son? Was she asking for reassurance of God’s love and infinite power? Did she need to be reminded of God’s promise? Did she wish Abram to turn her down? Abram may have obeyed without really hearing what Sarai was trying to say.

Hagar was not without her own share of guilt. She was not wrong in going to bed with Abram, so far as I can tell. She was a slave, subject to the will of her mistress. She had little or no voice in this decision. But she was wrong in the false sense of pride and smugness she felt toward Sarai.

And he went in to Hagar, and she conceived; and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her sight (Genesis 16:4).

Hagar forgot that God had closed Sarai’s womb. She disregarded the fact that ‘children are a gift of the Lord’ (Psalm 127:3). She seemed to bask in the affection of Abram, especially when he knew she was to bear his child. She felt exalted above her mistress, and yet was still her slave. She gloried in that which was no cause for pride.

And so we have seen a sequence of sins, beginning in Egypt, and ending in the bedroom of an Egyptian slave. It is ironic how the tables have been turned. In chapter 12, Abram’s unbelief caused him to agonize while Sarai was in Pharaoh’s palace. Now, Sarai, due to her proposal, is left to ponder what is going on in Hagar’s bedroom.

Each of the three: Sarai, Abram, and Hagar, has been caught in the web of sin. Sarai acted in presumption; Abram lapsed into passivity; Hagar was the victim of pride. In yet another round of sin, each responds wrongly to the dilemma into which their sin has brought them.

Sarai found that her scheme had backfired. A child was born, but while loved by Abram (17:18,20; 21:11), Sarai despised him (21:10). Ishmael had driven a wedge between Abram and Sarai, rather than drawing them together. Even the once loyal Hagar now despised her mistress.

Abram had given Sarai what she had wanted, but now she insisted that he had failed her in doing so: “And Sarai said to Abram, ‘May the wrong done me be upon you. I gave my maid into your arms; but when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her sight. May the Lord judge between you and me’” (Genesis 16:5).

In spite of all the pious words Sarai spouted, they did not cover her blame for what had happened. While Sarai was angry with Abram, she must have known that it was she who had made Hagar’s bed. No confession or repentance of sin is found as yet on Sarai’s lips, but only bitter remorse.

Abram did not change his course either. He should have learned that his passivity was not piety. Letting Sarai have her way was relinquishing his leadership. He was the accomplice to sin by refusing to resist it or to rebuke Sarai. Sarai’s stinging rebuke served only to cause Abram to retreat further. He did not acknowledge his sin, nor did he confront Sarai with hers. Instead he persisted in allowing Sarai to have her own way.

But Abram said to Sarai, ‘Behold, your maid is in your power; do to her what is good in your sight.’ So Sarai treated her harshly, and she fled from her presence (Genesis 16:6).

He had gone along with Sarai’s plan to produce an heir. Now he gave Sarai free reign in dealing with Hagar. Sarai seems to have been within the boundaries of legality,¹⁶² while stretching the standards of morality. Hagar, tired of facing Sarai’s tyranny, fled, heading back toward the land of Egypt.¹⁶³

A Divine Intervention
(16:7-16)

Did you notice that God is strangely absent from the first 6 verses? It is true that God was given the credit (or the blame!) for preventing Sarai from having children. But no one had consulted God or sought His will. No one had called to remembrance His promise to provide a son.

More distressing is the fact that God has not yet spoken in our text. It would seem that since man had chosen to go his own way, God stepped aside to let him live with the consequences of disobedience. Only to Hagar did God speak. He sought her while she was running away. The reason for this divine intervention is to be found in verses 7-16.

We have said that Hagar was on her way back to Egypt when God found her. His words penetrate deeply into her actions and attitudes: “Hagar, Sarai’s maid, where have you come from and where are you going?” (Genesis 16:8).

Running away does not change relationships, nor does it remove responsibility. Jonah, even in the belly of that fish, was still God’s prophet with a message for the Ninevites. Hagar continued to be Sarai’s maid, and it remained her duty to serve her mistress.

The question, “Where are you going?” seems intended to bring Hagar back to reality. Perhaps some blow-up had triggered her decision to run away. Little thought would have been taken until some distance was put between Hagar and her heavy-handed mistress. But now was the time to consider the future. Where would Hagar go? Back to Egypt? After ten years, and pregnant? Was this a reasonable thing to do?

Raising serious questions regarding Hagar’s decision, God went on to remind her of her duty. He commanded her to return to the one in authority over her: “Return to your mistress, and submit yourself to her authority” (Genesis 16:9).

We cannot read this command without recalling Peter’s instructions to Christian slaves in his first epistle:

These are difficult words, my friend, but they will be ignored or rejected to our own hurt. A commitment to marriage today seems to be only so long as we get from the relationship what we had hoped for. This is not just outside the church, either: “According to Lucille Lavender … ‘Among the professions, the clergy rank third in the number of divorces granted each year.’”¹⁶⁴

Here is a frightening statistic. We want to talk much more of pleasure and fulfillment these days, than of duty. But that is what God told Hagar to do—to tend to her duty, even if it was drudgery or downright unpleasant.

With the command came a promise. In fact, the command was the condition upon which the promise would be fulfilled:

Moreover, the angel of the Lord said to her, ‘I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they shall be too many to count.’ The angel said to her further, ‘Behold, you are with child, and you shall bear a son; and you shall call his name Ishmael, because the Lord has given heed to your affliction. And he will be a wild donkey of a man, his hand will be against everyone, and everyone’s hand will be against him; and he will live to the east of all his brothers’ (Genesis 16:10-12).

I believe Kidner is correct when he says that in the fulfillment of these promises Ishmael would be a parody of his father.¹⁶⁵ Overtones of the Abrahamic Covenant can hardly be missed in these words of reassurance to Hagar.

Ishmael’s descendants, too, will be too numerous to count (16:10; cf. 13:16; 15:5). From him will come princes and rulers (17:20). That which might seem a curse was perhaps Hagar’s greatest comfort. Ishmael would live a free lifestyle, unrestricted, unfettered, and a thorn in the flesh of his brothers (16:12). To Hagar, the afflicted slave of Sarai, this was a source of hope and comfort. Even under the cruel hand of her mistress, one can almost hear Hagar mumbling under her breath, “Just wait, Sarai.”

The predominant theme of verses 7-16 is stated by Hagar in verse 13, “Thou art a God who sees.”

The name of Hagar’s child served to commemorate the compassion of God for the afflicted. Ishmael means literally, ‘God hears.’ Even when it is the chosen of God who are the source of affliction, God hears and cares for the down-trodden. This truth did much to carry Hagar through the difficult years that lay ahead.

Conclusion

Our text exposes a problem which frequently confronts those who are people of faith, namely, ‘When do I work and when do I wait?’ Saul was wrong to go ahead and offer the sacrifice, even though circumstances seemed to demand it (I Samuel 13), for Saul had been commanded to wait (I Samuel 10:8). Working was wrong because God had forbidden Saul to do Samuel’s task. In Acts chapter 12 it was wrong to wait, when the Christians gathered should have worked. Peter was in prison, condemned to death (12:1-3). The saints had gathered to pray for Peter (verse 5). Many may have prayed for a quick and painless death. Some may have dared to pray for deliverance. But when Peter was standing at the door knocking, continued prayer was an act of unbelief. Then it was time to work (to open the door), not to wait (in prayer).

But how do we learn the difference between the times we should work and the times we should wait? I believe that God has supplied us with a number of principles in Genesis 16 to help us discern the difference between the two courses of action. Let me suggest some of these principles.

(1) We are to work when God has clearly given us the responsibility and the authority to do so. God had never placed the responsibility for producing a child on Sarai, or Abram. God had promised to provide the child (cf. Genesis 12:1-3; 17:6,16, 19). Just as God had prevented Sarai from conceiving (16:2), so He would provide an heir. In my estimation, we are treading on dangerous soil when we ‘step out in faith’ in an area where we have no promise of God’s presence or blessing, or where we have no principle or imperative on which to base our activity.

Furthermore, we cannot hope to succeed in any activity for which God has not given us the power to produce spiritual fruit. As Paul has shown (Galatians 4:21ff.) Ishmael was a result of the work of the flesh, not the spirit. Isaac was the result of divine activity in Abram and Sarai. No work of faith is the work of the flesh. God’s work is that accomplished through His enabling Spirit (cf. Galatians 5:16-26).

(2) We should move ahead only when our motivation to do so is that of faith. Sarai seems to have felt compelled to act because God had prevented her from having children (cf. 16:2). Despite the efforts of a number of commentators to prove otherwise, Sarai’s actions (and Abram’s) betray a motive of fear, not faith. Paul has spoken clearly when he wrote, “… whatever is not from faith is sin” (Romans 14:23).

Several conditions should provoke us to wait, or at least to take some precautionary measures. Let me suggest some factors which may suggest that we should wait rather than work.

(1) We should be reluctant to ‘work’ when it appears that God has been preventing what we have been seeking. Here is a difficult matter, for sometimes God wishes to strengthen our faith by allowing us to overcome obstacles (cf. Exodus 14:10ff; Nehemiah, e.g. 6:1-9). At other times barriers are put up to change our direction (cf. Acts 16:6,7). Knowing the difference between problems and prohibitions requires the wisdom which God freely gives as we ask for it in faith (James 1:5-6).

(2) We should be very cautious about undertaking a work that appeals to fleshly appetites. Stop and think of the inclination Abram could have had to follow Sarai’s instructions. Remember, Sarai was essentially encouraging Abram to go to bed with her servant (cf. 16:2,3,4,5). Undoubtedly she was both young and attractive. Do you think Pharaoh would have given Abram a slave girl as part of a dowry if she were unappealing to look upon? Seemingly noble acts can have very carnal motives. I suggest that we question any work that appeals to our carnal appetites.

(3) We should hesitate to undertake any work when our primary reason for doing so is to relieve pressure, rather than to practice some principle. So far as I can tell the only reason Abram took Hagar was to appease, and perhaps silence his wife. Pressure from others is usually a poor reason for taking on any task.

(4) We should never work when our methods are inappropriate to our goals and to our God. While the goal of Abram and Sarai’s efforts was the birth of a son, an heir, the means were not such as to bring glory to God. We must grant that these means were legal and culturally acceptable. But they appear to fall short of the divine ideal. Union with Hagar attempts to accomplish God’s work with the world’s methodology.

Abram, as a result of this failure of faith, learned the painful consequences of trying to help God. In this sense, God does not need and cannot use our help. God wants to work through us. God purposed to give Abram and Sarai a child. Their efforts at producing a child on their own has resulted in the conflict between the Jews and the Arabs through the centuries.

Speaking of waiting, that is something many of us find difficult to do also. We have a little piece of plastic that frequently tempts us to work rather than to wait on God to provide. It is called the credit card. Why pray about that meal? Go out for dinner and charge it to Master Charge. There is nothing intrinsically evil about credit cards, but they surely do tempt us to act presumptuously, rather than to wait for God’s timing.

Faith, I believe we can see, is trusting in the promises of God despite the problems, and knowing that with God all things are possible. Unbelief focuses upon the problems and supposes that if God does not act within our time frame and within our expectations, we must give Him a hand. Faith believes not only that God will give us what He has promised, but that He will provide us the means to do so, and if not, that He alone will do it.

Let me mention one further observation. God spoke to Hagar in this chapter, but not to Abram or Sarai. In fact Moses tells us that (at least so far as recorded history is concerned) God did not speak to Abram for 13 years (cf. 17:1). When we choose to act upon circumstances, God may speak to us only through circumstances—loudly and clearly and painfully.

It would seem that Abram chose to get his leading from God through his wife for he never questioned her thinking or sought divine guidance (in our passage at least). Isn’t it interesting that the only way Abram knew what to name his son was by what God told Hagar (16:11; cf. verse 15)? When we choose to be led by others rather than by God, God may let us have our way, for a time. But, oh, how lonely those times will be! What fellowship and intimacy we miss.

Dress it up all you can, this text reveals that Abram’s home was beset by the same difficulties we face today. May God help us not to be presumptuous. May God help wives not to pressure their husbands into doing what seems right. May God help those of us who are husbands not to relinquish our responsibility, but to lead in our homes.

Passivity is not piety, and neither is presumption. May God enable us to walk that fine line between both.

One final note. Many people want to help God save themselves. They want a system of salvation that allows them to participate in the process of salvation. My friend, there is nothing you can contribute to your salvation. As the Scriptures teach,

There is none righteous, not even one (Romans 3:10).

… all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment (Isaiah 64:6).

Just as Abram could not help God produce a son through human effort, so you cannot help God save your soul. Salvation is a gift of God, through faith in what Jesus Christ has done for lost sinners.

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23).

By acknowledging that you are powerless to please God, and that Jesus Christ has paid for your sins and provided your righteousness, you can be saved.

159 “The Code of Hammurabi allowed a priestess of the naditum rank, who was free to marry but not have children, to give to her husband a female slave by whom he could have children: ‘When a seignior married a hierodule and she gave a female slave to her husband and she has then borne children, if later that female slave has claimed equality with her mistress because she bore children, her mistress may not sell her; she may mark her with the slave-mark and count her among the slaves.’^a While this provision illustrates the general practice, it is less pertinent than a custom at Nusi. One text reads: ‘If Gilimninu fails to bear children, Gilimninu shall get for Shennima a woman from the Lullu country (i.e. a slave girl) as concubine. In that case, Gilimninu herself shall have authority over the offspring. . . .’^b” John Davis, Paradise to Prison: Studies in Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975), p. 188. Davis here quotes from (a) Pritchard, ANET, p. 172 (paragraph 149), and (b) Speiser, Genesis, p. 120.

160 “Calvin’s summary of the case is quite commendable: ‘The faith of both was defective; not, indeed, with regard to the substance of the promise, but with regard to the method in which they proceeded.’” H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942), I, pp. 493-4.

161 “When Abram ‘hearkens’ (shama’) to his wife’s ‘voice’ (qol), he ‘approves of Sarai’s suggestion.’ No doubt, the patriarch was impressed by Sarai’s utter selflessness.” Ibid, p. 496.

162 “The Code of Hammurabi law l46, forbids the concubine to assert equality with the wife on pain of demotion to the former slave status. Sarai’s complaint to Abram reflects knowledge of both these social documents. Sarai demands that Abram do something about Hagar’s contempt! Abram refers Hagar’s discipline to Sarai.” Harold G. Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 161.

163 “‘Shur’ is regarded by many as meaning “wall,” a meaning quite possible according to the Aramaic. In that event it may be the name of a line of fortresses erected by the Egyptian king, perhaps at the Isthmus of Suez, to keep out Asiotic invaders. In that case Hagar quite naturally was on the way back to her home country, Egypt.” Leupold, Genesis, I, p. 500.

164 Mary LaGrand Bouma, Minister’s Wives: The Walking Wounded, Leadership, Winter, 1980, vol. 1., p. 63.

165 “To some degree this son of Abram would be a shadow, almost a parody, of his father, his twelve princes notable in their time (17:20; 25:13) but not in the history of salvation; his restless existence no pilgrimage but an end in itself; his nonconformism a habit of mind, not a light to the nations.” Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, (Chicago Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), p. 127.

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_17_32k.mp3

Biblical Topics:

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

Dispensational / Covenantal Theology

18. Grasping the Great Truth of God (Genesis 17:1-27)

Introduction

One of the greatest temptations I face in preaching week after week is the compulsion to find something new to proclaim from the pulpit. When this happens, I must force myself to recognize that such an urge is most often not from God. It was the pagan Athenians who were eager to hear something new and novel (Acts 17:19). The apostles, on the other hand, set themselves to reminding Christians of the truths they had already heard (cf. I Corinthians 4:7; I Timothy 4:6; II Timothy 2:14; II Peter 1:12,13; 3:1).

Novelty may be entertaining, but it is not often edifying. Listen to these words of wisdom from the pen of C. S. Lewis. While the context is not precisely ours, the principle remains the same:

To judge from their practice, very few Anglican clergymen take this view. It looks as if they believed people can be lured to go to church by incessant brightenings, lightenings, lengthenings, abridgements, simplifications, and complications of the service. And it is probably true that a new, keen vicar will usually be able to form within his parish a minority who are in favour of his innovations. The majority, I believe, never are. Those who remain—many give up churchgoing altogether—merely endure.…

But every novelty presents this. It fixes our attention on the service itself, and thinking about worship is a different thing from worshipping. The important question about the Grail was ‘for what does it serve?’ ‘Tis mad idolatry that makes the service greater than the god.’

A still worse thing may happen. Novelty may fix our attention not even on the service, but on the celebrant. You know what I mean. Try as one may to exclude it, the question ‘What on earth is he up to now?’ will intrude. It lays one’s devotion waste. There is really some excuse for the man who said, ‘I wish they’d remember that the charge to Peter was Feed my sheep; not try experiments on my rats, or even, Teach my performing dogs new tricks.¹⁶⁶

While little that we find in Genesis 17 may be new to us, we must remember that we have ‘read the last chapter of the book.’ What we read as ancient history, Abram learned over a period of years, piece by piece. Much of what is said in chapter 17 was new and exciting to Abraham. We cannot experience the excitement and expectation of Abraham until we have ‘walked in his shoes’ through this text.

As we approach the passage, let us think of ourselves as Abram did. He was 99 years old at the time. Twenty-four years ago Abram had left Haran, in obedience to the divine call of Genesis 12:1-3. After Abram and Lot separated and Abram had defeated the eastern alliance of kings (chapters 13 and 14), God formally made a covenant with Abram, specifying that his heir would come from his own body (15:4), and giving a more exact description of the land that he would possess (15:18-21). In addition, he was told the fate of his offspring for the next several generations (15:12-16).

Thirteen years previous to where we stand in chapter 17, Abram had taken a wrong turn. Following the advice of his wife, Abram attempted to produce the heir God had promised by following an established practice of his day, taking Sarai’s maid, Hagar, as his wife. This led only to disunity and heartbreak for all involved. So far as we can tell, God has not spoken since He encountered Hagar on her way to Egypt.

These thirteen years were not wasted. They served to illustrate the consequences of serving God in the power of the flesh, and of acting presumptuously . They served, as well, to intensify the impossibility of Abram and Sarai ever having a child between them. In this way, if a child was born at this time it would surely be a work of God, and not of man. It appears that, in the light of this difficulty, Abram had come to believe that Ishmael was his only hope for an heir.

God’s Promise
(17:1-8)

God’s words in chapter 17 break the silence of 13 years:

Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, ‘I am God Almighty; walk before Me, and be blameless. And I will establish My covenant between Me and you, and I will multiply you exceedingly’ (Genesis 17:1-2).

After thirteen years of silence, Abram must have been greatly encouraged by this encounter with God. In times past, God had only been said to have spoken to Abram (cf. 12:1) or come in a vision (15:12-17). Here, after 24 years, God revealed Himself; He appeared to Abram. Abram had seen God for the first time.

God had disclosed Himself to Abram in a more intimate fashion. Also, He manifested Himself more fully in terms of His character and attributes. God referred to Himself as ‘God Almighty,’ E1 Shaddai. This is the first time God has been called by this name. It is a designation which emphasizes His infinite power.¹⁶⁷ What God had long before determined, and what would now be more precisely defined, would depend upon a God of infinite power to accomplish.

Previously, God had required little of Abram other than to leave (Ur) and believe (15:6) in His promise. Now that the covenant was about to be implemented,¹⁶⁸ Abram would be required to behave in a way that God prescribed. He must walk before his God blamelessly, not in perfection,¹⁶⁹ but in purity (15:1). It is probably not without significance that God withheld specific duties until long after Abram’s belief was evident, so that works are not the basis of the covenant but a by-product of it.

Just as Abram had heard God refer to Himself by a new name, so Abram is renamed, a token of his destiny:

As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I will make you the father of a multitude of nations (Genesis 17:4-5).

The name Abram meant ‘high father’ or ‘exalted father.’ This alone may have proved to be an embarrassment to Abram who had only one child and that by a slave. But now his name was changed to ‘father of a multitude.’ How could Abraham ever live this name down? By the grace of God, he would soon live up to his new name.

Most of us have had the unhappy experience of making an agreement only to find that it profited us far less than we had hoped for and been led to expect. Just the opposite is true with God’s promises. The more we learn of them, the richer the blessings they contain. Abram had been told that he would become a great nation (12:2); now he is told that in fact he will become the ‘father of a multitude of nations’ (17:4). Beyond this, he will be the father of kings (17:6). El Shaddai promised to be a God to Abram and to his descendants (17:7), among whom we must include Abram’s spiritual seed (cf. Galatians 3:16). The covenant was not only between Abraham and God, but between God and Abraham’s seed, forever.

Stipulations of the Covenant
(17:9-14)

There is a clearly defined outline of the obligations of this covenant described in chapter 17. In verse 4 God said, ‘As for Me.’ In verse 9 He said, ‘As for you.’ In verse 15 we read, ‘As for Sarai.’ Finally, in verse 20, we find, ‘As for Ishmael,’ God’s covenant is eternal and sure. The enjoyment of the blessings of the covenant is conditional. Only by keeping these conditions can man enjoy the blessings of God as guaranteed in the covenant.

The obligation upon Abraham and his descendants was that they be circumcised:

This is My covenent, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised (Genesis 17:10).

In one way, circumcision seems too simple. How can God require only this one act? Let us remember that God had already said to Abraham, “Walk before Me, and be blameless” (verse 1). Circumcision was not all that Abraham was required to do—rather, it was the symbol of his relationship to God and signified what his moral conduct should be. Circumcision, for Abraham, meant that he had bound himself to God in this covenant. He looked forward to its blessings, and he also submitted to its stipulations.

Circumcision is the only act of surgery of its kind that is beneficial to mankind. More than its physical benefits, it signifies spiritual requirements as well. Symbolically, the flesh is put away. Abram had acquired a son by the use of his reproductive organ. Now he submitted it to God. No Israelite could ever engage in the sex act without being reminded of the fact that he belonged to God. Children that were begotten were to be brought up according to God’s Word. Circumcision of infant sons did not save them but evidenced the faith of the father and mother in the God of Abraham. As that young child grew up, his circumcision was a sign to him that he was different from other boys—he belonged to God. It was not the circumcision that saved the boy, but the sign which would forever remind him of what God required to enjoy the benefits of His covenant. Circumcision of the male only may have signified the special responsibility which God had assigned to the father. (This may have had particular significance to Abraham after the incident with Hagar.) Some have emphasized the similarities between baptism and circumcision and surely there are some (cf. Colossians 2:10-12). Both signify a union with God that has already occurred. Both necessitate the putting away of former things and living a life pleasing to God (cf. Romans 6:1ff; Colossians 3:1-11) .

But there are rather obvious differences which must be kept in mind. Baptism is for believing adults, as an indication of their faith in God (Acts 16:33; 19:1-7).¹⁷⁰ Circumcision was performed on infants eight days old and evidenced the faith of the parents. Baptism was a public sign, circumcision was a private sign. Baptism is for all believers, male and female, circumcision was only for the males. Circumcision was a sign of the covenant with Abraham; baptism is not the sign of the New Covenant but the Lord’s supper (cf. Luke 22:20).

A Promise for Sarah
(17:15-19)

Up to this time, God had promised Abraham a son but had not specifically identified the mother of this child. Abraham had been convinced by Sarai and circumstances that it must be Hagar. It seems as though Abraham still considered this to be the case. What a shock God’s words must have been, and what a commentary on chapter 16:

As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. And I will bless her, and indeed I will give you a son by her. Then I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall come from her (Genesis 17:15-16).

What Abraham must have originally assumed, what experience seemed to deny, was that Sarah would be the mother of his son and heir. The promise of an heir is now narrowed to Abraham and Sarai.

Abraham’s response is puzzling:

Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, ‘Will a child be born to a man one hundred years old? And will Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?’ (Genesis 17:17).

Before we attempt to determine whether Abraham’s response was consistent with his faith, let me point out that what is recorded is not spoken to God. This was Abraham’s inner and immediate response to God’s proclamation. Personally, I do not view this as the laugh of delight, but of disbelief. The impossibility of such a thing taking place was the cause of Abraham’s outburst. Lest we be too pious about this matter, I suspect Abraham’s response is just about what we would have done. At the same time, I do not want to suggest total unbelief on Abraham’s part. The promise was an incredible one—too much to take in one dose. Laughter is often the response to things which catch us off guard.

Abraham’s words to God also reflect a failure to fully grasp what has just been promised: “Oh that Ishmael might live before Thee!” (Genesis 17:18).

If Abraham could not believe that Sarah would bear a son to him, then his request is easily explained. He informed God that so far as he was concerned, Ishmael was satisfactory as his heir. No such wonder as another son through Sarah was necessary since a son was already in the family. In addition, the love of Abrabam for this boy is again evidenced. Why should another child be born, especially when conflict would be inevitable? Couldn’t God choose to bless Ishmael rather than to provide another child?

God’s plans would not be changed. God had purposed to give Abraham and Sarah a child and through this child to bring about His promises. No substitute son was satisfactory, especially when he was the result of self effort. Indeed, Sarah would bear a son and the spiritual blessings could only come about through him:

‘No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him’ (Genesis 17:19).

A Promise for Ishmael
(17:20-21)

While the spiritual blessings must come through Isaac, God will not overlook the love of Abraham for his son nor of His own promise to Hagar (cf. 16:10ff.). Ishmael would become a great nation, and of him would come 12 princes, but the spiritual blessings could only come through Isaac. The doctrine of divine election is to be seen in this promise.

Abraham’s Obedience
(17:22-27)

Verses 22-27 stress the important role of obedience in our Christian lives. It is precious to God. Because of this, He recorded the circumcision of Abraham, Ishmael, and all of Abraham’s household. The response of faith to divine commands is always obedience.

While there was a time lapse of 13 years from the birth of Ishmael to this appearance of God, there was only about three months from the circumcision of Abraham to the birth of Isaac.

Conclusion

There is little in this passage which is new to anyone who has read their Bible. Let us not forget, however, that a good deal of what was said was new to Abraham.

New revelation was simply clarification of the promise of Genesis 12:1-3. It suddenly occurred to me in my study of this passage that all of Abraham’s life was primarily focused upon the promise of Genesis 12:1-3. It took him a lifetime to begin to grasp the promise which initially took only three verses to record. The pinnacle of Abraham’s growth in faith is seen in his willingness to sacrifice his son (chapter 22). This act was the ultimate test of Abraham’s faith in God’s promise to bless him through his descendants.

If it took Abraham a lifetime to grasp three verses of Scripture, how long will it take us to fathom the depth of the riches of His grace (cf. Romans 11:33-36)?

This passage helps me come to grips with the desire to learn ‘new’ truths for my own life and for my preaching. God is not so interested in us knowing new truth as He is in us grasping the few great truths of His word. How easy it is to think that we have learned some truth, only to pass on to another. In Abraham’s life, God revealed a truth, then continued to return to it, testing him, and then revealing more of that truth than he had known before. Which one of us can say that we have come to fathom the doctrine of the grace of God or of the atonement? Who would be willing to claim that he had seen all of its implications? I believe that, like Abraham, we can expect God to be at work in our lives, expanding and expounding upon the few great and central truths of Christianity.

The more I study the life of Abraham, the more I see that his was a relationship of growth. He came to learn more and more about the God Who called him. He came to a deeper and deeper understanding of the meaning of God’s Word. As he did so, he invariably drew nearer and nearer to God. There was not only a growth in Abraham’s knowledge, but in his intimacy. At first, God only spoke to Abraham (12:1). Twenty-four years later He revealed Himself to Abraham and spoke with him. Abraham, for the first time, communed with God and interacted with Him. Later, he would be called the friend of God.

You and I cannot have a static relationship with God. Not if we are truly born again. God will not allow this to happen. He may allow us to fail such as Abraham often did. He may leave us to ourselves for a time, as Abram found God silent for 13 years. But sooner or later God will break into our lethargic lives and draw us closer to Himself. That is what the Christian life is all about.

166 C. S. Lewis, Letters to Malcom: Chiefly on Prayer (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1964 , pp. 4-5.

167 “This was a new title of God (Hebrew: El Shaddai). The root idea seems to be that of power and ability, and is best rendered by the phrase ‘the Mighty God,’ the addition of ‘All’ being no necessary part of the word. This special emphasis upon God’s power was very appropriate to the new message about to be given.” W. H. Griffith Thomas, Genesis : A Devotional Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1946), pp. 153-154.

168 The covenant had been formally made in chapter 15. Here in chapter 17, the implementation of the covenant is referred to in verse 2. Thus the translators of the NASV render the word (literally ‘give’) ‘establish.’

169 The word perfect, or blameless, in verse one need not imply perfection, but integrity, cf. the marginal note in the NASV.

170 Some would use the Acts 16 passage to proof-text infant baptism, but this cannot be done. All who were of the jailor’s household heard the gospel (16:32); all believed (16:34); all were baptized (16:33), all rejoiced (16:34). All who were baptized were themselves believers, just as was the jailor.

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_18_32k.mp3

Biblical Topics:

Theology Proper (God)

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

19. Marks of Maturity (Genesis 18:1-33)

Introduction

I grew up in deer country and, as a young lad, I liked to hunt. We country people were always disturbed by those city folks who would come out to shoot our deer, the ones that had been eating in our orchards and nibbling in our vegetable gardens all year long. I heard of one city slicker who knew so little about hunting that he stopped at a local store to ask what one looked like. If you cannot believe this, I heard of a farmer who was so concerned about his cattle being shot during hunting season that he actually painted, in large letters, COW on his cattle.

The loss of a cow to a city dude is pathetic but not earth shaking. Many Christians, however, are pursuing the goal of maturity who fail to comprehend the marks of maturity. Some believe it is in knowledge while others equate it with a particular experience, or by the following of some kind of rules, or of the application of formulas. While such things as knowledge and experience are important, these alone are not the mark for which we are to strive.

In our study of the life of Abraham, we found him at a very low ebb in chapter 16. There, pressured by his wife, Abram’s faith failed momentarily and he attempted to produce what God had promised through human effort. A child was gotten through Hagar, but not the child of promise. Only heartache resulted for Abram, Sarai, and Hagar, because of their sin. So far as the Bible informs us, it was thirteen years until God once again spoke to Abram. Then, in Genesis chapter 17, God broke this silence and reiterated His covenant with Abraham and promised the birth of the child through Sarah in a year.

In contrast to chapter 16, chapter 18 is one of the high water marks of Abraham’s life. While his faith was not flawless, it had grown. His attitudes and actions serve as an example of maturing faith. The description of Abraham’s faith which we find in chapter 18 provides a backdrop for the failure of Lot in chapter 19, the seeds of which were sown in chapter 13. That story we save for our next lesson, but the contrast between the two men in these two chapters is clearly seen.

Let us look more closely, then, to Abraham and the marks of his maturity as they are seen in Genesis 18.

The Heavenly Trio
and Abraham’s Hospitality
(18:1-8)

While this is not the first appearance of our Lord to Abraham, it is certainly unique. Previously, God had spoken directly (12:1-3; 13:14-17), through a spokesman (14:19-20), by a vision (15:1ff), and in an appearance, one which may have been accompanied with glory and splendor (17:1ff). Now, God comes to Abraham appearing as an ordinary man, accompanied by two others who eventually are identified as angelic beings (compare 18:2,22; 19:1). We are told nothing which would distinguish these three ‘travelers’ from any others:

Now the Lord appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day. And when he lifted up his eyes and looked, behold, three men were standing opposite him; … (Genesis 18:1-2a).

Abraham, in typical eastern fashion, sat by the door of his tent in the heat of the day. Those of us in Dallas, after 40 days of 100 degree or higher temperatures, know the wilting effect of the sun at noontime. The time of day made the need for hospitality even greater, for these guests would be thirsty and weary from the heat. Abraham’s hospitality would be put to the test, for his ‘siesta’ must come to a halt in order to serve his guests.

While such hospitality is still a part of the culture of the east, Abraham’s zeal for his task is obvious:

… and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the earth, and said, ‘My lord, if now I have found favor in your sight, please do not pass your servant by. Please let a little water be brought and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree; and I will bring a piece of bread, that you may refresh yourselves; after that you may go on, since you have visited your servant.’ And they said, ‘So do, as you have said.’ So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah, and said, ‘Quickly, prepare three measures of fine flour, knead it, and make bread cakes.’ Abraham also ran to the herd, and took a tender and choice calf, and gave it to the servant; and he hurried to prepare it. And he took curds and milk and the calf which he had prepared, and placed it before them; and he was standing by them under the tree as they ate ( Genesis 18:2b-8).

Abraham’s duty was performed in no perfunctory or haphazard way. He minimized the provisions and the trouble it would take to prepare them—a little water, a piece of bread, a short rest, and a moment to wash their feet. But what was provided was a sumptuous meal. A large quantity of bread was freshly baked;¹⁷¹ a choice calf was butchered and prepared, curds and milk were served. No simple meal was this! And Abraham refused to sit with his guests, but stood by to serve them.¹⁷²

Any of us would gladly have prepared such a feast if we had known the identity of the guests, but it would seem quite certain that Abraham was, as yet, in the dark. No doubt the writer to the Hebrews spoke of this when he wrote:

Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it (Hebrews 13:2).

What a scene this must have been! Abraham, standing by and serving his heavenly visitors, unaware of their identity. At the same time, beyond and below were the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah with riot and revelry, enjoying their last day of the season of sin, and Lot somewhere therein, as yet unaware of what this day would bring forth.

God’s Promise
Confirmed, Yet Questioned
(18:9-15)

Nowhere are we told the precise moment it occurred to Abraham his visitors were not of this world, but we do know that by verse 27 this fact was known.

I believe that the promise reiterated in verses 9-15 identified these guests by linking them with the revelation in chapter 17.

Then they said to him, ‘Where is Sarah your wife?’ And he said, ‘Behold, in the tent.’ And he said, ‘I will surely return to you at this time next year; and behold, Sarah your wife shall have a son.’ And Sarah was listening at the tent door, which was behind him. Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in age; Sarah was past childbearing. And Sarah laughed to herself, saying, ‘After I have become old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?’ And the Lord said to Abraham, ‘Why did Sarah laugh saying, “Shall I indeed bear a child, when I am so old?” Is anything too difficult for the Lord? At the appointed time I will return to you, at this time next year, and Sarah shall have a son.’ Sarah denied it however, saying, ‘I did not laugh’; for she was afraid. And He said, ‘No, but you did laugh’ (Genesis 18:9-15).

It was customary in those days, as in some cultures today, for the women to be neither seen nor heard while male guests were entertained. Sarah thus prepared the bread out of the sight of the men (cf. verse 6), and now she remained inside the tent as they ate. While she carefully kept out of sight, her curiosity got the best of her. She may have peeped through the folds of the tent, though this is nowhere stated. Nevertheless she did have her ear to the door, anxious to hear the conversation outside. I doubt that any of us could have avoided such temptation either.

When asked where Sarah was, Abraham replied that she was inside the tent. The Lord then assured Abraham that Sarah would have a son next year. The substance of this promise differed little from that revealed previously as recorded in chapter 17 (verses 19,21). For Abraham, this must have clinched the identity of his guests.

It seems as though Abraham either failed to mention this previous promise to Sarah, or he failed to convince her of its certainty. I believe the words of our Lord were intended more for Sarah’s benefit than Abraham’s. It was vital that she, too, have faith in God’s promise.

Sarah’s response differed very little from her husband’s,

Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, ‘Will a child be born to a man one hundred years old? And will Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?’ (Genesis 17:17).

And Sarah laughed to herself, saying, ‘After I have become old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?’ (Genesis 18:12).

Humanly speaking, a child was out of the question, for either Abraham or Sarah. Their laughter, I believe, was a combination of surprise, shock, sheer joy, and unbelief. How could such a thing be? Nevertheless even in such an absurd moment, Sarah thought of her husband with respect.¹⁷³ One wonders if Sarah’s laughter was not heard outside the tent. Omniscience would have known of it, but such may not have been necessary.

Notice that a gentle rebuke is directed, at first, toward Abraham, not Sarah. “And the Lord said to Ahraham, ‘Why did Sarah laugh … ’” (Genesis 18:13).

Had Abraham deliberately kept God’s promise from her? Was his faith so weak that he could not convince his wife? Somehow he must give account for his wife’s response. I find it most interesting that Sarah’s response mirrored Abraham’s. He had provided the example for her.

The words of our Lord speak as loudly to Christians today as they did to Abraham, “Is anything too difficult for the Lord?” (Genesis 18:14a).

Here is the bedrock issue. The only reason for such unbelief is a failure to comprehend the extent of God’s ability to work in and through us.

The other side of the coin is this: were the matter of having a son not impossible, the glory for such a miracle would not have been given to God. The delay in the birth of Isaac was intended both to necessitate and to nurture the faith of Abraham and Sarah.

In addition to reassuring Abraham and (perhaps) informing Sarah of the promised child’s birth, the words of the Lord in verses 10 and 14 served to confirm the identity of the third guest as the Lord Himself. In chapter 17 the Lord had promised Abraham a child through Sarah in the first person (17:15-16,19,21). In chapter 18 the promise is again stated in the first person (verses 10, 14). In addition, this “visitor” was able to know the inner thoughts of Sarah as she laughed to herself in the tent (verse 13). No question now remained concerning the identity of the One and His two fellow travelers.

Sarah seems to have come out of the tent when Abraham was questioned concerning her unbelief. In her fear, she denied laughing. Interestingly, she did not deny her thoughts as reported by the Lord. Her denial was quickly brushed aside as untrue.

God’s Purpose
Confided in Abraham
(18:16-21)

Abraham’s hospitality was a magnificent act of Christian generosity, but it is not (in my estimation) the highest expression of Christian service in this chapter. The high point of Abraham’s spiritual life is seen in his intercession with the Lord for the sparing of the righteous in Sodom.

Some might conclude that the sparing of the righteous was the result of Abraham’s fervent petition. I do not think so, as noble as his efforts were. I believe that God purposely revealed his intention to judge these cities in order to prompt Abraham to intercessory prayer. The account, I believe, will bear this out.

The Lord and the two angels made their way down toward Sodom, escorted part way by Abraham. It would seem that the Lord turned to the two angels as He asked, almost rhetorically,

… Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, since Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed? For I have chosen him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice; in order that the Lord may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him” (Genesis 18:17b-19) .

The intimacy of the relationship between God and Abraham served as the motivation for God’s disclosure of His purposes for Sodom. Further, the Abrahamic Covenant provided the foundation on which that relationship was based. In verse 19 the necessity for Abraham’s faith to be communicated and continued by his offspring is stressed.¹⁷⁴ While God’s purposes will be realized, His people are responsible to keep His commands.

In contrast to the faithfulness of Abraham’s descendants is the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah.

And the Lord said, ‘The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave. I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know’ (Genesis 18:20-21).

Verses 20 and 21 dramatically portray the sin of Sodom and the righteous response of a holy God to it. The sin of the city is so great that it virtually cries out to heaven for retribution (verse 20). God’s personal interest and focused attention is depicted as ‘going down’¹⁷⁵ to deal with it. The text does not mean to undermine the omniscience of God, for God does know all. God is not ‘going down’ to learn the facts, but to take personal interest in them and to rectify the matter. So it is that Abraham discerned that God was about to destroy the city, although it was not stated specifically.

Abraham Intercedes with God for Sodom
(18:22-33)

The two angels went on toward Sodom, leaving our Lord and Abraham alone, overlooking the city (cf. 19:27,28). While speaking reverently, Abraham manifested a boldness with God never seen before.

And Abraham came near and said, ‘Wilt Thou indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; wilt Thou indeed sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! Shall not the judge of all the earth deal justly?’ (Genesis 18:23-25).

Undoubtedly Abraham’s primary concern was for Lot and his family. While this is not stated, it is implied (19:27-29). His appeal is based upon the justice of God. Justice would not allow the righteous to suffer the punishment due the wicked (verse 25). Abraham appealed for the sparing of Sodom in order to spare Lot,¹⁷⁶ not so much out of concern to save the city or the wicked. Nevertheless it is possible Abraham might have hoped that with Lot spared along with the wicked, that they might come to faith in God in time.

We must admit Abraham stated his case forcefully, but I do not believe this is why God assured him that his petition would be honored.

The approach Abraham took with God was that surely, in justice, He could not treat the righteous and the wicked alike. The righteous did not deserve to perish with the wicked. So an appeal was made to spare the wicked and the righteous if a sufficient number of the righteous were to be found. Once granted, the bargaining began over how many righteous it would take to save the city.

God agreed to spare the city if 50 righteous could be found (verse 26). Abraham must have doubted that such a number could be found, and so he began to plead for a lower figure.

And Abraham answered and said, ‘Now behold, I have ventured to speak to the Lord, although I am but dust and ashes. Suppose the fifty righteous are lacking five, wilt Thou destroy the whole city because of five?’ And He said, ‘I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there’ (Genesis 18:27-28).

Abraham waxed eloquent in these verses. A promise had been given concerning 50 righteous. The question now was whether or not this figure was firm. Abraham tested this by reducing it by five. Notice that he worded his case such that destruction brought on the city of Sodom with 45 righteous condemned the 45 because of the absence of five righteous citizens. For the lack of five the 45 would be destroyed. God granted this request, but not because of Abraham’s oratorical skillfulness.

From here, Abraham was encouraged to attempt to further reduce the minimum number of righteous required to spare Sodom. First it was 40, then 30, then 20, and finally 10. We almost sigh with relief here, for one might fear that God would lose His patience with Abraham. Personally, I believe the heart of God was warmed by Abraham’s compassion and zeal. This was no selfish petition, but intercession for others.

Why, then, did Abraham stop with ten? Why would he not have gone on to five or even one? Some may think that he did not dare to press God farther. Perhaps so, but I do not believe that Abraham would have ceased until he were confident that Lot and his family were safe from the wrath of God.

The number ten should have provided the protection of Lot with a margin of safety. After all, it would seem that Lot’s family alone was large enough to meet this number. With Lot and his wife, his two unmarried daughters, his married daughters and sons-in-law, and perhaps sons also (cf. Genesis 19:12), ten righteous surely could be found. Abraham seemed satisfied, and perhaps, too, others had come to trust in God through Lot’s witness.

As we know from chapter 19 Abraham’s hopes exceeded reality. This would have resulted in tragedy were it not for a great divine truth: God’s grace always exceeds our expectations. In the final analysis there were only three righteous in Sodom, Lot and his two daughters. Some might well question the righteousness of the daughters from their actions in the next chapter. Regardless, God did remember Abraham’s petition. While He did not spare the city of Sodom, He did spare the righteous. He is able and willing to do far beyond what we ask or think, as the Scriptures elsewhere teach (cf. Ephesians 3:20).

Conclusion

This passage gives us much insight into the matter of Christian maturity. As we look once more through these verses, several marks of maturity seem to emerge.

(1) The mature Christian becomes less dependent upon spectacular manifestations of God and more involved in intimate day-to-day fellowship. Previously, God had disclosed Himself to Abraham in more splendor and glory. This time God would not have been known, except through previous knowledge of Him and the eyes of faith. God was known by His promises, His word, rather than through a spectacular presence or splendor.

What more intimate fellowship can there be than the sharing of a meal with God?

And when the hour had come He reclined at table, and the apostles with Him. And He said to them, ‘I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer’ (Luke 22:14-15).

And it come about that when He had reclined at table with them, he took the bread and blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them. And their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight (Luke 24:30-31).

Behold, I stand at the door and knock, if any one hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him, and will dine with him, and he with Me (Revelation 3:20).

Is it any wonder that one of the highlights of the Christian’s week to have fellowship with His Lord at His table (I Corinthians 11:23-26)? We should not always seek to find God in the spectacular, but in the more routine affairs of life (I Kings 19:11-14). Such is a sign of maturity.

I think we see this illustrated in marriage. When we first find ‘the woman of our dreams’ we want to take her to the finest restaurant or do something exciting. Sooner or later we find that we have just as much pleasure in walking in the park or sitting on the porch. The thrill is not in the place or the activity, but in the intimacy shared between two in love in whatever we do. So it is with Christian maturity.

(2) Christian maturity shifts our attention from self to others. Lot was one who continually thought of himself. Abraham’s finest hour in this chapter was devoted to serving others, first of all in the hospitality given to these ‘strangers,’ and then in the intercession he made for Sodom. Love of God must reflect itself in a concern for others (cf. Matthew 23:37-39).

(3) Christian maturity balances activity and passivity. Before in this study of Genesis we have talked about the problem of when to work and when to wait. There are times to be active and times to be passive. Abraham should not have gone into Egypt when the famine came to Canaan. Abraham should not have devised the scheme to protect his life by lying. Abraham was passive in following Sarah’s plan to produce a son.

In verses 1-8 Abraham was active in offering hospitality to the three strangers, and rightly so. This was something he could and should do. In the matter of Sodom, some might have tended to be passive. God had spoken; the city was to be destroyed; what could Abraham possibly do? He could do what you and I can do when we can do nothing else—pray. Nothing is ever beyond God’s ability to perform (18:14). If Abraham appealed according to the will of God and His character, nothing would be impossible. When any situation is beyond our control, it is not beyond God’s. Mature Christians are those who do not fail to petition God when circumstances look dark.

This, of course, does not imply that we should pray only in impossible situations. We should pray always. But mature Christians pray with the confidence that God will act according to His character, and with infinite power, and in response to our petitions. When we are helpless, we are not hopeless, for the prayers of the righteous accomplish much (cf. James 5:16).

(4) Mature Christians view prophecy as an incentive to diligent prayer and service, not a matter of mere intellectual curiosity. All too often today Christians are fascinated by prophecy as though it were a matter only to tickle our intellect rather than to touch our hearts. God’s prophetic purposes are given to incite men to action. This is the response of the mature Christian (cf. Daniel 9; II Peter 3:11-12).

(5) Mature Christians have a clear grasp of two eternal truths: the greatness of God, and the goodness of God. These truths undergird the 18th chapter of Genesis. The first is found in the question of our Lord in verse 14, “Is anything too difficult for the Lord?” The second is the basis for Abraham’s intercession in verse 25, “Shall not the Judge of all the Earth deal justly?”

The first truth rebukes all worry and lack of prayer, for “with God, nothing is impossible” (Luke 1:37). Every time we worry about the future we reject the truth that God is all-powerful.

The second truth provides an answer for life’s most distressing and perplexing problems. The God who is all-powerful is also loving, kind, just, merciful, and so on. Infinite power is joined with infinite purity.

Our first child and only son died when he was 3 1/2 months old. Several years later, while I was in seminary, the question of what happens to infants who die came up in class. Several passages were suggested, but some did not find them sufficient. Finally I shared the assurance that we found when we lost our son. While it was comforting to have scriptures to comfort us, we did not need a text to answer our every question. God is far greater than all that is revealed about Him in Scripture. The Judge of all the earth will deal justly. That was our confidence. Have you lost a loved one about whose salvation you are doubtful? Are there problems and circumstances you cannot understand? Then rest in this: our God is all powerful; nothing is impossible with Him. And furthermore, this power is always employed in justice, truth, mercy, and love. What a comfort! What an encouragement to pray!

(6) Finally, Christian maturity is evidenced when our thoughts are like God’s. Abraham did not change the mind of God; he demonstrated it. God did not suddenly alter His purposes; He informed Abraham of His purposes so that he could evidence His mercy and justice and compassion. The revelation of God’s activities in Sodom and Gomorrah was given so that Abraham’s faith could be manifested in the magnificent act of intercession. Because Abraham knew God so well, he knew that He could not destroy the wicked and the righteous together. Maturity is that point where our thoughts and actions become more like God’s.

… until we attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ (Ephesians 4:13).

Lest we begin to feel guilty at the realization that we do not measure up to Abraham, let alone our Lord, we must remember that this maturing process took many years. Let us also keep in mind that Abraham is soon to make another serious mistake (chapter 20). Nevertheless, let us press on, in God’s strength, toward maturity.

171 “In the Orient bread is never prepared at any other time than immediately before it is eaten. So bread must be prepared by Sarah for these guests. Though the guests number only three, the simple food offered will be presented in lavish abundance. “Three measures” have been computed to make four-and-a-half pecks (Skinner). What is left over can be disposed of with ease by the servants of so large an establishment as the one Abraham had.” H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942), I, p. 538.

172 “The idiom ‘stand by,’ (‘madh ‘al), implies to stand by to be of service, and could even be rendered ‘and he served them.’ Cf. I Sam. l6:22; I Kings l:2; I Kings l7:l, in the expression ‘stand before.’” Ibid, p. 539.

173 Cf. I Peter 3:6.

174 Cf. Psalm 132:11,12.

175 We should first realize that Abraham’s tent was pitched on a high place which overlooked the valley in which Sodom and Gomorrah were located (cf. 19:27,28). In this sense the two angels ‘went down’ to Sodom and Gomorrah. I do not believe that this is the primary meaning of our Lord’s words here, “I will go down now and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know” (Genesis 18:21). First of all, only the two angels actually entered Sodom, not our Lord (cf. l9:1ff). Also, there was no need for God to inspect Sodom in order to learn the facts. God’s omniscience has no limits created by distance. The solution to this problem is found (to my satisfaction) in the other uses of the expression ‘to go down.’ In Genesis 11:5,7 it is used of God’s involvement with Babel and the confusion of languages. In Exodus 3:8 it spoke of God’s intervention in Egypt to deliver His people. In all these instances ‘to go down’ conveys the idea of ‘becoming personally involved’ or of ‘personal intervention.’ This God did, without physically entering Sodom, Babel, or Egypt.

176 Initially all the cities of the valley were to be destroyed (cf. 19:17, 20-21,25). God spoke to Abraham of the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah (18:20). But Abraham appealed only for Sodom, ‘the city’ (18:24,26,28).

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_19_32k.mp3

Biblical Topics:

Spiritual Life

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

20. From City Councilman to Caveman: “What a Difference a Day Makes” (Genesis 19:1-38)

Introduction

Several weeks ago I was in Washington State visiting with a friend of ours who was also from Texas. We were standing by the lake on which my parents live, looking out over the lush vegetation, the magnificent fir trees, and enjoying the cool temperature. Thoughtfully my friend turned to me and asked, “Tell me again why it is that you want to go back to Dallas?”

I suppose that most of us give considerable thought to getting out of the city, away from high crime rates, people and pollution, unseemly sights, sounds and smells, crowds and congestion. There seems to be a trend of ‘back to the country’ thinking recently. Some would even feel that leaving the city is biblical.

Thus far in the book of Genesis, the city has not been viewed in the best light. Cain built the first city, naming it after his first son, Enoch, and this after he was told that he would be a vagabond and a wanderer (Genesis 4:12,17). In spite of the fact that man had been commanded to populate the earth (9:7), fallen mankind huddled together and began to build the city of Babel with its tower (11:4). Abraham was called to leave urban life to live the life of a sojourner (12:1-3).

And now Lot, who chose to live in Sodom, is about to lose everything: his wife and family, his honor, and all he has worked for. Abraham, living far from the cities of the plain, watches with grief as this destruction is wrought (19:27-29). Does this not indicate that separation involves fleeing from the city? Some think so. But Lot’s downfall did not occur in the sick and secular society of Sodom, but in a secluded cave. The problem was ultimately not with a city, but with a soul. Genesis 19 enables us to put the matter of separation into its proper perspective.

The 19th chapter of Genesis is perhaps the most tragic portion of this book for it describes the destruction of a city. Far worse, it depicts the downfall of a saint. Had it not been for these words of the Apostle Peter, we may never have known with certainty that the pathetic personality known as Lot was a true believer:

And if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day with their lawless deeds), … (II Peter 2:7-8).

If we are candid with each other, we must admit that in the church of Jesus Christ the ‘Lots’ far outnumber the ‘Abrahams.’ If we are truthful we would have to say that in our own lives there is much more of Lot evident in us than of the friend of God, Abraham. If this is true, then the description of the destruction of Lot contains a warning for every true Christian. We must approach this passage carefully and prayerfully if we are to learn Lot’s lessons from literature rather than from life.

Hospitality Versus Homosexuality
(19:1-11)

“Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. And he said, ‘Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant’s house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way.’ They said however, ‘No, but we shall spend the night in the square.’ Yet he urged them strongly, so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he prepared a feast for them, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate” (Genesis 19:1-3).

The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening. Lot, who was sitting at the city gate, identified them as mortal men and as strangers, but not as messengers of destruction. Since the elders of the city sat as judges at the gates of the city (cf. Job 29:7-12), it is not unlikely that Lot, over a period of time, had gained prominence and power. Personally, it seems to be the same kind as acquired by Billy Carter. You will remember that shortly after Lot moved to Sodom the city was sacked and carried off, only to be rescued by the heroic efforts of Abram (Genesis 14:1-16). Lot’s popularity and power may well have been derived from his relationship to Abraham.

This should in no way detract from the genuine hospitality offered the two strangers. The parallel with Abraham’s hospitality in the previous chapter can hardly be accidental. This act, more than any other, evidenced the righteousness of Lot as indicated by Peter in his epistle. The apparent reluctance of the angels to accept until gently pressed by Lot is more a matter of culture and custom than anything else (cf. Luke 24:28-29).

While we are not told in concrete terms, it would seem that Lot’s persistence is motivated as much by fear for the safety of the strangers as by his generosity. Well did he know the fate of those who did not have a haven for the night. In any other city, sleeping in the city square would not have been unusual or unwise. The depravity of Sodom caused Lot to courteously compel his guests to stay with him and to share his table with them. I am inclined to believe that Lot’s meal was neither as serene nor as sumptuous as that shared at Abraham’s table.¹⁷⁷

If Lot had hoped his guests had entered his home unnoticed, he was in for a great disappointment. Sick as it may seem, the men of the city may have had a keener eye for strangers than Lot. Their motives were corrupt and their intentions unspeakable. In a short time the entire city had gathered about Lot’s house seeking sex with the strangers. This was not the ‘broad-minded’ tolerance of a city whose laws permitted such conduct between consenting adults in private. It was not even the shameless solicitation to sin. Rather, it was rape, and that of the worst form. Imagine it, a whole city, young and old. Surely judgment was due.

Lot’s response is typical of his spiritual state; it is a strange blend of courage and compromise, of strength of character and situationalism. The crowd demanded that Lot turn over his guests, an unthinkable violation of the protection guaranteed one who comes under the roof of your house. Lot stepped outside, closing the door behind him, hoping to defuse the situation. He pleaded with them not to act wickedly, and, just as we are about to applaud his courage, he offers to surrender his two daughters to the appetites of these depraved degenerates. How unthinkable! Lot’s virtue (his concern for his guests) has become a vice (a willingness to substitute his own daughters for strangers). We may breathe a sigh of relief that the crowd refused Lot’s offer, but I must tell you that the consequences for this compromise are yet to be seen.

For twenty years Lot had lived in Sodom, yet he was still an alien to the men of the city. I suspect that the reason Lot had been left alone was that these people still remembered the military might of uncle Abraham. Had Lot been attacked they would have Abraham to deal with.

For years Lot had seemingly been content to stand aloof from the sin of this city, but not to rebuke it. Now he would play the part of the judge by speaking out against their wickedness. This was too much for the mob. Finally forced to protest their perversion, he has angered the mob. They will first deal with Lot, then with the other two.

Lot, who supposed it was his duty to save the strangers, is rescued by them. By the words they spoke, their identity and their task were revealed to Lot. Their sight either removed completely or dazzled and distorted, the men of the city groped for the door, but wore themselves out trying to find it (cf. II Kings 6:18).

Lot’s Last Stand
(19:12-22)

In those twilight hours before sunrise, Sodom saw more missionary activity from Lot than in all the previous years. His efforts were not trained upon the men of the city, however, but were a frantic and futile effort to save his own family, whom he had neglected to win.

Then the men said to Lot, ‘Whom else have you here? A son-in-law, and your sons, and your daughters, and whomever you have in the city, bring them out of the place; for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the Lord that the Lord has sent us to destroy it’ (Genesis 19:12,13).

His sons-in-law¹⁷⁸ were awakened and warned in what must have been a wild-eyed fashion. It was like trying to give the gospel to a rapidly dying man. No doubt Lot’s demeanor did suggest something very bizarre. They took it all for some kind of joke:

And Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-low, who were to marry his daughters, and said, ‘Up, get out of this place, for the Lord will destroy the city.’ But he appeared to his sons-in-law to be jesting (Genesis 19:14).

Why? Why would they not take Lot seriously? Notice that we are not told that they refused to believe Lot so much as they did not even take him seriously. There seems to be only one possible explanation: Lot had never mentioned his faith before. His words were not a repetition of his life-long warnings of sin and Judgment—they are something totally new and novel. What a rebuke to the witness of Lot. It is one thing to warn men and have them reject our message. It is far worse for them not even to consider our words as spoken seriously.¹⁷⁹

Morning came without one new convert, let alone one righteous soul who would flee the wrath of God. Time was up. The angels ordered Lot to take his wife and his two daughters and get out of the city before judgment fell.

The unbelief of the citizens of Sodom is to some degree predictable, but the reluctance of Lot is incredible. Never before has anyone ever tried so hard to keep from being saved. There are several reasons why Lot may have been so hesitant and foot-dragging throughout the entire rescue. First, Lot in his carnal state may not have been fully convinced of the certainty and severity of the judgment. Second, he may have hoped by his delay, to stall for time, in order to preserve friends and family knowing that judgment could not come until he had departed (cf. verse 22). Third, Lot was so attached to this ‘present world’ of friends, family, and things that he just could not bear the thought of leaving it. In the final analysis Lot was literally dragged from the city by the angel.

And when morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, ‘Up, take your wife and your two daughters, who are here, lest you be swept away in the punishment of the city.’ But he hesitated. So the men seized his hand and the hands of his daughters, for the compassion of the Lord was upon him; and they brought him out, and put him outside the city (Genesis 19:15-16).

When given specific instruction to flee to the mountains as far from Sodom as possible (verse 17), Lot again resisted and plead for a less painful program:

But Lot said to them, ‘Oh no, my lords! Now behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have magnified your lovingkindness, which you have shown me by saving my life; but I cannot escape to the mountains, lest the disaster overtake me and I die; now behold, this town is near enough to flee to, and it is small. Please, let me escape there (is it not small?) that my life may be saved’ (Genesis 19:18-20).

What a difference between the intercession of Abraham and the prayer (or plea) of Lot. Abraham prayed for the preservation of the cities for the sake of the righteous, particularly Lot and his family. Abraham had no selfish interest at stake. To the contrary, removing the peoples of the cities might have appeared to have left the land open for Abraham to possess.¹⁸⁰ Lot plead for the city of Zoar (previously Bela, Genesis 14:2), not for the sake of those who lived there, but for his own convenience. If judgment must fall, could God not make it easy on Lot? After all, wasn’t it just a little city? And so the city was spared (verse 21).

Fire and Brimstone
(19:23-26)

Sunrise came just as Lot, with his wife and daughters, approached Zoar (verse 23). Safely out of reach of the devastation, the Lord rained down fire and brimstone from heaven upon the cities of the valley. Many suggestions have been made as to the mechanics employed to bring about this destruction.¹⁸¹ While I believe that natural elements such as lightening, earthquakes, or volcanic eruptions, probably were involved, this makes it no less a miracle. This was judgment from the Lord (19:13- 4; 24-25), and He was in full control of its extent and timing (verses 22,24-25). The devastation included the four towns and even the soil on which they were built. It was a picture of complete devastation:

‘All its land is brimstone and salt, a burning waste, unsown and unproductive, and no grass grows on it, like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which the Lord overthrew in His anger and in His wrath’ (Deuteronomy 29:23).

The death of Lot’s wife is tragic indeed. She died, it seems, within steps of safety. They had virtually arrived at the city of Zoar. While Lot hastened on, Mrs. Lot lingered. Perhaps her mother’s heart was touched by the death of her sons and daughters, or it may have been the women’s club or their new townhouse, or even the Ethan Allen furnishings they had just paid off. One thing is certain, her looking back differed from Lot’s actions only in degree, not in kind. Her heart, like Lot’s, was in Sodom. She lingered behind, then looked back for only a moment, but it was too late.¹⁸² The destruction meant for Sodom struck her as well, and only steps from safety and those she loved. Regardless of her motive, she directly disobeyed a clear command of the angelic messenger (cf. 19:17).

God Answers Abraham
(19:27-29)

Verses 27-29 serve several purposes. First, they reveal the heart of Abraham in contrast to the self-interest of Lot. Abraham, like God, did not delight in wickedness nor in the destruction of sinners. Both had compassion on the righteous. Abraham had made his appeal to God. I do not think that he went to that same spot as the day before in order to pray, but to watch God answer his prayers. There was no casual ‘what will be, will be’ attitude, but genuine concern over the outcome.

Secondly, these verses underscore the real reason Lot was spared. While a just God would not destroy the righteous with the wicked (18:25), the stress here is that ‘the prayers of a righteous man availeth much’ (James 5:16). It was Abraham’s faithfulness and not Lot’s which resulted in Lot’s deliverance. Humanly speaking, there was little reason for sparing Lot other than the character of God and the concern of Abraham over his fate.

You Can Take Lot Out of Sodom …
(19:30-38)

While Lot plead with the angels to spare Zoar, he soon left that city in fear. Fear of what? Some have suggested it was a fear of the people of Zoar due to the possibility of retaliation. It may have been a fear of future judgment falling on that city which likely was as wicked as the others.

I am inclined to look at it a little differently. After a period of reflection, Lot may have come to the realization that his having settled in Sodom was the cause of all his troubles. It had cost him his wealth, his wife and most of his family. To stay in Zoar or in any wicked city might result in even more destruction and judgment. And hadn’t God commanded him to flee to the mountains? And so Lot determined to ‘get away from it all.’ Away from the city and its wickedness. Away from the world. Lot sought safety in a cave rather than a city.

One nagging question haunts me. Why didn’t Lot go to be with Abraham? There was surely no problem of too much prosperity now. And didn’t Abraham live in the mountains far from the city? Lot was free to choose where he settled, provided he did not stay in one of the condemned cities when judgment came. I believe that Lot was not up to facing his uncle and fessing up to his folly. With Abraham there could have been fellowship, encouragement, and perhaps the possibility of some God-fearing husbands for his daughters from among Abraham’s entourage.

The remaining verses depict the final state of Lot, the carnal Christian. He is passive and pathetic. In a drunken stupor he became the father of two nations, both of which were to be a plague to Israel. Lot, and those who came from him, were a pain to Abraham and his descendants.

In Lot’s shoes we might have concurred with his decision to forsake the city for a cave. Lot was finally ready to deal with worldliness. He did so by departing from the world. The only problem with this was that while Lot was out of Sodom, Sodom was not out of Lot. Monasticism has never been the solution to materialism; seclusion is no substitute for sanctification. The world without is not nearly so plaguing as the world within (cf. Romans 7).

To Lot’s daughters, the cave was no temporary dwelling place, a place of shelter in the time of storm. It became evident that for Lot it was a permanent dwelling place, home. His daughters also began to conclude that their father was not trying to protect himself so much as them. He would lose no more daughters to wicked men. And so it seemed that Lot would perish without a seed unless the girls did something about it themselves. They concluded, “… there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of the earth” (Genesis 19:31).

Surely this bleak picture was exaggerated. They saw no normal means for them to marry and bear children. While their perception was undoubtedly wrong, it brought them to the added error of deducing that they would have to resort to unusual (perhaps it would be more accurate to say immoral, since incest was probably not unusual in Sodom) means to preserve the line of their father. This reasoning resulted in a sinful plot.

At Lot’s age, action would have to be taken quickly. Evidently the daughters determined that Lot would never knowingly submit to such a scheme, so they never mentioned it to him. Something had to be done to weaken his resistance; wine would adequately perform this task, While Lot was in a drunken stupor the first daughter, and then the second, went in to him and became pregnant. At best, Lot was only partially aware of what had taken place until it was too late.

Two nations were born of this incestuous relationship, Moab and Ammon. While God dealt kindly with these nations because of their relationship to Abraham (cf. Deuteronomy 2:19), they were a continual hindrance to the godly conduct of the Israelites. Kidner says of these two nations:

Moab and Ammon (37f), was destined to provide the worst carnal seduction in the history of Israel (that of Baal-Peor, Nu. 25) and the cruelest religious perversion (that of Molech, Lv. 18:21)¹⁸³

Eventually, they would suffer the judgment of God as did Sodom and Gomorrah:

‘Therefore, as I live,’ declares the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, ‘Surely Moab will be like Sodom, and the sons of Ammon like Gomorrah—a place possessed by nettles and salt pits, and a perpetual desolation. The remnant of My people will plunder them, and the remainder of My nation will inherit them’ (Zephaniah 2:9).

Conclusion

Several features of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah make it a most disturbing and challenging passage. Let us consider these carefully.

(1) Similarity. The similarities between Sodom and our society today are distressing. Immorality was rampant and perversion had become the norm. Homosexuality is always considered sin in the Bible (cf. Romans 1:24ff), but here it is a symptom of a society so sick with sin that it must be judged. Like a raging cancer, it must be cut out before it spreads further.

I would like to suggest that Sodom has nothing over our society. Homosexuality, while only one symptom of sin, is not only tolerated but is proudly proclaimed and openly advocated as an alternate lifestyle. Movies and other media glamorize sin, and profiteers make their fortunes on it. Now, by means of cable television, the filth of Sodom is being piped into our own living rooms. What remains to be seen in our society which was not in Sodom? I know of nothing.

Sodom stands in Scripture as a symbol of evil and depravity. It also stands as a warning of future judgment (Deuteronomy 29:23; 32:32; Isaiah 1:9-10; 3:9; Jeremiah 49:18). Great as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was, it will not compare to the destruction of those who have had greater light through the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ:

Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city (Matthew 10:15).

The similarity of our society to that of Sodom warns us that judgment is near. The eternal wrath of God has already been meted out on the cross of Christ on Calvary. Jesus Christ became sin for us; He bore our punishment on the cross.

Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him (Isaiah 53:4-6).

And He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him (II Corinthians 5:21).

By faith in Christ’s death in our place, we will not face the wrath of God:

For God has not destined us (true believers in Christ Jesus) for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ who died for us … (I Thessalonians 5:9,10a).

But those who refuse the free gift of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ must bear the penalty of their sins, eternal separation from God:

… dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, … ( II Thessalonians 1:8-9).

Then, too, the similarity between Lot and many professing Christians cannot be overlooked. Lot was, at best, a half-hearted Christian. In New Testament terminology he may have been a believer, but not a disciple (cf. Luke 9:57-62). Lot tried unsuccessfully to keep one foot in the world and the other in the company of the faithful. He was caught up with materialism, concerned more with his own interests than with Abraham’s (cf. Genesis 13 with Philippians 2:1-9). He chose the best land for himself and left the rest to Abraham. He chose the settled life of the city, while Abraham chose the life of a sojourner. Lot jeopardized his family for the chance of financial gain. Lot was a man who was worldly, lukewarm and weak in his convictions.

Is there really any difference between Lot and most of us? I must confess that there seems to be more of Lot in my life than of Abraham.

What is the answer to our dilemma? How can we effectively deal with our own complacency? The solution, I believe must be found in the differences between Lot and Abraham. Lot, at best, was halfhearted in his relationship with God. Abraham had a growing intimacy, evidenced by his intercession for Lot. Lot cared mostly for himself, even to the point of sacrificing his daughters. Abraham cared more for others, evidenced by his generosity in giving Lot the choice of the land and in interceding with God for Lot’s deliverance. Lot was a man who failed to learn from divine discipline. When he moved to Sodom and then was kidnapped, he returned to the same place without any apparent change in action or attitude. Abraham made many mistakes (sins), but he learned from them. Lot was a man who lived only for the present, while Abraham was a stranger and a pilgrim on the earth. He chose to do without many earthly pleasures for the joys of greater and more lasting blessings from God.

(2) Security. Having stressed the failures of Lot we must not lose sight of the fact that he was a saved man (II Peter 2:7-8). Even in the midst of his failures, God spared him from judgment, albeit kicking and screaming all the way. What a picture of the security of the saint, even the most carnal.

The reason for Lot’s security, as ours, is not that he was faithful, for he was not. Lot’s salvation was clearly in spite of himself, not because of his works. What, then, was the basis of his security? So far as our text is concerned, the answer is simple. Lot was saved, not for his own sake, but for Abraham’s. It was not Lot’s faithfulness, but Abraham’s which delivered him from destruction:

Thus it came about, when God destroyed the cities of the valley, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when He overthrew the cities in which Lot lived (Genesis 19:29).

The same principle holds true for Christians today. We are saved, not on account of our faithfulness, but because of the One Who intercedes for us, Jesus Christ, our great high priest:

… who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us (Romans 8:34).

Hence, also, He is able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them (Hebrews 7:25).

What a wonderful assurance. We will be saved, not because of our worthiness, but His, Who not only died to save us, but Who continually intercedes for us before the Father:

My little children, I am writing these things to you that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; … (I John 2:1).

Is our security to become a source of slothfulness, or an incentive to sin? Far from it (cf. Romans 6:1ff; I Peter 2:16). While Genesis 19 informs us that Lot was delivered from God’s judgment, he was not kept from the painful consequences of his sins. He lost all his possessions, most of his family, and his honor. Sin never pays! Christians may go their own willful way, but they cannot enjoy it for long.

(3) Separation. Lot’s life serves as a powerful exposition on the doctrine of separation. As I see it, there are two phases of Lot’s life, each tending toward a particular extreme.

The first phase of Lot’s life evidenced a period of identification with the sinner. Separation here manifested itself in not practicing the sins which were generally accepted and acted out. Our Lord, too, identified with sinners, and was criticized for it:

And when the scribes of the Pharisees saw that He was eating with the sinners and tax-gatherers, they began saying to His disciples, ‘Why is He eating and drinking with tax-gatherers and sinners?’ And hearing this, Jesus said to them, ‘It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners’ (Mark 2:16,17).

While both our Lord and Lot lived in close proximity to sinners without participating in their sins, the difference between the two was that our Lord spoke clearly of sin and of salvation while Lot remained silent. Christians are to be salt in a wicked society. The essence of salt is that it is distinctive. Lot lost his saltiness in the society about him. I suppose the truth is he simply lost his nerve. There was seemingly no sense of danger or urgency for him. Our Lord clearly came to save sinners.

By living in Sodom without being salty, Lot not only failed to save others but he lost his own family. Here is the great tragedy of Lot’s life in Sodom—his children (save two) and his wife, were lost there. If we do not seek to save others, we may even lose our own families. Many, in the process of trying to minister to others, have lost their own families to the world.

The sin of Lot was not being in Sodom, but his motivation for being there. Living in the world is not wrong, but being of the world (John 17:15-16). Living in a crooked and perverse generation is not wrong, but failing to proclaim the message of sin, righteousness and judgment is. Lot’s problem was not so much his living in Sodom, but his lack of salt.¹⁸⁴

The later chapter in the life of Lot was lived out in a cave. Here Lot seems to have tried to deal with the world by seclusion. Monasticism has always been a tempting alternative to mingling with sinners. Let me remind you that Lot did not fail in the city as badly as he did in that cave. It was there that drunkenness numbed his senses enough for him to be lured into incest with his daughters.

Lot’s failure in that cave was far more of his own making than most of us would like to admit. It was not just that his daughters had learned so much sin in Sodom—they were still virgins you will recall (19:8). The real problem was not with Sodom, but with Lot. His daughters simply carried out that which they had learned from their own father. These same two girls stood inside the door as they overheard those words from their father,

Now, behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof (Genesis 19:8).

From Lot, his two daughters learned that morality must sometimes be sacrificed to practicality. Lot was willing to turn over his own daughters (who were as yet sexually pure, not corrupted by the sins of Sodom) to the Sodomites instead of two strangers. They learned from Lot that morality must sometimes be set aside in emergencies. Once they saw their father’s plight (and their own) as an emergency, incest was no longer a moral problem, for morality must yield to practicality in emergencies.

Many of us, as fathers, are greatly concerned about the world in which our children live. The temptations are infinitely greater. But in our concern for what is happening in the cities, let us not think we can save our children by restricting them to a cave. For in the cave, they are still being influenced by us. Let us be mindful from the tragedy which occurred in Lot’s family that many of the sins of our children are not learned from the world, but from the fathers.

You see, the Christian doctrine of separation must evidence a delicate balance between two equally dangerous extremes. One extreme is to overly stress identification with the world—but without a clear proclamation of the gospel. The other is to seek security in seclusion from the world. This is not the Christian’s solution to sin either:

I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters; for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one (I Corinthians 5:9-11).

Lot attempted to live his life in a city and then in a cave. We cannot become one with the world, but neither are we to flee from it. The proper balance between the city of Sodom and the cave is the tent of Abraham. We are to live in the world, but without becoming attached to it or conformed to it. We are to be strangers and pilgrims. As Peter expressed this under inspiration,

May God help us to live in the world without becoming a part of it, or it a part of us. As the writer in the Proverbs expressed it:

The house of the wicked will be destroyed, but the tent of the upright will flourish ( Proverbs 14:11).

177 While this is by no means a critical issue, several considerations incline me to this conclusion. First, it was unleavened bread that was served by Lot, but not (seemingly) by Abraham. Unleavened bread was prepared by the Israelites in haste before their exodus from Egypt. Perhaps it was late in the evening and there was no time for leavened bread to rise. But perhaps Lot, knowing the men of the city, did not feel a leisurely meal to be appropriate. When he spoke of them getting up and starting early in the morning (verse 2), was he anxious to send them off before others were awake? In such a case, Lot would be eager to serve a quick meal and get them bedded down for the night. Then, too, the Hebrew word translated ‘feast’ can also mean ‘drink.’ In most instances, this would describe an elaborate feast at which one would drink; sometimes it could even degenerate to a drinking bout. Often, it was a wedding feast. The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) renders the passage so that it suggests Lot prepared his guests something to drink and unleavened bread. The NIV does not go this far, but does not choose to portray a feast either: “He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, . . . ” The Amplified Old Testament attempts to convey the literal sense by rendering it, “And he made them a dinner (with drinking), and had unleavened bread which he baked; and they ate.” All of this at least leaves room for the suggestion that Lot’s hospitality was hastier and, perhaps, not as sumptuous as that of Abraham’s table.

178 ‘Sons-in-law,’ verse, 14, is understood either as those who were married to Lot’s daughters, or those who were engaged (‘were taking’) to them. If the latter were correct, the daughters would not be those two who were still at home, who ‘have not had relations with man’ (verse 8). These two ‘engaged’ daughters would have gone with their parents to Zoar and then with Lot to the cave. One can see how they would reason that marriage was no longer an option. If the former were the case, these ‘sons-in-law’ had married other daughters of Lot and both the sons-in-law and the daughters were destroyed in the judgment of Sodom. Thus, Lot’s failure would be of even greater magnitude. Verse 15 seems to support the view that Lot had two unmarried daughters and others who had married, when it says, “Up, take your wife and your two daughters, who are here, . . . ” It would thus imply that there were others not present with Lot, but rather with their husbands.

179 Ironically the Hebrew word kematzehak, which is literally translated “like one who was jesting” (margin, NASV) is the same root from which the name Isaac is derived, meaning ‘laughter.’

180 The question may be raised, “Why did God render the land unusable by the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah?” One might suppose that God would have, by this, removed the inhabitants of the valley and given the land to Abraham. God’s purpose, however, had been revealed to Abraham in chapter 15 (verses 13-16). Abraham was not to possess the land in his lifetime, but to be a ‘stranger and pilgrim’ on the earth. In this, his faith was tested and strengthened. Not until the fourth generation would Abraham’s descendants possess the land. Perhaps it was due to the wide-spread devastation of the land that Abraham moved on toward the Negev (20:1).

181 Bush has an extensive discourse on the destruction of Sodom (I, pp. 314-325), at the end of which he concludes, “The catastrophe, therefore, if our interpretation be admitted, was marked with the united horrors of earthquake, and volcano, the latter described as a conflagration from heaven, forming altogether such a scene as baffles conception, and such as the eye of man never witnessed before.” George Bush, Notes on Genesis, Reprint, (Minneapolis: James and Klock Publishing Co., 1976), I, p. 325.

182 “. . . she may well have been overtaken by the poisonous fumes and the fiery destruction raining down from heaven. . . . But once overcome, there she lay, apparently not reached by the fire but salt-encrusted by the vapors of the Salt Sea. Lot and his daughters could not have seen this at the time, for to look back would have involved them in the same destruction. Their love for the one lost will, no doubt, have driven them after the havoc of the overthrow had subsided to visit the spot, and there they will have found the ‘pillar of salt.’ For the words watteh (‘and she become’) in no wise in themselves demand an instantaneous conversion into such a pillar.” H.C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942), I, pp. 571-572.

183 Derek Kidner, Genesis An Introduction and Commentary (Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p. 136.

184 A word of caution should be given here. In the history of Israel, God raised up prophets to speak to wicked cities and to warn them of the wrath to come (e.g. Jonah). To my knowledge, however, few, if any, who had such ministries had families which they exposed to the sins which they condemned. There may well be cases where singleness is not only advisable, but imperative. Let us be careful that our ministries are not at the expense of our families.

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_20_32k.mp3

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

21. Don’t Ever Say Never (Genesis 20:1-18)

Introduction

Many Christians are concerned about their “testimony” before the world, but perhaps for the wrong reasons. While it is important for Christians to live a life which is consistent with the will and the Word of God (cf. Romans 6:1ff; Ephesians 4:1ff; Colossians 3:1ff, I Peter 1:13ff), we sometimes misapply this truth so as to avoid our responsibilities. For example, I know that others, like myself, are inclined to keep silent about our faith in Jesus Christ because we fear that our testimony has been so poor others will not want to trust in Christ. Since the message of our life fails to conform to that of our lips, we keep silent about our faith in Christ.

While we should strive to live in such a way as to create an interest in that which makes us unique as Christians (Matthew 5:13-16; Colossians 4:5-6; I Peter 3:13ff), our failures do not necessarily prevent others from being drawn to Jesus Christ as their Savior. I know of a man in our church who was saved through the testimony of a drunken sailor. My friend, then an unbeliever, rebuked a drunken Christian for his conduct. The drunk protested that even though a discredit to his Lord, he was nonetheless eternally saved and secure. My friend could not imagine how such a thing could be so. Because of the certainty of this drunken Christian about his spiritual security, my friend studied the Scriptures for himself to see if this could be true. As a result, he was saved as well, to some degree through the “testimony” of the drunken sailor.

While this kind of conduct as a Christian is in no way recommended or smiled upon, the Bible indicates that even at very low points in our Christian experience God can use His saints to draw others to Himself. Such was the case in the life of Abraham as described in Genesis 20.

God had disclosed to Abraham that he would be the father of a son born through Sarah (17:15-19; 18:10). Abraham, upon hearing of the coming destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, interceded for the cities on behalf of the righteous who dwelt in them (18:22ff). God assured him that if only ten righteous could be found, the cities would be spared (18:32). While the righteous were not to be found and the cities were not spared, Lot and his daughters were delivered from destruction (chapter 19). The devastation of Sodom and Gomorrah took place under the watchful eye of Abraham, looking on from afar (19:27-29).

Chapters 17-19 of Genesis have depicted a high point in the life of the patriarch. Here is the man of faith and intercession we expect to find in the pages of holy writ. The man in chapter 20 is a far cry from our expectations for a patriarch and a prophet. He is a man compared to whom Abimelech looks saintly. In spite of this sad state of affairs, the grace of God is seen for the marvel it is, not so much in spite of Abraham’s failure of faith as because of it. Abraham is an unwilling witness to the wonderful grace of God Who saves and sanctifies men and women in spite of themselves.

Abimelech Is Restrained
(20:1-7)

For an unspecified reason¹⁸⁵ Abraham left Mamre, wandering southward near Kadesh and then northwest to Gerar, not far from the Mediterranean Sea in the land of the Philistines.¹⁸⁶ At Gerar, Abraham repeated a sin committed very early in his life as a follower of God (cf. 12:10ff). Once again, he passed off his wife Sarah as his sister, which resulted in her being taken into the harem of Abimelech,¹⁸⁷ king of Gerar.¹⁸⁸

Liberal critics hasten to classify chapters 12, 20, and 26 as three different accounts of the same event. Such a position cannot be taken seriously : the text is considered reliable. The similarities are striking and purposely underscored. Nevertheless, the differences between chapters 12 and 20 are significant. Some of these are:

Chapter 12	Chapter 20
Place: Egypt	Place: Gerar
Time: Early in Christian Life	Time: Late in Christian Life
King: Pharaoh	King: Abimelech
Abraham’s response to rebuke: Silence	Abraham’s response to rebuke: Excuses
Result: Abraham left Egypt	Result: Abraham stayed in Gerar

We have every reason to conclude that there are three events, similar in some details but decidedly different in many particulars. The similarities are intended to be instructive. Even mature saints are plagued with the sins of younger days (chapter 20), and “the sins of the fathers” surely are visited on the sons (as in chapter 26).

The situation here is far more critical than in chapter 12. First, God has clearly revealed to Abraham and Sarah that together they will bear a son through whom the covenant promises will be realized. More than this, the conception of the child must be near at hand, for he was said to have been born within the space of a year (17:21; 18:10). Human reasoning would have considered the dangers in chapter 20 to be minimal since Sarah was long past the childbearing age (17:17; 18:11,13). But the eye of faith would have seen the matter in an entirely different light. Was Abraham’s faith at a low ebb? It must be so.

Abimelech was restrained by God in a two-fold fashion. First, God warned him in the strongest terms: “Behold, you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is married” (Genesis 20:3).

It becomes clear that death will only follow if Abimelech’s actions are not reversed and Sarah returned, untouched, to Abraham. God told Abimelech he was as good as dead if he did not act decisively and according to God’s directions.

Secondly, Abimelech and all of his household were physically restrained from sinning against Sarah, even if they had wished to:

Then God said to him in the dream, ‘Yes, I know that in the integrity of your heart you have done this, and I also kept you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her. Now therefore restore the man’s wife, for he is a prophet and he will pray for you, and you will live. But if you do not restore her, know that you shall surely die, you and all who are yours.… And Abraham prayed to God; and God healed Abimelech and his wife and his maids, so that they bore children. For the Lord had closed fast all the wombs of the household of Abimelech because of Sarah, Abraham’s wife (Genesis 20:6-7, 17-18).

By means of some undisclosed physical malady, no one in the royal household was able to conceive. Further, it seems that sexual activity was prohibited altogether. This would ensure Sarah’s purity, as well as prevent the birth of a child by Abimelech. The revelation Abimelech received in the dream thus explained the reason for the plague which had fallen upon his household. This also sheds light on the great fear of the male servants in Abimelech’s household. They, too, suffered from this affliction which prohibited normal sexual activity. In a culture that placed a high value on many offspring and virility, the situation would have been taken as critical. And so it was.

While the imminent danger for Abimelech and his household is emphasized, so also is his innocence:

Now Abimelech had not come near her; and he said, ‘Lord, wilt Thou slay a nation, even though blameless? Did he not himself say to me, ‘She is my sister’? And she herself said, ‘He is my brother.’ In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have done this’ (Genesis 20:4-5).

Abimelech, unlike Abraham, was guiltless in this matter. His actions were based upon purity of motive and upon the untrue statements of Abraham and Sarah.¹⁸⁹ God acknowledged the innocence of the king but made it clear that apart from divine intervention he would have committed a grave offense. The way Abimelech handled this matter now would determine his destiny. To delay or disobey meant certain death.

Strange as it may seem, Abimelech stood head and shoulders above Abraham in this passage. We must admit that there is no sin into which the Christian cannot fall in times of disobedience and unbelief. At such times, unbelievers may put the Christian to shame by their integrity and morality (cf. I Corinthians 5:1ff).

The wonder of this passage is not the fact that Abraham could regress so far in his Christian growth and maturity. From my own experience I am ashamed to admit that this is entirely believable. While the faithlessness of Abraham comes as no surprise, the faithfulness of God to Abraham at this time of failure is amazing.

Had I been God, the last thing I would have considered would be to reveal my relationship to Abraham. Even if my own character demanded that I remain faithful to my promises, I would not have disclosed to Abimelech that Abraham was a believer, albeit a carnal one. And yet God disclosed the fact that Abraham was the object of His special care. More than this, Abraham was identified as a prophet (verse 7).¹⁹⁰ He was God’s representative and the intermediary through whom Abimelech must be healed.

This must have left Abimelech shaking his head. How could Abraham be a man of God at the same time he was a liar? Abimelech, however, was not given any opportunity to take punitive action in spite of the problems Abraham’s disobedience had brought upon the king’s household. Abraham was the source of Abimelech’s suffering, it was true, but he was also the solution. Abimelech and Abraham both found themselves in a very awkward position.

Abraham Is Rebuked
(20:8-16)

Abimelech wasted no time making matters right before God. He arose early in the morning and reported the substance of his dream to those of his household. Because they were affected along with Abimelech, they greatly feared (verse 8). They would see to it that the king’s orders were followed to the letter.

After informing his servants, Abimelech summoned Abraham. It was not a pleasant situation, and Abraham was sternly rebuked for his deception:

What have you done to us? And how have I sinned against you, that you have brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? You have done to me things that ought not to be done (Genesis 20:9).

Abimelech had been wronged by Abraham. He had not only done what was wrong in the eyes of God, but also in the eyes of pagans. Abraham, who was to be a source of blessing (12:2,3), had become a proverbial pain in the neck to those in whose land he sojourned.

Twenty-five years before this, Abraham had committed a nearly identical sin. In that case, we do not know how Pharaoh learned the truth, nor are any of Abraham’s excuses recorded. Pharaoh seemed interested only in getting Abraham as far from his presence as possible. Abimelech did not ask Abraham to leave, perhaps out of fear of what God might do for such lack of hospitality. Abraham’s excuses, weak as they are, are reported to us:

And Abraham said, “Because I thought, surely there is no fear of God in this place; and they will kill me because of my wife. Besides, she actually is my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife; and it came about, when God caused me to wander from my father’s house, that I said to her, ‘This is the kindness which you will show to me: everywhere we go, say of me, “He is my brother”’” (Genesis 20:11-13).

Three reasons are stated for Abraham’s deception, but none of them satisfactorily explain his actions in Gerar. First, Abraham acted out of fear. He feared that because of Sarah’s beauty he would be killed, and she would be taken as a wife by violence. This fear was based upon a faulty theological premise: God is only able to act when men are willing to obey. God could save Abraham only in a place where He was known and feared by men. The inference is that where ungodly men are, God’s hand is shortened and unable to save.

Such theology was due more to unbelief than to ignorance. It was the same fear Abraham had twenty-five years before. According to Abraham’s theology, God could not save him from the hand of Pharaoh either, but He did! Abraham failed because of unbelief, not because he was uninformed.

Incidentally, this unbelief had to disregard specific revelation, for shortly before this incident God had twice told Abraham that Sarah would become pregnant and bear a child within the year (17:19,21; 18:10). Could Abraham willingly encourage Sarah to go to bed with Abimelech, believing that she soon was to become pregnant and have a child? I think not. If Sarah was thought to be “over the hill” and unable to have children, her becoming a part of the king’s harem might not be taken so seriously. Abraham might have thought the laugh would be on Abimelech for taking as his wife a woman who was old enough to be his mother.

One more observation must be made concerning Abraham’s fears for his own safety. His conduct differs little from that of Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot, by inviting the two strangers under his roof, assured them of protection. Rather than break this commitment, he was willing to sacrifice the purity of his two virgin daughters and give them over to the men outside his door. Abraham, fearing for his own safety, was willing to give over his wife to the king (or any other citizen of Gerar) to protect himself from harm.

The second reason for Abraham’s deception is even less satisfactory. His statement, though a lie, was technically factual. Sarah was, indeed, his sister, the daughter of his father, but not his mother (verse 12). Facts can be and often are used in such a way as to convey falsehood. Statistics are sometimes employed in this way: You have your head in the freezer and your feet in the oven, but, on the average, you are comfortable. His sister, indeed. She was his wife. Abraham tried to defend himself by technicalities but not by truthfulness.

The third reason I have labeled “tradition.” When all else fails to justify the way we have acted, we can always fall back on these well worn words: “But we’ve always done it that way before.” That’s what Abraham was saying in substance. His actions before Abimelech were not to be taken personally—they were merely company policy. This policy had been established many years ago. Why should it be set aside after so many years?

Having looked at each of the three lines of Abraham’s defense, let us consider his arguments as a whole. There is absolutely no indication of acceptance of responsibility for sin, nor of sorrow or repentance. While his arguments fail to satisfy us, as they did not impress Abimelech, they did seem to satisfy Abraham.

This observation did not come to me immediately. In fact, one of my friends suggested it to me after I delivered this message in the first service. But he is absolutely right. Abraham here is like one of our children who is caught dead to rights. They are sorry they are caught but not repentant for the wrong they have done.

It also explains the repetition of this sin by Abraham and, later, by his son Isaac. Abraham never said to himself, “I’ll never do that again,” either in Egypt or in Gerar. In both cases Abraham escaped with his wife’s purity and with a sizeable profit to boot. So far as I can tell, Abraham never saw his deceptiveness as a sin. Consequently, it kept cropping up in later generations.

I do not think that Abimelech was impressed with Abraham’s explanation. Nevertheless, God had severely cautioned him, and he knew that Abraham was the only one who could intercede for him to remove the plague which prohibited the bearing of children. Because of this, restitution was made.

First, Sarah was given back to her husband Abraham along with sheep, oxen, and servants (verse 14). Then, to Abraham the invitation was extended for him to settle in the land wherever he chose (verse 15). Finally, a thousand pieces of silver were given to Abraham as a symbol of Sarah’s vindication (verse 16). Her return to Abraham, therefore, was not because she was found to be unacceptable or undesirable.¹⁹¹

Abimelech Is Restored
(20:17-18)

What a humbling experience it must have been for Abraham to intercede on behalf of Abimelech. A deep sense of unworthiness must have (or at least should have) come over him. It was surely not his righteousness which was the basis for divine healing. As a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, I must confess to you that I frequently experience feelings of inadequacy and unworthiness. Prophets, my friends, are not necessarily more pious, and neither are preachers! The greatest danger that those in positions of prominence or power face is that they begin to believe that their usefulness is based upon their faithfulness and deeper spirituality. Any time that we are used of God, it is solely because of the grace of God.

While this was a tragic time in the life of God’s chosen, it was necessary, for it prepared the way for the following chapter in which the promised child is given. God’s promise to Abraham was kept because God is faithful, not because Abraham was faithful. “Every good and perfect gift,” in the words of Scripture, “cometh from above” (James 1:17). Such was the case with Isaac.

When Abraham prayed, the wombs of Abimelech’s household were opened so that they once again bore children. So Sarah’s womb was to be opened as well. The promised son was soon to be born.

Conclusion

Abraham’s failure, to be sure, occurred in a culture and time that is foreign to Christians today. In spite of this, his problems were no different than ours (cf. James 5:17), and the principles found in Genesis 20 are as true today as they were centuries ago. God has not changed, and neither have men. Take a few moments to consider the lessons we can learn from this incident in the life of Abraham.

(1) The fallibility of the saints. I know there are those who teach sinless perfectionism, but I cannot fathom why. The old man, while positionally dead, is very much alive and well for the time being. While we should be living out the victorious life of Romans 8, most of us find ourselves continually in chapter 7. Such was true of Abraham, the friend of God, also.

Privileged position does not preclude failure. Abraham was God’s elect, God’s chosen, but he still floundered and failed. Abraham was God’s prophet, but that did not make him more pious than others. Abraham prospered both in Egypt and in Gerar, but it was not because he attained a higher level of spirituality. The most dangerous doctrine for the Christian is that which suggests that Christians can be above temptation and failure in their Christian lives, even after years of service or in a privileged position.

(2) Our disobedience is often camouflaged by excuses transparent to all but ourselves. Abraham’s three excuses are easily seen to be a sham, and yet variations on these three themes serve as justification for much wrong that we do.

The first is situational ethics, which is a system of ethics based upon the denial of either the existence of God or His ability to act in man’s behalf. Situationalism always posits a dilemma in which there is no alternative other than a sinful act. In such cases we are forced to decide on the basis of the lesser of two evils.

First Corinthians 10:13 dogmatically asserts that the premise on which situationalism is based is wrong. It teaches that God never places the Christian in a circumstance where he or she must sin. The outcome which we dread is always a figment of our fearful imagination, and not of reality. Abraham feared that someone would kill him to take away his wife. It never happened, nor was there any reported situation where this was even a remote possibility. Faith in a God Who is sovereign in every situation keeps us from flirting with sinful acts which allegedly will deliver us from emergency situations—ones in which godliness must be put on the shelf.

The second is dealing in technicalities rather than truth. The information Abraham gave to Abimelech was totally factual (verse 12). Sarah was his sister. But what Abraham failed to report made it all a lie. She was his wife, as well as his sister.

How often we allow people to draw the wrong conclusions or impressions by withholding evidence. We want to give the impression we are spiritual when we are not. We try to appear happy when our heart is breaking. We try to look sophisticated when we are desperate and despondent. Faith is facing up to reality and dealing openly with others, even when the truth may appear to put us in jeopardy or may make us vulnerable.

The third, and very common, excuse is that of tradition. “We’ve always done it that way.” That was Abraham’s excuse. All that it indicates is our persistence in sin. As my uncle used to say of someone who always had a good word for everyone, “She would say of the Devil, ‘He’s persistent.’” Tradition is not wrong, but neither does it make any practice right.

(3) Our failures will not keep a person from coming to faith in our Lord. While Abraham was not eager to talk about his faith to Abimelech, God was not reluctant to own Abraham as a person and a prophet. Why didn’t God keep His relationship to Abraham quiet? Wouldn’t the poor testimony of Abraham drive Abimelech away from God?

We would have expected Abimelech to respond to Abraham’s sin as many do today: “The church is full of hypocrites. If that’s what Christianity is, I don’t want any part of it.” Such excuses are no better than Abraham’s.

Abraham’s failure provided Abimelech with the best reason in the world to be a believer in his God: the God of Abraham was a God of grace, not of works. Abraham’s God not only saved him apart from works (cf. Genesis 15:6; Romans 4) but kept him apart from works. Abraham’s faith was in a God Whose gifts and blessings are not based upon our faithfulness but His. Men and women are not looking for a fair-weather religion but one that assures them of salvation regardless of their spiritual condition at the moment. The kind of faith Abraham had is the kind which men desire, one that works even when we don’t.

(4) The grace of God and the eternal security of the believer. That brings us to our final point: the Christian is eternally secure regardless of failures in faith. Backsliding is never encouraged, never winked at, and never without painful consequences according to Scripture. Nevertheless, backsliding will never cost the Christian his salvation. The salvation which God offers to men is eternal. If anyone should have lost his salvation, it was Abraham, but he remained a child of God.

What a background chapter 20 sets for chapter 21. We would have expected Isaac to have been conceived at a high point in Abraham and Sarah’s lives, but it was not so. We would at least have expected Abraham’s unbelief to have been exposed and finally conquered in chapter 20, but it did not happen. In fact, Abraham never even acknowledged the sinfulness of his actions.

God blessed Abraham, He gave him wealth (Genesis 12:16,20; 13:1-2, 20:14-16) and the son He had promised (Genesis 21:1ff). He also gave him a privileged position (Genesis 20:7, 17-18). All those blessings were gifts of God’s grace, not rewards for Abraham’s good works. By the end of Genesis 20 we must conclude, in the words of Kidner:

After his spiritual exertions Abraham’s relapse into faithless scheming, as at other moments of anticlimax (see on 12:10ff and on chapter 16), carries its own warning. But the episode is chiefly one of suspense: on the brink of Isaac’s birth-story here is the very Promise put in jeopardy, traded away for personal safety. If it is ever to be fulfilled, it will have to be achieved by the grace of God.¹⁹²

185 While no reasons for Abraham’s moves are given, I would think that chapter 19 supplies us with a strong suggestion for Abraham’s departure from Mamre. Somehow the devastation of the cities of the valley must have had some effect on Abraham’s ability to raise his great herds of cattle. It is likely that the availability of both grass and water may have affected his other moves as well.

186 The critics have pounced upon the mention of the Philistines in 21:32. This is impossible and thus in error because the Philistines were not in the land until after Moses, their dominion of Palestine being around 1175 B.C. It would appear that the problem is best explained by viewing these early Philistines as those of an early wave of migrants who paved the way for the later, more hostile immigrants identified biblically as Philistines. For a lengthy discussion of this problem, cf. Harold G. Stigers, A Commentary of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), pp. 181-182. Kidner concisely summarizes:

“The Philistines arrived in Palestine in force in the early twelfth century; Abimelech’s group will have been early forerunners, perhaps in the course of trade.” Derek Kidner, Genesis (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), p. 142.

187 Abimelech is thought to be a title of office, like Pharaoh, and not the given name of a person. It is difficult to know for certain whether Abimelech is a moral pagan or a true believer in the God of Abraham.

188 Some marvel at the fact that Sarah could still be so attractive at the age of 90 that she would be desirable as a wife (or concubine). We must remember that the life span of men and women was longer then than now. Abraham lived to the age of 175 (25:7), Sarah to 127 (23:1). Also, in order to bear the child the normal aging process must have been retarded. The text leaves the impression that Abraham feared for his safety because of Sarah’s beauty. I believe we should be willing to accept this at face value. This does not mean that other reasons for taking Sarah could not have been present. Abraham was a man of wealth and power. Alliances were made by means of marriages, and thus Abimelech’s reasons for marrying Sarah may have been numerous.

189 Some have suggested that Sarah had no guilt in affirming Abraham’s lies as the truth. It is said that Sarah was merely being submissive and that Abraham bore his guilt and Sarah’s also. I see no biblical evidence for such claims. Sarah was commended in Scripture for her submissive obedience. The reference of Peter to Sarah, however, is not to her lie in Genesis 20 but to her reverence toward her husband in chapter 18 (verse 12). Here, late in life and at a time when the promise of a child seemed incredible, she still referred to Abraham with deep respect, evidenced by the word ‘lord’: “And Sarah laughed to herself, saying, ‘After I have become old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?’” (Genesis 18:12). Furthermore, Peter, while commending Sarah’s obedience, carefully defined the kind of obedience which is acceptable and pleasing to God: “Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.” Abraham’s lie and Sarah’s participation in it was based upon fear, and Moses made it clear that it was not right, even in the eyes of a pagan. While Sarah’s obedient spirit may be commended, her lie is not. We must always obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). Submission is the obedience we give when, in our judgment, the action is unwise; it is not participating in what we know from God’s Word to be wrong. In the biblical chain-of-command God’s revealed will is supreme, and it overrules all other levels of authority if they are in direct conflict.

190 While Abraham does not fit the usual conception of a biblical prophet, it is a fitting designation. He did, consistent with the Hebrew word, nabhi, serve as a speaker or spokesman for God (cf. Exodus 4:16, 7:1). Furthermore, a prophet often interceded for others (cf. Deuteronomy 9:20; I Samuel 7:5). In both of these senses Abraham was a prophet, although he did not foretell the future.

191 Stigers suggests that the 1000 pieces of silver was actually the value of the cattle given:

“Herein are described the results of the incident presented in vv. 1-7. In v. 16 there is the peculiar circumstance of the money, which may be a value paraphrase of the value of the animals and slaves given to Abraham, stated in a judicial manner. The giving of the animals is, in effect, a pecuniary settlement to guarantee that no legal recourse may be had by Abraham against Abimelech at any future time.” Stigers, Genesis, p. 180. In his usual concise style Kidner summarizes: “In offering the compensation Abimelech owned his error (though the term ‘thy brother’ re-emphasized his innocence), and in accepting it Abraham acknowledged the matter settled.” Kidner, Genesis, p. 139.

192 Ibid., p. 137.

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_21_32k.mp3

Passage:

22. What Happens When Christians Mess Up? (Genesis 21:1-34)

Introduction

In one of her movies Julie Andrews sings a beautiful song, one of my favorites, but its theology is abominable. The lyrics go something like this: “Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could. So somewhere in my youth or childhood, I must have done something good.” Many Christians seem to have the same kind of theology. They believe that the good things which happen in life are the result of some good thing they have done. So also, like Job’s friends, they think that everything unpleasant is the result of some evil they have done.

I do not wish to challenge the fact that obedience brings blessing, for ultimately it always does. However, God often brings tribulation into the life of a faithful Christian in order to bring about growth and maturity. So also, God brings blessing into the life of the Christian in spite of what he has done more than because of anything good he has done. That’s grace—unmerited favor. Genesis 21 is proof of this kind of blessing in the life of the Christian.

The background to Genesis 21 is one that Abraham would have preferred Moses not bother to record in holy writ. While sojourning in Gerar, Abraham once again passed off his wife Sarah as his sister. The results were not very pleasant, for Abraham was rebuked by a pagan king. The real tragedy is that there seemed to be no genuine sorrow or repentance for the sin that was committed. So far as we can tell, Abraham was not at a very high point in his spiritual life when the “child of promise,” Isaac, was born to Sarah. It was at this low ebb in Abraham’s spirituality that God brought one of the promised blessings to pass in his life.

The Birth of the Promised Son
(21:1-7)

The events of verses 1 through 7 can be seen in three different dimensions. In verses 1 and 2 we see the divine dimension in the birth of the son as a gift from God. Verses 3 through 5 record the response of Abraham to the birth of this son. Finally, in verses 6 and 7 we have the jubilance of Sarah over the arrival of the long-awaited child, who is the joy of her life.

An Act of God (vss. 1-2)

I have a friend who is an insurance agent, and he would be quick to tell me that an “act of God” in his line of work is a disaster over which man has no control. Isaac was an “act of God” in a very different sense. He was the result of divine intervention in the lives of Abraham and Sarah, both of whom were too old to bear children. It was the fulfillment of a promise made long before the birth of the child and often reiterated to Abraham (cf. Genesis 12:2; 15:4; 17:15-16; 18:10):

Then the Lord took note of Sarah as He had said, and the Lord did for Sarah as He had promised. So Sarah conceived and bore a son to Abraham in his old age, at the appointed time of which God had spoken to him (Genesis 21:1-2).

Several things are striking about this passage. First, we cannot miss the note of calm assurance. There has been no suspense. The event comes without surprise, reported as though nothing else could have happened than what did. And, of course, this is precisely right.

Second, there is a distinct emphasis on the aspect of fulfillment. The birth of Isaac came without surprise simply because that was what God had promised would happen. Four times in these two short verses the element of fulfillment is stressed (“as He had said,” “as He had promised,” verse 1; “at the appointed time,” “which God had spoken,” verse 2). It was God who promised the child; it was God who accomplished His word. And this was done right on schedule. God’s purposes are never delayed, nor are they ever defeated by man’s sin. God’s purposes are certain. What God has promised, He will accomplish.

Third, the son seems to be given almost more for Sarah’s benefit here than for Abraham’s. “The Lord,” Moses wrote, “took note of Sarah … and … did for Sarah” (verse 1). I do not think it too far afield to suggest that Sarah wanted that son more than Abraham did. You will remember that Abraham besought God on behalf of Ishmael, seemingly to accept him as the son of promise (cf. 17:18). Neither did Abraham seem to take the promise of a son too seriously when he was willing to subject Sarah to the dangers of Abimelech’s harem at the very time she was about to conceive the promised son (cf. 17:21; 18:14). And so, even though Abraham may not have had the desire for this child as much as his wife, God kept His promise.

Aloof Acceptance (vss. 3-5)

The next verses seem to confirm my suspicion that Abraham was not ecstatic about Isaac, at least not nearly as much as his wife:

And Abraham called the name of his son who was born to him, whom Sarah bore to him, Isaac. Then Abraham circumcised his son Isaac when he was eight days old, as God had commanded him. Now Abraham was one hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him (Genesis 21:3-5).

His response to the birth of Isaac might be described as “dutiful.” In obedience to the instructions given him in Genesis 17, Abraham named the baby Isaac and circumcised him on the eighth day. Abraham thus followed God’s instructions out to the letter, but perhaps without the joy that could have been experienced.

We are reminded that Abraham was now 100 years old. In a way, Abraham and Sarah were more like grandparents to Isaac than parents. Who of us would have been overjoyed at the birth of a child at this age? When Abraham could have been drawing Social Security payments for 35 years, he became a parent. And at the age of 113 he would enter into the teenage years with his son.

Sarah’s Ecstasy (vss. 6-7)

If Abraham’s response to the birth of this child is merely dutiful, Sarah’s is delirious:

And Sarah said, “God has made laughter for me; everyone who hears will laugh with me.” And she said, “who would have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse children? Yet I have borne him a son in his old age” (Genesis 21:6-7).

The name Isaac meant “laughter.” Both Abraham and Sarah, when they were told of the son who was to be born to them, laughed (cf. 17:17; 18:12). More than anything, their laughter was prompted by the absurdity of the thought of having a child so late in life. But now the name Isaac took on a new significance, for he was a delight to his mother, who experienced the pleasures of motherhood so late in her life.

Ishmael Is Put Away
(21:8-21)

Abraham’s lack of enthusiasm about his son Isaac may seem very conjectural, and we must admit this candidly, but the events of verses 8-21 certainly seem to strengthen this impression about Abraham and his attitude toward his son.

On the day Isaac was weaned, Abraham prepared a great feast. This seems to have provided the occasion for celebration in those days. We should bear in mind that the weaning of a child often occurred much later than it would today. Isaac could easily have been three or four years old, or even older.

The sight of Hagar’s son at the feast robbed Sarah of all of the joy she should have had. By this time Ishmael would have entered his teens and would likely have reflected his mother’s disregard for Sarah and her son. Whether Ishmael was actually mocking Isaac or merely playing and having a good time is hard to determine in the context since the word employed in verse 9 could mean either. However, Paul’s commentary in Galatians 4:29 informs us that mockery was the meaning Moses intended to convey.¹⁹³ Sarah determined that something was going to be done once and for all. Forcefully she gave Abraham an ultimatum:

Drive out this maid and her son, for the son of the maid shall not be an heir with my son Isaac (Genesis 21:10).

How out of character Sarah seems at this moment. How different the description of her in Peter’s epistle is from that described by Moses:

And let not your adornment be external only—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, and putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands. Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear (I Peter 3:3-6).

Sarah is obviously not at her best in chapter 21, but then neither is Abraham. Some have tried to applaud Sarah for her depth of spiritual insight concerning the fact that Isaac would be the heir, not Ishmael. Personally, I think that her primary motive was that of jealousy and a protective instinct to see to it that her son got what was coming to him.

Sarah, like every Christian I have ever known, had moments she would just as soon forget entirely. This is surely one of those times for her. Peter’s use of Sarah as an example of humility and submissiveness overlooks this event as an exception to the normal rule. In a similar fashion the writer to the Hebrews spoke of Abraham and Sarah as those whose faith we should imitate. Their mistakes and sins were not mentioned because they were dealt with once and for all under the blood of Christ. Furthermore, their sins are not the point of the author’s purpose in Hebrews, but rather their faith. Men’s sins are recorded in Scripture in order to remind us that the men and women of old were no different than we are and to serve as a warning and instruction to us not to repeat their mistakes (cf. I Corinthians 10:11).

Abraham was deeply grieved by the decision that was being forced upon him (Genesis 21:11). From chapter 17 we know that he was very attached to his son Ishmael and that he would have been content for this child to be the heir through whom God’s promises were to be fulfilled. This, however, was impossible because Ishmael was the result of human effort, devoid of faith (cf. Galatians 4:21ff).

The attachment of Abraham to this son, Ishmael, was so great that a crisis had to be reached before he would come to grips with the situation. While we cannot justify the motivation of Sarah for her ultimatum, I personally believe that such a move had to occur in order to force Abraham’s hand in setting aside his aspirations for this son.

God reassured Abraham that as painful and unpleasant as the situation might be, putting Ishmael away was the right thing to do. In this instance he should listen to his wife:

Do not be distressed because of the lad and your maid; whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her, for through Isaac your descendants shall be named (Genesis 21:12).

We should notice that it is both Hagar and the boy who are close to Abraham’s heart. Heretofore Hagar has been referred to as Sarah’s maid, but here she is called “your maid” by God. Sarah, we recall, was intensely jealous of Hagar and of her son (cf. Genesis 16:5). It is impossible for a man to enter into an intimate relationship such as the one Abraham had with Hagar and then to simply walk away. Sarah knew this, and so did God. In more than just a physical way Abraham had become one with Hagar, and Ishmael was the evidence of this union.

In chapter 17 God had refused to accept Ishmael as the heir of Abraham. Isaac, He had insisted, would be the heir of promise (17:19). It was therefore necessary for Ishmael to be sent away and forever eliminated from the status of an heir. For this reason Sarah’s demands were to be met, and Ishmael was to be sent away. Yet the promises God had made to Hagar (16:10-12) and to Abraham (17:20) concerning Ishmael would be honored: “And of the son of the maid I will make a nation also, because he is your descendant” (Genesis 21:13).

The sending away of the son of a concubine was not without precedent in that day. In the Code of Hammurabi, Law 146, the children of slaves who were not made heirs must be set free as compensation for this.¹⁹⁴ Abraham’s sending away of Ishmael fits very nicely into this practice. By giving him his freedom, he indicated that Ishmael had no part in his inheritance, which was kept exclusively for Isaac.

Abraham arose early to send off Hagar and Ishmael. This may evidence his resolve to carry out an unpleasant task, as Kidner suggests.¹⁹⁵ While it sounds far less spiritual, I wonder if Abraham did not do so for other reasons. Surely an early start would be wise in the desert, since travel should be done in the cool of the day. Also, an early departure would make it easier to say their good-byes without the interference of Sarah. I think that Abraham wanted to express his deep-rooted love for both Hagar and Ishmael without a hostile audience.

Some have suggested that Hagar lost her way in the desert and that this explains why she “wandered about in the wilderness of Beersheba” (verse 14). Why did she not return to Egypt, as she seemed to be heading there when she first escaped from Sarai (16:7ff)? Later, she would take a wife for Ishmael from Egypt (verse 21). I believe that Hagar did not return to Egypt because she believed that God would fulfill His promises concerning Ishmael in the place where she chose to wander. In that sense she sojourned in the wilderness, much like Abraham, trusting God to bless them there.

Eventually the provisions Abraham gave them ran out and death appeared to be at hand. The boy was no infant here, as we might suppose, but a teenager, for he was nearly fourteen years older than Isaac (cf. 17:25). Not wanting to see him die, Hagar left Ishmael some distance from her under what little shade the bushes would afford. She then lifted up her voice and wept.

It was not Hagar’s cries that arrested God’s attention, but the boy’s.¹⁹⁶ As a descendant of Abraham, Ishmael was the object of God’s special care. His cries brought divine intervention:

And God heard the lad crying; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, and said to her, “What is the matter with you, Hagar? Do not fear, for God has heard the voice of the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him by the hand; for I will make a great nation of him” (Genesis 21:17-18).

The solution to Hagar’s problem was already present. Through her tears she could not see the well close by. More than likely, it was not a distinct structure but simply a small source of water hidden among the bushes. God thus enabled her to see things as they really were, and she and the boy were refreshed and revived.

God’s working in Hagar’s life may seem harsh to us, but I understand His dealings to be such that His promises were accomplished. You remember that Ishmael was to be a “wild ass” of a man, hostile toward his brothers, and a free spirit. This kind of man could not be raised in the city with all of its conveniences and advantages. Learning to survive in the desert, to prevail over hostile elements was just what it took to make such a man out of Ishmael. As boot camp makes a good Marine, so desert survival made a man of Ishmael.

Abimelech Makes a Treaty with Abraham
(21:22-34)

Verses 22 through 34 describe a particular incident in the life of Abraham. The agreement which was made between Abraham and Abimelech is significant for both Abraham and for us. By implication it says a great deal about the fears and the faith of Abraham.

The meeting between these three figures was one of great import. Abraham was recognized as a man of influence and power. More than this, he was known to be the object of divine love and protection. Abimelech and Phicol came to Abraham; they did not invite him to the palace. They came to make a treaty:

Now it come about at that time, that Abimelech and Phicol, the commander of his army, spoke to Abraham, saying, “God is with you in all that you do; now therefore swear to me here by God that you will not deal falsely with me, or with my offspring, or with my posterity; but according to the kindness that I have shown to you, you shall show to me, and to the land in which you have sojourned” (Genesis 21:22-23).

It is difficult to fathom the intense embarrassment this request should have brought Abraham. Here was the king of the land where Abraham lived and his prime minister coming to him seeking a treaty. They acknowledged that their motivation was based largely upon the fact that Abraham was one loved by God. In essence, these men were aware by their own experience of the Abrahamic covenant:

“And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing; And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:2-3).

Abimelech sought a treaty with Abraham because he did not ever wish to go to battle against him. To fight Abraham was to attack Abraham’s God and to have to contend with Him. On the other hand, to have an alliance with Abraham was to have God on his side. No wonder Abimelech was so anxious to negotiate such a treaty.

But do you see the lesson this should have taught Abraham? Abraham had lied to Abimelech about Sarah because he thought that there would be no fear of God, and thus no protection of himself, in a land of pagans (cf. 20:11). God rebuked the unbelief of Abraham by this testimony from the lips of Abimelech.

Furthermore, Abraham’s deception was rebuked. How would you feel if a king and his prime minister flattered you by acknowledging that God was with you in a very special way and then made you promise that you wouldn’t lie to him any more? Abimelech respected Abraham’s God, but he was not so sure about Abraham’s credibility. By putting Abraham on oath Abimelech sought to remedy the problem of deception. Once before he had nearly lost his life because of Abraham’s deception (20:3); he did not ever want that to happen again.

Once the treaty was made, Abraham brought up a specific grievance which could be settled under the terms just reached. Abraham complained to Abimelech about a well that his servants had dug, only to have it confiscated by servants of Abimelech (verse 25). Abimelech not only denied knowledge of the incident but seemed to mildly reproach Abraham for not bringing the matter to his personal attention (verse 26). A specific covenant was then made concerning this well, seven ewe lambs being a token of the agreement (verses 28-31). Abimelech and Phicol went their way, and Abraham commemorated his worship of the Lord in thanksgiving for this treaty by planting a tamarisk tree. And so Abraham stayed on in the land of the Philistines for some time.

The lesson that Abraham learned from this was striking. He had feared for his life and for his wife among these “pagans” (20:11). God showed him that Abimelech recognized his favored status with his God and that Abimelech would not have done him bodily harm on account of this. Not only would Abimelech not take a wife that was not his, he would not even take a well that did not belong to him. How foolish the fears of Abraham seem after this incident!

Conclusion

Several lessons emerge from this page of history from the life of Abraham. First, we must conclude that God’s blessings continue to come into the lives of His people, even at the times when their faith is at its lowest ebb. Neither Abraham nor Sarah were seen at their best in this chapter; and yet God gave them the promised son, He preserved the life of Hagar and Ishmael, and He brought about an alliance with a pagan king which gave Abraham a favored position.

Lest we should conclude that holiness is therefore unimportant, it must also be said that disobedience has its painful consequences. While it was years after the union of Abraham and Hagar, a union which denied the power of God to fulfill His covenant promises, Abraham had to face up to his wrong and send his beloved son away. Sooner or later the consequences for sin will be reaped by the sinner. So, here, the ugliness of Sarah, the tearful parting from Abraham, and the brush with death in the wilderness resulted from Abraham’s impetuous act with Hagar.

Second, we should be reminded that the right things sometimes happen for the wrong reasons. I do not believe that Sarah was shown in the best light in this chapter. I do not see a quiet and submissive spirit in her confrontation with Abraham. Nevertheless, we must conclude from God’s instructions to Abraham to obey his wife that the right thing to do was to put Ishmael away, once and for all. This prepared the way for the “sacrifice of Isaac” in the next chapter, for only now could God say to Abraham, “Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there … ” (Genesis 22:2).

Throughout the Bible we see that the right things are often the result of the wrong reasons. For example, Joseph was sent to Egypt to prepare the way for the salvation of the nation Israel, but he got there through the treachery of his brothers, who thought they were getting rid of him by selling him into slavery. Satan afflicted Job in order to demonstrate that believers only trust in God because of the profit motive. God, however, allowed Job to be tested in order to teach Satan (and us) a lesson in faith.

Are you in a difficult or painful situation? Perhaps you got there because of the deceit or maliciousness of someone else. That doesn’t really matter, so far as you are concerned. If you believe in a God who is truly sovereign, really in control, then you must accept the fact that God has brought you to the right place for the wrong reason. The reasons may not be praiseworthy, but you can be assured that God has you in that place for a good reason.

Third, we learn that the greatest portion of our fears are totally unfounded. Abraham feared for his life and for his wife. Abraham believed that God would be obeyed and His people protected only where He was known and feared. Abraham was to learn through this treaty with Abimelech that God cares for His own. If Abimelech would not dare to take a well, he would not take a wife or a life. All of Abraham’s schemes were for naught. Faith can rest upon the covenant promises of God; fear has no basis at all.

Finally, God’s answer to our problem is often the solution which has been there all along, but our anxiety has kept us from seeing it. I love the fact that Hagar saw the well that had been there all along. Only her tears and her fears kept her from seeing it. The cries of those who belong to God will reach Him, but the answers need not be spectacular or miraculous, as we sometimes expect or demand. Many times the answer will be that which, in time, is obvious.

Do you belong to Him, my friend? If you have come to trust in the saving work of Jesus Christ on your behalf, then you do. And if you do, God cares for you. Those who belong to God need not fear, for He is with them; indeed, He is in them. And, wonder of all, He deals with us in grace. Even at our darkest hours, He remains faithful and His promises true.

193 RSV’s ‘playing’ (implying that Sarah was insanely jealous) is unfair: it should be translated ‘mocking’ (AV, PV). This is the intensive form of Isaac’s name-verb ‘to laugh,’ its malicious sense here demanded by the context and by Galatians 4:29 (‘persecuted’)! Derek Kidner, Genesis (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), p. 140.

194 The Code of Hammurabi declares that children of slaves not legitimized, though not sharing in the estate, must be set free [Law 171]. Harold Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 185.

195 Kidner, Genesis, p. 140.

196 It is no coincidence that the name “Ishmael” means “God hears” (cf. Genesis 16:11)

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_22_32k.mp3

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

23. Final Exams (Genesis 22:1-24)

Introduction

Fourteen years ago I applied for admission to Dallas Theological Seminary. As I was filling out my application, there were some questions which I had to answer. One concerned an area of biblical interpretation over which many Christians disagree. I well remember saying on my application that while I personally agreed with the seminary’s position, I did not see it proven by the passage cited in its support. Nothing was said about this matter for over three years. So far as I was concerned, it was all forgotten.

Just before my final year in seminary I was called into the dean’s office for a little discussion. To my amazement the matter of the difference between my position and the school’s was brought up. You might be interested to know that my position changed little, even through years of study and after learning a little about the original languages of the Bible. Somewhat reassured by my answers, the seminary allowed me to continue my educational program and graduate the next year.

The point of my illustration is that while this difference of interpretation was allowed to persist, there was a time when it would become an important issue. I find that God often does this same thing. He may allow a particular problem to continue for some time, but sooner or later the problem will become an issue of import and one that must be resolved.

Such was the case with Abraham. At the very outset of his relationship with God he was given a clear command concerning his family:

Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go forth from your country, And from your relatives And from your father’s house, To the land which I will show you” (Genesis 12:1; emphasis added).

We know, however, that it took years for Abram to be separated from his father; and when it did occur, it was the result of death rather than of deliberate obedience. Next it was Lot from whom Abram was reluctant to separate. In chapter 21 there was the painful act of sending away Ishmael, a son deeply loved by Abraham. In chapter 22 Abraham has come to his ultimate test. Abraham was an elderly man, and Sarah was soon to die. Abraham’s love was now focused upon Isaac, who after chapter 21 is his only son (22:2). God has brought Abraham to the point where he must give priority to either his faith or his family. The greatest test of his faith now confronts Abraham in Genesis 22.

The Command
(22:1-2)

We are not told the exact time of the ultimate test in Abraham’s life, only that it came after the events of chapter 21. Personally, I believe that it was at least ten years later, which would make Isaac a young man of at least the age of Ishmael when he was sent away. This would give ample time for the affections of Abraham for his first son to have been transferred to his second, Isaac. Isaac is thus accurately called his “only son” and the son whom Abraham loved (verse 2).

Contrary to the connotation of the term “tempted” employed by the King James translators in verse 2, God tested Abraham to demonstrate his faith in tangible terms. We know from Scripture that while God tests men to prove their godly character as saints, He never solicits them to sin (cf. James 1:12-18). Thus, in James 2 the apostle can point to this event in Abraham’s life as an evidence of a living faith:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? (James 2:21)¹⁹⁷

God’s command to Abraham must have caught him totally unprepared:

And He said, “Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you” (Genesis 22:2).

The greatest difficulty I find in this chapter is not the conduct of Abraham but the command of God. How can a God of wisdom, mercy, justice, and love command Abraham to offer up his only son as a sacrifice? Infant sacrifice was practiced by the Canaanites, but it was condemned by God (cf. Leviticus 18:21; Deuteronomy 12:31). Furthermore, such a sacrifice would have had no real value:

Does the Lord take delight in thousands of rams, In ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my first-born for my rebellious acts, The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? (Micah 6:7)

To point out that God stopped Abraham short of carrying out the command does not solve the problem. How could God have given the order in the first place if it were immoral? To hold that God could ever command His children to do wrong, even as a test, is to open the door to all kinds of difficulties.

Several factors must be considered to understand this test in a proper light. First of all, we must admit a strong bias in the matter. We who are parents are repulsed by the thought of sacrificing our children upon an altar. We thus project our abhorrence upon God and suppose that He could never consider such a thing either. Secondly, we view this command from the vantage point of the culture of the day, which did practice child sacrifice. If the pagans did it and God condemned their practice, it must be wrong in any context.

We are forced to the conclusion that the sacrifice of Isaac could not have been wrong, whether only attempted or accomplished, because God is incapable of evil (James 1:13ff; I John 1:5). Much more than this, it could not be wrong to sacrifice an only son because God actually did sacrifice His only begotten Son:

All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. But the Lord was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand (Isaiah 53:6,10).

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:16; cf. Matthew 26:39,42; Luke 22:22; John 3:17; Acts 2:23; II Corinthians 5:21; Revelation 13:8).

In this sense, God did not require Abraham to do anything that He Himself would not do. Indeed, the command to Abraham was intended to foreshadow what He would do centuries later on the cross of Calvary.

Only by understanding the typological significance of the “sacrifice of Isaac” can we grasp the fact that God’s command was holy and just and pure. Abraham’s willingness to give up his only son humanly illustrated the love of God for man, which caused Him to give His only begotten Son. The agony of heart experienced by Abraham reflected the heart of the Father at the suffering of His Son. The obedience of Isaac typified the submission of the Son to the will of the Father (cf. Matthew 26:39,42).

God halted the sacrifice of Isaac for two reasons. First, such a sacrifice would have no benefit for others. The lamb must be “without blemish,” without sin, innocent (cf. Isaiah 53:9). This is the truth which Micah implied (6:7). Second, Abraham’s faith was amply evidenced by the fact that he was fully intending to carry out the will of God. We have no question in our mind that had God not intervened, Isaac would have been sacrificed. In attitude Isaac had already been sacrificed, so the act was unnecessary.

A second difficulty pertains to the silence of Abraham. One of my friends put it well: “How come Abraham interceded with God for Sodom, but not for his son Isaac?” We must remember that the Scriptures are selective in what they report, choosing to omit what is not essential to the development of the argument of the passage (cf. John 20:30-31; 21:25). In this chapter of Genesis, for example, we know that God was to indicate the particular place to “sacrifice” Isaac (verse 2) and that Abraham went to this spot (verse 9), but we are not told when God revealed this to him.

I believe that Moses, under the superintending guidance of the Holy Spirit, omitted Abraham’s initial reaction to God’s command in order to highlight his ultimate response—obedience. Personally (although there is no Scripture to support my conjecture), I believe that Abraham argued and pled with God for the life of his son, but God chose not to record this point in Abraham’s life because it would have had little to inspire us. I know that many of us would not want God to report our first reactions to unpleasant situations either; it is our final response that matters (cf. Matthew 21:28-31).

This helps me as I read the evaluation of Old Testament saints in the New Testament. Except for the words of Peter I would never have considered Lot to be a righteous man (II Peter 2:7-8). In Hebrews 11 and Romans 4 Abraham is portrayed as a man without failure or fault, yet the book of Genesis clearly reports these weaknesses. The reason, I believe, is that the New Testament writers are viewing these saints as God does. Because of Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross of Calvary, the sins of the saints are not only forgiven but also forgotten. The wood, hay, and stubble of sin is consumed, leaving only the gold, silver, and precious stones (I Corinthians 3:10-15). The sins of the saints are not glossed over; they are covered by the blood of Christ. When these sins are recorded, it is only for our admonition and instruction (I Corinthians 10:1ff, especially verse 11).

Abraham’s Obedience
(22:3-10)

Regardless of the struggles which are not reported, Abraham arose early to begin the longest journey of his life:

So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him and Isaac his son; and he split wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him (Genesis 22:3).

I have said previously that while the early hour may reflect the resolve of Abraham to do God’s will, it may contain some human factors also. First, I would imagine that sleep completely evaded Abraham on that night, especially after God had clearly commanded the sacrifice of Isaac. Some people rise early because all hope of sleep is gone. Then, too, I would not have wanted to face Sarah with my plans for the coming days. While Abraham was resigned to do God’s will, Sarah is not informed of this test (at least so far as the Scriptures record).

After a heart-breaking three-day journey the mountain of sacrifice was in view. At this point Abraham left his servants behind and went on alone with Isaac:

And Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey, and I and the lad will go yonder; and we will worship and return to you.” And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son, and he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So the two of them walked on together (Genesis 22:5-6).

In the midst of great anguish of soul there is a beautiful expression of hope and faith in verse 5:

“Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you” (NIV; emphasis added).

I do not believe these words were idly spoken but that they reflected a deep inner trust in God and His promises. The God Who had commanded the sacrifice of Isaac had also promised to produce a nation through him (17:15-19; 21:12).

As the two went on alone climbing the mountain to the place of sacrifice, Isaac put a question to his father which must have broken his heart: “Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?” (verse 7)

The answer was painfully evident to Abraham, and yet there is in his answer not only a deliberate vagueness but also an element of hope: “God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son” (verse 8).

At every step Abraham must have hoped for some change of plans, some alternative course of action. The place was reached, the altar built, and the wood arranged. At last there was nothing left but to bind Isaac and place him upon the wood and plunge the knife into his heart.

God’s Provision
(22:11-14)

Only when the knife was lifted high, glistening in the sun, did God restrain Abraham from offering up his son:

But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” And he said, “Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me” (Genesis 22:11-12).

At the point of death it was evident that Abraham was willing to forsake all, even his son, his only son, for God. While God knew the heart of Abraham, Abraham’s reverence was now evident from experiential knowledge.

Also at the point of total obedience came the provision of God. God did not halt the act of sacrifice; He provided a ram as a substitute for Isaac:

Then Abraham raised his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him a ram caught in the thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the place of his son (verse 13).

From this experience it was seen that Abraham’s faith that God would provide a sacrificial offering (verse 8) was honored and that God does indeed provide:

And Abraham called the name of that place The Lord will Provide, as it is said to this day, “In the mount of the Lord it will be provided” (verse 14).

God’s Promise
(22:15-19)

In addition to God’s intervention to prevent Abraham’s sacrifice of his son, there was the confirmation of God’s promises to Abraham through his son:

“… By Myself I have sworn,” declares the Lord, “because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son, indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies. And in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice” (Genesis 22:16-18).

There is little in this divine confirmation that is new,¹⁹⁸ although there is one striking change. In previous instances these promises were made unconditionally (cf. 12:1-3; 15:13-16, 18-21). Now the blessings are promised Abraham because he had obeyed God in this test (22:16,18).

The change is not as dramatic as it might first appear, however. In chapter 17 God reaffirmed His promises, beginning with these words: “I am God Almighty; Walk before Me, and be blameless. And I will establish My covenant … ” (verses 1-2).

Furthermore, Abraham was instructed to “keep My covenant” (17:9,10,11). Then in chapter 18 we read:

… Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed? For I have chosen him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice; in order that the Lord may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him (18:18-19).

We must realize that God’s choice of Abraham included not only the end God purposed (blessings) but also the means (faith and obedience). After his ultimate test on Mount Moriah God can say that the blessings are a result of the obedience which stems from faith. This same sequence is evident in the New Testament:

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them (Ephesians 2:8-10).

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified (Romans 8:28-30).

The work of God begins with a promise which must be accepted by faith. Ultimately this faith, if it is genuine, will be demonstrated by good works (cf. James 2). The promises of God are sure to every believer because God is sovereign at every step—from faith to obedience to blessing.

Conclusion

This incident in Abraham’s life had several results for the patriarch.

(1) It dealt with a problem that had plagued him all of his life—unhealthy attachment to family. It was here that Abraham had to choose between Isaac and God for his first loyalty. His obedience finally put this problem to rest.

(2) His obedience to the revealed will of God justified his profession of faith:

Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. But someone may well say, “You have faith, and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” and he was called the friend of God (James 2:17-23).

James is not disagreeing with Paul here. He would agree that a man is saved by faith, apart from works (cf. Romans 4), but James insists that a saving faith is a working faith. A faith which is professed but not practiced is a dead faith. While Abraham was justified before God by believing the promise of God (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3), he was justified before men by his obedience (Genesis 22, James 2). God could look on Abraham’s heart and know that his faith was genuine; we must look at his obedience to see that his profession was genuine.

(3) Abraham’s obedience resulted in spiritual growth and deeper insight into the person and promises of God. No experience in Abraham’s life made the person and work of Christ more evident. This is why our Lord could say to the Jews of His day: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad” (John 8:56). Times of testing are also times of growth in the lives of believers today.

(4) Abraham’s trial on Mount Moriah prepared him for the future. It is no surprise that the next chapter (23) deals with the death of Sarah. What we need to fathom is the fact that God used the offering of Isaac to prepare Abraham for the death of his wife. We know from Abraham’s words (22:5) and from their interpretation by the writer to the Hebrews (11:19) that Abraham’s faith evidenced on Mount Moriah was a faith in the God Who could raise men and women from the dead (cf. also Romans 4:19). While he did not face death until chapter 23, he dealt with it in chapter 22. God’s tests are often preparatory for greater things ahead (cf. Matthew 4:1-11).

Besides dealing with Abraham, God used this incident on Mount Moriah to instruct the nation Israel, who received this book and the other four books of the Law from the pen of Moses. For those who had just received the Law with its complex sacrificial system, this event in the life of Abraham gave a much deeper understanding of the significance of sacrifice. They should perceive that sacrifice was substitutionary. The animal died in place of man just as the ram was provided in Isaac’s stead. But they should also perceive that ultimately a Son, an only Son, must come to pay the price for sin, which no animal can possibly do. Against the backdrop of the sacrifice on Mount Moriah the whole sacrificial system of the Law was seen to have a deeper, fuller significance.

This incident in the life of Abraham was also intended for our edification and instruction (I Corinthians 10:6,11). Let me suggest several ways that we should learn from the life of Abraham as it is depicted in Genesis 22.

(1) This event is a beautiful foreshadow, a type, of the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. Abraham represents God the Father, Who, out of love for mankind, gave His only Son as a sacrifice for sinners (John 3:16). Isaac is a type of Christ, Who submits to the will of His Father. Isaac bore the wood as our Lord bore His cross (Genesis 22:6; John 19:17). It was three days from the time Abraham left to sacrifice his son until they returned together. After three days Abraham received his son back (Hebrews 11:19). After three days our Lord arose from the dead (John 20; I Corinthians 15:4).

Even beyond all this, Isaac was “sacrificed” at the place where our Lord would give His life centuries later, on Mount Moriah outside Jerusalem. We know from II Chronicles 3:1 that this was the place where the Lord appeared to David and where Solomon built the temple. And so it was that Abraham took his son to a mount near Jerusalem to offer his son, even the same place (or nearly so) where our Lord was to die in years to come. What a beautiful illustration of the infinite wisdom of God and of the inspiration of God’s holy Scriptures.

(2) This passage also reminds us of the importance of obedience for the Christian. It was because Abraham obeyed God that the promised blessings were confirmed once again at the climax of our passage (verses 15-18). While man’s works never save him, saving faith must inevitably be manifested in good works (Ephesians 2:8-10). Trust and obey is the way of the Christian.

(3) We see also that the Christian life is paradoxical. It would seem that it is self-contradictory. Abraham gained his son by giving him up to God. We get ahead in God’s eyes by putting ourselves behind others (Matthew 23:11; Philippians 2:5ff). We lead by serving; we save our lives by losing them (Matthew 16:25). God’s ways are not man’s ways.

(4) The Christian life is not lived without reason or rationality. I greatly fear that many have read this account in Abraham’s life and concluded that God tests us by directing us to do that which is totally unreasonable.

The danger is that we will tend to assume that whatever does not make sense is likely to be the will of God. Many critics have suggested that Christians are those who take their hats and their heads off when they enter the church. This is not so.

On the other hand, we must acknowledge that what Abraham was commanded to do seemed to be unreasonable. Through Isaac Abraham was to be the father of multitudes. How could this be so if Isaac were dead? Putting a son to death must have seemed totally beyond the character of God. Was God not asking Abraham to act on faith without reason? Notice what the writer to the Hebrews says:

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac; and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; it was he to whom it was said, “IN ISAAC YOUR SEED SHALL BE CALLED.” He considered that God is able to raise men even from the dead; from which he also received him back as a type (Hebrews 11:17-19; emphasis added).

The Greek word here, logizomai, clearly expresses the fact that Abraham acted upon reason.¹⁹⁹ This was no blind “leap of faith,” as it is sometimes represented. Faith always acts upon facts and reason.

My point is simply this. The world likes to believe that they act upon reason while Christians act without thinking. That is wholly false. The truth is there are two kinds of reasoning: worldly reasoning and godly reasoning. Peter, when he rebuked our Lord for talking of His sacrificial death, was thinking humanly:

But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s” (Matthew 16:23).

There are two mind sets: the godly mind and the worldly mind:

For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so (Romans 8:5-7).

The appeal of Paul in Romans 12 is addressed to both our emotions and our minds:

I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. For through the grace given to me I say to every man among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith (Romans 12:1-3).

The sacrifice we are called to give to God is that of our living bodies, and it is our logical or rational (Greek, logicos) act of worship. This is accomplished by the renewing of our minds (verse 2). Man’s whole being has been affected by the fall: emotions, intellect, and will. All of these must therefore undergo a radical transformation for us to be conformed to the likeness of our Lord Jesus Christ. In Romans 12:3 we are told to think, think, think. This is the use of our new minds. Christianity is rational, but of a vastly different kind than that of the world.

Christian reasoning is based upon the presuppositional belief that there is a God, Who is both our creator and redeemer (Hebrews 11:1ff). Christian reasoning is based upon the belief that God’s Word is absolutely true and reliable. God had promised a son through Sarah through whom the blessings were to be given. Abraham believed God in this (Genesis 15:6). God also commanded Abraham to sacrifice this son. Abraham believed God and obeyed Him even though human reasoning would question the wisdom of it.

Abraham’s reasoning was also based upon his experience with God over the years. God had continually proven to be his provider and protector. God’s sovereign power had repeatedly been demonstrated, even among the heathen such as Pharaoh and Abimelech. While Abraham and Sarah were “as good as dead” so far as bearing children were concerned, God gave them the promised child (Romans 4:19-21).

Abraham did not understand why he was told to sacrifice his son nor how God would accomplish His promises if Abraham obeyed, but he did know Who had commanded it. He did know that God was holy, just, and pure. He did know that God was able to raise the dead. On the basis of these certainties Abraham obeyed God, contrary to human wisdom, but squarely based upon godly reason. Godly reason has reasons. We may not know how or why, but we do know Who and what. That is enough!

(5) There is a beautiful principle taught in our text: “… In the mount of the Lord it will be provided” (verse 14).

In verse 8 Abraham assured his son that God would provide a lamb, and so He did (verse 13). The principle is not that God will provide at a certain place, but under a certain condition. At the point of faith and obedience, at the point of helplessness and dependence, God will provide. Often, I believe, we do not see God’s provision because we are not at a point of despair.

I remember the story of two sailors who alone survived a shipwreck. They were adrift at sea on a makeshift raft. After all hope of rescue was lost, one asked the other if they should pray. Both agreed, and one had just begun to cry to God for help when the other interrupted, “Hold it, don’t commit yourself, I think I see a sail.”

God sometimes must bring us to the point where we find Abraham on Mount Moriah—totally depending upon God for deliverance. It is there that we must acknowledge that God has provided. This is the point men and women must come to in order to be saved. They must see themselves as lost sinners, deserving of God’s eternal wrath. They must forsake any faith in themselves and any work they might do to win God’s favor. They must look only to God to provide the forgiveness of sins and righteousness required for salvation. God’s provision has been made by the death of His sinless Son, Jesus Christ, on Calvary 2000 years ago. If you have reached the point of despair, my friend, I want you to know it is also the point of help and salvation. Cast all your hope upon the Christ of Calvary, and you will surely find salvation.

(6) Finally, this passage has been used for a tragic evil, the sacrifice of our sons and daughters on the pretext of obeying a divine command. God has never instructed His saints to sacrifice their families for any ministry or any calling. We must put God first, this is true (Matthew 10:37), but obedience to God necessitates provision and instruction of our families (cf. I Timothy 5:8; Ephesians 6:4; I Timothy 3:4-5, 12).

Many parents, like Abraham, view their future as wrapped up in their children. They wish to manipulate their lives so as to live out their hopes and dreams in them. We must give our children to the Lord and submit them, as ourselves, to His keeping and care. Then will we, and they, find God’s blessing.

I must sadly admit that the problem of Abraham is surely foreign to our world today. How little we must worry about undue attachment to our children in this day when abortion is rampant, and mothers and fathers are forsaking their families for a freer lifestyle. In this we see the prophecy of conditions for the end times being fulfilled in our midst:

But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God; holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; and avoid such men as these (II Timothy 3:1-5).

In verse 3 the first word, “unloving,” means literally “without love of kindred.” These are days when the natural paternal affections are becoming rare. Surely the Lord’s return is near. May God enable us to love our children so much that we commit them to God’s will for their lives.

197 In this chapter James is not debating Paul’s theology but is stressing a complementary truth: While works cannot save, only a faith that works does save. The justification of which James speaks in chapter 2 is not before God but before men. The faith a man has in his heart justifies him before God, but the faith a man demonstrates by his life justifies his claim to be saved before men.

198 Stigers’ remarks, however, are worthy of repetition: “The phrase ‘gates of their enemies’ (v. 17) is of far-reaching significance as to the future of God’s redemptive program. The other elements of the oath-promise, the innumerable descendants and the blessing to come upon the nations, are the same as those found in 12:1-3; however, the phrase ‘a land I will shew/give thee’ is now replaced by ‘possess the gate of their enemies.’ This enlarges the meaning of the promise of the land: that of assuming the place and power of the previous peoples. But the promise is not localized in any way; any enemy of any time is designated, unless Israel shall deny her God (cf. Ps. 89:30-33). The phrase connotes the ultimate victory of holiness over all things, shared in by God’s people.” Harold Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), pp. 190-191.

199 “Hence, logizomai means: (a) reckon, credit, rank with, calculate; (b) consider, deliberate, grasp, draw a logical conclusion, decide.” J. Eichler, “Logizomai,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), III, pp. 822-823.

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_23_32k.mp3

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

24. Dealing with Death (Genesis 23:1-20)

Introduction

I have always loved challenges. As a mechanic I delight to delve into a problem that seemingly evades diagnosis. As a preacher I thrive on the passages that would normally be passed by. It would seem that I have come to the right passage for my personality as I approach the twenty-third chapter of Genesis. A preacher whom I greatly respect confesses that this is one text he would not preach by choice. In reading over a sermon he preached on this chapter I note that four-fifths of his sermon dealt with one-tenth of the text.

We should not be shocked to find the death of Sarah recorded as a part of the biography of Abraham; however, of the twenty verses in this chapter, less than two of them refer to the emotional response of Abraham to his wife’s death. No romanticist could tolerate this! The remaining eighteen verses have to do with the purchase of the plot where Sarah is buried.

I know that “fools rush in where angels fear to tread,” but I want us to come to this text fully convinced that God has a word for us here. Furthermore, I believe that we must seek the greatest part of our instruction from the greater part of the passage—the purchase of the plot of ground in which Sarah is buried.

Preparation for Sarah’s Parting

While Sarah’s death is not recorded until Genesis 23, the previous chapter has prepared Abraham and us for the events of our passage. The “sacrifice” of Isaac on Mount Moriah brought Abraham to a firm faith in God’s power to raise the dead (cf. Hebrews 11:19). While this did not prove a necessity in the case of Isaac, it would be so with Sarah in the years ahead. A willingness to put Isaac to death enabled Abraham to accept the passing of his wife Sarah.

Furthermore, the last verses of chapter 22 record an incident which would bear upon the future:

Now it came about after these things, that it was told Abraham, saying, “Behold, Milcah also has borne children to your brother Nahor: Uz his firstborn and Buz his brother and Kemuel the father of Aram and Chesed and Hazo and Pildash and Jidlaph and Bethuel.” And Bethuel become the father of Rebekah; these eight Milcah bore to Nahor, Abraham’s brother. And his concubine, whose name was Reumah, also bore Tebah and Gaham and Tahash and Maacah ( Genesis 22:20-24; emphasis added).

In the providence of God a wife for Isaac had already been provided long before the need had arisen. God takes care of the future in advance. As a friend of mine has put it, “The ram is already in the bush” (cf. 22:13).

Beyond this, the report summarized in verses 20-24 reminded Abraham that his fatherland and family were far away. No doubt the news from “home” pulled at Abraham’s emotional heartstrings. When Sarah died there would be strong emotional reasons for taking her body “home” to bury it. These verses, then, remind us of the strong ties that still remained at Mesopotamia and the significance of Abraham’s decision to bury his wife in Canaan.

Abraham’s Faith Expressed
in His Response to Sarah’s Death
(3:1-20)

Godly Grief (vss. 1-2)

While our faith is not to be based upon our feelings, neither should it be divorced from our emotions. The first two verses provide the background to our chapter and also describe the grief of the patriarch:

Now Sarah lived one hundred and twenty-seven years; these were the years of the life of Sarah. And Sarah died in Kiriath-arba (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan; and Abraham went in to mourn for Sarah and to weep for her (Genesis 23:1-2).

As commentators over the centuries have noted, Sarah is the only woman in the Bible whose age is revealed. One hundred twenty-seven years is a ripe old age, but the death of Sarah would have seemed untimely because of her youthfulness. Even at the age of ninety she was a woman attractive enough to catch the eye of Abimelech (20:1-2). Sarah must have appeared to have found the fountain of youth. Her youthfulness and beauty would have concealed the fact that death was coming upon her.

Abraham seems to have been elsewhere at the time of Sarah’s death. While some fanciful explanations exist for this fact, it would be most easily explained by Abraham being out with his flocks or something similar. When he learned of the death of his wife he came to her side to mourn for her.

While the emphasis of the passage does not fall here, we do know that Abraham expressed the grief common to those who face the death of a loved one. Faith is not evidenced by a stoic, stainless steel attitude toward death. Some years ago Jackie Kennedy was lauded for her ‘‘faith” when she “stood up so well” during the death of her husband. History has pretty well provided evidence that Jackie’s lack of emotion at the funeral may have been due to a lack of feeling for her husband. We need only to remark that our Lord wept at the grave of Lazarus (John 11:35).

The Purchase of a Plot (vss. 3-20)

Sarah’s death brought Abraham to a point of decision. The practical matter was: “Where shall I bury Sarah?” The principal issue, however, was this: “Where shall I be buried?” Most often when a burial plot is purchased for the first partner another is bought alongside for the surviving partner, and frequently a whole family plot is secured simultaneously. When Abraham decided upon the burial place for Sarah, he also determined the place of his burial and of his descendants.

Abraham thus approached the Hittites to purchase a burial plot for himself and his family. How strange it must have been for Abraham to petition the Hittites for a burial place in light of the often repeated promise of God:

On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates: the Kenite and the Kenizzite and the Kadmonite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Rephaim and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Girgashite and the Jebusite’ (Genesis 15:18-21).

Abraham was compelled to buy a portion of the land God had promised to give him and his descendants. Furthermore, he was to purchase the land from a people that God was going to give into his hand. How ironic that Abraham should humbly bow before these people and petition them for a piece of ground.

As we have noted, the majority of chapter 23 is devoted to the description of a legal transaction involving the purchase of a burial plot in Canaan. Only in the light of that culture and time can we grasp the transaction fully. It was a legal process that followed the practices of the Hittites precisely. Even my friend and fellow elder (who is a real estate attorney), could not have done it better.

Legal transactions were typically conducted at the city gate, where the city leaders were present and where witnesses were at hand (cf. Ruth 4:1ff). The terms of the agreement were determined by a sequence of negotiations fully within the customs and culture of the day. It may seem “foreign” to us, and so it is, but not to Abraham or the Hittites. Abraham’s dealings are a model of dignity and fair play.

Abraham’s request (vss. 3-4): Abraham had requested the sons of Heth (verse 3), the Hittites (verse 10), to provide him a place to bury Sarah. He acknowledged that his problem was his status as a “stranger and sojourner” among them (verse 4). At the bottom line this meant that he was not a property owner and had no permanent burial plot.

A generous offer (vss. 5-6): Abraham’s request was taken at face value. It seemed as though Abraham was only asking for the use of a burial place. A man of his station was not to be refused such a request. Abraham was considered a “prince of God.” These Canaanites recognized the hand of God upon this man and were inclined to treat him favorably, even as Abimelech had expressed previously (21:22ff) .

If Abraham wished the use of a burial place, anyone would gladly loan him the best they had. However, a borrowed grave was not acceptable to Abraham. There is really nothing wrong with a borrowed grave; our Lord was buried in one you recall (Matthew 27:60), but our Lord only needed His grave for three days, whereas Abraham needed his site for posterity (Genesis 25:9; 50:13). Nothing less than a permanent possession would satisfy Abraham.

A clarification (vss. 7-9): Abraham’s intentions were not yet understood. He desired a permanent possession, not a borrowed tomb. This land of Canaan was to be his home, not a mere stopping-off place. Consequently, Abraham asked the people to urge Ephron to sell him the cave of Machpelah, which was at the end of his field (verse 9). This was not to be a gift but a purchase at full value of the property.

A modification (vss. 10-11): Ephron, who was sitting among the city’s leaders, responded to Abraham’s request. The significant item is not the offer to give the land to Abraham, for this seems to have been mere formality; it was not an insincere offer so much as one which no one would accept with honor. The modification is in the quantity of land to be deeded over. Abraham asked only for the cave at the end of Ephron’s field, but Ephron specified that the deal was to be a package, the field and the cave. The significance of this will be suggested later.

An anticipated response (vss. 12-13): As expected, Abraham refused the offer of the gift but did accept the alteration of the agreement, and so the sale is well under way. The field with the cave will be sold to Abraham, and only the price needs to be established.

The price set and met (vss. 14-16): One must appreciate the beauty of the near-eastern culture to enjoy this final act of negotiation. Ephron was nobody’s fool. He persists in his offer to give Abraham the land free of charge, but he also places a value on the “gift” that is offered. This accomplishes two things: it names the price, yet in a very generous way, and it makes it almost impossible for Abraham to bargain over the price. If Ephron is so generous as to offer to give the land to Abraham, how could Abraham be so small as to dicker over the price? Abraham paid the price, and both men went away with what they had hoped for.

A final summary (vss. 17-20): Again in what seems to be very technical and legal terminology, the transaction is outlined. As was the custom, even the trees are mentioned in the deeding of the property (verse 17). A burial site was thus procured, and Abraham proceeded to lay his wife’s body to rest.

Conclusion

For Abraham the purchase of the cave of Machpelah was an expression of his faith in God. The writer to the Hebrews alluded to this when he wrote:

All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them (Hebrews 11:13-16).

By determining that Sarah, and later he and his descendants, would be buried in Canaan, Abraham “staked his claim” in the land which God had promised. The land where he would be buried was to be the homeland of his descendants. The place that God had promised him was the place where he must be buried.

Jeremiah expressed a similar faith when he purchased the field of Anathoth (Jeremiah 32:6ff). While God was to judge His people for their sins by driving them out of the promised land, so He would bring them back when they repented. The purchase of the field of Anathoth evidenced Jeremiah’s conviction that God would do as He had promised (Jeremiah 32:9-15).

Abraham’s purchase not only exemplified his hope for a better country, a heavenly one (Hebrews 11:16), it also involved him more deeply in the present world in which he lived as a stranger and sojourner. Sojourners didn’t own property, but now Abraham did, of necessity. Strangers and sojourners do not have as great an involvement or obligation as do citizens and property owners. Abraham’s purchase gave him a “dual citizenship,” so to speak. Let me suggest how this was so.

We are told that according to Hittite law Abraham would not have been obligated to the king had he only purchased the cave at Machpelah rather than the field and the cave.²⁰⁰ By acquiring property as he did, Abraham thus deepened his commitment of faith in God but also extended his worldly obligations. I think this is significant. In his first epistle Peter instructs Christians on their attitude and conduct toward this present world in light of the fact that we are strangers and pilgrims:

Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts, which wage war against the soul. Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may on account of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation. Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. Honor all men; love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king (I Peter 2:11-17).

Christians are citizens in two worlds, not just one. While our inheritance is in heaven, “imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away” (I Peter 1:4), we have obligations in this present world. We must submit to earthly authorities and institutions (I Peter 2:11ff). We must also obey the laws of the land and pay our taxes (Romans 13:1-7).

Christians have often been accused of being “so heavenly minded, they are of no earthly good.” If I understand the Bible correctly, our heavenly mind is what makes us useful in the present. Abraham lived in the present in the light of the future. His future inheritance did not lessen his present obligations; it established his priorities. The fact that he would inherit the land of Canaan and “possess the gates of his enemies” (Genesis 22:17) did not mean he would be kept from purchasing property and bowing before constituted authority (cf. 23:7,12) and this at the very gates of those whom God would later put under his authority (15:20).

Abraham’s purchase of a burial plot provided Israel with roots in the promised land. Jacob, who died in Egypt, was buried in the cave which Abraham purchased (Genesis 50:1-14). When the Israelites were freed from Egyptian bondage, where else would they return but to their fatherland?

Interestingly, the land of Canaan had not yet been possessed when this book (Genesis) was written. But those who received it from the hand of Moses were those who looked forward to its conquest. None other than Caleb was given the privilege of taking the land which Abraham had purchased as an “earnest of his inheritance” (cf. Joshua 14:13). What motivation this story must have provided for the armies of Israel as they marched into Canaan to possess it!

For men today this event out of ancient biblical history has numerous implications:

(1) It indicates that in the Old Testament as well as in the New the grave is the symbol of hope to a true believer in God. The cave of Machpelah stood for centuries as a monument to the faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The empty tomb of our Lord guarantees the Christian that the grave is not our final resting place but an abode for the body until Christ returns for His own (I Corinthians 15; I Thessalonians 4).

What does the grave mean to you, my friend? Is it the end or only the beginning? Your relationship to the God of Abraham and to His Son, Jesus Christ, makes the difference.

(2) Where we invest our money demonstrates where we plan to spend our future. One of the five men martyred for his faith in Ecuador, Jim Elliot, once said: “He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose.” Abraham believed that God’s promises were true. His investment in Canaan was the best purchase he ever made. In New Testament terminology he “laid up his treasures in heaven” (Matthew 6:19-20). The way we spend our money indicates the reality of our faith.

(3) The covenant of God should be the basis for our actions and decisions. Abraham’s faith was in God, but it was not a nebulous, groundless faith. He believed in the covenant which God had made and had often reiterated. It was Abraham’s faith in God’s ability to keep His covenant which prompted his purchase of the plot where he was to be buried.

Often times people ask why we remember the Lord’s table every week. The answer is at least two-fold. First, this is what our Lord commanded and the early church practiced (Luke 22:14-20; I Corinthians 11:23ff; Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7). Second, this is a weekly reminder of the covenant which our Lord has made with us—the new covenant in His blood (Luke 22:20). Our actions and decisions should be governed by the assurance that this covenant will be fully realized in the life of the believer. That, my friend, is something to be reminded of frequently.

(4) The burial of a loved one is a significant opportunity for a Christian to publicly express his faith. Frequently we are told that the purchase of the burial plot was done before the eyes of the sons of Heth (23:3,7,9,10, etc.). The significance of Abraham’s actions did not pass these Canaanites by. They knew him as a “prince of God.”

The occasion of the death of a loved one should always be viewed as an opportunity for Christian witness. What we say at such times is very important, but let us not forget that what we do is also vital. Abraham’s deeds in chapter 23 are as significant as his declarations.

While what I have to say at this point is only inferential at best, I believe it to be true. There is a very real need to balance two factors. Twice Abraham spoke of burying his dead “out of his sight” (23:4,8). The body of a deceased saint is not to be venerated or treated as some kind of sacred object. The dead body is only the shell in which the soul has abided. The body must be laid aside, out of sight. Some would do well to consider this.

On the other hand, the body is that which God has fashioned (Psalm 139:13-16), it has served as the “temple of the Holy Spirit” (I Corinthians 6:15, 19-20); it will be raised again and be transformed incorruptible (I Corinthians 15:35-49). Because of this the body should not be disposed of in such a way as to disregard the value it has been given by its Creator.

While we may decry the “high cost of death,” let me suggest that some may overreact to burial costs in such a way as to affect their Christian testimony. Unbelievers, who see no life after death, no resurrection, may well dispose of the body as cheaply and irreverently as possible. The Christian should give serious thought to this, however.

I do not think that Abraham was extravagant in the burial of his wife, but neither do I believe that he sought a bargain basement burial. Most scholars suspect the price of that plot was high.²⁰¹ Abraham did not bargain over the price. He did not, excuse the expression, “Jew Ephron down.” The motivation of Abraham as well as his moderation should be considered in relationship to funerals. While our faith does not need frills nor our consciences silver-inlaid coffins, we must be careful not to reflect the values of a decadent society as we bury our dead.

200 “The situation is clarified by the Hittite law code found at Hettueas, Bogaskoi, in Asia Minor, which throws considerable light on the transaction. Law 46 stipulates that the holder of an entire field shall render the feudal obligations, but not he who holds only a small part. A later version stipulates that notice of the sale be made to the king and only those feudal services stipulated at that time are to be given. According to Law 47 lands held as gifts from the king do not incur feudal obligations, while sale of all a craftsman’s lands do carry it. On the other hand, if the larger portion of his holding is sold, the obligation passes to the buyer. One who usurps a field or is given a field by the people bears the obligation. By these various conditions it is seen that the land itself bears the obligation which posses to the new buyer.” Harold G. Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 193.

201 There is much difference of opinion as to how high a price Abraham paid for the burial plot. Both the relative value of the silver and the size of the field are unknown. Since Moses did not state that the price was exceptionally high, we should draw such conclusions with caution.

Français

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_24_32k.mp3

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

25. How to Find a Godly Wife (Genesis 24:1-67)

Introduction

Ann Landers received a letter from a reader that went like this:

Dear Ann Landers:

Why would any husband adore a lazy, messy, addlebrained wife? Her house looks as if they’d moved in yesterday. She never cooks a meal. Everything is in cans or frozen. Her kids eat sent-in food. Yet this slob’s husband treats her like a Dresden doll. He calls her “Poopsie” and “Pet,” and covers the telephone with a blanket when he goes to work so she can get her rest. On weekends he does the laundry and the marketing.

I get up at 6 a.m. and fix my husband’s breakfast. I make his shirts because the ones in the stores “don’t fit right.” If my husband ever emptied a wastebasket, I’d faint. Once when I phoned him at work and asked him to pick up a loaf of bread on his way home, he swore at me for five minutes. The more you do for a man, the less he appreciates you. I feel like an unpaid housekeeper, not a wife. What goes on anyway?

—The Moose (That’s what he calls me.)

Ann’s response is classic. She responded:

A marriage license is not a guarantee that the marriage is going to work, any more than a fishing license assures that you’ll catch fish. It merely gives you the legal right to try.²⁰²

I share this bit of sage wisdom with you because it surfaces a very pertinent caution as we approach Genesis 24. We all know that this chapter, the longest in the book of Genesis, is devoted to a description of the process of finding a wife for Isaac. Finding the right woman is absolutely essential. But as important as this is, finding the right person does not insure a godly marriage. As Ann Landers put it, “It only gives us the right to try.”

Excessive emphasis on finding the right wife or husband can have some disastrous effects for those already married. It is possible for someone to conclude that they have married the wrong person. I know of one well-known preacher who strongly implies that if you have not married the right person, you should get a divorce and try again.

We who are married need to study this passage for what it teaches us on the subject of servanthood and seeking the will of God. When it comes to the subject of marriage, there is much here to instruct us as parents who wish to prepare our children for marriage. But so far as our own partners are concerned, we need to place far more emphasis upon the matter of being the right partner rather than upon finding the right partner.

The thrust of our study, then, will be to study the search for Isaac’s wife within its cultural and historical setting and then to look into the implications of this passage for servanthood, seeking God’s will, and marriage.

The Servant Commissioned
(24:1-9)

Sarah had been dead three years, and Abraham was now 140 years old, “advanced in age” as Moses described it.²⁰³ While death was still 35 years away, Abraham had no reason to presume that he would live to such an age, so he began to make preparations for his passing. His greatest concern was the marriage of Isaac to a woman who would help him raise a godly seed, even as God had previously made clear:

For I have chosen him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice; in order that the LORD may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him (Genesis 18:19).

Abraham entrusted the responsibility of finding a wife for Isaac to no one less than his oldest and most trusted servant. It is possible, though not stated, that this servant was Eliezer of Damascus. If this is true, the greatness of this servant is the more striking, for his task was for the benefit of the son of Abraham, who would inherit all that might have been his:

And Abram said, ‘O Lord GOD, what wilt Thou give me, since I am childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?’ (Genesis 15:2)

The devotion of this servant to his master and to his master’s God is one of the highlights of the chapter. His piety, prayer life, and practical wisdom set a high standard for the believer in any age.

The servant, whatever his name, was commissioned to secure a wife for Abraham’s son Isaac. Only two stipulations were stated by Abraham: the wife must not be a Canaanite (24:3), and Isaac must not, under any circumstances, be taken back to Mesopotamia, from whence God had called him (24:6).

These two requirements promote separation while preventing isolation. Isaac’s presence in the land of Canaan, even when he did not possess it, evidenced his faith in God and developed devotion to and dependence upon God alone. It also served as a means of proclaiming to the Canaanites that Yahweh alone was God. Abraham and his offspring were missionaries in this sense.

While they lived among the Canaanites, they were not to become one with them by marriage. To move back to Mesopotamia would be isolation. To live among them but to marry a God-fearer would serve to insulate Isaac from too close a relation with these pagans. Thus, a wife must be secured from among the relatives of Abraham while, at the same time, Isaac was not allowed to return there himself.

The basis for Abraham’s decision to secure a wife for his son and the stipulations made are explained in verse 7:

The LORD, the God of heaven, who took me from my father’s house and from the land of my birth, and who spoke to me, and who swore to me, saying, ‘To your descendants I will give this land,’ He will send His angel before you, and you will take a wife for my son from there (Genesis 24:7).

First and foremost, Abraham’s actions were based upon revelation. God had promised to make Abraham a great nation and to bless all nations through him. It was not difficult to conclude that Abraham’s son must himself marry and bear children. Thus, while not a specific command, it was the will of God for Isaac to marry. Furthermore, it was determined that Isaac must remain in the land of Canaan. God had promised “this land” (verse 7) to Abraham and his offspring.

In addition, Abraham instructed his servant to seek out a wife for his son with the assurance that God would give divine guidance. “His angel” would be sent on ahead to prepare the way for the servant. Abraham thus acted upon revelation he had previously received, assured that additional guidance would be granted when needed. His faith was not presumption, however, for he allowed for the possibility that this mission might not be God’s means of securing a godly wife for Isaac: “… But if the woman is not willing to follow you, then you will be free from this my oath; only do not take my son back there” (Genesis 24:8).

What a wonderful example of faith in God as One Who guides His people. Abraham sent his servant, assured that God had led by His Word. Abraham sought a wife for his son, assured that God had prepared the way and would make that way clear. Abraham also allowed for the fact that God might not provide a wife in the way he had planned to procure her and thus made allowance for divine intervention in some other way.

While the oath that was sworn is unusual, occurring elsewhere only in Genesis 47:29, it is, without a doubt, a genuine act, probably common to that culture and time.²⁰⁴ We do know from the context that it was a solemn oath and one that must have been taken seriously by the servant. The significance of this mission is thereby underscored.

The Search Conducted
(24:10-27)

Imagine for a moment that you had been given the commission of Abraham’s servant. How would you possibly go about finding an acceptable wife for Isaac? What an awesome task this must have been. It may have appeared to be like finding a needle in a haystack. Naturally you would make adequate preparations, as the servant did, and journey to the land from which Abraham had come where his relatives still lived. The “city of Nahor” (verse 10) may have been Haran or near it (cf. 11:31-32).

A younger servant would probably have gone about this task in a very different manner. I can imagine him coming into town, advertising the fact that he worked for a very wealthy foreigner with a handsome, eligible son who was to be his only heir. His intention to find a bride would have been publicized, and only one lucky girl was to be chosen. To select such a bride the servant might have held a “Miss Mesopotamia” contest. Only those who were the most beautiful and talented would be allowed to enter, and the winner would become the wife of Isaac.

How different was the methodology of this godly servant. When his small caravan came to the “city of Nahor,” he immediately sought the will and guidance of God in prayer:

And he said, “O LORD, the God of my master Abraham, please grant me success today, and show lovingkindness to my master Abraham. Behold, I am standing by the spring, and the daughters of the men of the city are coming out to draw water; now may it be that the girl to whom I say, ‘Please let down your jar so that I may drink,’ and who answers, ‘Drink, and I will water your camels also’—may she be the one whom Thou hast appointed for Thy servant Isaac; and by this I shall know that Thou hast shown lovingkindness to my master” (Genesis 24:12-14).

Wisdom had brought him this far. He was in the right city, the “city of Nahor,” and he was at a good spot to observe the women of the city as they came to the spring for water. But how could he possibly discern the most important quality of a godly character? Months, even years, of observation might be required to discern the character of the women he interviewed.

The plan which this servant devised testifies to his wisdom and maturity. In one sense it seems to be a kind of “fleece” (cf. Judges 6:36-40) put out before the Lord. It would serve as a sign to the servant that this was the right woman to approach for his master as a wife for Isaac. In reality, the servant sought to test the woman rather than God. Camels are known to be very thirsty creatures, especially after a long trek in the desert. To give the servant a drink was one thing. To give a drink to the men and then to satisfy the thirst of the camels was an entirely different matter. The servant did not plan to ask the woman for water for his camels, only for himself. She could thus meet his request quite easily, while sensing no obligation to meet the total needs of the caravan. Any woman who was willing to “go the extra mile” in this matter was one of unusual character.

It was a wonderful plan, and the servant committed it to God in prayer. This unusual request reflected deep insight into human nature as well as dependence upon divine guidance. His petition was not to be denied. Indeed, it was answered even before the request was completed:

And it came about before he had finished speaking, that behold, Rebekah who was born to Bethuel the son of Milcah, the wife of Abraham’s brother Nahor, came out with her jar on her shoulder. And the girl was very beautiful, a virgin, and no man had had relations with her; and she went down to the spring and filled her jar, and came up (Genesis 24:15-16).

Rebekah was, indeed, the right woman for Isaac. She was the daughter of Bethuel, Abraham’s nephew. Beyond this, she was a beautiful woman who had maintained her sexual purity—essential to the preservation of a godly seed. Seemingly, she was the first to appear and the only woman there at the moment. Everything the servant saw suggested that this woman was a candidate for the test he had devised.

Running to the woman, he asked for a drink. She quickly responded, lowering her jar and then returning time after time for more until the camels were satisfied. Not until the camels were thoroughly cared for did the servant speak up. While the woman’s evident beauty may have satisfied the standards of lesser men, the test was to be allowed to run its course. Adorning the woman with golden gifts, the servant proceeded to determine her ancestry. When this qualification was satisfied, the servant bowed in worship, giving the glory to God for His guidance and blessing:

Then the man bowed low and worshiped the LORD. And he said, ‘Blessed be the LORD, the God of my master Abraham, who has not forsaken His lovingkindness and His truth toward my master; as for me, the LORD has guided me in the way to the house of my master’s brothers’ (Genesis 24:26-27).

Securing Parental Consent
(24:28-60)

While the servant worshipped, Rebekah ran on ahead to report what had happened and to begin preparations for the guests that would be coming. Rebekah’s brother Laban is introduced to us here.²⁰⁵ His devotion to material wealth is suggested by his response:

And it came about that when he saw the ring, and the bracelets on his sister’s wrists, and when he heard the words of Rebekah his sister, saying, ‘This is what the man said to me,’ he went to the man; and behold, he was standing by the camels at the spring. And he said, ‘Come in, blessed of the LORD! Why do you stand outside since I have prepared the house, and a place for the camels?’ (Genesis 24:30-31)

Having found the woman who should be Isaac’s wife, the servant now had to convince the family that Abraham’s son Isaac was the right man for Rebekah. The fact that Rebekah would need to move far away was an obstacle which must be overcome by strong argumentation. This delicate task was skillfully handled by the servant. The urgency of his mission was indicated by his refusal to eat until the purpose of his journey was explained.

First, the servant identified himself as a representative of Abraham, Bethuel’s uncle (verse 34). This would have set aside many objections of these relatives, who were concerned to protect the purity of Rebekah’s descendants. Then the success of Abraham was reported. Abraham had not been foolish to leave Haran, for God had prospered him greatly. By inference, this testified to Isaac’s ability to provide abundantly for the needs of Rebekah, who was not living on a poverty level herself (cf. verses 59, 61). Isaac was said to be the sole heir of Abraham’s wealth (verse 36).

If the law of proportion can teach us anything, it must be that what is described in verses 37-49 is much more vital to the servant’s purposes than verses 34-36. The most compelling argument he could possibly provide was evidence that it was the will of God for Rebekah to become the wife of Isaac. He accomplished this by recounting all that took place from his commissioning by Abraham to the conclusion of his search at the spring. The conclusion of the servant’s presentation is compelling:

And I bowed low and worshiped the LORD, and blessed the LORD, the God of my master Abraham, who had guided me in the right way to take the daughter of my master’s kinsman for his son. So now if you are going to deal kindly and truly with my master, tell me, and if not, let me know, that I may turn to the right hand or the left (Genesis 24:48-49).

The forcefulness of the servant’s presentation was not missed. Laban and his father responded:

“… The matter comes from the LORD; so we cannot speak to you bad or good. Behold, Rebekah is before you, take her and go, and let her be the wife of your master’s son, as the LORD has spoken” (Genesis 24:50-51).

With permission granted for Rebekah to marry Isaac, the dowry gifts were brought forth and presented to the members of the family (vs. 53). Again the servant acknowledged the hand of God in these affairs and worshipped Him gratefully (verse 52). With these matters disposed of, they ate and drank, and the servant and his party spent the night.

In the morning when the servant expressed his desire to be on his way back to his master, Rebekah’s mother and brother expressed their wish to delay her departure. No doubt they knew that they might never see Rebekah again, and so they wished to have some time to say their farewells. The servant, however, pressed them to let her go immediately, and so Rebekah was consulted on the matter. Since she was willing to leave without delay, they sent her off with a blessing.

This blessing, combined with the response to the servant’s claim that God had led him to Rebekah, helps me to understand why Abraham insisted that Isaac’s wife be obtained from his close relatives in Mesopotamia. To some extent Bethuel and his household must have shared a faith in the God of Abraham. They quickly responded to the evidence of divine guidance as recounted by the servant (verses 37-49, 50-51). Their blessing on Rebekah is, in my estimation, a reflection of their faith in Abraham’s God and His covenant. The blessing they pronounced too closely parallels God’s covenant promise to Abraham to be coincidental:²⁰⁶

	“And I will bless her, and indeed I will give you a son by her. Then I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall come from her” (Gen. 17:16)
“May you, our sister, become thousands of ten thousands, And may your descendants possess the gate of those who hate them” (Gen. 24:60)
	“Indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies” (Gen. 22:17)

The Return
(24:61-67)

The mission had been accomplished, and now Rebekah walks in the steps of her great uncle Abraham. She, like he, was led by God to leave her homeland and relatives to go to the land of Canaan.

Isaac had been in the field meditating²⁰⁷ as the evening hours approached (verse 63). As he lifted up his eyes he beheld the caravan approaching. While it is somewhat conjectural, I believe that Isaac, like the servant earlier, had been praying about this task of finding a wife. Isaac could not have been unaware of the mission on which the servant had been sent, and surely Isaac could not have been uninterested in its outcome. For this reason I believe that Isaac was engaged in prayer for the servant that his mission would prosper. As in the case of the servant, Isaac’s prayer was answered even before it was completed.

Rebekah looked with interest upon the man who was approaching them. She asked the servant about him and learned that this man was her future husband. Appropriately, she covered herself with her veil.

Verse 66 may seem incidental, but I think it reports a very essential step in the process of seeking a wife for Isaac. Abraham was convinced that Isaac needed a wife like Rebekah. The servant, too, was assured that Rebekah was the one for Isaac and had succeeded in convincing her family of this fact. However, let us not overlook the fact that Isaac, too, needed to be assured that Rebekah was the woman God had provided for him. The servant’s report, while not repeated, must have been almost identical to the one recorded in verses 37-48. We know from verse 67 that Isaac was assured that Rebekah was God’s good and perfect gift for him.

Much is compressed into the final verse of this chapter. Isaac took Rebekah into his mother’s tent, and she became his wife. His love for her blossomed and continued to grow. His marriage gave Isaac consolation for the death of his mother.

Conclusion

Genesis 24 is a chapter that is rich in lessons for our lives, but I would like to focus upon three avenues of truth contained in our text: servanthood, guidance, and marriage.

Servanthood

Some have seen in Genesis 24 a type of the Trinity. Abraham is a type of the Father, Isaac of the Son, and the servant of the Holy Spirit. While this may be a good devotional thought, it does not seem to me to be the heart of the message for Christians today. Also, the analogy seems to break down frequently.

Rather than seeing him as a type of the Spirit, I see the servant as a model for every Christian, for servanthood is one of the fundamental characteristics of Christian service:

“But it is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all” (Mark 10:43-44).

The servant of Abraham was marked by his eager obedience and his attention to the instructions given him. He diligently pursued his task, not eating or resting until it was completed. There was a sense of urgency, perhaps a realization that his master believed there might not be much time left. At least he was convinced that his master felt the matter was one of urgency. The servant’s diplomacy was evident in his dealings with Rebekah and her relatives. Perhaps the two most striking features of this servant are his wisdom and devotion. Abraham had obviously given this man great authority, for he was in control of all he possessed (24:2). In this task he was also given a great deal of freedom to use his own discretion in finding a godly wife. Only two lines of boundary were drawn: he could not take a wife from the Canaanites, and he could not take Isaac back to Mesopotamia. The plan which the servant devised to determine the character of the women at the spring was a masterpiece.

Perhaps the most striking feature of all was his devotion to his master and to his master’s Master. Prayer and worship marked this man out as being head and shoulders above his peers. He was a man with a personal trust in God and who gave God the glory. This godly servant leaves us with an example in servanthood surpassed only by the “suffering servant,” the Messiah, our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Guidance

Most of us have already found the mate for our married lives. As a result we should consider this passage in the broader context of the guidance which God gives to His children. Perhaps no Old Testament passage illustrates the guiding hand of God as well as this portion in the book of Genesis.

First, we see that God directs men to get under way through the Scriptures. Nowhere is Abraham given a direct imperative to seek a wife for his son, but he does act on the basis of a clear inference from revelation. Abraham was to become a mighty nation through his son Isaac. Obviously Isaac must have children, and this necessitated a wife. Since his offspring would need to be faithful to God and to keep His covenant (cf. 18:19), the wife would need to be a godly woman. This implied that she could not be a Canaanite. Also, since God had promised “this land,” Isaac must not return to Mesopotamia.

Second, we see that God guides His children once under way by “his angel” (24:7). I believe that all true Christians are led by the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:14). He prepares the way for us to walk in His will and to sense His leading. We must proceed in faith just as Abraham did, knowing that God does guide.

Third, the will of God was discerned through prayer. The servant submitted a plan to God whereby the woman who was to be Isaac’s wife would become evident. This was no fleece but rather a test of character. The servant could thereby determine the character of the women he would meet. God providentially (through circumstances) brought the right woman to the servant, and by her generous act of watering the camels she evidenced that she was His choice for Isaac’s wife.

Finally, the will of God was discerned through wisdom. No doubt Abraham sent this servant, his oldest and most trusted employee, because of his discernment. He obediently went to the “city of Nahor” and stationed himself beside the well where all the women of the city must come daily. Humbly he prayed for guidance, but wisely he proposed a plan which would test the character of the women he would encounter. There was no spectacular revelation, nor did there need to be. Wisdom could discern a woman of great worth.

Marriage

For those of us who are not married or who are and have children who must face this choice, a number of principles undergird this story of the selection of a godly wife for Isaac.

First, a godly mate should be sought only when it is certain that marriage will achieve the purposes God has for our lives. Isaac needed a wife because he must become a husband and father to fulfill his part in the outworking of the Abrahamic covenant. While it is the norm for men to marry, let us not forget that the Bible informs us that it is sometimes God’s purpose to keep some of His servants single (I Corinthians 7:8-24). Marriage should only be sought for those who will achieve God’s purpose by having a mate and, perhaps, a family.

Second, if we would have a godly mate we must wait for God’s time. How often I have witnessed men and women marrying hastily, fearing that the time for marriage was quickly passing them by. They married those who were unbelievers or uncommitted because they concluded that anyone was better than no one. Isaac was 40 years old when he married. By some standards that was about 10 years late (cf. Genesis 11:14,18,22). It is well worth waiting for the mate of God’s choice.

Third, if we would have a godly mate we must look in the right place. Abraham instructed his servant not to look for a wife among the Canaanites. He knew that his relatives feared God and that their offspring would share a common faith. That is where the servant went to look, no matter if it were many dusty miles distant.

I do not know why Christians think they will find a godly mate in a singles bar or some other such place. I do not fault any Christian for attending a Christian college or attending a church group with the hope of finding a marriage partner there. If we wish a godly mate, let us look where godly Christians should be. If God does not provide one in this way, He can certainly do so in His own sovereign way.

Fourth, if you would have a godly mate you must seek godly qualities. I notice that Abraham’s servant did not evaluate Rebekah on the basis of her physical appearance. If he had she would have passed with flying colors (cf. 24:16). To the servant beauty was a desirable thing, but it was not fundamental. The woman he sought must be one who trusted in the God of Abraham and who had maintained sexual purity. Fundamentally, she must be a woman who manifested Christian character as reflected in her response to the request for water. This servant knew from experience and wisdom the qualities which are most important to a successful marriage. Just being a woman who believed in the God of Abraham was not sufficient. Just because one is a Christian does not make them a good candidate for marriage.

Fifth, he who would find a godly mate should be willing to heed the counsel of older and wiser Christians. Do you notice how little Isaac had to do with the process of finding a wife? Isaac, if left to himself, may never have found Rebekah. The first pretty girl or the first woman to profess a faith in God might have seemed adequate. The servant was unwilling to settle for second rate. Not only were Abraham and his servant a part of the process, but Rebekah’s family also had to be convinced of God’s leading. Anyone who fails to heed the counsel of godly Christians who are older and wiser is on the path to heartache.

Finally, he who would have a godly mate must be willing to put emotional feelings last. Look again with me at verse 67:

Then Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and he took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her; thus Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death (Genesis 24:67).

Do you notice that love came last, not first, in this chapter? Isaac learned to love his wife in time. Love came after marriage, not before it. That leads me to a principle which many Christian counselors often stress: ROMANTIC LOVE IS NEVER THE BASIS FOR MARRIAGE—MARRIAGE IS THE BASIS FOR ROMANTIC LOVE.

Here we see a good reason for a Christian making the decision never to date an unbeliever. A Christian should carefully screen any person before he or she would even consider going out on a date with them. Dating frequently leads to emotional involvement and physical attraction. Romantic love is a wonderful emotional feeling, but it will never sustain a marriage. Do not put yourself in a situation where romantic love can grow until you are certain that you want it to grow.

Everything in our culture runs contrary to this principle. Romantic feelings are exploited by Madison Avenue and are continually set before us in an exciting light on the television screen. Love is a wonderful thing, a gift from God, but let love come last, not first, if we would find a godly mate.

I believe that God has a special person chosen from eternity past as a mate for those for whom He has purposed marriage. I believe that God will surely guide us to that mate by using Scripture, prayer, counsel, wisdom, and providential intervention. I believe that we will be able to recognize this person, convinced most of all by the fact that they have manifested a godly character. May God help us to encourage our children and our friends to trust God and obey Him in the selection of a mate. For those of us who are married, may God enable us to be the godly mate that His Word says we should be.

202 Ann Landers, “Men vs. Women--and Vice Versa,” Reader’s Digest, March, 1969, p. 59.

203 A nearly identical expression is to be found in Genesis 18:11, referring to Abraham’s agedness at 100. Later, in 25:8 Abraham is said to have died at a “ripe old age” of 175.

204 Some explanations of this oath have gone beyond the facts. The remarks of Stigers seem to reflect the most careful and balanced explanation: “Genesis 24:2 and 47:29 have a strange form of the oath, the hand of the one from whom an oath is taken being put under the thigh of the person taking the oath. No data from contemporary times have as yet come to light to explain this action, but conceivably it might appear one day from the land of Haran from which Abraham came, or perhaps from Canaan. But--and this is important--no explanation of the meaning of the manner is presented; however, it does appear to represent a serious, important matter going beyond the casual promise. It is related not to show its importance, but as part of an understood, legitimate custom, though unexplained, which no second party legitimately could refuse, and therefore we must perceive this to be an eyewitness account.” Harold G. Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 16.

205 Students of Scripture have observed that Laban, the brother, seems to wield more authority than Bethuel, the father. Stigers remarks help explain this phenomenon:

The response of the family is interesting, for not the father, but the brother, speaks first. We may conclude then, that Laban has the stronger position and a definite function in the family equal to that of the father. Afterward, it was Laban and the girl’s mother who received gifts. The Nuzu tablets throw light on the arrangement. What is seen in Rebekah’s household is a fratriarchy or the exercise of family authority in Hurrian society by which one son has jurisdiction over his brothers and sisters. So Laban with his mother decides to put the matter of prompt departure up to Rebekah (v. 58). This independence of action is also reflected in the Nuzu documents concerning the wife of one Hurazzi who said, ‘With my consent my brother Akkuleni gave me as wife to Hurazzi.’ This parallels the biblical incident as to circumstances of the question to the bride, the decision by Laban to ask her, and her answer. (Stigers, Genesis, p. 201.)

206 I must therefore disagree with Kidner, who views the similarity as accidental or unintentional: “The family of Rebekah little knew that their conventional blessing echoed God’s pregnant words to Abraham (22:17).” Derek Kidner, Genesis (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), p. 149. Rather, I would concur with Stigers, who writes: “When they called for a myriad of thousands for Rebekah, they were asking for boundless numbers of God’s people, in harmony with 12:2a and 22:17. When they spoke of descendants possessing the gates of their enemies, they were calling for, even predicting, the ultimate triumph of the people of God, the Israelites (cf. Rev. 4:10; 12:5; 20:4). It is thus seen why Abraham sent to Padan-Aram for a wife for Isaac: these people shared the same hope.” Stigers, Genesis, p. 201.

In the light of Joshua 24:2, we must not make too much of the “faith” of Abraham’s relatives in Mesopotamia: “. . . Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘From ancient times your fathers lived beyond the River, namely, Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, and they served other gods.’” We know, for example, that Laban possessed household gods, which Rachel took when Jacob left to return to Canaan (Genesis 31:30-32). Nevertheless, it seems that Bethuel and Laban acknowledged the God of Abraham (cf. 24:51) and were thus somewhat less affected by the pagan religions than the Canaanites.

207 “The verb translated meditate (suah) is found as yet only here, so its meaning is uncertain. But as LXX understood it so, and a similar form siah can mean this, the translation is eminently reasonable.” Kidner, Genesis, p. 149.

Français

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_25_32k.mp3

Biblical Topics:

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

26. The Principle of Divine Election (Genesis 25:1-34)

Introduction

During my first full year of teaching school I was chosen to be the representative from our school to the board of the district teacher’s association. Unfortunately that year there was a rather fierce battle over teachers’ salaries, and I found myself right in the middle of it. I chose to side with the moderate majority who were willing to accept the offer of the school board, an offer that was very close to what we had asked for. A small minority of angry young teachers decided that they would not settle for anything less than all they had demanded.

The matter came to a head when all the teachers gathered to vote on the issue. I had told the chairman of the meeting that I intended to propose that we accept the school board’s offer. This meant that the opposition would have to defeat my motion before submitting theirs—something almost impossible to accomplish. The chairman knew who those of the minority were who opposed this and that they would attempt to get their motion on the floor first. When the critical moment finally came, several quickly rose to their feet, seeking the floor. I rose also, but more deliberately than the others. I shall never forget the smug, triumphant feeling of having the chairman call upon me first, to the groans of the few hostile members of the association.

The chairman obviously called upon me because he knew that I would submit a motion that reflected the desires of the majority of the teachers. In doing this he effectively defeated the rebel faction with one parliamentary blow. Some people view the doctrine of divine election as operating in the same way that I have explained the events of that teachers’ meeting years ago. God, like the chairman of the meeting, knows who is going to do what, and on the basis of His prior knowledge He chooses the person who will do what He desires. The chosen under such a system may feel the same smugness about their “calling” as I did on that afternoon when I was recognized by the chairman.

Another view of election places the matter almost entirely in man’s hands. In its most blatant form it is said: God votes for us; Satan votes against us; and we cast the deciding vote.

Neither of these views is completely consistent with the biblical doctrine of election. No Old Testament passage puts the whole matter into its proper perspective more clearly than Genesis 25. I can confidently say this because the Apostle Paul chose to use the events of this chapter in Romans 9 as the best illustration of the doctrine of divine election. In our lesson we shall see the relationship between God’s choices and man’s conduct, between the divine will and the human will.

Abraham’s Death
and His Descendants
(5:1-11)

Certainly what we find in the first verse of chapter 25 is unexpected: “Now Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah.”

Over the centuries a number of Bible scholars have maintained that this marriage between Abraham and Keturah did not take place after the death of Sarah. A number of reasons can be cited in support of this conclusion:

First, the verb translated “took” can as easily be rendered “had taken,” as the margin of the NIV indicates.

Second, Keturah is referred to as a concubine in I Chronicles 1:32, which also fits nicely with the word “concubines” in verse 6 of our passage. A concubine held a position somewhat above that of a slave, yet she was not free, nor did she have the status or rights of a wife. The master did have sexual relations with the concubine. Her children held an inferior status to those born of a wife, but they could be elevated to the position of a full heir at the will of the master. Why would Keturah be called a concubine unless Sarah were still alive and this marriage was of a lesser type?

Third, the sons of this union were said to have been “sent away” (verse 6). This could hardly be true of the children of a full marriage, but it would be completely consistent with the children of a concubine. These children would have been sent away in just the same fashion as Ishmael. According to the Code of Hammurabi the sons of a concubine could be sent away, the compensation for which was the granting of their full freedom.²⁰⁸

Finally, Abraham was said to have been old, beyond having children at age 100 (cf. Genesis 18:11). Paul referred to Abraham as being “as good as dead” (Romans 4:19) so far as bearing children was concerned. Those who are mentioned here would have had to have been born to a man at least 140 years old if Abraham married Keturah after Sarah died and Isaac was married to Rebekah. These children listed in verse 3 would have been more of a miracle than Isaac.

The point of verses 1-6 is to establish the fact that Abraham was, in fact, the father of many nations, but that it was Isaac through whom the blessings and promises of the Abrahamic Covenant would be realized. Thus the promise to Abraham in Genesis 17:4 was fulfilled: “As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, And you shall be the father of a multitude of nations.”

Consistent with his faith in the promises of God, Abraham gave gifts to his other children and sent them off, out of Isaac’s way (verse 6).

After a rich and full life Abraham died at the age of 175. This, too, was in fulfillment of the word of God to Abraham: “And as for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age” (Genesis 15:15).

One wonders if Abraham did not include Ishmael among those who received gifts while he was living (cf. verse 6). Nevertheless, Ishmael did return to bury his father in cooperation with Isaac (verse 9). At least a temporary truce was made to facilitate the burial of their father. They buried him in the cave of Machpelah in the field that Abraham had purchased for Sarah, himself, and their descendants (cf. Genesis 23).

Although Abraham was dead, the purposes and promises of God remained in effect. In verse 11 Moses reminds us of this truth: “And it came about after the death of Abraham, that God blessed his son Isaac; and Isaac lived by Beer-lahai-roi.

Through Isaac the covenantal promises were to be carried on. The work of God continues, even when the saints pass away. The torch has been passed from father to son, from Abraham to Isaac.

Ishmael’s Death
and His Descendants
(25:12-18)

If the first verses of chapter 25 demonstrate the faithfulness of God in keeping the promises of Genesis 17:4, then Genesis 25:12-18 reveals God’s fulfillment of Genesis 17:20:

And as for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.

Abraham had always had a special place in his heart for his first son Ishmael. Only with reluctance and under great pressure did Abraham send this son away. Abraham would have been content for God’s purposes and promises to have been fulfilled in Ishmael. He petitioned God to look with favor upon this boy (17:18). God refused to substitute this child of self-effort for the child of promise, but He did promise to make him a great nation. Verses 13-16 record the names of the sons of Ishmael, who were the twelve promised princes. Once again God kept His promise to His servant Abraham.

Ishmael died at the age of 137 and was buried. Notice that he was not said to have been placed in the cave of Machpelah, for this was a monument of hope for the people of the promise. The land of Canaan was not to be the possession of Ishmael nor of his descendants; rather we are told:

And they settled from Havilah to Shur which is east of Egypt as one goes toward Assyria; he settled in defiance of all his relatives (Genesis 25:18).

In this verse one more promise is shown to be fulfilled, the promise God made to Hagar years before:

And he will be a wild donkey of a man, His hand will be against everyone, And everyone’s hand will be against him; And he will live to the east of all his brothers (Genesis 16:12).

The Descendants of Isaac
(25:19-26)

The process of election has been apparent in the previous verses. God chose Sarah, not Hagar or Keturah, to be the mother of the child of promise. God likewise chose Isaac long before he was ever born to be the heir of Abraham. While Abraham had several wives and many children, only Isaac was to be the one through whom the promised blessings would come. In verses 19-26 we see that the process of election continues. Here it is Jacob who is designated as the child of promise as opposed to his twin brother Esau, the one who by a natural course of events would have been the heir of promise.

Isaac married Rebekah when he was 40, but it was 20 years later before she bore him children. Isaac interceded with God on Rebekah’s behalf, and she became pregnant in answer to his prayers (verse 21). During her pregnancy Rebekah was perplexed by the intense struggle²⁰⁹ that took place within her womb, so she inquired of God to determine the reason.²¹⁰ The answer from the Lord verified the significance of the activity within Rebekah’s womb:

And the Lord said to her, “Two nations are in your womb; And two peoples shall be separated from your body; And one people shall be stronger than the other; And the older shall serve the younger” (Genesis 25:23).

Without all the sophisticated medical tests employed today, God informed Rebekah that she was to give birth to twins. Each of the children would be the father of a nation of people. Of these two nations, one would prevail over the other. Of these two sons, the older would not, as was the custom, become preeminent. Normally, the first-born son would have been the heir through whom the covenant blessings would have passed. While the father could designate a younger son to be the owner of the birthright (cf. Genesis 48:13-20), this was the exception, not the rule. Also, the oldest son could sell his birthright, as Esau did.²¹¹

This prophecy is a very significant revelation not only for Rebekah but also for Christians in our age because it indicates the principle of divine election. Before the birth of the children God determined that it would be the younger child who would possess the birthright and thus be the heir of Isaac so far as the covenant promises were concerned.

In Romans 9 the Apostle Paul referred to this incident as an illustration of the principle of election:

And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac, for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God’s purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, ‘The older will serve the younger’ (Romans 9:10-12).

While we must acknowledge that God in His omniscience knew all of the deeds of both these sons from eternity past, Paul says that the choice of Jacob over Esau had nothing to do with their works. Jacob was chosen in the womb and without regard to the works he would do in the future. In other words, God’s election²¹² was not based upon “foreknowledge”²¹³ as it is sometimes taught. God’s choice was determined by His will, not by man’s works. Personally, I think that Esau was the more likeable of the two. (At least Isaac would agree with me on this point.)

The events surrounding the birth of the twins gave further evidence to the truth of the words of the Lord spoken to Rebekah before their birth:

When her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb. Now the first came forth red, all over like a hairy garment; and they named him Esau. And afterward his brother came forth with his hand holding on to Esau’s heel, so his name was called Jacob; and Isaac was sixty years old when she gave birth to them (Genesis 25:24-26).

Esau was born first, and he came from the womb red and hairy. The Hebrew word to describe the color of Esau sounded similar to Edom and may have prepared the way for his nickname as it was decided in verse 30. The name Esau somewhat resembles the sound of the word meaning ‘hairy.’

Jacob came forth from the womb grasping the heel of his brother Esau. Jacob’s name was suggested by the Hebrew word for ‘heel.’ Later events, such as the barter of the birthright in verses 27-34, indicate that the name, taken in its negative sense, referred to Jacob’s grasping and conniving nature.

The Barter of the Birthright
(25:27-34)

In the life of Abraham the birth of Ishmael was an event which taught the patriarch that God’s blessings are not wrought by self-effort but by trusting God. In Jacob’s life the incident in which he outwitted his brother into selling his birthright served the same purpose. It was a shrewd bargain that Jacob struck, but it was not the means of bringing about God’s blessing.

In addition to the events surrounding the birth of the twins, three factors played heavily in the relationship of the two boys. First, the boys had very different dispositions. Esau seems to have been a masculine, outdoor-type man who loved to do the things a father could take pride in. He was a skillful hunter, and he knew how to handle himself in the outdoors. In our culture I believe Esau would have been a football hero in high school and college. He might even have played for the Dallas Cowboys. He was a real macho man, the kind of son a father would swell with pride to talk about among his friends.

Jacob was entirely different. While Esau seems to have been aggressive, daring, and flamboyant, Jacob appears to be just the opposite: quiet, pensive, more interested in staying at home than in venturing out and making great physical conquests. Not that he had no ambition to get ahead, quite the contrary; but Jacob couldn’t see the sense in tracking about the wilderness just to bag some game. In the solitude of his tent Jacob could mentally reason out how to get ahead without getting his hands dirty and without taking dangerous risks.

The second factor which tended to separate the two sons was the divided loyalty between their parents. Isaac seems to have been the outdoor-type himself; at least he had an appetite for the wild game that Esau brought home (verse 28). Esau was the kind of son that Isaac could proudly take with him wherever he went. Rebekah, on the other hand, favored Jacob. She probably thought Esau was crude and uncultured. Jacob was a much more refined person, gentle and kind, the type of son a mother would be proud of. Besides, Jacob probably spent more time at home than Esau did. Each parent seems to have identified too much with a particular son, thus creating divisions which would be devastating. This favoritism also brought about disharmony between Isaac and his wife. Later Rebekah was to conspire with Jacob to deceive her husband (chapter 27).

The third factor which Moses recorded for us in chapter 25 was the underhanded means by which Jacob wrested the birthright from his brother. While Esau had been out in the field, Jacob had been at home preparing a stew. Weary and famished, though hardly at death’s door, Esau was enticed by the fragrant aroma of the meal. Esau greedily pled for some of “that red stuff.” Rather than showing his brother the hospitality due even a stranger, Jacob saw this as an opportunity to gain the advantage. Here Jacob’s greedy, grasping disposition rose to the forefront. Without a hint of shame Jacob bartered, “… First sell me your birthright” (25:31). With this Esau’s carnal nature emerged, “… Behold, I am about to die; so of what use then is the birthright to me?” (25:32). With an exaggerated estimation of his physical condition and need and a minimal appreciation for the value of his birthright, Esau was willing to exchange his destiny for a dinner.

Jacob was not willing to let Esau take the occasion as casually as he was inclined to; therefore, he made him swear a solemn oath declaring the sale of the birthright. This done, the meal was served, and Esau went on his way. As Moses concluded his report of this event, we find his estimation of Esau’s character: “… Thus Esau despised his birthright” (25:34). And so it is that the writer to the Hebrews can speak of Esau as a man who has no appreciation whatsoever for spiritual and eternal things:

See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled; that there be no immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal (Hebrews 12:15-16).

Conclusion

One cannot avoid the fact that this chapter clearly teaches the principle of divine election. Out of all the sons of Abraham, God chose Isaac to be the heir of promise and this even before the birth of the boy (17:21). Isaac, not Ishmael nor Zimran nor Jokshan nor Medan nor any of the other sons of Abraham was to be the heir of promise. Sarah, not Hagar nor Keturah was to be the mother of this child.

God’s choice is not determined by His knowledge of the good works that the chosen will later accomplish. Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, and Jacob all had very visible faults. Their conduct often was not any more sterling than that of any other person. At times others even appeared more righteous than they (cf. Abimelech in Genesis 20). While we are chosen “unto good works” (Ephesians 2:10), it is not because of our good works that we are chosen. Jacob was chosen before his birth without regard to future deeds (Romans 9:11). In theological terminology, God elects men and women unconditionally without regard to that which they will do. That is pure grace.

Some conclude from this fact that those who are not among the elect are forever lost because God did not choose them. There is, of course, truth in this statement (cf. Proverbs 16:4; Revelation 17:8; I Peter 2:6). While election to salvation is never on account of works, election to eternal damnation is. The emphasis of the Word of God is not that men go to Hell because God did not choose them, but that men suffer eternally because they have not chosen God.

That truth is precisely what Moses stressed in this chapter. Throughout these verses the principle of election is evident. And yet, at the conclusion of the account Moses did not report that Esau sold his birthright because God had predetermined this to happen, but because Esau “despised his birthright” (verse 34).

Election is unconditional. God chooses men because of His love and grace, not because of man’s future good deeds. While good works do not give us the reason for a man’s election to a place of blessing in God’s program, a man’s evil deeds are adequate reason for his rejection by God.

Dr. B. B. Warfield has stated this in the clearest fashion:

When Christ stood at the door of Lazarus’ tomb and cried, “Lazarus come forth!” only Lazarus, of all the dead that lay in the gloom of the grave that day in Palestine, or throughout the world, heard his mighty voice which raises the dead, and came forth. Shall we say that the election of Lazarus to be called forth from the tomb consigned all this immense multitude of the dead to hopeless, physical decay? It left them no doubt in the death in which they were holden and to all that comes out of this death. But it was not it which brought death upon them, or which kept them in its power. When God calls out of the human race, lying dead in their trespasses and sins, some here, some there, some everywhere, a great multitude which no man can number, to raise them by His almighty grace out of their death in sin and bring them to glory, his electing grace is glorified in the salvation it works. It has nothing to do with the death of the sinner, but only with the living again of the sinner whom it calls into life. The one and single work of election is salvation.²¹⁴

In Revelation 16 we are told of the judgement that is poured out upon those who have rejected God and worshipped the beast. These words spoken by the angel of God express the truth that the non-elect receive the judgment they deserve:

And I heard the angel of the waters saying, “Righteous art Thou, who art and who wast, O holy one, because Thou didst judge these things; for they poured out the blood of saints and prophets and Thou hast given them blood to drink. They deserve it” (Revelation 16:5-6).

The message of the Bible is that all of us deserve the eternal wrath of God for our sins (Romans 3:10-18,23; 6:23). The message of the gospel is that God has provided a solution for the sins of man. That solution is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the cross of Calvary where He bore the punishment that we deserve. He offers us the righteousness we lack (Romans 3:21-26; II Corinthians 5:21). It is true that those who are saved are those whom God has chosen from eternity past (Acts 13:48; 16:14; Ephesians 1:11, etc.). It is also true that all who are saved are those who have personally believed in Jesus Christ as their Substitute and their Savior. Every person who calls upon Him for salvation will be saved.

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:12-13).

For “Whoever will call upon the name of the LORD will be saved” (Romans 10:13).

Like Isaac, the world in which we live prefers the Esaus and dislikes the Jacobs. The models which the media places before us are not the Jacobs, but the Esaus, the “macho men,” the tough guys. The world says to us, “You only go around once, so you’d better grab all the gusto you can get.” They have taken the words out of Esau’s mouth. They wish us to forget the future, to trade off our eternal destiny for a beer or for our belly or for some short-lived physical pleasure. If it feels good, do it. If it tastes good, eat it. Don’t believe it.

I see in this chapter an example of two wrong responses to the sovereignty of God in the matter of divine election. The first is that of Isaac, who attempted to resist the will of God as it was revealed to his wife Rebekah. While I am not certain that the twins, Jacob and Esau, knew of the election of the younger, I find it hard to imagine that Rebekah did not inform Isaac of this prophecy. In spite of this revelation Isaac persisted to favor Esau, and it would seem from later events that he attempted to pronounce the blessing upon him as well. I believe that just as Abraham attempted to convince God to choose Ishmael for the heir of promise (Genesis 17:18), Isaac hoped that God would change His mind concerning Esau. The lesson came hard, but it was finally learned.

In his last days Jacob (now called Israel) pronounced a blessing upon the two sons of Joseph. Joseph set the two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, before his father with the oldest at his father’s right hand and the youngest at his left. Jacob, however, crossed his hands so that his right hand was laid upon Ephraim’s head rather than upon Manasseh’s. Joseph thought this was a mistake caused by his father’s poor eyesight, and he attempted to rectify the ‘error.’ Jacob then informed his son Joseph that this was no error but an indication that the younger son would be the greater (Genesis 48:8-20). At last Jacob (Israel) had come to accept the fact that God’s election does not necessarily follow human conventions.

Rebekah misapplied the doctrine of election in a different way. I am convinced that she justified her partiality to her son Jacob on the basis of his election to be the heir of promise. It must have had a very spiritual ring to it, but it was just as wrong as the partiality Isaac had for Esau. God’s choice of Jacob over Esau was no basis for discrimination against Esau or for pampering Jacob.

If this assumption is true, then it has some far-reaching implications for us, my friends. If the prophecy concerning Jacob’s election did not justify favoritism to him at Esau’s expense, why is it that prophecy concerning Israel justifies partiality to the Jews at the expense of the Arabs? We have been so anxious to “bless” Abraham in order to be blessed (Genesis 12:3), that we have failed to condemn many of the actions of the Jews which have been unjust, immoral, and godless. Why are we so anxious to condemn an Arab attack as aggression and to defend an Israeli attack as defensive or retaliatory?

What I am suggesting is this: We dare not discriminate against any nation, Jewish or Gentile. We should bless the Jews and the nation Israel, but this does not necessitate our condoning that which is clearly sin. Let us remember that at this time in Israel’s history they are rejecting God and His Christ, Jesus the Messiah. While we may commend the bravery of the Jews and their intestinal fortitude, let us not in the process call evil good, and in the end inadvertently discriminate against the Arab peoples. Our eagerness to hastily and uncritically endorse every action of the nation of Israel must be questioned on both moral and biblical grounds.

Finally, it is noteworthy to observe that the biggest “crook” in our chapter is a believer. While Esau may have been crude, he was no crook. I think it is too often true today that Christian businessmen and Christian employees are crooked, just as Jacob was. We call ourselves shrewd, but that is only a euphemism for unethical practices. One reason why I think Christians can be as crooked as Jacob is that they are so convinced of the importance of the ends they seek that they feel that any means to achieve them are justified.

Jacob was one who, unlike Esau, valued the birthright. He valued it so highly that he was willing to stoop to the level he did to obtain it. Many of us convince ourselves that much of the money we make is going to missions, or the church, or the poor, and so we “launder” our money in Christian ministry. The goal is never more important than godliness, my friend. In fact, the Christian’s goal is godliness (Romans 8:29; Ephesians 4:15). Jacob was to learn that blessing resulted from prevailing with God, not prevailing over men. That is a lesson we too must learn.

208 “The Code of Hammurabi declares that children of slaves not legitimized, though not sharing in the estate, must be set free”. Law 171, as referred to by Harold Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 185.

209 The Hebrew term for the struggle implies an intense activity in the womb which Rebekah understood to be far greater than normal, and thus of great significance.

210 We would like to have had more details here to satisfy our curiosity. How did Rebekah inquire of the Lord? Bush’s remarks seem closest to the mark:

“There are very different opinions as to the manner in which she made this inquiry. Some think it was simply by secret prayer; but the phrase to inquire of the Lord, in general usage signifies more than praying, and from its being said that she went to inquire, it is more probable that she resorted to some established piece, or some qualified person for the purpose of consultation. We are told, I Samuel 9:9, that ‘Beforetime in Israel when a man went to inquire of God, thus he spake, Come and let us go to the seer; for he that is now called a prophet, was beforetime called a seer.’ As Abraham was now living, and no doubt sustained the character of a prophet, Genesis 20:7, she may have gone to him, and inquired of the Lord through his means”. George Bush, Notes on Genesis (Minneapolis: James and Klock Publishing Co., Reprint, 1976), II, p. 62.

211 “Now the sale of the birthright--or, as it was here, its exchange--was an accepted custom in the patriarchal period. At a later time the supplanting of the firstborn was forbidden (Deut. 21:15-17), but it has been pointed out above that exchange or sale of the birthright was done in Nuzu, explaining patriarchal custom. At Nuzu it is recorded that one Gurpazah traded his inheritance for immediate possession of three sheep from his brother Tupkitilla.” Harold Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 211.

212 Election here, as I understand it, does not refer to the selection of only Jacob to be saved (although his salvation was certainly due to election), but of Jacob to be the son through whom the blessings promised to Abraham would be passed on. Paul refers to this incident to illustrate the principle of election, and then applies it to that election which ordains individuals to salvation.

213 Some teach that God’s election is determined on the basis of His foreknowledge. In its simplest terms, God is said to choose those whom He knows in advance will choose Him. Our salvation is thus determined by our (first) choice, while God only seconds it. This makes man sovereign in salvation, not God. The problem with such a doctrine is that it denies the fact that God’s choice determines ours, and not the reverse: “You did not choose Me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain; . . .” (John 15:16). “. . . and as Many as had been appointed to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48). “. . . and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul” (Acts 16:14).

Furthermore, the word “to foreknow” sometimes means “to determine beforehand,” even as the word “know” sometimes means “to choose” (cf. Genesis 18:19; Jeremiah 1:5; Romans 8:29, 11:2, I Peter 1:20). Thus, to foreknow (or elect) refers to the selection of those to be saved, while predestination pertains to the destiny of these people. Foreknowledge selects the people; predestination the program.

214 B. B. Warfield, “Election,” Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, edited by John E. Meeter (Nutley, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1970), Vol. 1, pp. 296-97).

Français

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_26_32k.mp3

Biblical Topics:

Election

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

27. Isaac Walks in His Father’s Steps (Genesis 26:1-35)

Introduction

There is a world of difference between a rerun and an instant replay. A rerun is simply seeing the same thing over again. An instant replay is seeing something over, but not all of it. It is looking at certain events again, usually much more carefully. The critics have tended to view Genesis 26 as a rerun, and not a very good one at that. They, of course, are right in recognizing the similarities between Isaac’s experiences in this chapter and those in the life of Abraham in the previous chapters. However, they misinterpret the similarities in such a way as to suggest that they do little, if anything, to benefit us.²¹⁵ Indeed, they even question the historicity of these events in the life of Isaac.²¹⁶

I would like us to focus our attention on chapter 26 as though it were an instant replay. This is the only chapter in the book of Genesis devoted exclusively to Isaac. While he is mentioned in other chapters, he is not the focus of attention. Here Isaac’s life is summed up in the events described, all of which have a striking parallel in the life of his father Abraham. These similarities are, I believe, the key to rightly understanding and applying this passage to our own lives.

A Reiteration of
the Abrahamic Covenant
(26:1-6)

Early in the life of Abraham a famine set in motion a sequence of events which greatly shaped the life of the patriarch. Likewise, a famine occurred early in the record of the life of Isaac:

Now there was a famine in the land, besides the previous famine that had occurred in the days of Abraham. So Isaac went to Gerar, to Abimelech king of the Philistines (Genesis 26:1).

This famine is specified to be a different one than that which happened during the life of Abraham. Taking this at face value, we cannot agree with the critics, who see only one famine variously reported. In an attempt to preserve his wealth in the form of many cattle, Isaac went to Gerar to avoid the famine. While in Gerar, or perhaps even before, Isaac decided to go down to Egypt just as his father had done (Genesis 12:10ff.). This was not according to the plan which God had for Isaac, and so He appeared to him with this word of instruction and promise:

Do not go down to Egypt; stay in the land of which I shall tell you. Sojourn in this land and I will be with you and bless you, for to you and to your descendants I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath which I swore to your father Abraham. And I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My Laws (Genesis 26:2b-5).²¹⁷

In verse 3 God commanded Isaac to remain in Gerar for a time. In verse 2 I understand God to have promised Isaac that He would guide him to the land where he should go in God’s good time. The remainder of God’s revelation is a reiteration of the Abrahamic covenant. To us these words are not only familiar but almost redundant. Again and again we have seen God confirm and clarify His covenant with Abraham (cf. Genesis 13:14-17; 15:1, 18-21; 17:1-7ff.; 21:12; 22:17-18), but let us not overlook the fact that, so far as we are told, this is the first time God has spoken thus to Isaac. For him this was no dull recital but a thrilling assurance that what God had promised Abraham, He now promised his son. This is a covenant with Isaac.

Verse 5 reminds us that the blessings of the covenant are, to some degree, a result of Abraham’s faithfulness and obedience to God. Surely, even more so, the fulfillment of the covenantal promises is based upon God’s faithfulness to Abraham. Of this Isaac was a witness (cf. chapter 22). Implied in verse 5 is the necessity for Isaac to believe God’s promise, accept it as a personal relationship, and to live obediently, even as his father had. The first step in this life of obedience was to remain in Gerar, which Isaac did (verse 6).

It is significant that Moses, who recorded in the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Law) the giving of the Law, used the terms “charge, commandments, statutes and laws” with regard to Abraham’s relationship with God. I agree with Leupold, who remarks:

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 involved already in patriarchal religion.²¹⁸

A Repetition of Abraham’s Sin
(26:7-11)

What? Again? I’m afraid so. Strange as it may seem, the same old sin of deception raises its ugly head for the third time in chapter 26. If nothing else proves it, this does—Isaac is a son of his father. Frightened concerning his own safety, Isaac succumbs to the temptation to pass off his wife as his sister. In doing this he was willing to risk Rebekah’s purity as the price for his personal protection.

The similarities between this sin of Isaac and that of his father Abraham are numerous. Both sinned in the presence of Abimelech, and both were rebuked by the ruler of the Philistines. Both had a beautiful wife and feared for their own safety, thinking that they might be killed so that someone could marry their wife. Both lied by saying that their wife was their sister. It would also appear that neither Abraham nor Isaac recognized the gravity of their sin or fully repented of it.

The differences between the sin of Abraham and that of Isaac cannot be overlooked. These differences verify the fact that two different deceptions took place in the land of the Philistines: one by Abraham and the other by his son. There seems to be little doubt that there are two different “Abimelechs” in these chapters of Genesis. Many years had passed since Abraham stood without adequate excuse before Abimelech. We would be on safe ground to assume that the term “Abimelech” is a title of office, like “Pharaoh,” rather than a given name. The same could be said for the term “Phicol.” Another consideration is that sons were often named after their grandfathers.²¹⁹ Either of these possibilities would readily explain the fact that the names “Abimelech” and “Phicol” (cf. verse 26) are found in chapter 26 as well as in chapter 20.

Abraham’s policy of deception was just that: a policy established before he entered into any danger (Genesis 12:11-13; 20:13). From the very outset Abraham introduced Sarah as his sister. Isaac, however, waited until he was approached concerning Rebekah. At this point his confidence left him, and he resorted to a lie:

When the men of the place asked about his wife, he said, “She is my sister,” for he was afraid to say, “My wife,” thinking “The men of the place might kill me on account of Rebekah, for she is beautiful” (Genesis 26:7).

We are not told what part Rebekah played in all of this. It is possible that she refused to actively cooperate, thus creating suspicions in the minds of the Philistines. Sarah was taken as a wife twice, but physical intimacy was divinely restrained. In the case of Rebekah, no one took her for a wife. God sharply warned Abimelech when he took Sarah, but here Abimelech learned of the deception by observing the conduct of Isaac with Rebekah. He did not treat her like a sister, but like a wife. There may well have been a hint of doubt already entertained by Abimelech and perhaps others of the Philistines, for when he saw Isaac caressing²²⁰ Rebekah he said, “… Behold, certainly she is your wife! …” (verse 9).²²¹

Abimelech’s ethics appear to be based on a higher standard than Isaac’s. God had not spoken threateningly here to Abimelech as He had done when Sarah was taken into the Philistine ruler’s harem. Then Abimelech had been told that he was “as good as dead” (Genesis 20:3) if he so much as touched Sarah. There is no sword hanging proverbially over the head of Abimelech here. Nevertheless, he viewed the taking of a man’s wife as sin, and one of great consequence. Abimelech seemed to regard marital purity higher than Isaac did.

After discovering Isaac’s deception, Abimelech ordered that neither Isaac nor his wife was to be harmed (Genesis 26:11). Isaac was not instructed to leave, nor was he encouraged to stay. He was simply tolerated.

Return to the Place of Blessing
(26:12-25)

In verse 2 God had promised to guide Isaac to the place where he should dwell. Little did Isaac realize just how God was to lead him back to the place of His promise and presence. To a large degree it was by means of adversity and opposition.

On the surface, opposition seemed like the last thing which Isaac experienced. Staying on in Gerar after Abimelech had confronted him, Isaac harvested a bumper crop:

Now Isaac sowed in that land, and reaped in the same year a hundredfold. And the LORD blessed him, and the man became rich, and continued to grow richer until he became very wealthy; for he had possessions of flocks and herds and a great household, so that the Philistines envied him (Genesis 26:12-14).

In spite of Isaac’s deception, God poured out His blessings upon him. For reasons we shall discuss later, Abimelech failed to recognize Isaac’s prosperity as the blessing of God. All he knew was that Isaac was a powerful figure—one whom he did not want to contend with. Abimelech knew also that the Philistines were growing uneasy about Isaac’s presence in the land.

Isaac was rather threatening personally not only because of his prosperity and power but also because of his father Abraham:

Now all the wells which his father’s servants had dug in the days of Abraham his father, the Philistines stopped up by filling them with earth (Genesis 26:15).

Digging a well was considered tantamount to a claim of ownership of the land on which it was located.²²² It enabled a man to dwell there and to sustain herds. Rather than recognize this claim, the Philistines sought to wipe it out by filling up the wells dug by Abraham. Their desire to overthrow all claim on their land was so intense that they would rather fill in a well, an asset of great value in such an arid land, than to allow this claim to remain unchallenged.

The sentiments of the Philistines were concisely expressed in Abimelech’s terse suggestion that Isaac depart from Gerar (verse 16). Rather than fight for possession of this property, Isaac retreated. The meek would inherit this land, but in God’s good time.

It would seem that Isaac had developed a strategy by which he determined where he was to sojourn. Essentially, Isaac refused to stay where there was conflict and hostility. Being a man with many animals to tend, he must be at a place where water was available in abundance. He not only re-opened the wells once dug by his father, but he dug other wells also. If a well was dug that produced water and use of this well was not disputed, Isaac was inclined to stay at that place.

While Isaac may not have realized it for some time, it was the disputes over the ownership of the wells he dug or reopened that served to guide him in the direction of the land of promise. To Isaac these wells were a necessity for survival, but to the Philistines these were a claim to the land. Opposition was thus humanly explainable, but it was a divinely ordained means of guidance as well.

In the valley of Gerar Isaac dug a well that produced “living water,” that is, water that originated from a spring—running water, not simply water that was contained. The Philistine herdsmen disputed with the herdsmen of Isaac over it, so Isaac moved on. Another well was dug, and there was yet another dispute (verse 21). Finally a well was dug that brought about no opposition. I would imagine that this was due somewhat to the distance Isaac had traveled from the Philistines. This well was named “Rehoboth,” signifying the hope Isaac had that this was the place God had designated for him to stay.

The parallel between Isaac’s life and that of his father is again evident in this account of the disputes over the wells and Isaac’s response. Due to their prosperity Abraham and Isaac needed much room for their flocks and a source of water. Prosperity brought contention between Lot’s herdsmen and those of Abraham (Genesis 13:5ff.) just as it did between Isaac’s herdsmen and the herdsmen of Gerar. Isaac, like his father, chose to keep the peace by giving preference to the other party.

I have come to understand verses 23-25 as the key to the interpretation of chapter 26. Here a very strange thing happens. Up to this time Isaac’s decision as to where he should stay was based upon the finding of abundant water and the absence of hostilities. But now, having dug a well that was uncontested, we would have expected Isaac to dwell there. Instead we are told that he moved on to Beersheba, with no reason stated for this move: “Then he went up from there to Beersheba” (verse 23).

I believe that a significant change has occurred in Isaac’s thinking. Circumstances had previously shaped most of his decisions, but now something deeper and more noble seems to be giving direction in his life. Beersheba was the first place that Abraham had gone with Isaac after they came down from the “sacrifice” on Mount Moriah (Genesis 22:19). Isaac knew that God had promised to give him the land promised to his father Abraham (26:3-5). I believe he had finally come to see that through all the opposition over the wells he had dug, God had been guiding him back to the land of promise, back to those places where Abraham had walked in fellowship with God. Personally, I believe that Isaac went up to Beersheba because he sensed on a spiritual level that this was where God wanted him to be. If God had previously been “driving” Isaac through opposition, now Isaac was willing to be led.

The decision was shown to be the right one, for God immediately spoke words of reassurance:

And the LORD appeared to him the same night and said, “I am the God of your father Abraham; Do not fear, for I am with you. I will bless you, and multiply your descendants, For the sake of My servant Abraham” (Genesis 26:24).

Verse 25 is of particular interest. Notice especially the order in which Isaac set up residence in Beersheba:

So he built an altar there, and called upon the name of the LORD, and pitched his tent there; and there Isaac’s servants dug a well (Genesis 26:25).

Previously the touchstone for knowing the will of God had been circumstances—in particular, Isaac stayed wherever he dug a well, found sufficient water, and was not opposed. Yet in this verse the sequence of events is reversed. First Isaac built an altar; then he worshipped, after which he pitched his tent. Finally, he dug a well.

There is a great lesson in faith and guidance here, I believe. The place for God’s people is the place of God’s presence. The place of intimacy, worship, and communion with God is the place to abide. There we should dwell, and there we may be assured of God’s provision for our needs. Material needs are thus considered last, while spiritual needs are primary. Is this not what our Lord referred to when He said:

But seek first His kingdom, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added to you (Matthew 6:33).

The Witness of Abimelech
(26:26-31)

From this point on everything seems to take on a different hue. Previously Isaac had been directed more providentially, but now that Isaac’s priorities have been rearranged, the blessings and guidance of God are far more evident in his life.

Abimelech, Ahuzzath, and Phicol all paid a state visit to Isaac. Isaac’s irritation as well as his curiosity can be seen in his interrogation: “… Why have you come to me, since you hate me, and have sent me away from you?” (Genesis 26:27)

Let’s face it, the situation was unusual. When he was in very close contact with Abimelech and the Philistines, the blessing of God on Isaac was present (cf. verse 12). The response of the people of the land was envy and animosity. They asked Isaac to leave their country. Now they were willing to come all this way simply to enter into a treaty with Isaac. What brought about this change of heart and mind?

Isaac’s conduct while with them was such that his testimony was far from sterling. He lied about his wife, passing her off as his sister. The Philistines could not imagine that his prosperity was the result of divine blessing, but rather they attributed it to just good luck. Now that Isaac’s priorities were changed and his life operating along spiritual guidelines, the blessing of God was evident. The covenant which God had made with Abraham was understood, at least in a practical way, to have passed on to his son. Abimelech realized that the hand of God was upon Isaac and that a favorable relationship with him was highly desirable:

And they said, “We see plainly that the LORD has been with you; so we said, ‘Let there now be an oath between us, even between you and us, and let us make a covenant with you, that you will do us no harm, just as we have not touched you and have done to you nothing but good, and have sent you away in peace. You are now the blessed of the LORD’” (Genesis 26:28-29; emphasis mine).

The prosperity of a godly man can easily be seen to be the blessing of God. Now as opposed to previous times this is seen to be true of Isaac.

The Witness of the Well
(26:32-33)

Surely the right place for Isaac to be was Beersheba. First, God had spoken in such a way as to confirm the decision of Isaac, a divine witness to the wisdom of this move. Then, Abimelech and two of his officials witnessed in a backhanded fashion to the blessing of God in Beersheba. Finally, there is the witness of the well. The place where God wants us to be is also the place of provision:

Now it came about on the same day, that Isaac’s servants came in and told him about the well which they had dug, and said to him, ‘”We have found water.” So he called it Shibah; therefore the name of the city is Beersheba to this day (Genesis 26:32-33).

What was once Isaac’s first concern was now his last, but water was still essential for his survival with such large herds. God would not let His servant do without that which he needed to prosper, and so the efforts expended in digging the well were blessed and water was struck. Mark it well: the place of God’s presence is also the place of God’s provision.

Regret Due to Esau’s Marriages
(26:34-35)

Serving God does not guarantee a trouble-free life and one of rose-strewn paths. There were still heartaches for Isaac and Rebekah; Esau was the source of much of their sorrow and grief:

And when Esau was forty years old he married Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite; and they made life miserable for Isaac and Rebekah (Genesis 26:34-35).

These verses help us to realize that even when we are rightly related to God, troubles will still be a part of our experience. These trials may be the result of our own sinfulness or that which is common to mankind. These verses provide the backdrop to the drama of chapter 27, which will be our next lesson.

Conclusion

This chapter underscores the two most common systems of guidance which are available to Christians of every age: living by principles or by providence. When we walk in accordance with the principles given in the Word of God, we walk closest to Him. When we walk by providence we shall still arrive where God wants us to be, but without the joy of being an active participant in the process. Instead, we are the passive object which God moves from point to point by circumstances. There is little joy or intimacy with God in this system.

Perhaps the most important lesson of this chapter is that which is taught by the most evident characteristic of the chapter. The one chapter which capsulizes the life of Isaac does so in a manner which shows that he walked in the footprints of his father Abraham. The liberal critics of the Bible note this similarity well, but they conclude from it that the chapter has little that is original or authentic, and so the chapter is largely passed by.

Hopefully this will not be the case for the serious Christian. I believe that God has much to teach us by observing that Isaac’s life was a replay of his father’s experiences with God. God made a covenant with Abraham; He confirmed it with Isaac. Abraham lied about his wife to Abimelech; Isaac repeated this sin before another Abimelech. Abimelech sought a treaty with Abraham, seeing that the hand of God’s blessing was upon him; so, years later, Abimelech did likewise with Isaac. The similarities seem to go on and on.

May I suggest to you that this should tell us something vital to our own Christian experience. There is a process, a long and extensive one, which God employs to bring a person first to Himself and then to maturity. It begins when that individual enters into a covenant relationship with God. For Abraham and Isaac the covenant was the Abrahamic covenant. For Christians today it is the new covenant instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ when He shed His blood on the cross of Calvary in order to provide for our forgiveness of sins and for our salvation:

And having taken some bread, when He had given thanks, He broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me,” And in the some way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood” (Luke 22:19-20).

Everyone must begin his relationship at this very place, the place of personal relationship with God through acceptance of the covenant He has offered. And from this beginning we embark upon a spiritual voyage that is, in many ways, very similar to that of previous saints. When we are able to look back over our lives from the vantage point of eternity, I suspect that we will be amazed how similar the path has been for us compared to that of others before and after us. There are no shortcuts in the sanctification process.

As parents this is a very significant truth. Our children must walk in our footsteps if they are to be a part of the kingdom of God. Our children must begin at the point we did. They must come to a personal relationship with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Then they must be allowed to make the same mistakes we did in order that they may come to a more mature faith and trust in the God who has called them.

If you are at all like me, you would prefer that your children not make the same mistakes you did, and I hope it is not necessary. I am simply pointing out the fact that Isaac did walk in a path nearly identical to that of his father. Let us be willing to allow our children to fail and to grow in the way God has purposed. Much as we would prefer it otherwise, our children cannot begin to relate to God on the level of our own walk. They must start at the beginning. That is the way it is.

Let me balance this somewhat by saying that the way we can best help our own children is by making certain that our footsteps are such that we would want our children to walk in them. If Isaac’s experience was, to some degree, a reflection of his father’s life, what a frightening thought that is. If our children’s lives are to mirror our own, what an awesome responsibility we have as parents to walk a path of obedience and submission to the will of God.

Finally, let me share with you a possible explanation for the way in which God dealt with the sins of Abraham and his son Isaac. I find myself disappointed and rather distraught by the thought that God did not come down on these men harder for their unchivalrous deception concerning their wives. I would have expected God to confront them sharply for their sin. If I had been an elder in their church, I would have strongly urged disciplinary action. Why, then, did God not respond more forcefully?

I think I am slowly beginning to understand the reason. Deception is sin, and God hates the lying tongue (cf. Proverbs 6:17). But lying here was a symptomatic sin and not the root sin. God did not smash the red warning light (deception) because He was concerned about getting to the root of the problem. The root sin, as I perceive it, was unbelief or lack of faith. In each case of deception, Abraham and Isaac lied out of fear (cf. 12:11-13; 20:11; 26:7). This fear was the product of an inadequate concept of God. They did not grasp the sovereignty or the omnipotence of God in such a way as to believe that God could protect them under any and every circumstance. Having solved the problem of too little faith, the sin of deception will not be an issue any longer.

It is my personal opinion that we sometimes become preoccupied with “symptom sins,” rushing about trying, as someone in our church said, to stomp them like roaches. While sin should always be taken seriously, many of our sins will be dealt with by an adequate conception of who God really is. The fundamental sin is that of unbelief, not only for those who are unsaved but also for those who are truly saved.

215 “This chapter finds little elucidation in various expositions. It is not touched upon in Understanding Genesis nor in Expositor’s Bible. By others it is rather a casual intrusion that does little to further the story or make any contribution to the development of thought after chapter 25.” Harold G. Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), D. 211.

216 “It is sometimes wondered how it was that Isaac did exactly what his father before him had done, and the similarity of the circumstances has led some to think that this is only a variant of the former story. Would it not be truer to say that this episode is entirely consonant with what we know of human nature and its tendencies? What would be more natural than that Isaac should attempt to do what his father had done before him? Surely a little knowledge of human nature as distinct from abstract theory is sufficient to warrant a belief in the historical character of this narrative. Besides, assuming that it is a variant of the other story, we naturally ask which of them is the true version; they cannot both be true, for as they now are they do not refer to the same event. The names and circumstances are different in spite of similarities.” W. H. Griffith Thomas, Genesis: A Devotional Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946), p. 239.

217 Kidner says further, “The heaped-up terms (cf., e.g., Dt. 11:1) suggest the complete servant, responsible and biddable. They also dispel any idea that law and promise are in necessary conflict (cf. Jas. 2:22; Gal. 3:21)”. Derek Kidner, Genesis (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), p. 153.

218 H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942), II, p. 720.

219 “Naming sons after grandfathers (‘papponymy’) was customary at various times. In a nearly contemporary example from Egypt the royal house and a provincial governing family retained this pattern side by side for four generations, so that Ammenemes I appointed Khnumhotep I, and his grandson Ammenemes II appointed Khnumhotep II. Alternating with them, Sesostris I and II appointed Nakht I and II, and certain negotiations were repeated as well.” Kidner, Genesis, p. 154, fn. 1.

220 The word used here, which is rendered “caressing” by the NASV, is interesting because its root is the same word from which the name Isaac is derived. Isaac (to laugh) was caressing (“sporting,” KJV) Rebekah. In Genesis 39:17 and Exodus 32:6 this word is employed by Moses to refer to “play,” which has rather obvious sexual overtones.

221 “The king’s mode of stating the case implies suspicions that he has held right along: ‘Look (here), she certainly is thy wife,’ a shade of thought caught by Meek when he renders: ‘So she really is your wife.’” Leupold, Genesis, II, p. 722.

222 “The digging of wells was a virtual claim to the possession of the land, and it was this in particular that the Philistines resented.” Griffith Thomas, Genesis, p. 240.

Français

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_27_32k.mp3

Biblical Topics:

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

28. Working Like the Devil, Serving the Lord (Genesis 27:1-46)

Introduction

C. S. Lewis once wrote, “A little lie is like a little pregnancy.” How aptly that statement summarizes the events of Genesis 27. Isaac, with the cooperation of Esau, conspires to thwart the purpose of God to fulfill His covenant with Abraham through Jacob. Rebekah, aided by her son Jacob, seeks to outwit and outmaneuver Isaac and Esau to maintain for Jacob the right of the firstborn, which he purchased from Esau.

The secular songwriter has caught the spirit of some Christian service and surely the heartbeat of this chapter in the song entitled, “Working Like the Devil, Serving the Lord.” It is difficult to discern who surpasses the rest in this web of scheming and deceit: Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, or Esau.²²³ The family unit has been split into two factions, each headed by a parent who wants to live out his own expectations through his son, at the expense of the others. It is indeed a tragic story and yet one that rings true to life and reveals much of what we are like today.

The Conspiracy of Isaac and Esau
(27:1-4)

There are several overriding themes which are interwoven in these four verses. These themes characterize the attempt of Isaac and Esau to regain the blessings of God as promised to Abraham, spoken to Isaac, and unscrupulously secured by Jacob. Recognition of these themes will enable us to grasp the significance of this turning point in the lives of these four members of the patriarchal family.

The first theme is that of urgency. There is obvious haste in what takes place. Our impression is that Isaac stands with one proverbial foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. He is old, perhaps dying, and the blessing must quickly be pronounced upon Esau before it is too late.

On the surface this urgency seems to be well founded. Isaac is old, perhaps 137 years old if our calculations are accurate.²²⁴ It comes as no surprise that Isaac suffers from some of the infirmities of old age, such as poor eyesight (verse 1). Isaac was far from death’s door, however, for we learn from Genesis 35:28 that it was more than forty years later before he died at the ripe old age of 180! We should point out that his half brother Ishmael did die at age 137 (Genesis 25:17). Perhaps Isaac was not wrong to consider that his days were numbered, but in his desire to see his favorite son receive the Abrahamic blessings he stooped to unspiritual actions.

The second impression I have of verses 1-4 is that of secrecy. Normally the blessing would have been given before the entire family because it was, in reality, an oral will which legally determined the disposition of all that the father possessed.²²⁵ Distribution of family wealth and headship would best be carried out in the presence of all who were concerned. Thus we later find Jacob giving his blessing in the presence of all his sons (Genesis 49).

No such atmosphere is to be sensed in the conversation between Isaac and Esau. Neither Jacob nor Rebekah were present, and this was hardly an oversight. Had it not been for the attentive ear of Rebekah, the entire matter would seemingly have been completed with only two parties involved.

The third impression which can hardly be missed is that of conspiracy. This follows closely on the heels of the secrecy already described. Conspiracy and secrecy go hand in hand. There can be little doubt that Isaac intended at this clandestine feast to convey his blessings upon Esau to the exclusion of Jacob altogether. (This is why Isaac had no blessing left to convey upon Esau, cf. verses 37-38.)

Here was a premeditated plot to thwart the plan and purpose of God for Jacob. It is inconceivable that Isaac was ignorant of the revelation of God to Rebekah:

And the LORD said to her, “Two nations are in your womb; And two peoples shall be separated from your body; And one people shall be stronger than the other; And the older shall serve the younger” (Genesis 25:23).

If for no other reason, Rebekah’s fallen nature (a malady common to all) would have dictated the disclosure of this divine revelation. Can you really imagine in this on-going contest between Rebekah and Isaac that she would not appeal to this revelation from God as the biblical basis for the favoritism shown toward “her” son Jacob? To me it is inconceivable.

Then again, can you imagine that Isaac was ignorant of the sale of Esau’s birthright to his brother? Isaac was not being informed for the first time of this when Esau cried out in despair,

Is he not rightly named Jacob, for he has supplanted me these two times? He took away my birthright, and behold, now he has taken away my blessing. (Genesis 27:36).

The final and compelling evidence of Esau’s disqualification for spiritual headship is his marriage to two Canaanite wives:

And when Esau was forty years old he married Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite (Genesis 26:34).

Totally disdaining spiritual purity, Esau did not hesitate to intermarry with the Canaanites. God’s purposes for His people could never be achieved through such a person.

In spite of all these elements, Isaac sought to overrule the verdict of God that the elder serve the younger. He anticipated doing so by a magical misuse of the pronouncement of the blessing before his death. Normally the birthright belonged to the eldest son. This entitled him to a double share of the property in addition to the privilege of assuming the father’s position of headship in the family. For the descendants of Abraham it determined the one through whom the covenant blessings would be given.²²⁶

Under certain circumstances the possessor of this birthright could be dispossessed. Such a change would normally be formalized at the giving of the oral blessing at the time of approaching death. Thus Jacob gave Ephraim precedence over Manasseh (Genesis 48:8ff.), and he gave Reuben’s rights of the firstborn to Judah because of his misuse of his position (Genesis 49:3ff.). And so it would appear that Isaac intended to manipulate God by reversing the decree of God and the rightful ownership of the rights of the first-born as purchased (although unethically) by Jacob. This he purposed to do by giving his oral blessing to Esau:

May peoples serve you, And nations bow down to you; Be master of your brothers, and may your mother’s sons bow down to you. Cursed be those who curse you, And blessed be those who bless you (Genesis 27:29, cf. Genesis 12:3).

Either by a genuine or a contrived sense of urgency Isaac sought to secretly overturn God’s revealed will and Jacob’s rightful possession by a clandestine conveyance of an oral blessing. By his willful participation Esau disregarded the legal agreement he had made with his brother. In both instances a dinner provided the occasion for such deception. To sit at the table of Abraham (and even Lot) was to be afforded hospitality and protection, but to sit at the table with Isaac and his sons was to face the dangers of deception and false dealing.²²⁷

The Counter-Conspiracy of Rebekah and Jacob
(27:5-17)

Our Lord once said to His disciples, “… all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). There is perhaps no clearer illustration of this principle than what can be seen in Genesis 27:5-17. Isaac sought to further his own interests by means of cunning and deceit. God’s method of dealing with this was to give Isaac a wife who was far more skillful at manipulation than he. What a master of deceit this woman was.

Rebekah could easily have met the job requirements for a position with the CIA. She served as a counter-spy in the service of her son. She posed as the faithful, loving wife, but under all of this she sought to further Jacob’s interests, even at the expense of her husband Isaac. Rebekah, not Jacob, was the mastermind behind the “mission impossible” of outwitting Isaac and obtaining his blessing for Jacob.

Rebekah did not just happen to overhear the whisperings of Isaac and Esau as they plotted the diversion of divine promises to the elder son. The text tells us that she “was listening.” The Hebrew form that is used in the original text suggests that this was a habit, a pattern of behavior, not a happenstance.²²⁸ Esau had hardly gotten outside the house before Rebekah had the wheels in motion to overthrow this conspiracy with a bigger one of her own.

When you stop to think about it, the plan was an incredible one. Only a sense of desperation or a very devious mind (or both!) could hope such a plot would succeed. How could a son with a totally different disposition and physical appearance possibly manage to convince his father that he was his older brother?

In my estimation such a plan could hardly have been something conceived on the spur of the moment. I tend to think that Rebekah had been thinking about this possibility for some time and that many of the props were already in place for this theatrical production. How could she possibly have considered minute details such as the goatskin gloves and neck coverings in so short a time? And how, in a few moments time, could they have been fashioned so expertly so as to have fooled Isaac? Did she just happen to have Esau’s garments at hand even though he was married and perhaps not living at home? Rebekah was too shrewd to leave these matters to chance or to last minute accomplishment. I think this production had been staged far in advance of its performance.

I find the protests of Jacob to be of particular interest. What constitutes the basis for his objections? Moses has recorded them for us:

And Jacob answered his mother Rebekah, “Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy men and I am a smooth man. Perhaps my father will feel me, then I shall be as a deceiver in his sight; and I shall bring upon myself a curse and not a blessing” (Genesis 27:11-12).

I am taken aback by the utter absence of any moral considerations here. Jacob does not rebuke his mother for the evil which she has proposed. One simple statement would have summed up the matter concisely: “It is not right.” But no moral verdict is pronounced, and worse yet, it is not even considered. Situational ethics always seem to boil down to the premise that emergencies overrule ethics. How desperately wicked such thinking is.

Jacob’s objections are based upon two considerations, both of which deal with pragmatics rather than principle. The first is simply that such a scheme is too incredible to possibly work. Jacob’s best reason for avoiding Rebekah’s scheme was that it was likely to fail, but Rebekah was too shrewd to propose a scheme that she had not worked out to the minutest detail. The second objection was based upon a consideration of what would happen if the plot did fail. In other words, Jacob was concerned about the consequences of failure. Godly men make decisions based first and foremost upon principle, while the ungodly act only on the basis of practicality. We say that crime doesn’t pay, but the criminal knows full well that it does, and so the crime rate continues to spiral upward. The law and the government which enforces it serve as the only deterrent to evil, for penalty counts far more than principle to those who are evil (cf. Romans 13:2-4; I Timothy 1:9).

Rebekah had a ready answer for this objection. She promised to assume the negative consequences personally if anything were to go wrong. And let me add that she did suffer greatly for the part she played in this scheme. What neither Rebekah nor her son considered, however, were the consequences for their sin even if they did succeed, which they did. Their plan went off without a hitch, but the results were the opposite of what they had hoped for.

One question remains: “What should Rebekah have done in these circumstances?” Isaac was wrong in what he conspired to do. Jacob was the son whom God chose to be the “heir of promise.” Nevertheless, evil must not be resisted with evil; it must be overcome by good (Romans 12:21).

The first thing Rebekah should have done was to speak honestly and forthrightly to her husband about his contemplated sin. Submission to authority never includes silence toward evil. We are to “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15), even to those in authority over us (cf. Acts 16:35-40).

Having fulfilled her responsibility to warn her husband of the consequences of the evil he had planned, Rebekah should have been content to leave the disposition of the matter to God, Who is all-powerful and all-wise. Her actions betrayed her lack of faith in the sovereignty of God. She should have acted as Gideon’s father did when the people purposed to put his son to death for tearing down the altar of Baal:

…Will you contend for Baal, or will you deliver him? … If he is a god, let him contend for himself, because someone has torn down his altar (Judges 6:31).

If God is God, then let Him act on His own behalf, particularly in those times when we are unable to act in a way that is consistent with His Word.

Jacob Believes the Big Lie
(27:18-29)

Adolph Hitler believed in using the “big lie.” Little misrepresentations and lies might arouse suspicion, but the “big lie” would be so incredible that people would assume it must be true. It was Mark Twain, I believe, who said that fiction was believable and that non-fiction was beyond belief. When Jacob posed as his elder brother it was nothing less than an ancient application of the principle of the “big lie.”

Perhaps Jacob never intended this lie to become as big as it did, but nevertheless, it grew bigger and bigger with every statement he made. It began with the words “I am Esau your first-born” (verse 19). From this, lie began to be piled upon lie: “I have done as you told me” (verse 19); “eat of my game” (verse 19). In response to Isaac’s penetrating question, “Are you really my son Esau?,” Jacob replied, “I am” (verse 24). However, the lie that virtually sends chills up my spine as I read it is found in verse 20:

And Isaac said to his son, “How is it that you have it so quickly, my son?” And he said, “Because the LORD your God caused it to happen to me.”

Don’t you expect a bolt of lightning to come from on high and with one “zot” remove this deceiver once for all time? Well, before you come down too quickly on Jacob, think of how Christians today do precisely the same thing. Jacob excused his sin by claiming that God was his partner in its performance. We frequently say, “The Lord led me to …” when often it is something we have always wanted to do and we have finally worked up the courage (or the folly) to go ahead with it. “The Lord told me to …” “The Lord has blessed us by …” Be careful with such statements. They may be evidence of the same kind of thinking that caused Jacob to tell his father God had prospered him by giving him a goat rather than wild game. With what pious words we seek to conceal our sin!

There is something strangely pathetic about Isaac in this chapter. He seems destined to fail, as would any man attempting to overrule God. His vulnerability is the result of several forces. First of all, Isaac is the victim of old age. His eyes are dim (verse 1) so that he cannot distinguish between what is genuine and what is artificial. His senses are somewhat dulled by age as well, or so it would seem. He did not perceive the difference between goat and game. He could not differentiate between goat skin and that of his son Esau.

Then, too, Isaac’s judgment seems to have been impaired by his haste. It was obvious that Isaac wanted to get this over with as soon as possible. He wanted the blessing to go to Esau so that it would be done—finished. Had there not been this sense of haste, Isaac might have insisted that his “other son” be present for the blessing too. Good judgment now, as then, is suspended in the name of urgency.

The fact cannot be overlooked that the decision Isaac reached was one based upon all five of his senses: sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell. The garments which Rebekah had on hand were those of Esau, and they smelled like him, too. Some have politely suggested that the smell was more like cologne, but frankly, I doubt it. Like Dr. J. Vernon McGee, I think it was another kind of smell.²²⁹ It was not the smell of Esau’s deodorant but the smell resulting from the lack of it that gave him away. Even the dulled senses of Isaac could not miss the smell of his son. Imagine it—Isaac, in the final analysis, was led by his nose.

I find Isaac’s error informative in the light of our scientific age that insists upon making decisions solely on the basis of empirical evidence. If we cannot see it, hear it, feel it, or smell it, it does not exist. Let me say that the fall of Adam and Eve in the garden (Genesis 3) has constituted all men sinners. Every aspect of our being has been tainted by sin: intellect, emotions, and will. A man whose heart is at enmity with God can look at empirical facts and come up with a conclusion that is totally false. The problem is not with the facts; the problem is with man, whose head and heart lead him astray. Such was the case with Isaac; so it is today.

Isaac Learns and Esau Burns
(27:30-40)

The Bible is a wonderful book in that what is true can also be beautiful. While the Scriptures are given to edify and to exhort us, this is done by literature which is skillfully written. There is a distinct sense of drama in this narrative. It is so familiar to most of us that we fail to sense it, but it is there none the less. We are kept in suspense till the very last moment to see if Jacob can survive the interrogation and inspection of his father. The blessing is not pronounced until the last, causing us to fear that at any moment Esau will barge into the room, expose the fraud of his brother, and bring a curse upon him, while he receives the blessing for himself. Moses tells us that Jacob had just left when his brother came to his father with his meal (verse 30).

While Isaac loved the taste of Jacob’s “game,” Jacob savored the taste of his victory over Esau. He left triumphant and with a sigh of relief. Esau must have arrived at his father’s bedside with an expectant look, sensing that the blessing was almost in his grasp. What a smug sense of satisfaction and revenge Esau must have been flirting with. And Isaac? At long last he had outwitted his wife and had blessed Esau, or so he thought.

All of this was shattered when Esau approached his father with the words: “Let my father rise, and eat of his son’s game, that you may bless me” (verse 31).

How puzzled Esau must have been at the terrified look in his father’s eyes and at the way he trembled violently upon his bed. What could possibly have gone wrong? A sense of dread must have slowly fallen over Esau as it became more and more clear that his brother had once again gotten the best of him. The irony of it all was that since Isaac had tried to give everything to Esau, there was nothing left that could be considered a blessing to his favorite son, for all had been given to Jacob.

The consequences for Rebekah and Jacob are recorded in verses 41-45, but the tragic results of the conspiracy of Isaac and Esau are seen sooner. Isaac had sought to give all to his favorite son Esau at Jacob’s expense. Instead, he gave all to Jacob at Esau’s expense. Isaac set his heart on that which was contrary to the revealed will of God, and because of this his world came crashing down upon him when God’s purposes prevailed. Esau despised spiritual things and thus sold his destiny for a dinner. Then he attempted to get it back by renouncing his solemn oath and conspiring with his father to dishonestly regain what he had lost through his own profanity. Esau learned that there comes a point of no return in every man’s life when regret cannot bring a reversal of past decisions. As I understand the Bible, all who have rejected Christ as Savior will live in eternal regret and remorse, but this will not overturn the consequences of living with their decision to live in independence from God (cf. Luke 16:19-31; Philippians 2:9-11; II Thessalonians 1:6-10; Revelation 20:11-15).

Rebekah and Jacob Have a Price to Pay
(27:41-46)

For Rebekah and her son Jacob the price tag for their success was as costly as that of Isaac and Esau for their defeat. I have never seen anyone come away from the end results of sin with a smile on their face. Sin does not pay. Jacob and Rebekah can tearfully testify to this fact.

Rebekah loved Jacob more than life itself and, seemingly, more than Isaac. She sought his success (which happened to correspond with the revealed will of God) at any price, even deception and deceit. The price she paid was separation from her son, which appears to have lasted for the rest of her life.²³⁰ So far as we can detect, once Jacob left for Haran he never saw his mother again. Rebekah underestimated the consequences of this sin, for she thought that Jacob would only need to be gone for a short time—until the death of Isaac (27:44). But Isaac lived for a good forty years until he died at age 180 (35:28).

Jacob faced the inevitable results of sin also. He must have felt an alienation from his father, whom he had not only deceived but also mocked (cf. 27:12, marginal note in the NASV). He now had a brother who despised him and who looked for the day when he could put him to death (verse 41). And worst of all, he had to leave the mother he loved. In addition to this, all that he had gained in a material way he was unable to enjoy because he had to leave it behind to flee for his life. Sin does not pay!

Conclusion

Several doctrines which are illustrated by this chapter should be highlighted. First, we learn more about the sovereignty of God. Consistent with other passages of Scripture, we see that God is in complete control of His universe, even when men attempt to overrule His decrees:

The mind of man plans his way, but the LORD directs his steps (Proverbs 16:9).

Many are the plans in a man’s heart, but the counsel of the LORD, it will stand (Proverbs 19:21).

For the wrath of man shall praise Thee; … (Psalm 76:10).

From this passage in Genesis a principle can be formulated concerning the sovereignty of God: Man’s sin can never frustrate the will of God, but it can fulfill it.

The purpose of God as expressed to Rebekah in Genesis 25:23 was perfectly accomplished without one alteration. The sins of Isaac and Esau and Rebekah and Jacob did not in any way thwart God’s will from being done. In fact, their sins were employed by God in such a way as to achieve the will of God. God’s sovereignty is never thwarted by man’s sin. To the contrary, God is able to achieve His purposes by employing man’s sinful acts to further His plans.

This is not to say that God makes man sin in order to achieve His purposes. Nor is it even to imply that God regards disobedience any less sinful because He turns evil into good. The sins of each party in this chapter are not glossed over or excused. No one has passed the responsibility for their actions on to God. No one can place the burden of guilt on God because of His decree. Sin is due to man’s depravity.

Had all acted in obedience, God would have employed some other means to bring about the blessing of Jacob instead of Esau. God did not create a situation in which men had to sin in order for His will to be done. Neither will He ever do so. We never have to sin as Christians (I Corinthians 10:13; cf. James 1:13). While God “causes all things to work together for good” (Romans 8:28), He does not create evil in order to bring resulting good. We are responsible for our sin, not God. He allows it; He uses it; but He does not necessitate it.

How, then, might God have achieved the blessing of Jacob apart from the sins of this patriarchal family? Let me say very frankly that I do not know, nor do I need to know. But this I am fully assured of: Isaac could no more have pronounced a blessing upon Esau contrary to the will of God than Balaam could have cursed Israel (cf. Numbers 22-24). God will not allow men to frustrate His purposes.

Second, we learn about the doctrine of sin. Sin always produces separation. It separates men from men, and men from God (cf. John 15:18ff; II Thessalonians 1:5-10).

Third, we learn more on the doctrine of the depravity of man. Man’s sinfulness is manifested in the distortion that it brings into every area of his life: his intellect, his emotions, and his will. The empirical method is a good one, but our depravity has touched our intellect in such a way as to twist our thinking so that we can take the right facts and turn them to wrong conclusions. The empirical method, when employed by sinful men, will often lead them astray.

Only when our true motive is to learn the will of God and to do it and when our minds are transformed (Romans 12:2) by the Spirit of God through the Word of God can we expect to rightly interpret the facts before us.

From Genesis 27 I have become convinced of a truth I have never realized: It is Possible to Practice Faith in a Way that is Inconsistent with it.

Generally we would all suppose that actions based upon faith are righteous, while those things which are done apart from faith are evil. There is certainly an element of truth here, but I could hardly believe what I read in the book of Hebrews concerning the blessing of Jacob and Esau by Isaac: “By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau, even regarding things to come” (Hebrews 11:20).

Would it ever have occurred to you that Isaac’s blessing of Jacob and Esau was an act of faith? In what sense can this be true? Surely the deception and disobedience of Isaac is not being called “righteous” by the writer to the Hebrews. How can these events in Genesis 27 be, in any sense, acts of faith on the part of Isaac?

I think that I am beginning to understand the answer to this question. Look for a moment at what is found just a few verses later in Hebrews 11:

By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace (Hebrews 11:31).

Rahab, as we know, lied about the two spies (Joshua 2:3-7). She did this believing that God was with them and with the nation Israel. She knew that God would prosper His people and destroy those who were their enemies. In this sense, she had faith in the God of Israel and was saved from destruction. Her act of lying was not commended by God, nor should it be seen as anything less than sin.²³¹ And yet it stemmed from her faith. Her faith in God was manifested to some degree in her deception.

The same can be said for Isaac. Isaac believed in God. He believed in the covenant promises of God. He believed that the one upon whom the blessing was pronounced would be blessed indeed. He believed this so confidently that he was willing to deceive and even to disobey to have those benefits fall upon his favorite son Esau.

In this sense, Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau in faith. He pronounced the blessing in the faith that God would honor it and that its recipient would be blessed. Isaac’s actions stemmed from faith; but, at the same time, they were not appropriate to that faith.

I believe that the same thing is possible (and probably all too common) for Christians today. Our faith in God may lead us to witness, but we may use methods which are inconsistent with the gospel we proclaim. Our faith may cause us to share the way of salvation, but we may corrupt that gospel in order to cause no offense to the last. We suppose that we are furthering the cause of Christ, but we are corrupting the gospel, which is “the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16). Our goal may be biblical (e.g., the salvation of others), and so may our motivation (faith), but our means may be totally wrong. That should be food for considerable thought.

One final word must be said about the matter of Christian ethics. Jacob was guilty of practicing situational ethics. He considered the plan of his mother from the vantage point of practicality but not from the biblical perspective of principle. He worried about whether the plan would work but not if it was right. He agonized over the consequences of the plan if it failed but not the morality of such a plan in the first place.

I think we find a parallel in our own times in the matter of sexual conduct and morality. Sexual conduct seems often to be considered only in the light of availability and opportunity, not in the light of biblical morality. Sexual immorality has often been discouraged because of the consequences of disease and the shame and inconvenience of an unwanted pregnancy Now, however, society has come up with penicillin and the pill and, if all else fails, the abortion clinic. The younger generation feels little sense of reluctance to engage in immorality because they are assured, like Jacob was, that there will be no negative consequences. Let us teach our children what is right, and let us help our children to see that sin always has a price tag that is far too great to seriously consider disobedience to God.

223 “This makes all four participants in the present scene almost equally at fault. Isaac, whether he knew of the sale or not, knew God’s birth-oracle of 25:23, yet set himself to use God’s power to thwart it (see verse 29). This is the outlook of magic, not religion. Esau, in agreeing to the plan, broke his own oath of 25:33. Rebekah and Jacob, with a just cause, made no approach to God or man, no gesture of faith or love, and reaped the appropriate fruit of hatred.” Derek Kidner, Genesis (Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p. 155.

224 Stigers, after a consideration of Genesis 47:9; 45:11; 41:26-27; 41:46; 30:22ff.; and 29:18,27 calculates that Jacob would have been 77 years old when he left for Padan-Aram. If this is correct, Isaac would be 137 years old here, since we know he was 60 years old when the twins were born (25:26). Cf. Harold G. Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 211.

225 “From excavations at Nuzu in central Mesopotamia we learn that the oral blessing or will had legal validity and would stand up even in the courts. Nuzu tablet P56 mentions a lawsuit between three brothers in which two of them contested the right of a third to marry a certain Zululishtar. The young man won his case by arguing that this marriage was provided for in his father’s deathbed blessing.” Howard Vos, Genesis and Archaeology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1963), p. 96. The information cited by Vos comes from Cyrus Gordon, “Biblical Customs and the Nuzu Tablets,” The Biblical Archaeologist, February, 1940, p. 8.

226 “The birthright was more than a title to the family inheritance; it involved a spiritual position. The place of the individual in the covenant status of Israel was part of the birthright and it was this aspect which made the foolishness of Esau so profound.” W. White, Jr. “Birthright,” The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975-1976), I, p. 617.

227 Leupold rightly comments, “He that knows the duplicity and treachery of the human heart will not find it difficult to understand how a man will circumvent a word of God, no matter how clear it be, if his heart is really set on what is at variance with that word.” H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942), II., p. 737.

228 “The participle shoma’ath . . . indicates a continuing watchfulness on her part to protect Jacob’s interests.” Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis, p. 217.

229 Cf. J. Vernon McGee, Genesis (Pasadena: Through the Bible Books, 1975), II, p. 302.

230 Rebekah paved the way for Jacob’s exodus in verse 46, but we shall delay a more detailed comment on this verse until the message on chapter 28. Suffice it to say that she still persisted at the manipulation of her husband, which she does with great skill.

231 Some would differ here. There are those who would say that during war deception (lying) is not sin--and this was a time of war. Thus, Rahab was not guilty of sin in this instance. I happen to disagree with that conclusion, although I do believe that deception in a time of war is not considered sin. We must realize that the writer to the Hebrews spoke only of Rahab’s reception of the spies, not of her deception, when he wrote of her faith.

Français

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_28_32k.mp3

Biblical Topics:

Spiritual Gifts

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

29. The Seeker Is Sought (Genesis 28:1-22)

Introduction

God has a way of shaping the lives of His children even before they have entered into a relationship with him. One of my seminary professors, whom I greatly admire, serves to illustrate this dramatically. While an unbeliever, he attended college and was faced with a decision as to his major. He was (and is) an exceptional golfer and decided to major in whatever subject was available which would leave his afternoons free to play golf. That subject happened to be Greek. After his conversion he went on to theological seminary and eventually became the head of the Greek department there for many years.

I am inclined to look at the life of Jacob in a similar way. I do not see any evidence of his conversion before Genesis 28. In Genesis 27:20 Jacob referred to the God of Abraham and of Isaac as “your God.” It is here in chapter 28 that Jacob affirmed, “The LORD will be my God” (Genesis 28:21). Jacob appears to be on the road to Haran much as Saul made his way to Damascus (cf. Acts 9:1ff.), religious but not related to God by a personal faith and commitment. Both Saul and Jacob were stopped short by a vision which was to change the course of their lives.

Jacob’s Farewell
and Esau’s Frustration
(28:1-9)

While the consequences for failure to pull off the deception of Isaac had been carefully considered, neither Rebekah nor Jacob had weighed the cost of success. Isaac had been deceived and mocked (cf. 27:12, marginal note in NASV) due to the frailties of his age. Esau was deeply resentful, looking forward to the time when he could kill his brother (27:41). Rebekah must have found the gap between herself and her husband (not to mention Esau) widened by her deception of her mate. More than this, Rebekah now perceived that Jacob would have to leave until emotions cooled, although she had no conception of how long this separation must last.

In Genesis 27:42-45 Rebekah began to expedite the plan which she had already formulated in her mind. She must see to it that Jacob escaped the passions of Esau. She would arrange for him to spend time with her brother Laban, far from Esau, and so she began to pave the way for Jacob’s escape. First, she prepared Jacob for his departure by explaining the need for it (verses 42-45). Just a few days, she reasoned,²³² would be needed for things to settle down (verse 44). Instead it was twenty years before Jacob would return (cf. 31:38), and that, it appears, was after she died.

The final verse of chapter 27 describes the skillful manipulation of Isaac by Rebekah, leading him to the inevitable conclusion that Jacob should be sent away to Haran, the city of her brother Laban:

And Rebekah said to Isaac, “I am tired of living because of the daughters of Heth; if Jacob takes a wife from the daughters of Heth, like these, from the daughters of the land, what good will my life be to me?” (Genesis 27:46)

How different was Rebekah’s approach from what Sarah could have been predicted to do. I think Sarah would have given Abraham an ultimatum: “Send my son to my brother Laban in Haran or else!” This she would have demanded, poking her bony finger in the face of Abraham all the while (cf. 16:5; 21:10). Rebekah believed in the subtle but sure approach. She never told Isaac what to do; she just spelled things out in such a way that Isaac could reasonably do nothing else. She let it be known how distressed she was over the Canaanite women whom Esau had taken as wives (cf. 26:34-35). Then she insinuated that if Jacob did the same she would not be fit to live with. Little wonder then that Isaac did what is recorded in the first two verses of chapter 28:

Two things are striking about this word of instruction from the lips of Isaac. First, it is unprecedented. Nowhere previously has this instruction been given. We see this from Esau’s response to the events of the early verses of chapter 28:

Now Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob and sent him away to Paddan-aram, to take to himself a wife from there, and that when he blessed him he charged him, saying, “You shall not take a wife from the daughters of Canaan,” and that Jacob had obeyed his father and his mother and had gone to Paddan-aram. So Esau saw that the daughters of Canaan displeased his father Isaac; and Esau went to Ishmael, and married, besides the wives that he had, Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael, Abraham’s son, the sister of Nebaioth (Genesis 28:6-9).

We must therefore conclude that neither Jacob nor Esau had ever previously been taught that marriage to a Canaanite woman would be inconsistent with the will of God and unsatisfactory to their parents.

Second, this charge to Jacob was untimely. We must admit that the occasion of Jacob going to Paddan-aram to seek a wife is a good one for this instruction, but we must not overlook how late in the life of these two sons this is. We have previously stated that Jacob was 77 years old when he went down to Haran.²³³ This would mean that Jacob did not marry until he was 84, since he had to work seven years for his wife (29:18,20).

We must remember that Isaac was 40 when he married Rebekah (25:20), as was Esau when he took his two Hittite wives (26:34). For Esau this instruction came 37 years late. Imagine his frustration at finally learning the reason for his parents’ grief about his marriage. Surely Isaac’s words in verses 1 and 2 are too little and too late for Esau, and none too soon for Jacob.

Coupled with the fact that marriage was a secondary reason for Jacob’s departure to Haran, while survival was primary, we begin to grasp the casual attitude of Isaac toward the spiritual training of his sons. To him these matters must have been of minimal import to come as little and as late as they did.

The blessing of Jacob is somewhat more positive. While Isaac had blessed Jacob in the previous chapter, he had done so as though it were Esau. That blessing does not reach the clarity and the particularity of verses 3 and 4:

And may God Almighty bless you and make you fruitful and multiply you, that you may become a company of peoples. May He also give you the blessing of Abraham, to you and to your descendants with you; that you may possess the land of your sojournings, which God gave to Abraham.

Only by allusion did Isaac convey the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant to Jacob in chapter 27. Here it is stated in very specific terms. Isaac has finally resigned himself to the fact that God is going to bless Jacob and not Esau. His words reflect this acceptance of things as they must be and as God said they would be.

Television and the movies have conditioned us to delight in the destruction of the villain. He gets his just desserts, and usually in a way that befits his dastardly deeds. We all know that the good guy will win (or at least this used to be true), but we must watch until we have had the pleasure of seeing the bad guy get what is coming to him. Likewise, when we come to these verses concerning the response of Esau to what has happened between Isaac and Jacob, we tend to think of Esau as the villain. We expect to see his downfall, and we plan to savor it when it comes.

Because of this, we must be reminded that Jacob was not chosen because he was the hero, nor was Esau rejected because he was the villain. Genesis 25, especially in the light of Paul’s explanation in Romans 9, forces us to conclude that God chose Jacob and rejected Esau without regard to the deeds of either (Romans 9:11-12). Esau is not a man who, because of his actions described here and elsewhere, was rejected by God. Esau is not any different from any unbeliever whose heart has not been enlivened and whose mind has not been enlightened to respond to divine realities. Esau in his unbelief is no more depraved nor any less sensitive to spiritual things than any other son or daughter of Adam who suffers from inherent sin:

There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one (Romans 3:10-12).

Let us therefore put aside all sense of smugness and superiority when we come to consider this tragic figure, for whom we should all feel a deep sense of pity. Let us all acknowledge that, but for the grace of God, there go we. Here is a man who cannot comprehend the love of God and is unconvinced about the love of his father. Here is one who fails to grasp spiritual realities but who also has not been taught them by his parents.

Thirty-seven years too late Esau has learned at least one of the reasons why he felt unloved: his wives displeased his parents. I say “parents,” but you will observe that Esau is not reported to have cared about his mother’s sentiments toward him, only his father’s (verse 8). He had long since given up hope of being loved and accepted by Rebekah. Desperately he sought to win the approval of his father.

If having a non-Canaanite wife was all that it took to please his father, that was a small price to pay for the approval he craved. Failing to see any problem in his actions, Esau took Mahalath, the daughter of Ishmael (verse 9). This woman was no Canaanite; she was of the family of Abraham. What could be more pleasing to Isaac than this? But Esau did not understand the matter of purity. Ishmael had been rejected to carry out the line of Abraham because he was a child of self effort (21:12, cf. Galatians 4:22-23). He was a product of fleshly striving, not spiritual dependence. Marriage to a descendant of Ishmael failed to achieve Esau’s intended goal. Without realizing it, he typified in this act the very thing which God most condemned, fleshly striving. Just as Abraham acted on his own to achieve a son, so Esau acted in a fleshly way to win the approval of his father. How appropriate this marriage was, and how ineffectual.

Jacob’s Departure and His Dream
(28:10-17)

On his journey to Paddan-aram, Jacob was accompanied only by his staff (32:10) and his thoughts. It would not seem difficult to speculate with fair accuracy as to what these thoughts were about. Surely he must have considered the wisdom of his actions in deceiving his father. He must have compared his expectations in this plot with the outcome of it. He should have felt guilt at the thought of his treatment of his brother and father. He undoubtedly grieved at having to leave his mother. He must have wondered what kind of reception he would have from Laban. He would not be able to overlook the fact that he had nothing to offer Laban as a dowry for a wife. What would his wife be like? When would he ever be able to return home?

Whatever his thoughts must have been, I believe that Jacob was finally at the end of himself. I believe that he came to realize that he would never prosper on the basis of his schemes and struggles. His self-assurance was probably at an all-time low. This was the ideal time for God to break into his life, for now Jacob knew how much he needed God in order to be blessed as his father had been.

Night seems to have overtaken Jacob before he arrived at the city of Luz. The city gates would have been closed for the night, so Jacob, as shepherds customarily did, slept under the stars. He found a suitable spot, took a stone from nearby, and propped himself up for the night. In his sleep he had an awe-inspiring vision. He saw a ladder reaching from heaven to earth, with angels ascending and descending upon it. Above this ladder was God, who spoke these words to him:

I am the LORD, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie, I will give it to you and to your descendants. Your descendants shall also be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread out to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south; and in you and in your descendants shall all the families of the earth be blessed. And behold, I am with you, and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land; for I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you (Genesis 28:13-15).

This vision has been the victim of many interpreters. Its significance has been said to be deep and profound. I think not. I believe that it was intended to be understood very simply, just as Jacob did. My interpretation of its meaning and significance will be based upon four considerations: (a) the words of God to Jacob; (b) the words immediately spoken by Jacob; (c) the words spoken on a later occasion by Jacob; and (d) the words of our Lord in John 1:51.

The words spoken by God are very similar to previous declarations to Abraham and to Isaac. Isaac’s pronouncement that passed on the blessing of Abraham to Jacob (verse 4) was now confirmed by God Himself. While there are various aspects to these covenant blessings, foremost seems to be the references to the land:

… the land on which you lie; I will give it to you … (verse 13)

… and you shall spread out to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south … (verse 14)

… and will bring you back to this land … (verse 15)

Jacob perceived the significance of the place, too, for he immediately narrowed his thinking to the awesomeness of the place where he lay:

… surely the LORD is in this place, and I did not know it (verse 16).

… How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven (verse 17).

Later on in his life Jacob looked back upon this vision, still realizing the manner in which God signified the special nature of that place:

I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar, where you made a vow to Me; now arise, leave this land, and return to the land of your birth (Genesis 31:13).

As Jacob, in obedience to this command, approached the land of promise, he received a report that Esau was coming to meet him with four hundred men (Genesis 32:6). Jacob prayed for protection as he went forward, based upon the promise of God in the vision at Bethel:

Deliver me, I pray, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau; for I fear him, lest he come and attack me, mother with children. For thou didst say, “I will surely prosper you, and make your descendants as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude” (Genesis 32:11-12).

These statements of God and Jacob fit together nicely, especially in the light of the context of the vision. Jacob was about to leave the land of promise for a twenty year sojourn in Paddan-aram. He might be tempted never to return to this land again. By means of this dramatic vision God impressed Jacob with the significance of this land. It was the place where heaven and earth met. It was the place where God would come down to man and where men would find access to God. It was, as Jacob asserted, “the gate of heaven.” Throughout those twenty years Jacob would never forget this dream. He would realize that ultimately, to be in the will of God, he must be in the place of God’s choosing, the land of promise. It was in the land that God’s blessings would be poured out upon God’s people. While Jacob must leave, he must surely return.

How eagerly the first recipients of this record must have read it. The books of the Law were written by Moses and thus must have been completed before his death and before the entrance of Israel into the promised land. What a sense of anticipation the Israelites must have had as they looked across the river Jordan knowing that, in some special way, God’s presence was to be revealed in that place. The experience on Mount Sinai surely gave substance to this hope.

In the first chapter of John’s gospel Jesus had invited Philip to follow him (1:43). Philip likewise sought out Nathanael, assuring him that he had found the Messiah. This Messiah was Jesus of Nazareth (verse 45). Nathanael wondered at how the Messiah could come from such a place as Nazareth (verse 46). When Jesus saw Nathanael coming, He identified him as a man “in whom is no guile” (verse 47). Further, Jesus indicated that He had seen Nathanael while he was “under the fig tree” (verse 48). This was enough to convince Nathanael that Philip was right—Jesus was the Messiah!

Our Lord did not stop at this, however. While commending his belief, He went on to give even greater revelation concerning Himself:

And He said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you shall see the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man” (John 1:51).

Nathanael had put too much stock in place. How could Messiah come from Nazareth? Jesus had been born in Bethlehem. God had revealed Himself to man in Israel. But while Jacob had focused upon the ground, the place where the ladder was situated, Jesus drew Nathanael’s attention to the ladder itself. He, Jesus of Nazareth, was the ladder. It was not the place where the ladder stood which was now most important but the person who was the ladder. Jacob saw God above the ladder; Jesus revealed God as the ladder. Ultimately it was Jesus Christ who bridged the gap between heaven and earth. It is through Him that God has come down to man. It is through Him that man will have access to God. Jacob saw what he needed to see at that moment in his life. Jesus revealed to Nathanael that there was much more to be seen than what Jacob had perceived in his day.

Jacob’s Declaration
(28:18-22)

Jacob’s response to this dramatic disclosure of the divine purposes and promises of God can be summarized by three statements.

Jacob Set Up a Pillar

So Jacob rose early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put under his head and set it up as a pillar, and poured oil on its top. And he called the name of the place Bethel; however, previously the name of the city had been Luz (Genesis 28:18-19).

The pillar was to serve as a memorial. It marked a place to which he would return to build an altar and worship God.

Jacob Made a Profession of Faith

Some are inclined to view the “ifs” of these words as evidence of Jacob’s bargaining nature. It is as though Jacob is striking a deal with God. While Jacob’s faith is certainly immature at this point, I am inclined to view the “ifs” more in the sense of “since,” along with others.²³⁴

Jacob Made a Promise

And this stone, which I have set up as a pillar, will be God’s house; and of all that Thou dost give me I will surely give a tenth to Thee (Genesis 28:22).

Jacob planned to return, consistent with the thrust of the vision he had seen. At that time he would build an altar and give a tithe to God. While the Scriptures record the building of the altar (35:7), no reference can be found to the giving of the tithe. It may be, however, that this tithe was involved in the sacrifices which would be offered upon the altar. There was no command to tithe; this was a voluntary act on Jacob’s behalf.

Conclusion

This chapter has some very sobering lessons for us as parents. Isaac’s apathy in the matter of instructing his sons may sound uncomfortably familiar. In addition to this I find Isaac’s love to be contingent upon Esau’s performance. Isaac “loved Esau because,… ” we are told (25:28). Interestingly, in this same verse we are told only that Rebekah loved Jacob. No conditions are expressed. Look at the insecurity of Esau. Here was a 77-year-old man, still desperately trying to win the love and approval of his father—and with good reason, for his father loved on the basis of his performance.

Then, also, it would seem that as a favored son Esau was pampered by his father. Nowhere are we ever told of the discipline of either of Isaac’s sons. Discipline, as the Bible repeatedly informs us, is one manifestation of genuine love (cf. Proverbs 3:12; 13:24; Hebrews 12:5-11). I cannot help but feel that some words of admonition and correction in the life of Esau would have assured him of his father’s love. Discipline is not the enemy of love but the evidence of it.

Both Jacob and Esau illustrate the futility of scheming and self-effort in achieving divine acceptance. Here Esau’s sincere and diligent efforts to win approval by marrying a daughter of Ishmael are worthless. While his sincerity is evident, his actions do not conform with the requirements of faith. Sincere effort which is not based upon divine revelation is folly.

All of Jacob’s efforts to achieve the blessing of God are in vain as well. It was only by entering into a relationship with the covenant God of Abraham and Isaac that Jacob could experience the blessings of God. The basis for such a relationship was the revealed word of God. I find it amusing that while Jacob could not find God by striving, he was found by God while in his sleep. Surely God is trying to tell us something by this. It is by resting in Him and in His Word that we can be blessed. This does not mean the absence of activity on our part,²³⁵ but it does mean that self-effort will always be futile.

Two further lessons from this text should be pointed out. First, place is important. It surely was important so far as Jacob was concerned. Experiencing the blessing of God meant being in the place where God had promised to bless. I hear people say things such as, “I can worship God just as well out on the lake as I can in a church.” But the Word of God tells us, “… not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some …” (Hebrews 10:25). There are surely certain places where it would be difficult, even impossible, for a Christian to be for the glory of God.

Second, a profession of faith does not mean our immediate entrance into blissful experiences and rose-petal-strewn pathways. For twenty years after this conversion experience Jacob was to live away from his mother and father, away from the land of promise. For twenty years Jacob was to be administered a large dose of his own medicine, dealt out by an uncle who was even more deceitful than he. Entering into a relationship with God does not guarantee only good times and happy experiences; but it does assure us of the forgiveness of sins, the hope of eternal life, and the presence of God in our everyday lives.

232 It is possible that Rebekah did realize that Jacob’s separation would be long-term. Was she then making his exit more palatable by saying it was only for a “few days” (27:44)? Surely it would take more than this to travel that distance and return.

233 Cf. Lesson 28, footnote 2, or Harold G. Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 211.

234 E. G. Stigers, Genesis, p. 228. Cf. also H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942), II, p. 780.

235 Here we see Jacob resting in God, later he will wrestle with God (32:24-30). These two aspects of the Christian life are not contradictory. We are saved only by resting in His Word and His work on our behalf. But God delights to bless His children when they actively prevail with Him in prayer.

Français

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_29_32k.mp3

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

30. I Led Two Wives (Genesis 29:1-30)

Introduction

Although not from the proverbial horse’s mouth, I heard a story which has the ring of truth to it. A classic car lover was looking for a particular model of Studebaker. In the normal course of his scanning the newspaper, he saw an ad that seemed impossible to believe. Just the car he wanted was advertised, but for a mere $100. Knowing the car should have sold for thousands, he concluded that the car was either in a basket, or there was a misprint. Finally his curiosity got the best of him and he called. A woman answered the phone and assured him that the car was in excellent shape and that there was no mistake about the price.

With the scent of a bargain in the air the car connoisseur hurried over to investigate. To his delight the car proved to be everything the woman reported it to be. It was beautiful. Of course he told her that he would take it—for $100. Twinges of guilt finally became so strong that the man had to confess to the woman, “Ma’am, I have to tell you that this car is worth far more than $100. You should get much more than that for this automobile.” “Oh, I know that,” she replied, “but you see my husband has left me to run off with his secretary. He sent me the title to the car and told me to sell it and send him the money. That’s what I intend to do with the $100.”

It is difficult to hear a story like this without savoring the taste of poetic justice that it contains. I think that most of us get that same feeling when we read Genesis 29. Jacob, the double-dealer, gets a double deal. Jacob, the deceiver, gets outwitted by his uncle Laban. We suppose that Leah was some kind of defective model of womanhood who should have been subject to a factory recall, and we are amused to find that he has to spend the rest of his life stuck with her, although he finally does get to marry the girl he loves.

I would like to challenge much of our interpretation of this chapter, for it does not seem that our conclusions fit the facts, only our desire to watch Jacob get what he deserves. There is that element, of course, but it is not the main theme of the story. Let us approach this episode in the life of Jacob with a view to the gracious dealings of God in the life of this patriarch-to-be.

Love at First Sight
(29:1-12)

Jacob left Bethel with a lightness in his step²³⁶ and a new lease on life. Before his encounter with God, he could only refer to his father’s God as “your God” (27:20). Now, Yahweh was Jacob’s God (28:21). He had seen the vision of the ladder from heaven and heard the promise of God of His presence, provision, and protection. He had the assurance of his return to the land and the blessings of Abraham (28:10-17). There was a new sense of direction, a new hope, and a new meaning to life. He was still going on to Haran, but God was with him.

Then Jacob went on his journey, and came to the land of the sons of the east. And he looked, and saw a well in the field, and behold, three flocks of sheep were lying there beside it, for from that well they watered the flocks. Now the stone on the mouth of the well was large. When all the flocks were gathered there, they would then roll the stone from the mouth of the well, and water the sheep, and put the stone back in its place on the mouth of the well (Genesis 29:1-3).

As he approached Haran, Jacob came upon a well which was in a field. It was a different well, I believe, from that one to which the servant of Abraham came (cf. Genesis 24:11). That well was a spring located outside the city to which the women came to draw drinking water (24:11,13). The well to which Jacob came was one in a field well away from the city, and it was more of a cistern from which the cattle drank directly. This well was covered by a large stone, which tended to keep it from being polluted. Perhaps more importantly, it restricted the use of that well to particular times and only to authorized persons. The shepherds, perhaps young lads, sat about the well waiting for the time when they could water their sheep. Jacob engaged these shepherds in conversation:

And Jacob said to them, “My brothers, where are you from?” And they said, “We are from Haran.” And he said to them, “Do you know Laban the son of Nahor?” And they said, “We know him.” And he said to them, “Is it well with him?” And they said, “It is well, and behold, Rachel his daughter is coming with the sheep” (Genesis 29:4-6).

Jacob wanted to learn how far he was from his destination. The shepherds’ response told him he was very near to Haran. His question about Laban’s welfare was not academic. He had a vital interest in the present state of affairs in Laban’s family. To some degree, the success of his journey could be measured by the shepherds’ reply. To Jacob’s relief Laban was doing well, and, more than this, he had a daughter who was to arrive at the well soon. It was best to wait for her to be directed to his home.

In the meantime, Jacob inquired about a matter which struck him as quite unusual:

And he said, “Behold, it is still high day; it is not time for the livestock to be gathered. Water the sheep, and go pasture them.” But they said, “We cannot, until all the flocks are gathered, and they roll the stone from the mouth of the well; then we water the sheep” (Genesis 29:7-8).

The sheep would not be gathered in for the night until much later, as it was still early in the day. It made little sense to Jacob for these shepherds to be sitting about the well waiting until later to water their sheep when they could water them now and take them back to pasture for several hours. The practical thing to do was to water the sheep now and not to wait until later.

The shepherds were not at all impressed by the question or informed as to the care of sheep. Indeed, his question may have seemed foolish to them. Of course Jacob was right. Even these boys knew that sheep grew faster grazing on the grassland rather than standing about the well where the grass had long before been consumed. However, the well was not, it seems, to be used at their convenience.

A well was a valuable resource, much as an oil well would be today. As such, it had to belong to somebody, and that person would prescribe how and when the well was to be used, and probably at what price. The agreement between the well owner and the shepherds seems to be that the well could be used once a day. The shepherds must first be gathered at the well with their flocks. Then the owner or his hired servants (“they,” verse 8) would roll the large stone away and the sheep could be watered, perhaps in the order that the flocks arrived. This would explain why the shepherds and their flocks were there so early. In this way, what was most profitable (this is what Jacob’s question was getting at) was not practical. The owner’s stipulations must be adhered to.

During the course of this conversation Rachel arrived. With this, Jacob had little interest in the shepherd boys, for she was a relative and a lovely young girl:

While he was still speaking with them, Rachel came with her father’s sheep, for she was a shepherdess. And it came about, when Jacob saw Rachel the daughter of Laban his mother’s brother, and the sheep of Laban his mother’s brother, that Jacob went up, and rolled the stone from the mouth of the well, and watered the flock of Laban his mother’s brother. Then Jacob kissed Rachel, and lifted his voice and wept. And Jacob told Rachel that he was a relative of her father and that he was Rebekah’s son, and she ran and told her father (Genesis 29:9-12).

Some commentators actually suggest that Jacob suggested to the shepherds that they water their sheep immediately in order to get rid of them before Rachel arrived so that he could meet her alone.²³⁷ This hardly seems to be the case. He would not have known her age or beauty and surely would have wanted to meet her under proper circumstances.

I am, however, interested in the sequence of events that occurred when Jacob and Rachel met. I would have expected Jacob to introduce himself first, then to kiss her, and finally to water her sheep. Just the reverse is reported.²³⁸ First Jacob watered the sheep of Laban, casting aside any consideration of what he had been told by the shepherds. Then he kissed her—the first instance of “kissing cousins.” Finally, he introduced himself as her relative. If this order of events is correct, Jacob cast all convention aside, and Rachel might have been somewhat swept off her feet by such a romantic gesture. All of this, I must remind you, is reading considerably between the lines.

And so the two have met. It may not have been “love at first sight,” but it could have been. The meeting of these two sets the stage for the next phase of their relationship.

Seven Years Till Wedding Night
(29:13-20)

When Rachel ran home with her report of meeting Jacob, Laban was quick to respond:

So it came about, when Laban heard the news of Jacob his sister’s son, that he ran to meet him, and embraced him and kissed him, and brought him to his house. Then he related to Laban all these things. And Laban said to him, “Surely you are my bone and my flesh.” And he stayed with him a month (Genesis 29:13-14).

Laban’s greeting suggests no more to me than the fact that he extended the normal hospitality which should have been expected, especially for a near relative.²³⁹ Jacob, we are told, “related to Laban all these things” (verse 13). We might wonder what “these things” were. We should reasonably expect that Jacob reported about his family and their health. Primarily, Laban would have wished to know about his sister Rebekah. I think that Jacob also reported the events which led to his journey to Paddan-aram, including the deception of his father. I would imagine that Jacob would also have mentioned that he came to seek a wife. This report was sufficient for Laban to be convinced that Jacob was who he claimed to be and, therefore, a near kin to him. This close proximity of relationship was not without its significance to Laban,²⁴⁰ but later events will suggest this more convincingly.

Jacob’s month-long stay with Laban had at least two results. First, it brought Jacob and Rachel into close contact and helped to kindle a deep affection for each other. Jacob now had a reason to stay with Laban. And as for Laban, this month proved Jacob to be a most valuable worker. While Jacob possessed nothing but the promise of future wealth and blessing, he was a good worker. He would make a fine son-in-law and could stay on to work for Laban in place of the traditional dowry. This month brought both Laban and Jacob to the conclusion that a continuing relationship between them could be of mutual advantage.

At the end of that month, Laban sought to formalize the relationship between himself and Jacob:

Then Laban said to Jacob, “Because you are my relative, should you therefore serve me for nothing? Tell me, what shall your wages be?” (Genesis 29:15).

While Laban is not reported to have any sons at this point in time, he did have an older daughter, who was to play a crucial role in the events that were to follow:

Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the oldest was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. And Leah’s eyes were weak, but Rachel was beautiful of form and face (Genesis 29:16-17).

Few women have been so misunderstood as Leah. Even her name does her a great disservice, for it means “wild cow.”²⁴¹ The statement that she had “weak eyes” (verse 17) seems to many to portray Leah as a homely girl with pop-bottle glasses, who cannot see three feet in front of her. This kind of thinking is completely unjustified.

First, the word rendered “weak” (rak) is never used in a demeaning way, as is here suggested. Never is the term used with reference to any defect.²⁴² For example, in Genesis 18:7 Moses used this word, and there it is translated “tender”: “Abraham also ran to the herd, and took a tender and choice calf, and gave it to the servant; and he hurried to prepare it” (emphasis added).

Moses used the word again in chapter 33 with reference to the young children, who were too frail to be hurried: “But he said to him, ‘My lord knows that the children are frail and that the flocks and herds which are nursing are a care to me. And if they are driven hard one day, all the flocks will die’” (Genesis 33:13; emphasis added).

If we are to take the word rak, which is rendered “weak” in 29:17, in its normal sense, then, we cannot think in terms of defect but in terms of delicacy. In contrast with Rachel, who may have had fire or a sparkle in her eyes, Leah had gentle eyes.

I must warn you in advance that I am inclined to go one step further than any commentator I am aware of. I think that we must also consider the meaning of the term “eyes.” Strange as it may seem, this word used for the physical organs of sight often refers to much more than the physical eye. It also depicts one’s character, just as the expression “kidneys” refers to human emotions and thoughts (cf. Psalm 7:9; 16:7; 26:2; Revelation 2:23). In the Old Testament, then, we find these kinds of references to the eyes:

And you shall consume all the peoples whom the LORD your God will deliver to you; your eye shall not pity them, neither shall you serve their gods, for that would be a snare to you (Deuteronomy 7:16).

Beware, lest there is a base thought in your heart, saying, “The seventh year, the year of remission, is near,” and your eye is hostile toward your poor brother, and you give him nothing; then he may cry to the LORD against you, and it will be a sin in you (Deuteronomy 15:9).

Perhaps the most interesting use of the word “eye” is in two verses, both of which contain the word “eye” and the word “refined” (Hebrew, rak):

The man who is refined and very delicate among you shall be hostile toward {lit. his eye shall be evil toward, margin, NASV} his brother and toward the wife he cherishes and toward the rest of his children who remain (Deuteronomy 28:54).

The refined and delicate woman among you, who would not venture to set the sole of her foot on the ground for delicateness and refinement, shall be hostile toward {lit. her eye shall be evil toward, margin, NASV} the husband she cherishes and toward her son and daughter (Deuteronomy 28:56).

It is an established fact that the eyes are used in the Old and New Testament as “shewing mental qualities” such as arrogance, humility, mockery, and pity.²⁴³ I believe that it is in this sense that the eyes of Leah are spoken of. In connection with the word rak, I would conclude that the disposition of Leah was one of gentleness and tenderness, while Rachel seems to have had a more fiery and aggressive temperament. Regardless of whether or not my conclusions are accepted, the idea of defect in Leah is highly suspect and without precedent in the scriptural use of these terms.

Rachel is characterized only by her physical attractiveness. She was “beautiful of form and face” (verse 17). Moses may be drawing our attention to this fact because it was the major source of attraction for Jacob. There seems to be, then, a significant contrast here between Rachel and Rebekah. Rebekah was selected for Isaac by Abraham’s servant on the basis of divine guidance and because of personal qualities which assured him that she would be a fine wife for Isaac. Rachel, on the other hand, was selected by Jacob for himself, but without any mention of her personal qualities, only a description of her beauty. Rebekah’s beauty was an additional plus, an unexpected fringe benefit; Rachel’s beauty was the essence of her selection. The red warning lights should already be flashing in our minds.

On this questionable basis Jacob chose Rachel, the younger, over Leah, the older, and proposed the terms of the payment of the dowry:

Now Jacob loved Rachel, so he said, “I will serve you seven years for your younger daughter Rachel” (Genesis 29:18).

Laban’s response was positive but somewhat vague:

… It is better that I give her to you than that I should give her to another man; stay with me (Genesis 29:19).

I do not know for certain that Laban had already purposed to deceive Jacob by switching wives, but his response certainly left him room for it. It was positive enough for Jacob to know that his offer had been accepted. It was, I think, a premium price but one that Jacob didn’t mind paying:

So Jacob served seven years for Rachel and they seemed to him but a few days because of his love for her (Genesis 29:20).

Nevertheless, Laban did not specify that the seven years of service would immediately or necessarily bring about a marriage to Rachel. He simply implied it, and in his romantic state of ecstasy Jacob assumed what he wished to believe.

Some suppose that at 77 years of age Jacob could have cared less about waiting seven years to marry. I would be inclined to disagree. The point of verse 20 is that Rachel was well worth the high price which Jacob had agreed to pay for her—a price measured in years of service rather than dollars. Jacob’s statement to Laban in the next verse strongly implies that he was eager and anxious to consummate the marriage for which he had long waited.

Shock at First Light
(29:21-30)

Then Jacob said to Laban, “Give me my wife, for my time is completed, that I may go in to her” (Genesis 29:21).

It is difficult to read this verse without concluding that there was a great deal of romantic passion in that 77-year-old man. His physical desire for Rachel is certainly to be expected. Ironically, it is this physical appetite, much like Isaac’s desire for wild game (25:28; 27:3-4), that caused Jacob to act too hastily and bind himself to a life-long commitment.

And Laban gathered all the men of the place, and made a feast. Now it came about in the evening that he took his daughter Leah, and brought her to him; and Jacob went in to her. Laban also gave his maid Zilpah to his daughter Leah as a maid. So it came about in the morning that, behold, it was Leah! And he said to Laban, “What is this you have done to me? Was it not for Rachel that I served with you? Why then have you deceived me?” (Genesis 29:22-25)

It is with great discretion that Moses has described this most delicate and intimate matter. Where Hollywood would have inserted pages of elaboration Moses has given us a parenthetical statement about the maid which Laban gave his daughter. We must therefore deal with this subject in a manner which is consistent with the emphasis of the text and with standards of righteousness.

For seven years Jacob had waited for this day. His eagerness is natural and normal. At the feast he may have had sufficient wine to somewhat dull his senses. The guests would be aware of his entrance into the tent (and the matrimonial bed where Leah waited) and also of his exit, thus indicating that the marriage had been consummated by the union of the bride and groom (cf. Judges 14:10-15:2; Psalm 19:5). The same passion which dominated Jacob as he chose his bride now ruled as he entered into that tent. It is hardly a wonder that Jacob should have made the mistake that he did.

Early the next morning Jacob awoke. What a beautiful day! What a wonderful night! What an exciting future! What a shock as the sunlight burst into the tent to reveal that the woman in his arms was Leah, not Rachel! What irony that Jacob should repeat the identical words of Pharaoh to Abraham (12:18) and almost the same expression of Abimelech to Abraham (20:9) and Abimelech to Isaac (26:10): “What is this you have done to me?” While it is not recorded, it is easy to believe that Isaac also asked this of Jacob after his great deception. The shoe is now on the other foot; the deceiver has now been deceived. Those who choose to live by the sword die by it.

Laban was not taken back by Jacob’s rebuke. He had probably planned his response to this question long before this confrontation took place.

But Laban said, “It is not the practice in our place, to marry off the younger before the first-born. Complete the bridal week of this one, and we will give you the other also for the service which you shall serve with me for another seven years.” And Jacob did so and completed her week, and he gave him his daughter Rachel as his wife. Laban also gave his maid Bilhah to his daughter Rachel as her maid. So Jacob went in to Rachel also, and indeed he loved Rachel more than Leah, and he served with Laban for another seven years (Genesis 29:26-30).

The end result was that Laban married off both his daughters. Also, he managed to get a premium price for both. Jacob ended up with two wives rather than one, and he worked twice as hard to get what he desired.

Conclusion

Fewer passages contain more lessons for living than this chapter. Let me suggest some of these under several headings.

The Consequences of Sin

Previously we have noted that one of the consequences of the sin of Jacob’s deceiving Isaac was his physical and emotional separation from those he loved. A second consequence is the moral parallel to Newton’s law of motion: every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In our Lord’s words, “… all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Jacob chose to get ahead in life by means of deception. Jacob learned the sad lesson that those who seek to deceive shall be deceived.

The tragedy of this chapter is that all that took place was unnecessary. All we need to do is to contrast the acquisition of Rachel with that of Rebekah. The resources of Abraham made it possible for Isaac to have a wife in a very short period of time (cf. 24:54ff.). One reason for this was the fact that the servant had the dowry from the riches of Abraham, Isaac’s father. One of the consequences of Jacob’s sin was that he had to leave Canaan—to flee empty-handed. Since Jacob sinned, he was separated from the wealth of his father and had only the work of his own hands. The fourteen years of Jacob’s labor would have been unnecessary, I believe, had it not been for his deception of Isaac. Perhaps Isaac sent Jacob away without any of his wealth to teach him the value of hard work. Or perhaps it was to force Jacob to stay away a long time by working for a wife. This we do not know, but it does seem that this 14-year delay was unnecessary and purely the result of sin. What a price to pay!

There is one striking difference between the consequences of sin today and those of Jacob. Our sins, like his, separate us from God now and eternally (e.g. Psalm 66:18; II Thessalonians 1:9; Revelation 20:12-15). However, while the work of Jacob’s hands was able to earn him a wife, the works of our hands cannot earn any of God’s blessings or salvation:

For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment … (Isaiah 64:6).

He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5).

The good news of the gospel is that we who are sinners and cannot help ourselves can be saved by trusting in the work which Jesus Christ has done on our behalf. It is by trusting in His death as our substitute and in His righteousness that we can experience the blessings of God now and in eternity.

The Grace of God

Some may view the events of this chapter as God’s getting even with Jacob. Others would merely interpret them as a kind of poetic justice. I prefer to understand them as an evidence of the marvelous grace of God at work in the life of Jacob. God did not bring these events to pass to punish Jacob but to instruct him. Punishment has been born by our Savior on the cross, but discipline is the corrective training which furthers us on the path leading to godliness (cf. Hebrews 12).

Jacob learned the value of convention. The agreement which regulated the use of the well (verses 2-3, 7-8) seemed to mean little to Jacob. In the excitement of meeting Rachel he decided to use the well regardless of the rules for its use. He may also have disregarded some conventions in the way that he greeted Rachel (verses 10-12). He certainly chose to disregard the convention of marrying the first-born first. I do not believe that Laban was telling Jacob anything new but reminding him of something that could not, and should not, be taken lightly or disregarded.

In addition to all this, Jacob experienced the grace of God in the delay of 14 plus years. It was this delay which contributed to the preservation of Jacob’s life by keeping him away from the anger of Esau, who had purposed to kill him.

Amazingly, the grace of God was manifested in this event by the gift of Leah as a wife to Jacob. This is probably the last thought to cross our minds, but I believe that it is a defensible position. First, we must acknowledge that, in the providence of God (and in spite of the deceptiveness of Laban), Leah was Jacob’s wife. Furthermore, it was Leah, not Rachel, who became the mother of Judah, who was to be the heir through whom the Messiah would come (cf. 49:8-12). Also it was Levi, a son of Leah, who provided the priestly line in later years. It seems noteworthy that both Leah and her handmaid had at least twice the number of children as compared to Rachel and her maid (cf. 29:31-30:24; 46:15,18,22,25). The firstborn was always to have a double portion; and so it would seem Leah did, so far as children are concerned.

One final factor remains which evidences the superiority of Leah to Rachel. Rachel dies at an early age, yet she was the younger sister. When she died, she was buried on the way to Bethlehem (35:19). Yet when Leah died later, she was buried with Jacob in the cave at Machpelah (49:31). Leah was not a blight to Jacob but a blessing.

Guidance

How different was the process by which Isaac obtained Rebekah as a wife from that means through which Jacob acquired Rachel. Isaac was subject to his father, and it was through the wisdom of his father and his servant, through the financial means of Abraham, and through prayer that she was obtained. Jacob went off on his own with none of his father’s resources. He chose the woman with the greatest beauty and bargained with Laban for her.

To me there is no doubt but what Jacob was guided more by his hormones than any other factor. He did not pray about this matter, so far as we are told. He did not give any consideration to matters of character. He did not seek counsel. In fact, he sought to overturn the customs of the day and the preferences of Laban.

We live in a very romantically-oriented day. We find ourselves cheering for Rachel and booing Leah. God seems to have been on the other side. What is romantic is not always right—often it is wrong. Romanticism caused Jacob to use the well when and how he saw fit, regardless of the rules set by the owner. Romanticism led Jacob to chose Rachel, not Leah. Romanticism so controlled Jacob that under its spell he spent an entire night with the wrong woman. We must beware of those decisions which are determined by romantic impressions or feelings.

Beauty

Few things are as important to women today as beauty. Perhaps nothing is more important to men today than beauty. Rachel was a wonderfully-endowed woman. There is nothing wrong with that. Sarah was beautiful, and so was Rebekah. But outward beauty must always be considered a secondary consideration. Jacob looked at Rachel’s exterior and investigated no further into her character. The writer, King Lemuel, was not in error when he gave this counsel:

Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, But a woman who fears the LORD, she shall be praised (Proverbs 31:30).

This same theme is prominent in the New Testament (cf. I Timothy 2:9-10; I Peter 3:1-6).

Men and boys, this is a word for us. We all want to be seen with the beautiful girls. We all have dreamed of dating them. Some have made great sacrifices to marry a showpiece. Let us look first for character, and if we find it, let us look no further. If we find character with charm and beauty, let us consider ourselves fortunate.

It was not outward beauty which made that first night such a beautiful thing between Jacob and Rachel—it was Jacob’s love for her, and (I am convinced) her love for him. It is love, not beauty, which makes for heaven in the bedroom. Let us not forget it.

Ladies, I realize that our society has placed a premium on glamour and beauty. I understand that much of your sense of self-worth is based upon your outward attractiveness and “sex appeal.” However, that is wrong. Our ultimate worth is that estimation which comes from God. God was not impressed with Rachel’s good looks. After all, He gave that to her in the first place. God looked upon the heart and blessed Leah. Her worth, while never fully realized by her husband, was great in the eyes of God. May all of us learn to be content with ourselves as God made us, and may we find our real worth in the realm of the spirit.

But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance, or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as men sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart” (I Samuel 16:7).

For who regards you as superior? And what do you have that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it? (I Corinthians 4:7)

236 Literally, the text here reads, “Then Jacob lifted up his feet . . .”

237 W. H. Griffith Thomas, Genesis: A Devotional Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), p. 270; C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), Vol. I, p. 285.

238 In the New International Version the translators attempt to correct this seeming lack of etiquette by translating verse 13, “He had told Rachel that he was a relative . . .” Perhaps so, but not necessarily. Surely the text does not demand such a rendering.

239 Leupold strains a bit to suggest that Laban’s expressions of affections were overdone: “Without a doubt, the man was glad to meet a nephew and ‘embraced him’ in all sincerity and ‘kissed him repeatedly’ with true affection. Yet the Piel stem yenashseq does not mean just ‘give a kiss’ as does the kai wayyishshoq (v. 11). Perhaps the overplus of affection displayed carries with it a trace of insincerity, for the truest affection does not make a display of itself.” H. C. Leupold, Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942), II, p. 790.

240 At this point Laban was not reported to have any sons. He may very well have hoped to adopt Jacob as a son, making him his heir, and also providing security for himself in his old age. Such arrangements were not unusual in that time. This we shall describe more fully in a later lesson.

241 Leupold, Genesis, II, p. 793.

242 Thus Stigers states: “The comparison is with the less beautiful as the degree of contrast, not with the one who is sickly. The word rak is usually used to connote delicateness in upbringing (Deut. 28:50) and of women (28:56), not of physical defects of a pathological sort.” Harold G. Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 230.

243 Francis Brown; S. R. Driver; and Charles Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966), p. 744.

Français

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_30_32k.mp3

Biblical Topics:

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

31. The Battle of the Brides (Genesis 29:31-30:24)

(A Study of Love, Sex, Marriage, and Children)

Introduction

One of my seminary professors, Dr. Bruce Waltke, used to compare Isaac with Jacob by likening Isaac to a slow leak, while Jacob was a blow-out. That’s not bad, and neither is it far from the truth. The story of Jacob’s marriage and family life leaves a great deal to be desired. In fact, our passage reads much like a modern-day soap opera. The story told is one of competition between two women and their maids, which results in Jacob being shuttled from bedroom to bedroom, tent to tent. Modern-day soap operas deal with a very similar kind of plot. However, God’s “soap” is not intended to encourage us to think sinful thoughts or to commit illicit acts but rather to “clean up our own acts” and to live righteously before Him.

Let us remember that Jacob is, at this point in time, living outside the land of promise. While God has promised His presence, protection, and provision, He is also at work in Jacob’s life to purge out many of the sinful patterns that have characterized him in the past. Consequently, while God is with Jacob, all does not go well with him in these days. Many of the consequences of his previous sins catch up with him. His choice of Rachel on primarily physical grounds and his insistence that he have her, even after he has married Leah, leads to a most distressing home and family life.

As we approach this passage, let us be aware of the fact that Moses has not arranged the events chronologically but topically. With only a little simple mathematics we can quickly discern that too many children are born in these verses to have been born one after the other. There must be some overlap in the births.²⁴⁴ By arranging the births as he has, Moses enables us to feel more intensely the division and competition between Leah and Rachel. We read these verses like someone watching a tennis match, we look first at the one contestant, then at the other, and so on. That is just the way this account is written so that we might be able to identify with these two women, both of whom desperately want to be assured of Jacob’s love and affection.

Leah Longs for Love:
(29:31-35)

In her early years of child-rearing we find Leah at the high point of her spiritual life.²⁴⁵ God’s loving intervention in her life is evident to her, and she gratefully acknowledges it:

Now the LORD saw that Leah was unloved, and He opened her womb, but Rachel was barren. And Leah conceived and bore a son and named him Reuben, for she said, “Because the LORD has seen my affliction; surely now my husband will love me” (Genesis 29:31-32).

What a pathetic predicament Leah is in. She is married to a man who never wanted her for a wife and who refuses to give her the love she desperately needs. God lovingly reached out to Leah by giving her a much-desired son, Reuben. Reuben means something like “see, a son” (cf. margin, NASV). It was a great joy for Leah to be able to provide Jacob with a man child, who would become his heir. This child kindled Leah’s hope of being loved by Jacob, whose love for Rachel was so strong that he hardly acknowledged Leah’s existence. The barrenness of Rachel at least drove Jacob to the tent of Leah to provide himself with sons who would prosper him.

Leah’s hopes for a small portion of Jacob’s affection were not realized, as is seen by her response to her second son’s birth:

Then she conceived again and bore a son and said, “Because the LORD has heard that I am unloved, He has therefore given me this son also.” So she named him Simeon (Genesis 29:33).

No change in Jacob’s attitudes or actions had been perceived by Leah, and so when the second son was born she acknowledged the child as the tender response of a loving God Who knew the very thoughts of her heart. The name Simeon, “he hears,” gave testimony to Leah’s awareness of the grace of her God.

With the birth of her third son, Leah’s hope for Jacob’s tenderness and affection was once again aroused:

And she conceived again and bore a son and said, “Now this time my husband will become attached to me, because I have borne him three sons.” Therefore he was named Levi (Genesis 29:34).

Two things have changed since the birth of Reuben, the firstborn. First, Leah has now provided Jacob with three sons, not just one. The mere quantity of children she has borne should impress Jacob with her value to him, especially since Rachel had produced none. Second, her hopes have become much more realistic. She no longer aspires to the high level of love which Jacob had for Rachel but merely for the attachment which any man should have for a wife who is so fruitful. If I understand her words correctly, the attachment which Leah desires is not so much that of affection but of obligation. How can Jacob not feel more kindly toward her because of these sons she has given him?

While three sons did little to change Jacob’s heart, the birth of the fourth was the occasion for Leah’s most devout expression of praise and thanksgiving toward the God Who had heard her prayers:

And she conceived again and bore a son and said, “This time I will praise the LORD.” Therefore she named him Judah. Then she stopped bearing (Genesis 29:35).

Previously, Leah had been grateful to God for the children He had given, but uppermost in her thoughts was the effect this might have upon Jacob. She sought his love so desperately. The pinnacle of Leah’s piety was that point at which she came to recognize that to be loved and led by God was a far greater thing than to be loved by any man. While Jacob’s affection was still something she greatly desired, she was content with the abundant love of God. In Him she was abundantly blessed. To Him she would give praise. And thus it was that the name Judah, which, in effect, meant “praise the Lord,” was given to her fourth son.

Rachel Fumes at Leah’s Fertility
(30:1-8)

Praising God was easy for Leah with four sons at her side; however, seeing her sister’s blessing only aroused jealousy in Rachel:

Now when Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, she became jealous of her sister; and she said to Jacob, “Give me children, or else I die.” Then Jacob’s anger burned against Rachel, and he said, “Am I in the place of God who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?” (Genesis 30:1-2)

On this occasion neither Rachel nor Jacob responded in what could be called a pious manner. Rachel, desperately jealous of Leah’s fruitfulness, demanded children of Jacob. Rather than recognize her barrenness as coming from the hand of God, she sought to shift the blame to Jacob. It was all his fault, she insisted.

Jacob did not respond well to this kind of demand. Of course, he was right in the logic of what he said. It was God who kept Rachel from bearing children. Jacob was not able to overrule the hand of God. However, Jacob’s attitude is suspect. His hot response seems far removed from true righteous indignation. I think it was much more one of outrage: “Don’t blame me for your barrenness, Rachel, blame God.” Her demand struck hard at Jacob’s virility and male ego, so Jacob struck back just as fiercely. The fact that he employed spiritual language and used God to rebuke her does not mean that his spirit was right in what he did. We often employ pious words to cut people to the quick.

Like Rachel, Rebekah had been barren, but Isaac’s response was quite different from Jacob’s. He prayed on behalf of Rebekah, and on his behalf God gave his wife children (Genesis 25:21). No such prayers are mentioned here, nor are we told that God answered the prayers of Jacob. We are only told that God heard the petitions of the wives (30:17,22). Elkanah gave Hannah special treatment and tenderness because of her inability to bear children (I Samuel 1:5,8), but no such gentleness characterizes Jacob.

While we are told that Jacob had a great love for Rachel (29:18,20,30), it is not very evident at this difficult time in Rachel’s life. Her jealousy implies that she lacks assurance of Jacob’s love. She fears not having children, and because of that she makes a desperate proposal:

And she said, “Here is my maid Bilhah, go in to her that she may bear on my knees, that through her I too may have children.” So she gave him her maid Bilhah as a wife, and Jacob went in to her. And Bilhah conceived and bore a son. Then Rachel said, “God has vindicated me, and has indeed heard my voice and has given me a son.” Therefore she named him Dan (Genesis 30:3-6).

There are definite similarities between this proposal and that of Sarai in Genesis 16. Each intended to adopt the child born from the union of her husband and her maid, but here the similarity stops. Sarai made her proposal at a time when Abram had no children (16:1), while Jacob already had several sons through Leah before Rachel’s proposal. While Sarai’s proposal came more from circumstances which seemed to demand desperate measures, Rachel’s demand stemmed from her own pride and jealousy. She must have children of her own, and she would take any steps necessary to get them.

The results were as Rachel had hoped, and her response to the birth of this boy sounded most spiritual. One would think that Rachel had done a most wonderful and sacrificial thing in giving her maid to Jacob. Her words were intended to give credit to God for all that she and He had accomplished together. The name Dan meant “judged.” She claimed that God had judged the matter of her dispute with her sister Leah and had sided with her as proven by the birth of this child. Nowhere are we told that God opened the womb of Bilhah, however. After all, wasn’t the birth of a child the natural result of such a union? Humanly speaking, God would have had to intervene into the normal course of affairs to have prevented this birth, but Rachel was anxious to have God on her side.

The statement made by Rachel on the occasion of the birth of Bilhah’s second son is more reflective, I believe, of her true spiritual state at this time:

And Rachel’s maid Bilhah conceived again and bore Jacob a second son. So Rachel said, “With mighty wrestlings I have wrestled with my sister and I have indeed prevailed.” And she named him Naphtali (Genesis 30:7-8).

Rachel saw herself in a great struggle, not with God, but with her sister. This she described as a wrestling match²⁴⁶ which she won. Her main interest and concern is that in the birth of this second child she has won out over Leah. How, I am not sure, for how can two adopted sons win out over four of Leah’s sons? Here God is neither mentioned nor praised. Rachel is preoccupied with the contest between herself and Leah, and she claims to have won. At this point in her life Rachel does not strike me as a spiritual woman in humble submission to the will of God.

Leah Learns a Lesson
(30:9-13)

How far Leah falls from her grateful acceptance of God’s blessings in previous verses. Rachel, while undoubtedly wrong in proposing that Jacob sleep with Bilhah, at least can be understood to have been reacting to her barrenness; but Leah already has four sons of her own. There was no need to give her maid Zilpah to Jacob for a wife—other than the fact that this was what Rachel had done. Leah and Rachel are in a head-to-head confrontation. If Rachel can employ her maid in this contest, so can she.

When Leah saw that she had stopped bearing, she took her maid Zilpah and gave her to Jacob as a wife. And Leah’s maid Zilpah bore Jacob a son. Then Leah said, “How fortunate!” So she named him Gad. And Leah’s maid Zilpah bore Jacob a second son. Then Leah said, “Happy am I! For women will call me happy.” So she named him Asher (Genesis 30:9-13).

Leah’s speech betrays her here. Not once is God mentioned. In the fervent heat of this battle between two wives, little thought is given to the ethics of their actions, only to the expected results. She who previously had viewed her children as a gift from a gracious and caring God now sees these sons as merely good fortune—“How lucky I am,” “How fortunate,” and “How happy am I.” Religious devotion has been thrown to the wind. For anyone keeping score, Leah was ahead of Rachel 4 to 2, but that was not enough. Now she has added two more points to the scoreboard. However, in the process of gaining ground on her sister she has forfeited the godliness she once demonstrated. The focus of her thinking has shifted from God’s estimation of her actions to the praise she would be given by other women (verse 13).

The Purchase of a Potion
(30:14-21)

Reuben’s innocent discovery of an ancient “love-producing potion” provided the occasion for another confrontation and contest between Jacob’s two wives:

Now in the days of wheat harvest Reuben went and found mandrakes in the field, and brought them to his mother Leah. Then Rachel said to Leah, “Please give me some of your son’s mandrakes.” But she said to her, “Is it a small matter for you to take my husband? And would you take my son’s mandrakes also?” So Rachel said, “Therefore he may lie with you tonight in return for your son’s mandrakes.” When Jacob came in from the field in the evening, then Leah went out to meet him and said, “You must come in to me, for I have surely hired you with my son’s mandrakes.” So he lay with her that night. And God gave heed to Leah, and she conceived and bore Jacob a fifth son. Then Leah said, “God has given me my wages, because I gave my maid to my husband.” So she named him Issachar (Genesis 30:14-18).

Mandrakes were berries found in that part of the world which were thought to stimulate the desire for “love-making” and also to enhance the chances of conception.²⁴⁷ Leah, I suppose, was more interested in these berries for the former quality, Rachel for the latter. While temporarily not bearing children, Leah’s greatest need was to get Jacob into her tent where nature could take its course. Rachel, on the other hand, had Jacob with her nearly every night, but she seemed unable to become pregnant.

We may tend to be amused at the credulity of these women who supposed that such a love potion would be of any benefit. However, before we become too smug in our sophisticated and enlightened day, let me remind you that millions, perhaps billions, are spent on cosmetics by Americans each year. Every day the tooth paste and the perfume commercials convince us that whiter teeth or cleaner breath or a more “come hither” perfume will do what nothing else can to enhance our love life. So you see, things have not really changed so much over the centuries after all.

Rachel greatly desired to use some of these berries and asked Leah for some of them. Leah’s strong retort reminds us that, in her mind, it was Rachel who had stolen her husband from her. She viewed herself as Jacob’s legitimate wife rather than Rachel, who was merely his romantic preference.

Knowing what it was that Leah wanted from those mandrakes, Rachel proposed a bargain. Leah needed something to get Jacob interested in her, to get him to want to come into her tent. Since Rachel nearly always was the one with whom Jacob spent the night, she could assure Leah that Jacob would sleep with her this night. Thus, whether Leah was appealing or not, she would get what she wanted: Jacob, alone, for the night. In exchange for this one night, Rachel got the mandrakes, which she hoped would enable her to conceive.

What a sad state of affairs Jacob’s marriage had come to. He had so failed as a husband that his wife had to resort to a form of prostitution to purchase his services as her husband. And Rachel was so lacking in faith that she put her trust in mandrakes rather than the God Who made them. Rachel, it would appear, attempted to produce sons like Jacob sought to produce sheep, by the use of magical devices (cf. 30:37-43).

Her night with Jacob did bring about what Leah had hoped for, another son. It was not because of mandrakes but because God had compassion on her that she conceived and bore Jacob a fifth son. It must be in spite of her bargaining with Rachel and not because of it that God blessed Leah.

I believe that Leah wrongly interpreted the meaning of God’s gift of that fifth son. It was, in my mind, a gift of God’s grace in response to her pitiable circumstances that the son was begotten; but Leah chose to interpret this son as evidence of God’s approval and blessing of her giving her maid Zilpah to Jacob (verse 18). In her days, as in ours, true believers are all too quick to credit God with the “successes” of life which are a result of our sins. We seek to sanctify our sins by saying that God was behind it all. My friends, I sincerely believe that God is given too much credit whenever we make Him our partner in sin. Pious words do not necessarily prove pious works.

Finally, Leah is reported to give birth to a sixth son and also a daughter:

And Leah conceived again and bore a sixth son to Jacob. Then Leah said, “God has endowed me with a good gift; now my husband will dwell with me, because I have borne him six sons.” So she named him Zebulun. And afterward she bore a daughter and named her Dinah (Genesis 30:19-21).

Leah does not return to that high level of praise which we witnessed in Genesis 29:35, but she has certainly recovered some grasp of the grace of God as seen in the gift of the sixth son. The fact that this son was a good gift from God suggested a hope still flickering in the heart of Leah that her husband would somehow, someday, come to value her as a person and to regard her as a wife. The translators of the NASV have chosen to render Leah’s words with the idea of Jacob’s dwelling with her. Thus, it would appear that she desires Jacob to spend more time in her tent as compared with the disproportionate time spent with Rachel. Perhaps, now, with six sons coming from her Jacob will regard her more highly.²⁴⁸

The report of Dinah’s birth is intended to introduce her to us in preparation for the tragic events of Genesis 34. Other daughters were born (cf. 46:15), but she is the one who receives the greatest attention.

Rachel is Remembered
(30:22-24)

After all of Rachel’s devices and schemes have been exhausted, yet without any children from her own womb, God grants her the desire of her heart:

Then God remembered Rachel, and God gave heed to her and opened her womb. So she conceived and bore a son and said, “God has taken away my reproach.” And she named him Joseph, saying, “May the LORD give me another son” (Genesis 30:22-23).

Prayer does not immediately occur to Rachel as the solution to her stigma of barrenness, but it does seem to be her last resort. I never cease to be amazed at myself and others who leave prayer in the category of “last ditch” actions.

The name “Joseph” is significant in two ways. The Hebrew word ’asap, “has taken away,” has reference to the removal of the barrenness which had so plagued Rachel. A similar sounding word, yosep,²⁴⁹ “may … add,” expresses the further hope of Rachel that she be given the privilege of having yet another son to present to her husband.

It must have been nearly seven years after her marriage to Jacob that Rachel finally bore him a son. There may be significance to this delay. Jacob, due to his deception and deceit, was delayed in the process of getting a wife for himself. Perhaps Rachel was delayed in her attempts to have a child for the same reasons. She, too, was willing to employ questionable methods to obtain a son. Only after all these futile efforts were thwarted and shown to be without result does God open Rachel’s womb, and that may be in answer to her prayers. Rachel is yet to have another child, but he will come at the cost of her own life (35:16ff.).

Conclusion

The implications of this text are so numerous that I can only mention some and suggest that you give them more thought.

The nation Israel, which first read this book from the pen of Moses, learned the wisdom of the Law, which forbade a man to marry a woman and her sister (Leviticus 18:18). Furthermore, this account of the origin of the twelve tribes of Israel must have proved to be most humbling to the nation, for it was hardly a story which inspired national pride. Perhaps at the time of the exodus and during the days of the conquest of the land the people began to think too highly of themselves (cf. Deuteronomy 6:10ff.). They might falsely have concluded that God had blessed them because of their greatness and noble “roots.” This story would serve to remind them that their “roots” were no basis for pride whatsoever. They must never trust in their heritage, as the Jews of Jesus’ day did (cf. John 8:33,39), but in the God of their heritage. This is why God instructed them to recite their origins at the presentation of the first-fruits:

And you shall answer and say before the LORD your God, “My father was a wandering Aramean, and he went down to Egypt and sojourned there, few in number; but there he became a great, mighty and populous nation” (Deuteronomy 26:5).

We may be inclined to read this account of the struggles between Leah and Rachel and think of it as the “long ago” and the “far away” and thus of little application to us. Such could not be farther from the truth. There are differences between the culture of that day and our own, but, as one of my friends observed, the only difference between the practice of Jacob in his day and that in our own is that he lived with his four wives simultaneously, while we live with ours consecutively. We do with divorce what Jacob did with polygamy.

A distinct cultural turnover in values has occurred since that day as well. Women of that era tended to determine their value on the basis of how many children they could produce for their husbands. This seems to underlie the words of Leah: “Happy am I! For women will call me happy …” (Genesis 30:13).

Nowadays, women consider children a burden rather than a blessing. Children are considered a hindrance to fulfillment rather than its means. Consequently, birth control devices are thought to be the key to freedom, and abortion is a necessity for a woman’s happiness.

I would like to suggest that life’s meaning should not be equated with either. Rachel and Leah were both in error by making a good gift from God (children) the ultimate touchstone of fulfillment and happiness. Leah could tell you that this did not prove out. So, today, a career will not bring a woman (or a man) fulfillment either. Leah was far closer to the truth at the time of Judah’s birth, for then she looked to God for her worth, meaning, and approval rather than to any man, including her husband. The worship of God is man’s highest and most noble end. Neither children nor careers will replace it. The biblical position seems to be that mothers who raise their children to be faithful worshippers of God have fulfilled their calling in life (cf. I Timothy 2:15).

Now I wish to press on to several lessons from this text pertaining to love, sex, marriage, and children.

(1) Sex, love, marriage, and family can never be fully satisfying unless enjoyed within the confines of the will of God and the Word of God. I see the family life of Jacob as a disaster. I believe that Moses is showing us by inference that while Jacob is outside the land of promise he may belong to God and be assured of His presence, protection, provision, and future promises; but he can never be happy there. Love, sex, marriage, and family are all gifts from a good and loving God, but their enjoyment cannot be complete apart from fellowship with Him.

(2) While love without sex may be frustrating, sex without love is folly. This is a lesson which we learn from Jacob. Surely those years with Rachel where sex was not possible or permissible were frustrating (cf. Genesis 29:21), but sex without love is just as bad. Jacob engaged in sex with his wife Leah, but there was no fulfillment in it. In fact, it degenerated to mere prostitution where Leah had to purchase his presence.

I do not think that this kind of bargaining with sex occurred only in the distant past. In our present day sex is often a commodity which is bargained for various considerations. That is mere prostitution. Sex without love is tragedy.

I feel that I must digress for a moment here on the relationship between sex and love, for this is not at all understood, even by Bible-believing Christians. I have read somewhere that “whoever” created men and women and sex must have been a very poor engineer. Men respond very quickly to physical stimuli; women do not. Men reach the peak of their sexual desire earlier in life; women, later. Secular thinking would suppose that this is poor design and that man and woman should precisely correspond in these and other areas. I disagree. These differences are by design. God made man and woman distinctly different so that the ultimate in physical pleasure can only be obtained by a deliberate and conscious love which makes sacrifices of itself for the pleasure of the other. Without sacrifice, love-making deteriorates into mere self-seeking gratification at the expense of the other partner. Love and sex must go together.

(3) Neither sex nor children can create love. Leah would be quick to tell us that she learned no amount of sex could ever earn the love of her husband. Even after six boys, she was still unloved. Love cannot be manufactured through sex.

This is a truth that I desperately desire my girls to learn. I see so many instances of girls who long to be loved giving their bodies in the vain search for love. Sex will produce children, but it will never produce love. I fear that many prostitutes were driven to their profession by the feeling that they were unloved. All they had to give, they supposed, was their body.

I have seen many marriages where the couple had very serious marital problems, and they decided to have children in order to hold the marriage together. This does not work either, for producing children does not produce love. Children are not creators of love but its consumer.

(4) He, or she, who places sex on an extremely high level of priority becomes its slave. I may be wrong, but Jacob’s love for Rachel seems to be largely based upon her physical attractiveness. Jacob appears to have been guided more by his hormones than anything else.

Our society informs men and boys that their masculinity is largely indicated by the number of conquests they can make among women. The more they make, the more of a man they are. Jacob did rather well by these standards. He circulated among his four wives frequently enough to produce a growing family, but look at what happened to him in the process. He was not the master of his harem, but he was mastered by his harem. He was pushed from bed to bed by his wives. He was purchased for the night. The passivity of Jacob in these verses is an indictment of his lack of leadership. He was a slave of sex and marriage, not its sovereign.

(5) Marriage cannot run for long on the fuel of romantic love. I believe that the love of Jacob for Rachel was primarily romantic. Romantic love is not necessarily wrong, for most couples who come to me for counseling and marriage have this same kind of love. I would be very uneasy if they did not. But in our premarriage counseling program we begin to prepare the couple for the stage of “disillusionment,” or the time that is commonly called “when the honeymoon is over.” In the humdrum and pressures of married life, romantic love is not sufficient to carry the relationship along for long. The woman whom we used to see after she had spent hours of preparation for being with us and who looked “fit to kill” is now the woman who has been up all night with a sick child. She comes to the table in a bathrobe and curlers and looks like she has been killed. Romance can quickly come and go.

Jacob does not seem to have worked at deepening and broadening his love. Instead it would appear that his love was largely on the romantic plane. No wonder Rachel should look with jealous eyes at Leah. No wonder she seemed so threatened and desperate. She felt unloved, just as Leah did. Love needs to be meticulously maintained and vigorously strengthened. Jacob must have failed here. May God enable us not to fail in our love, sex, and marriage as Jacob did.

244 “. . . it becomes apparent that in the history of the births, the intention to arrange them according to the mothers prevails over the chronological order, so that it by no means follows, that because the passage, ‘when Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children,’ occurs after Leah is said to have had four sons, therefore it was not till after the birth of Leah’s fourth child that Rachel became aware of her own barrenness. There is nothing on the part of the grammar to prevent our arranging the course of events thus.” C. F. Keil, and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), I. p. 291.

245 “It is impossible also to avoid noticing what seems to be a declension in Leah’s spiritual life from the time of the birth of her fifth son (xxx. 17-21). In connection with the first four the Lord’s hand was very definitely perceived, but now there is no longer any reference to the Covenant Name Jehovah, and the expressions indicate what is almost only purely personal and even selfish as two sons and a daughter are born to her.” W. H. Griffith Thomas, Genesis: A Devotional Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946), p. 277.

246 The “mighty wrestlings” of Rachel in verse 8 are literally the “wrestlings of God” (margin, NASV). It is significant, however, to note that the word used for Jacob’s wrestling with the angel in 32:24 is not the same as that found here.

247 “. . . the yellow berries of the mandrake about of the size of a nutmeg. The Hebrew knows them as duda’im, which according to its root signifies ‘love apples.’ The ancients and perhaps, the early Hebrews, too, regarded this fruit as an aphrodisiac and as promoting fertility.” H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942), II, p. 811.

248 Some have suggested that the rendering “dwell,” such as that of the NASV, might better be translated “marriage gift”:

“Two Hebrew roots, z-b-d and z-b-l are played upon in the two halves of this verse, and it now appears that they are linked by meaning as well as sound, in the light of the Akkadian zubullu, ‘bridegroom’s gift.’” Derek Kidner, Genesis (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), p. 162.

“The translation of ‘marriage gift’ is taken because z-b-l has this meaning in Akkadian, and Padan-Aram being in the area of influence, is to be preferred to the meaning of ‘dwell’ from Ugaritic texts. What greater mark of the husband’s affection is there than to be presented with a gift from him!” Harold Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 234.

249 Cf. Derek Kidner, Genesis, p. 162.

Français

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_31_32k.mp3

Biblical Topics:

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

32. Jacob Gets Laban’s Goat (Genesis 30:25-31:16)

Introduction

A good many years ago while I was a student in college, I did something which surprised my friends, and years later, continues to surprise me. My two roommates and I lived in the upper stories of an old house close to the college campus. Living on the lower level were an older man and his wife, serving somewhat as house parents. One day the older gentleman came upstairs and asked two of us to help him load a piece of furniture into a rented trailer. All told, it must have taken five minutes for us to carry that item from the third floor to the trailer.

When we had finished, he expressed his sincere thanks and held out a crisp new ten dollar bill. Of course he never dreamed that we would accept it. Naturally, none of my roommates did. I took the money as if it were manna from heaven, expressing my sincere thanks to this man, who stood with his mouth gaping. It never occurred to me that this money was anything but God’s provision for a hungry student.

I can only imagine what must have taken place when that poor man attempted to explain to his wife how he managed to give away that ten dollar bill. The lesson which I suspect his wife brought home to him was probably this: Don’t ever try to out-con a con. Those most susceptible to being conned out of their money are those who have at least a fair portion of the con artist in themselves.

The events of our portion of Scripture seem to depict two cons, each trying to out-con the other. In the grace and providence of God it will be Jacob who comes out the winner, but for reasons completely different from those which he expected. Many of us, like Jacob, have a tendency to give God the credit for prospering our sinful efforts to get ahead. It was in spite of Jacob’s conniving that he left Laban as a wealthy man. It was neither his spirituality nor his shrewdness which got him ahead in life.

Laban’s New Deal
(30:25-36)

Now it came about when Rachel had borne Joseph, that Jacob said to Laban, “Send me away, that I may go to my own place and to my own country. Give me my wives and my children for whom I have served you, and let me depart; for you yourself know my service which I have rendered you.” But Laban said to him, “If now it pleases you, stay with me; I have divined that the LORD has blessed me on your account.” And he continued, “Name me your wages, and I will give it.” But he said to him, “You yourself know how I have served you and how your cattle have fared with me. For you had little before I came, and it has increased to a multitude; and the LORD has blessed you wherever I turned. But now, when shall I provide for my own household also?” So he said, “What shall I give you?” And Jacob said, “You shall not give me anything. If you will do this one thing for me, I will again pasture and keep your flock: Let me pass through your entire flock today, removing from there every speckled and spotted sheep, and every black one among the lambs, and the spotted and speckled among the goats; and such shall be my wages. So my honesty will answer for me later, when you come concerning my wages. Every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats and black among the lambs, if found with me, will be considered stolen.” And Laban said, “Good, let it be according to your word.” So he removed on that day the striped and spotted male goats and all the speckled and spotted female goats, every one with white in it, and all the black ones among the sheep, and gave them into the care of his sons. And he put a distance of three days’ journey between himself and Jacob, and Jacob fed the rest of Laban’s flocks (Genesis 30:25-36).

The fourteen years of service for Leah and Rachel must have been fulfilled shortly after the birth of Joseph. Just as Jacob reminded Laban that it was time to take his wife (29:21), so he must seek his release so that he might return to his homeland and family. Several factors would have contributed to Jacob’s desire to leave. First, his feelings toward Laban might not have been very positive at this point. He had been deceived, and his return had already been delayed seven years longer than he had expected. There certainly would have been a desire to return to his family. While we do not know if Rebekah was still alive, at least Isaac was. And, finally, God had revealed to him that he would someday return to the promised land where he would be blessed (28:10-22).

Having fulfilled his obligation to Laban, Jacob was free to go, but Laban was reluctant to see this happen. He had come to realize²⁵⁰ that his prosperity was the result of Jacob’s presence (verse 27). If Jacob were to stay, Laban reasoned, it would be on the basis of the profit motive. All of Jacob’s labor over those fourteen years had been in lieu of a dowry. He had nothing to show for his labor except for his wives and family. It was now time to re-negotiate Jacob’s contract, and Laban asked him to name his terms.

Jacob was in no hurry to do this. He first strengthened his position by underscoring in Laban’s mind the value he would be to him, just as it had been evident in the past (verses 29-30). Jacob now had a family to provide for, and thus his wages must be adequate to meet their needs. Jacob must think of the future. Laban’s offer, he suggests, will have to be a good one.

Now that Laban is prepared to accept a hard bargain, Jacob names his terms. And frankly, Laban must have breathed a sigh of relief, for the request was one that was easy to accept. Normally goats in that land were black or dark brown, seldom white or spotted with white. On the other hand, the sheep were nearly always white, infrequently black or spotted.²⁵¹ Jacob offered to continue working as a tender of the flocks if he were but to receive the rarer of the offspring.

Jacob would examine the flocks that day, removing all the speckled and spotted animals, and these would be set aside as Laban’s property. These animals would be taken three days’ distance and kept by Laban’s sons. Only those newly born spotted or striped would become Jacob’s property. At some later time the herd would be examined, and the spotted or striped animals would go to Jacob, while the rest would be Laban’s. Removing the spotted and striped which were in the flock benefited Laban in two ways. First, it left these animals to him, not Jacob. Also, it lessened the chances of other spotted or striped animals being conceived, since these would not be mating with the flock.

It was too good to be true, Laban must have thought. How could he possibly lose? However, it was an open-ended agreement, which encouraged Jacob to attempt to manipulate the outcome and also left God free to overrule the normal course of nature in order to bless Jacob. The agreement was solidified, and the flocks were divided, with Jacob tending the unspotted, unspeckled, and unstriped animals of Laban.

Jacob’s Wheeling and Dealing
(30:37-43)

Jacob and Laban must both have departed while chuckling to themselves. Both thought the agreement was one that they could manipulate to their own advantage and at the expense of the other. Rather than conscientiously tending the flocks of Laban while looking to God for the increase, Jacob decided that this was something he could handle best by resorting to his schemes and devices. He employed three techniques which appeared to result in great success:

Then Jacob took fresh rods of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white stripes in them, exposing the white which was in the rods. And he set the rods which he had peeled in front of the flocks in the gutters, even in the watering troughs, where the flocks came to drink; and they mated when they came to drink. So the flocks mated by the rods, and the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted. And Jacob separated the lambs, and made the flocks face toward the striped and all the black in the flock of Laban; and he put his own herds apart, and did not put them with Laban’s flock. Moreover, it came about whenever the stronger of the flock were mating, that Jacob would place the rods in the sight of the flock in the gutters, so that they might mate by the rods, but when the flock was feeble, he did not put them in; so the feebler were Laban’s and the stronger Jacob’s. So the man became exceedingly prosperous, and had large flocks and female and male servants and camels and donkeys (Genesis 30:37-43).

The first method Jacob used (verses 37-39) was peeled poles, which were supposed to have some kind of prenatal influence on the flocks. Jacob supposed that if the flocks had a visual impression of stripes while they were mating and conceiving, the offspring would assume this same form. So all about the trenches, which served as watering troughs, Jacob placed these peeled poles; and every appearance would incline him to believe that his scheme was working, for the resulting offspring were striped, speckled, or spotted (verse 39).

The second phase of Jacob’s plan to predispose the outcome of his labors was to segregate the flocks. The striped, speckled, and spotted offspring (which belonged to Jacob) were put off by themselves. The rest of the flock was faced toward those animals which were either striped or all black (verse 40). While the peeled poles were artificial, the striped animals were the “real McCoy.” Surely by seeing these animals, the rest of the flock would get the idea.

The third phase was a stroke of genius (verses 41-42). It was a kind of selective breeding. We are told that lambing took place twice during the year, once in the fall and once in the spring.²⁵² Those born in the fall were thought to be hardier, since they must endure the harsh winter. Jacob placed his peeled poles only in front of the superior animals and not before the weaker. In Jacob’s mind the result was that the strong animals went to him, while the weak went to Laban (verse 42).

From everything that has been said, we would naturally conclude that the great prosperity of Jacob (verse 43) was due to his shrewd techniques for manipulating the outcome of the mating of the flocks. So it would seem. So it seemed to Jacob. There is only one problem: it didn’t work because it couldn’t work. From a spiritual perspective, it did not work because God does not bless carnal effort. From a physical point of view all of Jacob’s schemes were of no avail because they operated on one assumption, and that assumption was scientifically erroneous. Each of the three techniques Jacob employed was predicated on the belief that visual impressions at the time of conception affected the outcome at birth. In the first and third techniques it was the peeled poles which were thought to produce striped offspring. No one believes that this is true today, and no farmer uses this technique to upgrade his cattle. The second device of Jacob was based on the same premise, but it employed the black and striped of the flock to create the visual impressions.

Only later will we be told the real reason for Jacob’s prosperity. But mark this well—Jacob did not prosper because he pulled one over on Laban. Jacob’s success was not the product of his schemes.

Laban’s Hard Feelings
(31:1-16)

Just as Jacob’s deception of his father had adverse side effects (27:30ff.), so Jacob’s newly obtained prosperity produced its problems:

Now Jacob heard the words of Laban’s sons, saying, “Jacob has taken away all that was our father’s and from what belonged to our father he has made all this wealth.” And Jacob saw the attitude of Laban, and behold, it was not friendly toward his as formerly (Genesis 31:1-2).

Two significant changes have occurred since Jacob first arrived at Paddan-aram, and the intersection of these precipitated a family crisis. First, Jacob, who arrived penniless (cf. 32:10), had now become prosperous, and this at the expense of Laban. Secondly, when Jacob first arrived there was no mention of Laban having any sons, but now he has sons of his own.

In addition to these hard facts we must consider one more factor which we have learned from archaeology. A man who did not have sons of his own could adopt a near relative, who would then become his son. At times this “son” would be given a daughter in marriage by his new “father.” If the father later had sons of his own, the inheritance would have to be divided among these heirs in some fashion. The son who had the rights of the firstborn and, therefore, headship over the family, would in that culture, be given the household gods, which would signify his headship.²⁵³

From these facts we can read somewhat between the lines of the story and surmise with some degree of confidence the cause of the change in attitude toward Jacob and his family. Initially Laban would have looked on Jacob as his son, his heir; but when sons of his own came, this was no longer needed. In fact, Jacob was now a competitor for the family inheritance. When Jacob prospered at Laban’s expense, it is easy to understand why Laban’s sons looked on him with disfavor, for all their inheritance was fleeing before their very eyes. Thus, the change in attitude on the part of Laban and his sons brought about a change of plans for Jacob. Not only did circumstances seem to dictate this change, but God revealed to Jacob that it was time to return to his homeland:

Then the LORD said to Jacob, “Return to the land of your fathers and to your relatives, and I will be with you.” So Jacob sent and called Rachel and Leah to his flock in the field, and said to them, “I see your father’s attitude, that it is not friendly toward me as formerly, but the God of my father has been with me. And you know that I have served your father with all my strength. Yet your father has cheated me and changed my wages ten times; however, God did not allow him to hurt me. If he spoke thus, ‘The speckled shall be your wages, then all the flock brought forth speckled; and if he spoke thus, ‘The striped shall be your wages,’ then all the flock brought forth striped. Thus God has taken away your father’s livestock and given them to me. And it came about at the time when the flock were mating that I lifted up my eyes and saw in a dream, and behold, the male goats which were mating were striped, speckled and mottled. Then the angel of God said to me in the dream, ‘Jacob,’ and I said, ‘Here I am.’ And he said, ‘Lift up, now, your eyes and see that all the male goats which are mating are striped, speckled, and mottled; for I have seen all that Laban has been doing to you. I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar, where you made a vow to Me; now arise, leave this land, and return to the land of your birth.’” And Rachel and Leah answered and said to him, “Do we still have any portion or inheritance in our father’s house? Are we not reckoned by him as foreigners? For he has sold us, and has also entirely consumed our purchase price. Surely all the wealth which God has taken away from our father belongs to us and our children; now then, do whatever God has said to you” (Genesis 31:3-16).

The last recorded revelation that Jacob had received was twenty years previous while he was still in the land of promise (28:10ff.). Now Jacob receives a divine directive which is particularly related to his return to the land. The impression is given that Jacob received no other revelation during those twenty years. Jacob’s actions would seem to confirm this conclusion, for little was said of God and His will until this time.

What circumstances suggested Jacob do, God instructed Jacob to do. He was to return to his homeland and to his relatives. Jacob did not worry about convincing his father-in-law (cf. verses 17ff.), but he did find it necessary to have the support of his wives. They must now choose between their father and their husband. In order to have a private conversation, Jacob called his wives to him in the field.

A Dirty Deal

Jacob’s first line of defense was to the effect that their father had given him a dirty deal (verses 5-9). Things were not as they used to be. For some unknown reason Laban’s attitude had strangely changed toward Jacob. While not favored by Laban, God has been on Jacob’s side. I would assume that the inference is that this could be seen by his prosperity.

In Jacob’s defense he puts himself in a very favorable light. He is the knight in shining armor, while Laban is the real villain. Jacob has worked hard (verse 6), but Laban has been the cheater (verse 7). Continually Laban changed the terms of their agreement (verse 8). The evidence of Jacob’s integrity is that God had vindicated him by giving him the flocks of Laban. That proved his innocence.

A Divine Directive

Besides this, God had spoken to Jacob confirming His blessing and directing him to return to the land of promise (verses 10-13). Jacob then reported the content of the dream he recently had,²⁵⁴ which further confirmed the righteousness of his actions and the rightness of his return to his homeland.

All that Jacob saw in this dream was a divine directive to return home. The vision of the striped, speckled, and mottled goats seemed to justify all that he had done to manipulate the mating and offspring of the flocks. This same God, Who gave him the upper hand over Laban, had also revealed Himself at Bethel (verse 13) and was instructing Jacob to return.

At least Jacob was able to convince his wives that it was right to leave Laban. They recognized that they no longer were in their father’s favor. He favored his sons and considered Jacob and his wives only a liability. Laban sold these daughters to Jacob and then spent the proceeds on himself. There was no love lost between these women and their father. They would not find it hard to leave Laban.

While what Jacob understood was true in part, he did not see nearly enough in this vision. God had not commended him for his attempts to manipulate matters against Laban to his own advantage. In fact, the prosperity which he experienced had nothing to do with his fervent efforts. All of his poles and peeling and segregating were of no profit whatever. A careful look at the words describing the dream will make this clear. Notice how God drew Jacob’s attention to the fact that the males that were mating were striped, speckled, and mottled (verse 10, 12).

Previously we asserted that all of Jacob’s efforts were based upon a faulty premise—that a visual impression during conception would influence the animal born. In the vision which Jacob had from God there were no peeled poles, no segregated flocks, but only male goats mating that were striped, speckled, and mottled. Now what lesson was God getting across to Jacob, or at least to us?

What determined the offspring of the flocks was not the circumstances (visual impressions) at conception but the characteristics of the male that mated with the female goats. Jacob’s attention was drawn to the fact that all the male goats which were mating were striped, speckled, and mottled. To put it another way, only the striped, speckled, and mottled males were mating, none of the rest.

Now this we know to be a very significant factor in determining the characteristics of the offspring. “Like father, like son,” we say. While Jacob operated upon an entirely false premise, God was working on a premise that is scientifically proven. How was it that only the striped, speckled, and mottled males were mating? Simple. God appointed it to be so in order that Laban’s wealth would be passed on to Jacob.

Think of it. All of Jacob’s efforts were of no benefit. All that time peeling poles and separating flocks and striving to outdo Laban was all for naught. What seemed at the moment to be the work of Jacob’s hands and the outcome of his schemes was nothing of the sort. It was the hand of God in spite of his scheming, not because of it.

Conclusion

The parallels between Jacob’s sojourn in Paddan-aram and Israel’s bondage in Egypt must have been evident to the nation as they first read this account from the pen of Moses. Jacob’s sin necessitated this departure just as Joseph’s journey was the result of many sins. Jacob went to Paddan-aram a poor man, but he left with a large family and great wealth. Joseph was sent to Egypt a virtual slave; but when the nation emerged at the exodus, they were many, and they had considerable wealth. Just as Laban was judged of God by his wealth being given to Jacob, so Egypt was judged by the wealth that was taken out at the exodus.

While these similarities are rather striking, there remains yet one further parallel which would be very instructive to the nation Israel. Jacob’s wealth did not come through his scheming but in spite of it. Jacob was not blessed of God because of his godliness but due to God’s grace. So also, the Israelites were to understand that their blessings were a gift from God, apart from the sin-stained works of their own hands. God deals with His people in grace.

So far as I can tell, Jacob never fully grasped the folly of his fervent efforts to outwit his uncle Laban. He never fully perceived the sinfulness of his motives and methods. To him the end justified the means. He believed that the one who prospered was blessed of God. Prosperity, to Jacob, proved piety. It was Moses who, in recording this account, allowed us to see more deeply into the issues involved. We must conclude that success cannot be equated with spirituality.

Religion is as distinct from Christianity as Jacob’s pole-peeling was from God’s sovereign grace in the life of Jacob. Countless men and women are trying to work their way into God’s heaven by their own devices. Some of these would include church membership, baptism, confirmation, communion, church leadership, charity, and so on. Now all of these activities may have great value to the one who is already a Christian, but they are useless to the one who is trying to win God’s approval and blessing by doing them. The appearance of benefit may be there but not the reality of it. People may think we are Christians. They may commend our devotion to duty. But self-effort is mere pole-peeling so far as God is concerned.

The only way to enter God’s heaven is to recognize that we are undeserving of it. We must come to distrust anything we are or do to merit the favor and blessing of God. The work of salvation is God’s sovereign work. It has been accomplished by His Son, Jesus Christ. He bore the penalty for our sins. He provided the righteousness which God requires. Salvation comes when we trust in nothing more and nothing less than the sufficiency of Jesus Christ for our eternal blessings.

I wonder how many times genuine Christians foolishly conclude that the success which we experience is proof of God’s blessing and approval of our carnal and unspiritual methods. Do we, like Jacob, suppose that any method that appears to work must be acceptable to God? As I look about me and as I observe many of the techniques that are commonly accepted by evangelicals today, I must admit that it appears that results are more important to us than righteousness. While we may be successful in convincing ourselves and perhaps others, God knows our hearts, and He will eventually make us stand and give account of our deeds. As someone has rightly pointed out, we are not commanded to be victorious, only obedient. We are not commanded to be fruitful, only to abide (John 15:1-8).

Perhaps we may try to excuse our deceitfulness by insisting that we live in a “crooked and perverse generation” (Philippians 2:15). We have come to believe that the only way to survive in such a society is to out-con the cons. Jacob may well have thus satisfied his conscience, reminding himself of the fact that Laban could not be dealt with on a straightforward basis. But this is not what the apostle Paul taught:

Do all things without grumbling or disputing; that you may prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life, … (Philippians 2:14-16).

Finally, many of us, like Jacob, fail to “adorn the doctrine of God” (Titus 2:10) in our work lives. We enter into an agreement with our employer but then conclude that he is not so interested in our future as we are. We begin to look out for our own interests at the expense of our boss. We begin to build our own little empires just as Jacob set his flock apart from Laban’s. We begin to spend an enormous portion of our time trying to figure out how we can get more of what belongs to the company. Rather than working diligently and leaving our well-being in God’s hands, we take matters into our own hands. While we may, like Jacob, stay within the letter of the law, we get ahead at the expense of another. Such conduct is not to the glory of God. Such does not “seek first the kingdom of God” (Matthew 6:33). May God enable us to trust in Him and in His grace rather than in our schemes and in the work of our hands.

250 It is possible that Laban learned this through the pagan process of divination, as is suggested by the term employed. This is not mandatory, however, and thus scholars are divided as to which possibility is most likely. One way or the other, Laban learned that God’s hand was upon Jacob. It seems hard to believe that Laban should have had to resort to divination to determine this. If it were divination, surely Jacob’s testimony was gravely deficient.

251 C. F. Keil, and F. Delitzsch. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), I, p. 292.

252 Ibid., p. 294.

253 “The adoption tablet of Nashwi son of Arshenni. He adopted Wullu son of Puhishenni. As long as Nashwi lives, Wullu shall give (him) food and clothing. When Nashwi dies, Wullu shall be the heir. Should Nashwi beget a son, (the latter) shall divide equally with Wullu but (only) Nashwi’s son shall take Nashwi’s gods. But if there be no son of Nashwi’s, then Wullu shall take Nashwi’s gods. And (Nashwi) has given his daughter Nahuya as wife to Wullu. And if Wullu takes another wife, he forfeits Nashwi’s land and buildings. Whoever breaks the contract shall pay one mina of silver (and) one mina of gold.”

After citing this translation of tablet G51 from a Nuzu tablet, Vos goes on to suggest this interpretation of what took place in the Jacob-Laban contest:

“The interpretation would then run something like this. Laban adopted Jacob (at least he made him a member of his household and made him heir, sealing the transaction by giving Jacob a daughter to be his wife. As long as Laban lived, Jacob had the responsibility of caring for him. When Laben died Jacob would inherit Laban’s estate in full if Laban failed to have any sons. If Laban had natural sons, each would receive an equal share of the property, and one of them would receive the household gods, which signified headship of the family.” Howard F. Vos, Genesis and Archaeology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1963), p. 99. Cf. also Harold G. Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 231.

254 Some suggest that this dream might have occurred earlier, but that is difficult to accept. Cf. Keil and Delitzsch, I, pp. 295-96.

Français

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_32_32k.mp3

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

33. The Difference Between Legality and Morality (Genesis 31:17-55)

Introduction

I have a friend who has a wise word on most any subject. One day someone asked me for a good definition of ethics. I could not think of one so I called my friend. “I have just been thinking about that subject,” he replied when I asked him. “Ethics is the difference between morality and legality. Ethics is the difference between what I ought to do and what the law demands I must do.” I have never heard a better explanation of ethics, and so I share it with you.

As I do this I realize that Jacob totally lacked any ethical system at this point in his life. For Jacob, legality was equated with morality. That is, anything which was not contrary to the law was no problem for his conscience. The purchase of the birthright from Esau was meticulously legal (cf. Genesis 25:31-33) but unethical. So, too, the deception of Isaac in order to obtain the blessing was legal. In fact, it even brought about what God had promised would happen but in a way that was displeasing to God (Genesis 27). Jacob’s proposal to work seven years for Rachel, the younger daughter, was legal, but it was not really acceptable to Laban (Genesis 29:18-19, 26). Finally, Jacob’s contract with Laban and his manipulation of the flocks in order to prosper at Laban’s expense was hardly ethical, but it was strictly legal—so much so, in fact, that he could later challenge Laban to accuse him of any infractions of their agreement (31:36-42).

It was Jacob’s lack of any ethical framework to guide and govern his conduct which resulted in a very painful parting when it came time to leave Paddan-aram and return to the land of promise. The consequences of questionable ethics are clearly seen in this final encounter between Jacob and his uncle Laban. We shall find, I believe, that things have changed little from the life and times of Jacob, for ethics are few and far between in our day as well. It is my intention to consider the basis for ethical conduct and the consequences of their absence as we study the events in the life of Jacob as he makes his exodus from Paddan-aram.

Jacob’s Escape
(31:17-21)

Then Jacob arose and put his children and his wives upon camels; and he drove away all his livestock and all his property which he had gathered, his acquired livestock which he had gathered in Paddan-aram, to go to the land of Canaan to his father Isaac. When Laban had gone to shear his flock, then Rachel stole the household idols that were her father’s. And Jacob deceived Laban the Syrian, by not telling him that he was fleeing. So he fled with all that he had; and he arose and crossed the Euphrates River, and set his face toward the hill country of Gilead (Genesis 31:17-21).

Circumstances strongly suggested that it was time for Jacob to return to the land of promise (31:1-2), and by divine revelation God commanded Jacob to do just that (31:3). Having received the assurance that his wives were in support of this move (31:14-16), Jacob hastily packed up all of their goods and left for home. It does not appear to be accidental that he departed at a time when Laban was busily occupied in shearing his flock. Leaving without any warning, Jacob reasoned, was the way to depart without any resistance from Laban, who might have refused to release Jacob’s wives or his flocks.

What Jacob did not know was that Rachel had stolen Laban’s gods just before they departed. Many speculations are made concerning Rachel’s motives, but the reason best supported by the text and by archaeology is that Rachel stole the household gods in order to establish a future claim on Laban’s family inheritance. The household gods were a token of rightful claim to the possessions and the headship of the family.²⁵⁵ Rachel must have felt justified in stealing these gods and in expecting to share in the family inheritance. After all, this is what she and Leah had just affirmed to Jacob:

Do we still have any portion or inheritance in our father’s house? Are we not reckoned by him as foreigners? For he has sold us, and has also entirely consumed our purchase price. Surely all the wealth which God has taken away from our father belongs to us and our children; now then, do whatever God has said to you (Genesis 31:14b-16).

In Rachel’s mind getting Laban’s wealth was God’s will. If that were so with the matter of the flocks which Jacob had been tending, why should it not be true of the estate at Laban’s death? I believe that Rachel felt entirely justified in stealing the family gods for this reason. It is interesting, however, that she did not tell Jacob of her theft.

Two wrongs are thus committed in the departure of Jacob and his family from Paddan-aram. First, Jacob has left without telling Laban about it and at a time when it would have been inconvenient for him to prevent it. Second, Rachel had stolen Laban’s family gods, which were the token of the right to claim a portion of Laban’s inheritance and the headship of the family. Jacob was doing the will of God in returning to the land of promise, but he was not doing so in God’s way.

Laban’s Pursuit
(31:22-35)

When it was told Laban on the third day that Jacob had fled, then he took his kinsmen with him, and pursued him a distance of seven days’ journey; and he overtook him in the hill country of Gilead. And God came to Laban the Syrian in a dream of the night, and said to him, “Be careful that you do not speak to Jacob either good or bad.” And Laban caught up with Jacob. Now Jacob had pitched his tent in the hill country, and Laban with his kinsmen camped in the hill country of Gilead. Then Laban said to Jacob, “What have you done by deceiving me and carrying away my daughters like captives of the sword? Why did you flee secretly and deceive me, and did not tell me, so that I might have sent you away with joy and with songs, with timbrel and with lyre; and did not allow me to kiss my sons and my daughters? Now you have done foolishly. It is in my power to do you harm, but the God of your father spoke to me last night, saying, ‘Be careful not to speak either good or bad to Jacob.’ And now you have indeed gone away because you longed greatly for your father’s house; but why did you steal my gods?” (Genesis 31:22-30)

What Jacob could not know was the impact his stealthy retreat would have upon Laban when combined with the theft of his gods. If you were Laban you would have come to the same conclusion. His gods were gone, and so was Jacob, hastily and secretly. Surely this must have been because Jacob had stolen his gods. What other conclusion could Laban have come to? While Laban attempts to throw a smoke screen by playing the part of the offended father and grandfather (verses 26-28), his real interest was in regaining possession of his gods (verses 30).

Catching up with Jacob was no easy matter, for he had gained three days’ lead time. By the time Laban had rushed home, discovered the loss of his gods, and gathered the relatives (who, I would gather, were armed for battle), a fourth day must have been lost. After seven days Laban caught up with Jacob, but his intentions were certainly altered by the divine warning contained in the dream he had the night before the two men met face to face. The message Laban received was a simple one: “Be careful that you do not speak to Jacob either good or bad” (verse 24). From a similar expression in 24:50 we must understand God to be warning Laban not to attempt to change Jacob’s course of action, let alone to bring harm to him in any way.

When Laban confronted Jacob the following day, God’s warning did not prevent him from rebuking him for his hasty departure, which deprived him from any kind of farewell. It was not the departure that Laban protested, for Jacob’s desire to return home was understandable (cf. verse 30). What troubled Laban was the way in which Jacob left. Jacob had “stolen away” (literally “stolen the heart of Laban,” verse 20, also verses 26-27), while at the same time Rachel had stolen his gods.

Laban works very hard at playing the part of the offended father and grandfather whose deep affection for his daughters and grandchildren caused him much agony when he found they had secretly left without any good-bye’s. Most of his protest is voiced on this note, but there seems to be a considerable lack of sincerity here. Had not Rachel and Leah indicated that he showed little concern for them any longer (verses 14-16)? The real bone of contention was the stolen gods: “… but why did you steal my gods?” (verse 30). This was the bottom line. This was the reason for the hot pursuit accompanied by other relatives who were probably prepared to fight. This explains why God warned Laban not to do anything harmful to Jacob. If Jacob got away with his gods, he could someday return and make a claim to his estate. This could not be tolerated.

Jacob’s response was not made from a position of strength. His first words are a rather weak defense of his stealthy escape, while his remaining words are in response to the matter of the stolen gods, of which he had no personal knowledge:

Then Jacob answered and said to Laban, “Because I was afraid, for I said, ‘Lest you would take your daughters from me by force.’ The one with whom you find your gods shall not live; in the presence of our kinsmen point out what is yours among my belongings and take it for yourself.” For Jacob did not know that Rachel had stolen them (Genesis 31:31-32).

Jacob’s conduct was the result of fear just as the deception of his father Isaac (26:7,9) and his grandfather Abraham (12:11-13; 20:11) had been. Jacob did not have sufficient faith that God would deliver him from the hand of his own father-in-law. In his fear he had to question the truthfulness of the words which God had spoken to him at Bethel:

And behold, I am with you, and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land; for I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you (Genesis 28:15).

Jacob had not yet come to the place where he could trust God to accomplish His word without some back-up system which included Jacob’s manipulation or deception. Having gotten the upper hand over Laban in the last six years, Jacob was not certain that Laban would let him go without a fight. Perhaps he would not let his daughters go either.

This was not a discussion that Jacob was eager to prolong, for he had very little reasoning that could justify his recent actions. Feeling certain that he was innocent of the charge of stealing Laban’s gods, Jacob turned the conversation to this issue. Laban was urged to make a diligent search of Jacob’s goods to try and find his gods. Whoever was caught with them would die. Jacob obviously had no idea that his favorite, his beloved Rachel, was the culprit. That Laban was most interested in his gods, not in good-bye’s, is seen by his subsequent actions:

So Laban went into Jacob’s tent, and into Leah’s tent, and into the tent of the two maids, but he did not find them. Then he went out of Leah’s tent and entered Rachel’s tent. Now Rachel had taken the household idols and put them in the camel’s saddle, and she sat on them. And Laban felt through all the tent, but did not find them. And she said to her father, “Let not my lord be angry that I cannot rise before you, for the manner of women is upon me.” So he searched, but did not find the household idols (Genesis 31:33-35)

Obviously Laban did not suspect Rachel either. He first searched Jacob’s tent. Who would be more likely to have stolen his gods than Jacob? Was he not the one who had come to Paddan-aram because of his desire to inherit the headship of Isaac’s family and to have the rights of the first-born? The theft of the family gods would give Jacob preeminence over Laban’s household just as his deception had gained it over Isaac’s household.

Having searched carefully in Jacob’s tent, Laban went on to Leah’s tent and then to the two maids. Only last did he come to the tent of Rachel. She was the least suspect of all, and yet she was the guilty party. She successfully concealed her theft by a clever distraction. She sat on the very saddle which hid the gods of Laban. When he had searched every other part of the tent, she explained that she must remain seated because of her monthly infirmity, common to women. Laban did not wish to press that matter any further, and so Rachel’s theft was not discovered. I do not know when nor if Rachel told Jacob of her theft, but I can well imagine what his response must have been.

Had Rachel’s deed been discovered, a very different sequence of events would have followed. As it was, Jacob’s sheepishness over his secret escape was overshadowed by his righteous indignation. He reveled in his innocence in addition to the assurance he gained from Laban’s report that God had spoken to him in the night, preventing harm to Jacob. In the light of these events Jacob now seemed to have the upper hand; he held the winning cards, and he planned to use them to greatest advantage. The years of friction between these two men now boiled over as Jacob scalded Laban with “holy” anger.

Then Jacob became angry and contended with Laban; and Jacob answered and said to Laban, “What is my transgression? What is my sin, that you have hotly pursued me? Though you have felt through all my goods, what have you found of all your household goods? Set it here before my kinsmen, that they may decide between us two. These twenty years I have been with you, your ewes and your female goats have not miscarried, nor have I eaten the rams of your flocks. That which was torn of beasts I did not bring to you; I bore the loss of it myself. You required it of my hand whether stolen by day or stolen by night. Thus I was: by day the heat consumed me, and the frost by night, and my sleep fled from my eyes. These twenty years I have been in your house; I served you fourteen years for your two daughters, and six years for your flock, and you changed my wages ten times. If the God of my father, the God of Abraham, and the fear of Isaac, had not been for me, surely now you would have sent me away empty-handed. God has seen my affliction and the toil of my hands, so he rendered judgment last night” (Genesis 31:36-42).

Jacob recognized Laban’s “hurt feelings” as a mere facade. The real reason for his hot pursuit was the thought of being wronged by Jacob. Laban concluded that Jacob had finally stepped over the line. Up till this point he had always managed to stay one step within the law. While he had bent the rules mercilessly, he had not yet broken them. With the disappearance of the family gods from his household, Laban thought Jacob had finally gone one step too far in his greed. But now Laban was caught empty-handed. His charges could not be justified. The evidence was lacking. Jacob, in ancient fashion, demanded a writ of habeas corpus. Laban was forced to produce the evidence. He must put up or shut up, and Jacob was the one who delighted to tell him which of the two he must do.

Not only was there no evidence found in his search, but Laban had been consistently wrong in many other areas. These Jacob was eager to elaborate upon. Never had Laban’s herds suffered from Jacob’s neglect, nor had he even eaten at Laban’s expense. The animals that were lost to natural causes Jacob replaced, even though he was not responsible. Laban insisted upon this, and Jacob did so without protest—until now. Jacob worked hard, suffering the hardships of a shepherd’s life, and all this while Laban continued to change his wages repeatedly.

Having gotten his years of frustration off his chest, Jacob used his trump card, triumphantly capping off his defense by asserting that God was on his side (verse 42). Had God not been looking out for him, Laban might have gotten away with his double dealing. All his prosperity, Jacob maintained, was God’s blessing on his life. God had seen his affliction, it was true (cf. verse 12), but Jacob went too far when he added “and the toil of my hands” (verse 42). Nowhere had God ever indicated to Jacob that His blessing was in any way related to Jacob’s works. In fact, God had revealed to Jacob that just the opposite was the case (verses 10-13). The warning which God had issued to Laban on the previous night was proof to Jacob that God was on his side. God had rendered judgment, and Jacob maintained that he had been proven innocent.

The Covenant of Peace
(31:43-55)

I come away from Jacob’s defense with the uneasy feeling that he has grossly overstated his case. God did see all that Laban had done to Jacob. Jacob’s prosperity was from God’s hand, but it had little or nothing to do with Jacob’s piety or productive genius. God had been blessing him on the basis of grace, but Jacob had used God’s intervention as the basis for his self-defense. Jacob maintained that he had prevailed and that God had intervened because he was spiritual, while Laban was carnal. I find myself unconvinced by Jacob’s best efforts. Laban does not appear to be overly impressed either. While he has not been able to prove Jacob’s dishonesty, he still is convinced of it. Thus, he initiates the covenant that is made:

Then Laban answered and said to Jacob, “The daughters are my daughters, and the children are my children, and the flocks are my flocks, and all that you see is mine. But what can I do this day to these my daughters or to their children whom they have borne? So now come, let us make a covenant, you and I, and let it be a witness between you and me.” Then Jacob took a stone and set it up as a pillar. And Jacob said to his kinsmen, “Gather stones.” So they took stones and made a heap, and they ate there by the heap. Now Laban called it Jegar-sahadutha, but Jacob called it Galeed. And Laban said, “This heap is a witness between you and me this day.” Therefore it was named Galeed; and Mizpah, for he said, “May the LORD watch between you and me when we are absent one from the other. If you mistreat my daughters, or if you take wives besides my daughters, although no man is with us, see, God is witness between you and me.” And Laban said to Jacob, “Behold this heap and behold the pillar which I have set between you and me. This heap is a witness, and the pillar is a witness, that I will not pass by this heap to you for harm, and you will not pass by this heap and this pillar to me, for harm. The God of Abraham and the God of Nahor, the God of their father, judge between us.” So Jacob swore by the fear of his father Isaac. Then Jacob offered a sacrifice on the mountain, and called his kinsmen to the meal; and they ate the meal and spent the night on the mountain. And early in the morning Laban arose, and kissed his sons and his daughters and blessed them. Then Laban departed and returned to his place (Genesis 31:43-55).

All that Jacob took with him was really Laban’s, he insisted—his wives, his children, and his herds (verse 43)—but what could he do to resist? If he could not retrieve his household gods, the least Laban can do is to make a covenant with Jacob which would guarantee that he will never make use of those gods to further encroach upon his possessions in the future. Notice that the treaty is initiated by Laban and that its terms are spelled out by him. Since Laban has not succeeded in holding Jacob in check, Laban now calls upon Jacob’s God to do so.

A stone was set up as a pillar (verse 45), and a pile of stones was erected as a monument (verse 46). Also, a covenant meal was shared by Jacob and Laban and the other relatives (verse 54). Laban managed to get Jacob to swear before his God to several particulars. First, Jacob promised never to mistreat Laban’s daughters and never to take any other wives in addition to them (verse 50). Second, each covenanted that they would not pass that point to harm the other (verse 52). Having agreed to these matters, Laban said a last farewell to his daughters and their children. Blessing them, he returned to his home (verse 55). The long and often stormy relationship between Laban and Jacob had come to an end.

Conclusion

Jacob seems to have come away from this encounter with Laban as the unchallenged winner, but did he really? While Jacob may have convinced himself and his wives of his innocence, he has not convinced us, nor has he changed the mind of Laban. Laban was still certain that Jacob was a crook, but being warned by God, he could do little to stop him. The treaty which he initiated was his only hope. And that treaty was no tribute to Jacob’s character.

Now stop and think about it for a moment. Laban had lived in close association with Jacob for twenty years, and he was convinced of his lack of integrity. He believed that Jacob stole his gods. He believed that Jacob had underhandedly gotten possession of his flocks. He felt compelled to get Jacob to swear a holy oath that he would not mistreat his wives or someday return to Laban with hostile intent. Does this sound like a man who was convinced that Jacob was a godly man? Just as the covenants between Abimelech and Abraham (21:22-24), and later Abimelech and Isaac (26:26-31), were evidence of the carnal state of these patriarchs, so this treaty with Laban reveals the character flaws of Jacob. He was a man who could not be trusted. He would, at least, keep the letter of the law, and thus Laban spelled out assurances which he felt were needed. What a poor testimony to the character of Jacob.

And yet Jacob seems to be convinced of his integrity. He is certain that God is on his side because of his uprightness. How could Jacob have been so mistaken? I have come to believe that the answer is to be found in the fact that Jacob was a legalist. Jacob prided himself on being a man who kept the letter of the law. Never, to his knowledge at least, had he ever broken his word. He had made a deal with Laban, and he had always lived up to it. Oh, he had peeled those poles all right, but that was not a breach of their agreement.

Jacob, I believe, had no real system of ethics. He equated morality with legality. Whatever was within the law was morally right so far as he was concerned. Thus, he could stand before Laban with justified righteous indignation and demand that any evidence of wrongdoing on his part be put forth. He could claim with great assurance that God was on his side. How could this not be true when Jacob had always lived within the law?

But here is the heart of the error of legalism, for legalism equates morality with legality. It believes that righteousness and the keeping of the law are one and the same thing. A man may have no system of ethics whatever, but so long as he does not break the law he feels morally pure. He feels confident of the approval and blessing of God.

With this mentality Jacob was hardly different from the Jews of Jesus’ day. They felt that being a descendant of Abraham assured them of God’s favor (cf. John 8:39). They were confident that a meticulous keeping of the law made them acceptable to God. This puts the Sermon on the Mount in an entirely different light for me. Jesus spoke these words to Jews who were legalists. They felt that a mere living within the law was sufficient to merit them a righteousness acceptable to God. Our Lord went on to show them that a much greater righteousness was necessary (cf. Matthew 5:20). A genuine faith was not so much a matter of form as of faith. Those who were genuinely members of the kingdom were those whose hearts were pure before God. Thus our Lord dealt more with motives than with methods. He dealt more with function than mere forms.

The law was only a minimum standard; it was not intended to make men feel righteous but to demonstrate to men how far from God’s holiness they fell. The New Testament does not tell us that the standards set by the Old are no longer valid (Matthew 5:17), for those who walk in the Spirit will fulfill the requirement (singular) of the law (Romans 8:4). Legalism is sinful because men love to set human standards which, if they are kept, produce a man’s righteousness. Christian liberty views the standard for our thoughts and actions to be our Lord Himself, for it is to His image that we are being conformed (Romans 8:29).

Jacob may have felt self-righteous, but Laban was totally unconvinced. He resorted to legalism (that is, a legal covenant) because that was all he could trust Jacob to do—keep a few rules. Many Christians today are no different than Jacob. They (we?), too, are legalists. We think that we are pious and holy because we do not smoke or chew or curse. But ask those who have to work for us or those who have to employ us, and they will do just as Laban did—get it all down in writing. You see, even with all our pious talk the world knows better, for they have to live with us too. While we may keep a certain list of do’s and don’t’s, we may undermine and manipulate; we may deceive and destroy; we may seek our success at the expense of others. True righteousness, I believe, involves much more than keeping a few rules to the letter. It is a matter of the heart. No wonder so many unbelievers (and Christians) are reluctant to do business with Christians. They know that while God may be with us, we do not always act in a godly way.

Ethics, as I have said, is the difference between legality and morality. We live in a day when Christians and non-Christians alike think that whatever is legal is legitimate Christian activity. We, like Jacob, have our own pole-peeling and wheeling and dealing, which we think God is obliged to bless. No wonder the world is trying to legalize homosexuality and abortion and the like. To them, legality is morality. If it isn’t illegal, it is moral, they suppose.

The Bible does draw lines, clear lines at times. There are absolutes, and there are rules. But in addition to these, perhaps I should say above all these, is another standard of conduct which we shall call ethics or convictions. Many Christians seem to have too few of these, and yet this is what sets a true Christian apart in the eyes of the world. How many of us are viewed by the world as Jacob was by Laban? How many of us have convictions that cause us to avoid certain practices, even if they are legal? Christian ethics should be so high that legalistic rules are never necessary, at least for those who are righteous (I Timothy 1:9-10).

The bottom line for Jacob was that of faith. He tried to sneak off without telling Laban because he was afraid (verse 31). He trusted God but not enough to do that which was honorable in the sight of all men. He did not think that God could spare him and his family if he acted honorably before Laban. His God, in the words of J. B. Phillips, was “too small.” Isn’t that the case for most of us? The reason why we are reluctant to live by firm convictions is that we do not trust God to be able to bless us under these added restrictions. Have we forgotten how Elijah had barrels of water poured on his sacrifice so that those who watched could only give God the glory (cf. I Kings 18, especially verses 33-35)? Is this not the reason why we desperately try to dispensationalize the Sermon on the Mount, so that we do not have to try to live by its teachings? A faith that is firm does not fear to live in such a way that only God can be given the glory.

What a lesson this must have been to the ancient Israelites who received the law of God from the author of Genesis. While God gave Israel the law, He did not do so to provide a standard of righteousness which would convince men of their sinfulness, of their need of a sacrifice, and their need of a Savior Who would pay the penalty for their sins and provide the righteousness they could not produce for themselves by the work of their hands.

Jacob’s actions were wrong for another reason, I believe. While Jacob was willing to keep his deception within the law, his actions taught others to try to get ahead by stepping outside the law. This is what happened, I believe, to Rachel. She had learned well from her husband. She stole Laban’s household gods (verse 19), but in the very next verse we are told that “Jacob stole the heart of Laban …” (verse 20, margin, NASV). The same Hebrew word is employed for the acts of Rachel and Jacob. Do you think this is a coincidence? I do not. Jacob stole the heart of Laban but barely within the letter of the law. Rachel stole the gods of Laban, just outside the law. She did not see the fine distinctions of her husband. Our deception, even if within the law, leads others to go beyond us.

Finally, Jacob’s actions here remind me that one may be doing the will of God but in a way that is offensive to the character of God. God had commanded Jacob to leave Paddan-aram and return to the land of promise (verse 3). In this sense Jacob was doing God’s will for his life. But he was not doing the will of God in God’s way. Sometimes we get so caught up in the fact that what we are doing is right that we forget to ask if how we are doing God’s will is right. Our methods must always be consistent with our Master if our actions will be honoring to Him.

255 “. . . Rachel may well have had a partly religious motive (cf. 35:2,4), but the fact that possession of them could strengthen one’s claim to the inheritance (as the Nusi tablets disclose)+ gives the most likely clue to her action.” Derek Kidner, Genesis (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), p. 165. +Kidner here refers to Biblical Archaeologist, 1940, p. 5.

Stigers goes into more detail, saying, “According to the Nuzu tablets, a natural son is to take the gods, the teraphim: ‘If Nashwi has a son of his own, he shall divide the estate equally with Wullu, but the son of Nashwi shall take the gods of Nashwi.’*

“Another text, a new will of Hashwi, indicates that Wullu has died and Wullu’s oldest son is to receive the household gods.** In yet another text a reassignment of shares of the estate is made, but the oldest son alone is given possession of the household gods.***” Harold G. Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 242. (It should be added that Stigers does not agree with my conclusion that Rachel’s primary motivation for stealing Laban’s gods was to secure an inheritance for Jacob after Laban’s death. Cf. Stigers, p. 242.) *Ancient Near Eastern Texts, pp. 219-220, **Anne E. Draffkorn, “Ilani-Elohim,” Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXVI (1957), p. 220. Cf. O. J. Gadd, “Tablets from Kirkuk,” Review d’Assyriologie et d’Archaeologie Orientale, XXII (1926), Text #5; ***L. L. Lachemann, Excavations at Nuzu, “Miscellaneous Texts, Part 2: The Palace and Temple Archives” (HSS XIV: 1950), para. 2, p. 108.

Français

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_33_32k.mp3

Biblical Topics:

Ethics

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

34. How to Win With God and Men (Genesis 32:1-32)

Dr. James Dobson tells an amusing story which illustrates a common tendency. A certain medical student felt that he could simplistically and single-handedly take on a mental patient who had certain delusions by logically setting everything straight in his mind. You see, this patient thought that he was dead. The aspiring doctor believed that all he needed to do was rationally prove to this man that he could not be dead. Sitting down beside this man, the intern asked him if dead people could bleed. The patient said that he was certain they could not. The intern then pricked the finger of the patient and triumphantly asked him what he thought now that blood appeared. “Well, I’ll be!” he responded, “Dead people can bleed after all.”

Preconceived ideas are very difficult to shed, even in the light of undeniable facts. I was rather distressed to realize that I am like the mental patient when I come to Genesis 32. I am unwilling to admit that verse 28 could be true:

And he said, “Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed.”

Having a certain theological predisposition, I could not accept these words at face value. How could God possibly imply, much worse clearly state, that Jacob had contended with Him and won? How can man prevail over God? And how can it be said that Jacob contended with men and won? Had not all of his previous striving been in the power of the flesh? Had it not brought about only negative results? Had God not clearly indicated in the record of these events that such conduct cannot be condoned, nor should it be imitated? Why, then, does verse 28 say that Jacob has contended with God and men and won?

I, like the insane man, had it in my mind that my presupposition was correct, and thus no facts could ever successfully contradict it. Men cannot prevail with God, I reasoned, no matter what Moses wrote in verse 28. But I was wrong. Much of Jacob’s striving was wrong. Indeed, all of his efforts at self-help were wrong until we come to Genesis 32. But just because Jacob’s previous striving was sinful does not mean that all striving is such. There is a striving which God commends and to which He even surrenders, so to speak. It is that kind of striving which I would like us to look for as we come to this chapter in the life of Jacob.

Genesis 32 is the pivotal chapter so far as Jacob’s life is concerned. He is a vastly different man here from the person we have come to know in previous chapters. The preoccupation which obsesses Jacob is the necessity of facing his brother Esau, from whom he has deceptively obtained the birthright and the blessing of his father. While the results were consistent with the revealed will of God, the means employed were not pleasing to Him. The result was a “brother offended” (cf. Proverbs 18:19).

When Jacob had left Canaan for Paddan-aram, his mother had told him that he would only need to be gone for “a few days” (27:44), and then, when Esau’s anger had cooled, she would send for him (27:45). Twenty years had passed and, so far as we are told, he had never heard from his mother. That must have led Jacob to conclude that Esau still harbored a grudge against him. Jacob thus had good reason to fear a confrontation with his brother.

From a divine point of view chapter 32 was the turning point of Jacob’s spiritual life. Jacob had been a bargainer, even with God, up to this time. In Genesis 28 after the vision of the heavenly ladder Jacob made a vow, but it was much more of a bargain with God than a surrender to Him:

Then Jacob made a vow, saying, “If God will be with me and will keep me on this journey that I take, and will give me food to eat and garments to wear, and I return to my father’s house in safety, then the LORD will be my God. And this stone, which I have set up as a pillar, will be God’s house; and of all that Thou dost give me I will surely give a tenth to Thee” (Genesis 28:20-22).

To me, this was a bargain with God. In return for God’s presence, protection, and provision, Jacob would let God be his God. Of all that God gave to him in the form of wealth, Jacob would return ten percent. In effect, Jacob has made God his agent and offered Him the normal fee. What a far cry from what a man’s response to the living God should be!

All of Jacob’s deceitful practices which we have seen over the years of his life are the result of a fundamental misconception. Jacob felt that spiritual blessings were to be secured by carnal methods and means. Jacob rightly believed that God had promised to make him, not Esau, the heir of promise with the rights of the first-born. He valued this blessing while Esau despised it. What he did not yet know was that he did not have to connive and scheme in order to obtain the promised blessings of God. The encounter which Jacob will have with the Angel of Jehovah will correct this error and will instruct Jacob as to how and why spiritual blessings must be obtained through spiritual means.

An Angelic Reception
(32:1-2)

Now as Jacob went on his way, the angels of God met him. And Jacob said when he saw them, “This is God’s camp.” So he named that place Mahanaim (Genesis 32:1-2).

The appearance of the angels in verses 1 and 2 sets the tone for the entire chapter. In his first personal encounter with God at Bethel, angels had played a part in the heavenly vision of Jacob:

And he had a dream, and behold, a ladder was set on the earth with its top reaching to heaven; and behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it (Genesis 28:12).

In that dramatic revelation Jacob came to realize that he was in a holy place, a place where heaven and earth met. In fact, it was a place of access between heaven and earth; it was “the gate of heaven” (28:17).

In chapter 28 it was the presence of God that was stressed. While God promised to be with Jacob, to provide and protect him in the land of Laban, nevertheless God was present in a special way in the land of Canaan. Jacob must someday return. Now as Jacob is returning to the land of Canaan, God sent His angels to meet him in a special way. This was intended, I believe, to underscore the power of God. This is very significant to Jacob at this point in his life.

In chapter 28 Jacob was leaving the land of Canaan. God wanted him to realize the special significance of this land so that he would always look forward to the time of his return. Now, however, Jacob is returning to the land. The fact most prominent in Jacob’s mind is the hostility of his brother Esau. If Laban had been angry and intended to do harm to him, how much more was Esau to be expected to be hostile? What more assuring experience could come to Jacob than to be met by a host of angels, reminding him of God’s infinite power to protect him from Esau’s fury just as He had done in the case of Laban (cf. 31:24). Jacob saw that where he camped there was another camp, normally unseen (cf. II Kings 6:16-17). It was the angelic host of God, who would protect him regardless of what dangers lay ahead.

Jacob concluded that God’s camp was there where the angels met him. What better place for him to make camp than alongside the angelic campsite? Where could a man be any safer? And so the name of the place was called Mahanaim, “two camps.” From such a point of security Jacob would send ahead messengers, who would seek to soften the anger of Esau in preparation for the arrival of Jacob and his household. It would seem that the events of the rest of the chapter take place at this camp.

An Alarming Report
(32:3-12)

Then Jacob sent messengers before him to his brother Esau in the land of Seir, the country of Edom. He also commanded them saying, “Thus you shall say to my lord Esau: ‘Thus says your servant Jacob, “I have sojourned with Laban, and stayed until now; and I have oxen and donkeys and flocks and male and female servants; and I have sent to tell my lord, that I may find favor in your sight.’” And the messengers returned to Jacob, saying, “We came to your brother Esau, and furthermore he is coming to meet you, and four hundred men are with him” (Genesis 32:3-6).

Jacob felt compelled to contact his brother Esau. To some extent he wished to bring about a reconciliation. He wished to inform his brother of his approach and, even more, to assure him of his kind intentions. The substance of his message to Esau was that he had returned a wealthy man. In this case he was not coming back in order to place a claim on his father’s wealth. Jacob sought to assure Esau that his return was a friendly and non-threatening one. All that he sought was Esau’s favor.

Jacob seems to have a keen sensitivity here toward the feelings of his brother. Perhaps he had gained an appreciation of Esau’s feelings by being the victim himself of one more cunning and deceitful than he. Undoubtedly Jacob’s very recent brush with danger was still fresh in his mind. Jacob is on his way to becoming a different kind of person, and this message is the first indication of it.

The messengers’ report of Esau’s response to Jacob’s message was frightening: Esau was on his way to meet Jacob, accompanied by 400 men. Who could have imagined any intent other than one that was hostile? Esau’s men, like Laban’s relatives (31:24), were not just coming along for the ride. Jacob had little reason for optimism, and any of us would have responded similarly to such a report. Verses 7-12 record for us Jacob’s two-fold response to the word he had received that Esau and company were rapidly approaching:

Then Jacob was greatly afraid and distressed; and he divided the people who were with him, and the flocks and the herds and the camels, into two companies; for he said, “If Esau comes to the one company and attacks it, then the company which is left will escape.” And Jacob said, “O God of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, O LORD, who didst say to me, ‘Return to your country and to your relatives, and I will prosper you,’ I am unworthy of all the lovingkindness and of all the faithfulness which Thou hast shown to Thy servant; for with my staff only I crossed this Jordan, and now I have become two companies. Deliver me, I pray, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau; for I fear him, lest he come and attack me, mother with children. For thou didst say, ‘I will surely prosper you, and make your descendants as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude’” (Genesis 32:7-12).

Assuming the very worst, Jacob divided his company into two divisions. His thought was that while one group might be attacked, the other had a chance to escape (verse 8). Since the group was divided into two camps and the word for camp is the same as that of verse 2, it is possible that Jacob somehow concluded that his encounter with the angels was intended to provide him with a pattern for this decision to divide into two companies. While it was an act stemming from fear and not faith, there was nothing particularly wrong with the division in and of itself.

The prayer of Jacob is the first recorded in Genesis (28:20-22 seems to be only a shadow of a prayer to me). It, too, reveals a decided change in his outlook. Some commentators have criticized it, pointing out certain theological omissions or weaknesses. This, to me, is like a boat full of theologians observing the prayer of Peter, “Lord, save me!” (Matthew 14:30), and then criticizing its brevity or the fact that Peter did not say, “In Jesus’ name, Amen.” This was a desperate moment, and Jacob prayed fearing that Esau was to be upon him momentarily.

Needless to say, the prayer was uttered with the tone of urgency. Jacob’s plight was a desperate one. This was a foxhole variety prayer. Beyond this, the prayer evidences a new humility in Jacob. “I am not worthy …” (verse 10) is now Jacob’s confession. The smug self-confidence is gone, and so is the bargaining mentality. Jacob has no way to manipulate God as he has done others. God’s promises are the only basis upon which he can make his petition, and so he concluded his prayer, “For thou didst say …” (verse 12).

An Appeasing Response
(32:13-21)

So he spent the night there. Then he selected from what he had with him a present for his brother Esau: two hundred female goats and twenty male goats, two hundred ewes and twenty rams, thirty milking camels and their colts, forty cows and ten bulls, twenty female donkeys and ten male donkeys. And he delivered them into the hand of his servants, every drove by itself, and said to his servants, “Pass on before me, and put a space between droves.” And he commanded the one in front, saying, “When my brother Esau meets you and asks you saying, ‘To whom do you belong, and where are you going, and to whom do these animals in front of you belong?’ then you shall say, ‘These belong to your servant Jacob; it is a present sent to my lord Esau. And behold, he also is behind us.’” Then he commanded also the second and the third, and all those who followed the droves, saying, “After this manner you shall speak to Esau when you find him; and you shall say, ‘Behold, your servant Jacob also is behind us.’” For he said, “I will appease him with the present that goes before me. Then afterward I will see his face; perhaps he will accept me.” So the present passed on before him, while he himself spent that night in the camp (Genesis 32:13-21).

Vital faith need not be idle faith. Faith without works, James reminds us (James 2:14ff.), is dead. Thus we ought not be too quick to condemn the actions of Jacob described in these verses. There is certainly a clever strategy behind Jacob’s efforts, but there is nothing intrinsically wrong in what he does. Remember that for many years Esau had observed the cunning character of his brother Jacob. The reception of one large gift would not necessarily be convincing enough to Esau that Jacob had changed his ways. Instead, Jacob sends wave upon wave of gifts to Esau, stressing the new nature he has which makes him want to give rather than to receive and to serve rather than to supplant.

Consequently, Jacob divided the gift of livestock into separate droves, each tended by servants who followed their flocks. First there were goats, next sheep, then camels, cows, and finally, donkeys. Usually the females were accompanied by a smaller number of males, which would serve as breeding stock to make the herds of Esau larger and larger as time went on. It was a gift which would make Esau prosperous.

As Esau approached nearer to Jacob he must pass by each drove of livestock. Those who tended these animals were carefully instructed how to answer Esau’s inquiry as to whose livestock these were and where they were heading. Each was to inform Esau that these were Jacob’s livestock, a gift to Esau, and that Jacob would be found further back. The cumulative effect was hoped to appease Esau’s wrath and soften his anger (verse 20). Again, Jacob and his family spent the night in the camp.

An Angelic Wrestler
(32:22-32)

Now he arose that same night and took his two wives and his two maids and his eleven children, and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. And he took them and sent them across the stream. And he sent across whatever he had. Then Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until daybreak. And when he saw that he had not prevailed against him, he touched the socket of his thigh; so the socket of Jacob’s thigh was dislocated while he wrestled with him. Then he said, “Let me go, for the dawn is breaking.” But he said, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” So he said to him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Jacob.” And he said, “Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed.” Then Jacob asked him and said, “Please tell me your name.” But he said, “Why is it that you ask my name?” And he blessed him there. So Jacob named the place Peniel, for he said, “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved.” Now the sun rose upon him just as he crossed over Penuel, and he was limping on his thigh. Therefore, to this day the sons of Israel do not eat the sinew of the hip which is on the socket of the thigh, because he touched the socket of Jacob’s thigh in the sinew of the hip (Genesis 32:22-32).

For some undisclosed reason Jacob was compelled to break camp in the middle of the night. He first saw to it that his wives and maids crossed the Jabbok, along with their children. Then the rest of the goods were transported to the other side as well. It would appear that while Jacob was making his last trip to the original campsite before joining his family on the other side of the Jabbok he was confronted by a “man” who would oppose his crossing over to the other side and who would threaten to keep Jacob from entering the land of Canaan.

As biblical scholars have observed over the centuries, there is much in this episode that is cloaked in mystery. However, we can make several observations with considerable certainty. First, we know that this “man” (verse 24) was an angel:

In the womb he took his brother by the heel, And in his maturity he contended with God. Yes, he wrestled with the angel and prevailed; He wept and sought His favor. He found Him at Bethel, And there He spoke with us (Hosea 12:3-4).

More than just an angel, this person was the Angel of Jehovah, the pre-incarnate Son of God, Who appeared in human flesh. This is certain in the light of Jacob’s words: “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved” (32:30).

The struggle was not a dream or a nightmare. Never has a man awakened from such a “dream” with a limp! And it was a struggle which God Himself initiated: “Then Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until daybreak” (32:24).

Jacob was mistaken if he reasoned that Esau was the barrier to his entrance into Canaan and the blessings of God. In this wrestling match it was not Esau who opposed Jacob, but it was God Himself. We must marvel at Moses’ report that the angel had not prevailed against Jacob, a man now almost 100 years old. How could it be that God did not prevail over Jacob?

It must be pointed out that Moses did not tell us that God could not overcome Jacob, only that he did not. At this point the Angel disabled Jacob by dislocating his hip. This would be devastating to a wrestler. It would be like breaking the arm of a quarterback or the leg of a running back. Jacob was now unable to wage an offensive battle. He was helpless. All he could do now was to cling defensively in desperation. And this he did.

Jacob, at the very point of being incapacitated, seemed to gain the upper hand. The Angel plead with him to be let go, for the dawn was breaking. It looks as though the Angel did not wish to be seen in the daylight. The Angel implied to Jacob that he now had the winning edge (contrary to the reality of the dislocated hip). Jacob was tested by being encouraged to make a request of the Angel which He was in no position to refuse. For Jacob, the bargainer, this was a tempting situation. Unlike his previous actions, Jacob asked only for a blessing (verse 26). Finally, Jacob had come to realize that the only important thing in life is to be blessed of God. In the words of Proverbs, “It is the blessing of the LORD that makes rich, And he adds no sorrow to it” (Proverbs 10:22).

Esau could neither provide nor prevent the blessing of God. It was not Esau that stood in the way of Jacob’s blessing in the land of Canaan. On the one hand, it was God Who opposed him. On the other, it was Jacob himself, who by means of his trickery and treachery, his cunning and deceit attempted to produce spiritual blessings through carnal means. The blessing of God must be obtained from God himself, and this must be done by clinging to Him in helpless dependence, not by trying to manipulate Him. That is the picture which is conveyed by this struggle in the night hours between Jacob and his God. A realization of this fact brought about a dramatic change in the character and conduct of Jacob, and thus his name was changed to reflect this transformation.

The Angel of the Lord asked his name, and he had to reply, “Jacob,” which meant “the supplanter.” This must have been as uncomfortable for Jacob as it was for childless Abraham to refer to himself by his name, which meant “father of a multitude.” No longer should Jacob be known as a supplanter, for now he was a man who prospered because of his faith in the purposes and power of his God, and so the name Israel was given him.

No expression is more puzzling than that of verse 28:

And he said, “Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed.”

How could God possibly make such a statement? Does this not indicate that somehow God was blessing Jacob because of his previous trickery and deception? Is God commending Jacob for the way he overcame men in the past? The key to understanding this statement is to recognize that it is not a historical statement but a prophetic announcement. God did not refer to Jacob’s past acts here but spoke of his future confrontations, particularly the one which he would have with Esau shortly.

Jacob did prevail with God in his wrestling match, although in many ways he did not really overcome God, for he had been immobilized by the dislocation of his hip. His only act was to cling tenaciously to the Angel of Jehovah and, in the words of Hosea, “He wept and sought His favor” (12:4). In this sense, and this alone, God was “overcome” by Jacob. In this same way we who are His children and the heirs of His blessings can prevail with God.

Having prevailed with God, Jacob was assured of victory no matter what opposition men might offer. This certainly and specifically included Esau. In the words of the apostle Paul: “If God is for us, who is against us?” (Romans 8:31).

Prayerfully prevailing with God assures us of prevailing with men. If God is on our side, we cannot be overcome. This is what verse 28 was intended to convey to Jacob. In learning how to prevail with God, Jacob had also found God’s means of prevailing with men.

Conclusion

The lesson which Jacob learned here is one that is vital to every Christian. It is a transforming truth, for it explains the reason why God’s blessings can only be obtained by godly means. It revealed to Jacob the reason why all of his previous “victories” were really disasters, resulting in discord, hatred, and hostility.

Genesis 32 emphatically instructed Jacob that the Christian life is a spiritual warfare. That is why we see so much emphasis upon angels. Angels met him when he entered the land. An Angel opposed him when he attempted to cross the Jabbok. The blessings which God promised Jacob were spiritual blessings, and spiritual blessings cannot be obtained through fleshly means. If Jacob’s life in Canaan were to receive God’s blessings, Jacob must learn to wage spiritual warfare. He must realize that his major obstacle is not his brother, but his God. Once God is with us, victory is certain. Since our God is a sovereign God, no one can resist His will—not Esau, not Pharaoh, not Assyria, Babylon nor Rome.

All of Jacob’s life up until chapter 32 had been characterized by carnal striving to secure divine blessing. Now Jacob has learned the folly and futility of such self-effort. Entrance into a life of blessing will be achieved only on the same basis as Jacob secured the blessing of the Angel of Jehovah, by clinging to God to fulfill His promises and by depending upon Him to provide and protect when we are opposed.

This does not imply that man should therefore be inactive and passive. Jacob was hardly passive in his struggle with the Angel. But our activity should be rightly directed and motivated. We must first be assured that we are seeking that which God has promised. We must begin by striving with God for His blessing. Only then should we engage in activities other than this, and these must be consistent with a genuine faith in God. Just as our goals are to be godly, so must our means.

What a lesson this chapter provided the Israelites. Here is the origin of their name as a nation. Will their blessing as a nation come from any means other than those which Jacob has learned from his struggle with God? I think not. This is what Moses sought to convey to the Israelites as they (like Jacob) sought to enter the land of Canaan and secure God’s blessings. Ultimately it was not the Canaanites, the Hittites, nor the Perizzites who would keep the nation Israel from God’s blessings; it was God Himself Who would oppose them if they failed to hope and trust in Him. And it was God Who would defeat the Canaanites for them if they trusted in him.

Behold, I am going to send an angel before you to guard you along the way, and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. Be on your guard before him and obey his voice; do not be rebellious toward him, for he will not pardon your transgression, since My name is in him. But if you will truly obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. For My angel will go before you and bring you in to the land of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will completely destroy them. You shall not worship their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their deeds; but you shall utterly overthrow them, and break their sacred pillars in pieces. But you shall serve the LORD your God, and He will bless your bread and your water; and I will remove sickness from your midst. There shall be no one miscarrying or barren in your land; I will fulfill the number of your days. I will send My terror ahead of you, and throw into confusion all the people among whom you come, and I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you. And I will send hornets ahead of you, that they may drive out the Hivites, the Canaanites, and Hittites before you (Exodus 23:20-28).

The lesson for us is the same. Our warfare is a spiritual one, and it cannot be won by carnal means:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the full armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming missiles of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints, and pray on my behalf that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in proclaiming it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak (Ephesians 6:12-20).

It is not by accident that the word “struggle” (Greek, pala) is virtually the same as the translators of the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Hebrew Old Testament) employed for Jacob’s “wrestling” (Greek, epalaein) in Genesis 32. Because spiritual victory can only be obtained by spiritual means, Paul outlined the spiritual weapons which all Christians must employ.

There is a very significant illustration of the use of spiritual weapons in the book of II Corinthians:

Now I, Paul, myself urge you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, —I who am meek when face to face with you, but bold toward you when absent! —I ask that when I am present I may not be bold with the confidence with which I propose to be courageous against some, who regard us as if we walked according to the flesh. For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses (II Corinthians 10:1-4).

Paul’s authority was being challenged by some of those in Corinth. What a time for most of us to get our egos caught up in a contest for supremacy. What an opportunity for us to exert our power and influence and to defend our authority. What a time to use every kind of political and strong-arm tactic. But what did Paul do? He employed the meekness and gentleness of Christ (verse 1). He shunned the use of bravado and fleshly authority. This was a spiritual conflict and spiritual methods must be employed.

“Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,” says the Lord of hosts (Zechariah 4:6).

The great tragedy in Christian circles today is that much of what we do is by carnal means. We employ these means because that is what we, by our old nature, are inclined to do. Also, it appears to work; and surely, we think, the ends justify the means. And so when we disagree with one another, we seek to align the key power forces on our side. We do not pray and let God change men’s hearts (cf. Philippians 3:15); we try to politically outmaneuver the opposition. The blessings of God are spiritual, and they cannot, they will not, be obtained through methods which are carnal.

Since God is sovereign, all men must do is to prevail with Him. If He is for us, we have the victory. Neither human nor demonic opposition can thwart the purposes of the sovereign God (Romans 8:31-39), and since God has purposed to bless men as they prevail with Him, we must devote ourselves to this task. But how do we prevail with God? Our text suggests several ingredients. First, we must come to the place of recognizing our own inadequacy and helplessness. We must come to the end of ourselves and recognize the futility of our own carnal devices. Jacob, I believe, came to this realization in Genesis 32. He could not resist Esau, nor could he even defeat the “man” who opposed him. He was helpless because of his dislocated hip. Second, we must trust in that which God has promised to do. Jacob did not prevail with God in some new and uncharted path. He prevailed with God in a matter about which God had repeatedly spoken—the blessings which He would pour out on Jacob as the recipient of the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant. The word of God was the only claim which Jacob had upon God. Finally, Jacob clung tenaciously to God to accomplish what He promised to do, even when it seemed humanly impossible.

That is the way in which men have always prevailed with God— by recognizing their own inadequacy, by trusting in the revealed Word of God and His promises, and by clinging to God alone to do what He has promised (cf. I John 5:14-15).

The first step, my friend, is to trust God for the blessing of salvation. We are unworthy of this gift, and yet God has offered it to all men (cf. Romans 10:13). We deserve only the eternal wrath of God (Romans 6:23). God has promised to save men on the basis of faith in the work of Jesus Christ, Who died for our sins and Whose righteousness will save any who calls upon His name (John 1:12; Acts 4:12, 16:31; II Corinthians 5:21). Have you made this first step? By clinging to God and trusting Him to do what He has promised, you can have the blessing of eternal life. And all subsequent blessings will come in the same way: by self-distrust and faith in God to accomplish what He has promised.

As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him (Colossians 2:6).

Français

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_34_32k.mp3

Biblical Topics:

Spiritual Life

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

35. One Step Forward and Three Backward (Genesis 33:1--34:31)

Introduction

When our church first began to meet, a man stood up in our worship meeting with some very nice things to say about us. He expressed his sincere opinion that ours was the most New Testament church that he had ever experienced. All in all, it was the kind of thing that most of us enjoyed hearing. After he was finished I felt that it was necessary for me to make a few comments. I stood and said that I had two responses as a result of his compliments. First, I hoped that what this man said was true and that we were coming close to what the New Testament church was and should continue to be. Second, I hoped that, if this were true, none of us would ever believe it.

You see, nothing could be more devastating than to be making progress in a particular area and then to be swallowed up by a sense of pride and complacency. We would then tend to rest upon our laurels and fail to press on to greater growth and maturity.

The same principle applies to the matter of security. While we are forever secure in the salvation that Jesus Christ has provided and we have accepted (cf. John 10:27-29), there is a kind of complacency which can be destructive and counter-productive to our spiritual lives. We can wrongly conclude that since we are eternally secure there is no need to press on, that there is no urgency and no imminent danger in our Christian experience. The moment we feel secure, we are in the greatest danger. The moment we become aloof to the intensity of the spiritual warfare in which we are engaged and the enemy who seeks to destroy us, we are beginning to fall into the enemy’s grasp.

That is precisely what Jacob does in these two chapters of Genesis. In the first portion of chapter 33 Jacob fearfully faces his brother, expecting that the worst might happen. But once this danger passes, Jacob becomes forgetful of the divine command and of his own vow to return to Bethel. A false sense of security made Jacob careless in his actions and brought him to a point of very grave danger. This danger was both physical and spiritual. Except for the questionable actions of his sons and the providence of God, Jacob could have been virtually destroyed.

This passage is particularly relevant to 20th century Christians who live in America, for we have been lulled into a false sense of security by our comfortable and easy way of life. We have Social Security and Medicare, welfare and workman’s compensation. We have insurance protection for our homes, our health, our ability to earn a living, and against all kinds of losses. We never wake up in the morning wondering if we will eat or where we will sleep the next night. Christians can feel even more comfortable, for many believe that when things really begin to get bad (e.g., the great tribulation) they will not be around to face it anyway because of the rapture.¹ In the midst of this kind of artificial security, we begin to live carelessly and find ourselves in danger of some serious spiritual defeats. Let us seek to learn from the life of Jacob how we can avoid complacency and over-confidence, which can be hazardous to our spiritual health.

One Step Forward
(33:1-16)

Then Jacob lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, Esau was coming, and four hundred men with him. So he divided the children among Leah and Rachel and the two maids. And he put the maids and their children in front, and Leah and her children next, and Rachel and Joseph last. But he himself passed on ahead of them and bowed down to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother. Then Esau ran to meet him and embraced him, and fell on his neck and kissed him, and they wept. And he lifted his eyes and saw the women and the children, and said, “Who are these with you?” So he said, “The children whom God has graciously given your servant.” Then the maids came near with their children, and they bowed down. And Leah likewise came near with her children, and they bowed down; and afterward Joseph came near with Rachel, and they bowed down. And he said, “What do you mean by all this company which I have met?” And he said, “To find favor in the sight of my lord.” But Esau said, “I have plenty, my brother; let what you have be your own.” And Jacob said, “No, please, if now I have found favor in your sight, then take my present from my hand, for I see your face as one sees the face of God, and you have received me favorably. Please take my gift which has been brought to you, because God has dealt graciously with me, and because I have plenty.” Thus he urged him and he took it. Then Esau said, “Let us take our journey and go, and I will go before you.” But he said to him, “My lord knows that the children are frail and that the flocks and herds which are nursing are a care to me. And if they are driven hard one day, all the flocks will die. Please let my lord pass on before his servant; and I will proceed at my leisure, according to the pace of the cattle that are before me and according to the pace of the children, until I come to my lord at Seir.” And Esau said, “Please let me leave with you some of the people who are with me.” But he said, “What need is there? Let me find favor in the sight of my lord.” So Esau returned that day on his way to Seir. (Genesis 33:1-6)

As Genesis 32 closes, the wrestling match between Jacob and the Angel of Jehovah had just ended, and Jacob was crossing Penuel as the sun began to rise (verse 31). At that very moment, it would seem, Jacob looked up and saw Esau and his 400 men appear on the horizon. Jacob divided his wives and children into groups, beginning with the maids and ending with Rachel and Joseph. Jacob went to the head of the group so that any harm done would be inflicted on him first. It was he whom Esau hated; ultimately it was a confrontation between these two brothers. As Jacob went out to meet his brother, he bowed repeatedly to the ground, a token of his newly found humility.

Now this was a very dramatic moment. Esau perhaps rode rapidly up to Jacob and then leaped from his mount and ran toward his brother. Jacob must have watched this approach with great anxiety, especially fixing his gaze upon the weapons that Esau carried. It was not until the warm and tender embrace, underscored by tears of genuine joy, that Jacob realized, to his great relief, that Esau came as a forgiving friend and brother rather than as a foe.

The usual small talk began with questions about the wives and children. Then the conversation turned to the droves of livestock that met him on his approach. Jacob explained once again that they were a gift, an expression of love. Esau tried politely to refuse the gift as unnecessary and unneeded, but Jacob persisted and prevailed.

The tenth verse is the key to the peaceful meeting of these brothers:

“No please!” said Jacob. “If I have found favor in your eyes, accept this gift from me. For to see your face is like seeing the face of God, now that you have received me favorably” (NIV).

In the previous chapter Jacob had been taught that to prevail with God was to prevail with men as well. Now that Esau had welcomed him with open arms, Jacob saw that looking on the face of his brother was like looking on the face of God. The one was the result of the other. God, not Esau, had been the obstacle to Jacob’s entry into Canaan. Now that he had prevailed with God by means of petition and clinging to Him by faith, Esau was no longer a foe, but a friend.

Esau is a magnificent picture of graciousness and forgiveness. His words of greeting to Jacob are remarkably similar to those of the father of the prodigal son at his return (compare Genesis 33:4 with Luke 15:20).² Having accepted Jacob’s generosity in the gift of the droves of livestock, Esau offered to accompany his brother as he journeyed on to Canaan and, I would suppose, to the home of their father (cf. 31:30). Jacob expressed his appreciation but explained that he could not travel at the same pace as his brother and those with him. The young cattle and children would only serve to slow Esau down unnecessarily. To hurry the children and cattle would only result in needless losses.

Jacob’s reasoning made sense, but Esau seemed to feel it necessary for Jacob and his family and flocks to have an escort. Consequently, he urged Jacob to allow him to have some of his men accompany his party into the land. Jacob indicated that there was really no reason to take such precautions and that all he desired of his brother was his favor. And so Esau went on, assuming that he would see Jacob shortly; but, as we know, this will not happen. It would seem that years would pass until these men met once more. While we wish not to believe it and there may be some plausible explanations for his words,³ one does get the uneasy feeling that Jacob has resorted to his old habit of deception. While he said he was going to meet Esau at Seir (verse 14), he may have had no intention of doing so. Certainly that is the way things worked out, and yet without any good reason. The disastrous results of Jacob’s side trip would indicate that Jacob was wrong in going to Succoth and later to Shechem.

One Step Backward
(33:17)

And Jacob journeyed to Succoth; and built for himself a house, and made booths for his livestock, therefore the place is named Succoth (Genesis 33:17).

It is Derek Kidner who aptly summarizes the significance of Jacob’s journey to Succoth: “Succoth was a backward step, spiritually as well as geographically …”⁴ God had first appeared to Jacob at Bethel, and it was there that Jacob vowed to someday return to build an altar and give a tithe to God (28:20-22). When God instructed Jacob to return to Canaan, He identified Himself as the “God of Bethel” (31:13). Jacob was instructed to return “to the land of your fathers and to your relatives” (31:3). Succoth was in the opposite direction of Seir where Jacob had told Esau he was coming.⁵

While the text does not inform us of Jacob’s reasons for such a move, several could be suggested. First, Jacob may not have been eager to face his father, whom he had deceived and of whom he should seek forgiveness. Also, Jacob may not have been too excited about spending much time in close proximity to Esau, who was obviously well able to protect his own interests. Furthermore, Jacob had made a vow to pay a tithe to God at Bethel (28:22). Perhaps he was not eager to do this now that God had greatly prospered him. Finally, and perhaps most likely, the pasture was vastly superior in the Jordan Valley where Succoth was located, while Bethel was in the mountains.⁶ His cattle would normally fare better in the richer pastures of the Jordan Valley than in the mountains.

More distressing than the direction of Jacob’s travels was the duration of his stay at Succoth. We know that Dinah could not have been older than 6 or 7 when Jacob left Paddan-aram, for she was seemingly born later to Leah (cf. 30:21). But by the time Jacob is at Shechem, she is of marriageable age, which would have been at least 12 or 13. Several years must, therefore, have passed between the meeting of Jacob and Esau and the events of chapter 34.⁷ Some of those must have passed at Succoth. This is further confirmed by the fact that Jacob built a house there rather than to dwell in a tent (verse 17). He was not a sojourner here, but a settler. There is every indication that Jacob intended to “settle down” for some time.

A Second Backward Step
(33:18-20)

Now Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Paddan-aram and camped before the city. And he bought the piece of land where he had pitched his tent, from the hand of the sons of Hamor, Shechem’s father, for one hundred pieces of money. Then he erected there an altar, and called it El-Elohe-Israel (Genesis 33:18-20).

We are not given any reason for Jacob’s departure from Succoth to Shechem. That would probably make interesting reading, but Moses does not seek to satisfy our curiosity. All we know is that Jacob arrived “safely” at the city of Shechem (verse 18). His camping near the city is reminiscent of Lot’s ever closer attachment to the city of Sodom, until he was a citizen. Again, Jacob did not appear to be a man passing through, for he purchased a piece of property from a man whose name he would some day like to forget.

From outward appearance Jacob is a religious man, much like his forefather Abraham. He has built an altar, which he called El-Elohe-Israel. Initially this seems very similar to what Abraham had done in the past, but this thought is short lived. When Abraham built altars, he did so “to the LORD” (12:8), and both Abraham and Isaac “called upon the name of the LORD” in worship (12:8; 13:4; 26:25). With Isaac, the altar was the first thing he built (26:25), while with Jacob it was the last (33:20). All of this, in addition to later developments, strongly suggests that while there was a religious formality, there was no spiritual reality. Jacob promised to build an altar at Bethel (28:22), which he later did (35:13-14), but there does not seem to be any great spiritual exercise here, only ritual. It is extremely difficult to worship God in the place where we are not supposed to be.

A Third Backward Step
(34:1-31)

Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to visit the daughters of the land. And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he took her and lay with her by force. And he was deeply attracted to Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the girl and spoke tenderly to her. So Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying, “Get me this young girl for a wife.” Now Jacob heard that he had defiled Dinah his daughter; but his sons were with his livestock in the field, so Jacob kept silent until they came in. Then Hamor the father of Shechem went out to Jacob to speak with him. Now the sons of Jacob came in from the field when they heard it; and the men were grieved, and they were very angry because he had done a disgraceful thing in Israel by lying with Jacob’s daughter, for such a thing ought not to be done. But Hamor spoke with them, saying, “The soul of my son Shechem longs for your daughter; please give her to him in marriage. And intermarry with us; give your daughters to us, and take our daughters for yourselves. Thus you shall live with us, and the land shall be open before you; live and trade in it, and acquire property in it.” Shechem also said to her father and to her brothers, “If I find favor in your sight, then I will give whatever you say to me. Ask me ever so much bridal payment and gift, and I will give according as you say to me; but give me the girl in marriage” (Genesis 34:1-12).

Jacob, who had always been a “country boy,” must have been ignorant of the dangers of the city. As close as he lived to Shechem, Dinah found it easy to visit with “the daughters of the land” (verse 1). More than likely, this occurred frequently, and so her involvement with Shechem might not have taken place quite as suddenly as it would appear.⁸ Shechem may have first seen Dinah and been attracted to her when Jacob purchased the land from Hamor, his father. As the most respected in his father’s house, he could have been a party to this sale (cf. verses 2, 19).

On a particular occasion Shechem was able to seize her while she was alone and to force his affections on her. While his rape of Dinah was an abomination, he had a great love for her and desired to marry her. He urged his father to arrange for their marriage as soon as possible, regardless of the price. Dinah may have remained in his tent while these negotiations took place (cf. verse 26).

Hamor’s offer was one that could have been expected from a Canaanite who was a man of prominence within the community. He sought to assuage the anger of Dinah’s brothers by stressing the great love of Shechem for her (verses 7-8). In addition, such a union would pave the way for many other benefits. They could be free to inter-marry with the Canaanites (verse 9) and also to engage in business more freely (verse 10). Furthermore, whatever they required as a dowry would be paid. Probably Hamor felt that a high price for Dinah would do much to appease the anger of these brothers.

Jacob’s sons were not content with such an offer, but they did see it as providing a means for their getting revenge:

But Jacob’s sons answered Shechem and his father Hamor, with deceit, and spoke to them, because he had defiled Dinah their sister. And they said to them, “We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one who is uncircumcised, for that would be a disgrace to us. Only on this condition will we consent to you; if you will become like us, in that every male of you be circumcised, then we will give our daughters to you, and we will take your daughters for ourselves, and we will live with you and become one people. But if you will not listen to us to be circumcised, then we will take our daughter and go” (Genesis 34:13-17).

I find it of particular interest that these words are attributed to “Jacob’s sons” rather than to “Dinah’s brothers.” The reason must be that in being deceitful they were proving themselves to be sons of their father. We are not entirely surprised by the fact that it is they rather than Jacob who respond to Hamor’s offer. A similar situation is to be recalled in the acquisition of Rebekah for Isaac (cf. 24:50,55, 57-60).

The one concession Jacob’s sons require is stated in such a way that it could be declined only with great difficulty. This is because circumcision is portrayed as a vital part of their religious ritual.⁹ Circumcision, these sons contended, would unite the Canaanites with the Israelites so that inter-marriage would be acceptable and permissible. If this rite were not followed, then no inter-marriage could take place.

The deceitfulness of Jacob’s sons is in no way defensible. They intended to trick the Canaanites into an arrangement whereby they would be physically incapacitated, especially on the third day of their circumcision. This would make the slaughter of Hamor, Shechem, and all the inhabitants of that city much easier to accomplish. No defense of this plan can be successfully presented.

Jacob’s silence is even more evil than his sons’ schemes. His sons proposed inter-marriage with the Canaanites only as a means to induce them to be circumcised so that they could be overcome more easily. Jacob silently and passively accepted the agreement with the people of Shechem, fully expecting to carry it out. Jacob planned to allow his descendants to inter-marry with the Canaanites, but his sons had no such intention. Jacob, in comparison with his sons, is even more guilty than they!

Jacob’s willingness to inter-marry with the Canaanites is not only contrary to the purposes and promises of God in the Abrahamic covenant, but it is also a direct violation of the instructions which his father had given him:

So Isaac called Jacob and blessed him and charged him, and said to him, “You shall not take a wife from the daughters of Canaan. Arise, go to Paddan-aram, to the house of Bethuel your mother’s father; and from there take to yourself a wife from the daughters of Laban your mother’s brother. And may God Almighty bless you and make you fruitful and multiply you, that you may become a company of peoples. May He also give you the blessing of Abraham, to you and to your descendants with you; that you may possess the land of your sojournings, which God gave to Abraham” (Genesis 28:1-4).

On good faith, Hamor and Shechem went to their fellow citizens and convinced them to comply with the proposal of Jacob’s sons:

Now their words seemed reasonable to Hamor and Shechem, Hamor’s son. And the young man did not delay to do the thing because he was delighted with Jacob’s daughter. Now he was more respected than all the household of his father. So Hamor and his son, Shechem, came to the gate of their city, and spoke to the men of their city, saying, “These men are friendly with us; therefore let them live in the land and trade in it, for behold, the land is large enough for them. Let us take their daughters in marriage, and give our daughters to them. Only on this condition will the men consent to us to live with us, to become one people: that every male among us be circumcised as they are circumcised. Will not their livestock and their property and all their animals be ours? Only let us consent to them, and they will live with us.” And all who went out of the gate of his city listened to Hamor and to his son Shechem, and every male was circumcised, all who went out of the gate of his city (Genesis 34:18-24).

On the surface it was a reasonable offer that Jacob’s sons had made, and Shechem was eager to have the marriage performed. The reason why Hamor and Shechem would comply with the proposal was obvious, but the other men of the city were convinced on financial grounds. Hamor must have been the president of the Shechem Chamber of Commerce. How could his fellow-citizens refuse such a temporary inconvenience when they would eventually profit substantially from the arrangement (verse 23)?

Now it came about on the third day, when they were in pain, that two of Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, each took his sword and came upon the city unawares, and killed every male. And they killed Hamor and his son Shechem with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah from Shechem’s house, and went forth. Jacob’s sons came upon the slain and looted the city, because they had defiled their sister. They took their flocks and their herds and their donkeys, and that which was in the city and that which was in the field; and they captured and looted all their wealth and all their little ones and their wives, even all that was in the houses (Genesis 34:25-29).

Little did the people of Shechem realize the intentions of Dinah’s brothers, whose anger could not be appeased by anything less than the revenge of blood. Weakened by their circumcision, the men of the city were virtually helpless when attacked by Simeon and Levi. It was no less than a slaughter. They killed every male, and the rest of their brothers were quick to share in the spoils.¹⁰ All of their wealth along with the women and children was taken.

Jacob’s silence is shattered by the blood bath of his sons:

Then Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, “You have brought trouble on me, by making me odious among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites; and my men being few in number, they will gather together against me and attack me and I shall be destroyed, I and my household.” But they said, “Should he treat our sister as a harlot?” (Genesis 34:30-31).

Surely a word of rebuke was in order, but Jacob’s words lacked force because his reasons were self-centered and not based upon principle, but only on the interest of self-preservation. They brought trouble to Jacob. They made Jacob look bad. They put his life in danger. He might be attacked and destroyed. Jacob seemed to care only about his safety and saving his own skin.

The shallowness of Jacob’s stern rebuke was exposed by his sons response: “Should he treat our sister as a harlot?” The issue of morality had never been raised by Jacob. Granted, the sons’ deception and destruction hardly seems moral, but they, at least, had some sense of the abomination that had taken place concerning their sister, while Jacob was strangely silent and passive on this point.

Conclusion

We can make several observations on the matter of safety from a closer look at these two chapters in Genesis.

First, Jacob was never safer than he was in those times of most evident danger. Think through Jacob’s life for a moment, especially those times of great danger. When fleeing from Esau, Jacob was met by God at Bethel (28:10ff.). When Jacob was hotly pursued by his frustrated and furious uncle, God sternly warned Laban that he should not even speak harshly to Jacob (31:24). This sharply curtailed Laban’s plans (31:29). When Jacob entered into a new and threatening existence in the land of Canaan, he was met by a host of angels assuring him of God’s presence and protection (32:1-2). Finally, as Jacob feared his brother as the sole obstacle to his entry into Canaan and the blessings of God, God Himself met him and wrestled with him, finally “succumbing” to his petition to be blessed. Having prevailed with God, into whose face he looked, he was assured of prevailing over Esau in the meeting that was ahead. Never was Jacob safer than at those times when his life seemed in greatest peril.

Second, Jacob was never in greater danger than at those times when he felt most secure. Jacob seemed to feel safest when his brother was out of sight, and yet it seems that Esau came with his armed men in order to provide an escort for him into Canaan. Jacob felt secure when his cattle could feed on the lush grass of Succoth rather than in the more sparse pastures of Bethel. He felt safer near a city of Canaanites than in the seclusion of some place more remote from civilization. But it was in Shechem that the rape of Dinah occurred, and it was there that Jacob could have been killed by the Canaanites.

The reason for this is really quite simple: we are most inclined to trust in God and obey Him when we sense that we are in grave danger and that our only hope is in God alone to save us. It is sad but true that all of us tend to slack up in our diligence and devotion when things are going along smoothly. We think that we can handle things ourselves when dangers seem distant and troubles are far removed, but when there is a crisis or a sudden overwhelming problem, then we rush to God for help. It is a foxhole kind of Christianity, but that is the way we are.

When Jacob was freed of Esau, whom he perceived to be his principal danger, he felt free to handle matters himself. He sought safety in separation from his brother and from succulent pastures and the security of cities and alliances with pagans. And at this time of spiritual decline, he was remarkably passive in the face of evils which should have been appalling to him. He who was so aggressive in seeking material prosperity had no zeal for moral purity. Self-interest and self-preservation were his only concern.

What a lesson this must have been to the Israelites who read this account of Moses, especially as they were about to enter into the land of Canaan. It should have taught them that their only security was in God. It should have warned them that the greatest danger in the promised land was not the size of the inhabitants or their military prowess, but in becoming carelessly complacent about spiritual purity and resisting false pride.

The Israelites, like Jacob, appeared to be in a place of great danger, trapped as they were between the Red Sea and the soldiers of Egypt (cf. Exodus 14:10-12). The fact was that they were never safer because they were in the will of God and walking according to His word. They were safe because they were where God wanted them to be, and so God made a path through the sea for them.

The great danger for Israel was what would happen once they were in the land. During the years in which they wandered in the desert, they were, humanly speaking, in a most dangerous situation, but God miraculously provided for them. Indeed, God used those circumstances to teach them that the most important matters of life were not food and drink, but obedience to the will of God and the keeping of His word (cf. Deuteronomy 8:1-6).

The greatest danger which Israel would ever face was not the persecution of the Egyptians, for that kept them pure. It was not the problem of survival in the desert, for God met their needs for food and clothing. The greatest danger Israel would face was their prosperity and apparent security once they possessed the land.

Beware lest you forget the LORD your God by not keeping His commandments and His ordinances and His statutes which I am commanding you today; lest, when you have eaten and are satisfied, and have built good houses and lived in them, and when your herds and your flocks multiply, and your silver and gold multiply, and all that you have multiplies, then your heart becomes proud, and you forget the LORD your God who brought you out from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. He led you through the great and terrible wilderness, with its fiery serpents and scorpions and thirsty ground where there was no water; He brought water for you out of the rock of flint. In the wilderness He fed you manna which your fathers did not know, that He might humble you and that He might test you, to do good for you in the end. Otherwise, you may say in your heart, “My power and the strength of my hand made me this wealth.” But you shall remember the LORD your God, for it is He who is giving you power to make wealth, that He may confirm His covenant which He swore to your fathers, as it is this day (Deuteronomy 8:11-18).

Built into the Law which God gave His people were some factors which were intended to stimulate the faith of the Israelites once they were in the land.

You shall thus observe My statutes, and keep My judgments, so as to carry them out, that you may live securely on the land. Then the land will yield its produce, so that you can eat your fill and live securely on it. But if you say, “What are we going to eat on the seventh year if we do not sow or gather in our crops?” then I will so order My blessing for you in the sixth year that it will bring forth the crop for three years. When you are sowing the eighth year, you can still eat old things from the crop, eating the old until the ninth year when its crop comes in (Leviticus 25:18-22).

Here God instructed the people not to plant or to harvest in the seventh year. This did, of course, give the land a rest. In addition, it stretched the faith of the Israelites, for it forced them to obey God, even when the normal result would have been a lack of food. They had to trust God to provide for their needs. While Egypt had its river and its very predictable and prosperous farming by irrigation, God brought His people into a land where they must trust Him to provide the rains which the land needed to produce in abundance. These were faith-stimulating conditions, designed to keep the Israelites alert to their dependence upon God for their daily needs. Israel’s only security was in her God, Whom she must trust and Whom she must obey.

If you walk in My statutes and keep My commandments so as to carry them out, then I shall give you rains in their season, so that the land will yield its produce and the trees of the field will bear their fruit. Indeed, your threshing will last for you until grape gathering, and grape gathering will last until sowing time. You will thus eat your food to the full and live securely in your land (Leviticus 26:3-5).

Man’s security has always been in God, and in God alone. This is not just a New Testament truth; it is an eternal truth.

The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men; From His dwelling place He looks out on all the inhabitants of the earth, He who fashions the hearts of them all, He who understands all their works. The king is not saved by a mighty army; A warrior is not delivered by great strength. A horse is a false hope for victory; Nor does it deliver anyone by its great strength. Behold, the eye of the LORD is on those who fear Him, On those who hope for His lovingkindness; To deliver their soul from death, And to keep them alive in famine. Our soul waits for the LORD; He is our help and our shield. For our heart rejoices in Him, Because we trust in His holy name. Let Thy lovingkindness, O LORD, be upon us, According as we have hoped in Thee (Psalm 33:13-22).

There is no security in the “arm of the flesh,” only in the “arm of Jehovah.” If we trust in our own devices, we are exceedingly vulnerable. If we trust in God, we are invincible.

The slaughter of the Canaanites by the sons of Jacob, while done in deception, was a necessity. Had Simeon and Levi not slaughtered the men of this city, Jacob’s sons and daughters would have inter-married. There is little doubt of this since Jacob consented to it. Jacob viewed their friendliness and openness as an evidence of safety and security. In reality, it was the opposite. The willingness of the Canaanites to adopt Jacob, the Israelites, and their religion into their way of life would have defiled the purity which God required for this race. While Jacob did not take such activity as defiling and disgraceful, his sons did (34:7,31), and so did God. Thus it was that He would later instruct the Israelites to wipe out the Canaanites due to their depravity and decay (Deuteronomy 20:17-18). From this incident in the life of Jacob the Israelites could see the consequences of cohabitation with the Canaanites.

A number of principles arise from this event in the life of Jacob which apply to us centuries later.

(1) Safety is not something we can provide for ourselves. Men are never secure apart from God. Every non-believer must be warned of this truth. As Peter said centuries ago:

And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12).

(2) Safety comes only from God:

In peace I will both lie down and sleep, For Thou alone, O LORD, dost make me to dwell in safety (Psalm 4:8).

(3) The true believer is most secure when he is following the Word of God:

But he who listens to me shall live securely, And shall be at ease from the dread of evil (Proverbs 1:33).

(4) Safety is not the absence of danger, but the acknowledgment of it and the turning to God for protection in it. This was the faith of Daniel’s three companions (cf. Daniel 3:13ff.).

(5) Times of apparent safety which lead to complacency are occasions where danger is at its greatest intensity. The real dangers are most often not seen by the human eye because they are spiritual in nature. These dangers include unbelief, apathy, carnality, compromise, and complacency. And so it is that Christians are urged to be on the alert, attentive to the dangers which are always present, especially when there are times of prosperity and peace:

Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall (I Corinthians 10:12).

While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then destruction will come upon them suddenly like birth pangs upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day should overtake you like a thief; for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of night nor of darkness; so then let us not sleep as others do, but let us be alert and sober (I Thessalonians 5:3-6).

Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour (I Peter 5:8).

Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked (Revelation 3:17).

How different the trials and sufferings of life look in the light of these truths. Life’s trials are not given by God for our destruction, but for our defense. They cause us to cling ever more closely to Him Who is able to give strength in times of need (cf. Hebrews 4:14-16). The trials of life are a gift of God’s grace (Philippians 1:29), intended by a loving Father to strengthen our faith:

It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, that we may share His holiness. All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness. Therefore, strengthen the hands that are weak and the knees that are feeble, and make straight paths for your feet, so that the limb which is lame may not be put out of joint, but rather be healed (Hebrews 12:7-13).

In my estimation most Christians in America prefer to dwell in comfort and complacency rather than to live on the cutting edge of Christianity. Most of us, like Jacob, prefer peace to purity, prosperity to piety, and safety to spirituality. The commands and principles of the New Testament, like the laws of the Old, are designed to cause us to live on the cutting edge of life. That, I believe, is why our Lord told the rich young ruler to sell his possessions and give the money to the poor. That man could not trust in God and gold—it was one or the other. While money is not evil, trusting in it for security is (I Timothy 6:17). God desires to remove from our lives anything which stands in the way of our total trust in Him. May each of us be willing to look only to Him for security and safety, for that is the way God has ordered this universe.

I strongly believe that many Christians desire to live the kind of life that God intends for us to live. The way to do this is intensely simple: trust and obey. Trust leads to obedience to the will and the Word of God. And obeying the Word of God forces us to trust in Him to provide for our every need. May each of us be willing to do as He commands.

1 I, too, believe in the pre-tribulation rapture of the church, but one of the dangers in the Christian life is the misuse of right doctrine. Some twist the doctrine of God’s grace into a license for sin (cf. Romans 5:20-6:23, I Peter 2:16). The doctrine of the return of our Lord was intended to inspire holy living, not carelessness (cf. II Peter 3:11-13), watchfulness, not waywardness (I Thessalonians 5; II Timothy 3).

2 So remarks Derek Kidner, Genesis (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), p. 171.

3 “. . . these words are not to be understood as meaning that he intended to go direct to Seir; consequently they were not a willful deception for the purpose of getting rid of Esau. Jacob’s destination was Canaan, and in Canaan probably Hebron, where his father Isaac still lived. From thence he may have thought of paying a visit to Esau in Seir. Whether he carried out this intention or not, we cannot tell; for we have not a record of all that Jacob did, but only of the principal events of his life.” C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), I, p. 309.

“Few of us could cast the first stone at him for failing to combine grace and truth in refusing an embarrassing invitation. It is also possible, as Delitzsch suggests, that he intended to visit Seir one day, and deceived Esau ‘by deceiving himself.’ None the less, some of the deviousness of the old Jacob comes out, for he could have said plainly that he was under oath to go to Bethel.” Kidner, Genesis, p. 171.

4 Kidner, Genesis, pp. 170-171.

5 “What, then was Jacob’s next step? Actually this: instead of going after Esau to Seir, which was situated southeast of Peniel, he took his journey in an exactly opposite direction, and went to Succoth, northwest of Peniel.” W. H. Griffith Thomas, Genesis: A Devotional Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946), p. 312.

6 “Finding better pasture at Succoth for his considerable flocks and herds only furthered the delay. The site of Bethel in the mountains does not offer anything comparable to the fields east of the Jordan near the bottom of the escarpment of the Jordan Valley where the waters of the Jabbok offered drink for his animals.” Harold Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 255.

7 “The implied ages of Jacob’s daughter and his elder sons in the next incident, at Shechem, show that several years were indeed spent in one or both of these places, since Dinah was evidently a child of about seven when the family left Paddan-aram (cf. 30:19-25; 31:41).” Kidner, Genesis, p. 172.

8 “Her action is not prefaced by the phrase ‘Now it happened one day,’ which could then be followed by ‘that Dinah went out. . . .’ It would appear that her visits may have been a frequent occurrence and the event should be introduced by ‘Now Dinah had made it a practice to visit with the women . . .’” Stigers, Genesis, p. 256.

9 “The stipulation of circumcision was all the more plausible because the rite, outside Israel, was sometimes an initiation into marriageable status; cf. on 17:9-14.” Kidner, Genesis, p. 174.

10 There is some question as to who participated in the taking of the spoils of Shechem, but it appears to me that all of Jacob’s sons took part in this act, not just Simeon and Levi.

Français

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_35_32k.mp3

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

36. The Way Back (Genesis 35:1-29)

Introduction

Nearly thirty years have passed since Jacob vowed to return to Bethel, where God had revealed Himself to him during his flight from Esau to Paddan-aram. Far worse, it had been ten years since Jacob had left Laban and returned to the land of promise. Jacob had built a house in Succoth (33:17) and formed alliances in Shechem with the Canaanites, which would have brought about the ruin of the nation that was to emerge from Jacob’s descendants. It was thirty years after Jacob’s vow to return to Bethel that he determined to fulfill it, and this in light of the fact that Bethel lay only thirty miles from Shechem.¹¹

From outward appearances Jacob was not that far from God—only thirty miles distant from Bethel. He had also built an altar at Shechem (33:20), so there must have been some kind of religious observance there. Spiritually, however, Jacob was not near to God at all. Jacob told Esau he would meet him at Seir (33:14), but he went the opposite direction to Succoth, then to Shechem. Jacob somewhat passively accepted the rape of his daughter and even entered into an agreement whereby the purity of the covenant people of God would be lost (chapter 34). Jacob was preoccupied with prosperity and security at the expense of purity and piety. He is near Bethel but not near to the God of Bethel—at least not in chapter 34.

Jacob’s condition is not that different from many Christians in our own time. We may appear to be walking close to God while the opposite is true. We may still continue to preserve the forms and observe the rituals of piety, but, in fact, the reality is not there. Paul described this condition as “…holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power…” (II Timothy 3:5). We may be like those in the church at Ephesus, who have “lost their first love” (Revelation 2:4), or those at Laodicea who, due to their wealth and security, considered themselves to be doing well spiritually when they were destitute, cold, and indifferent (Revelation 3:15-17).

Since every one of us will face times when we have strayed from an intimate walk with God, Genesis 35 provides us with a pattern for finding the way back. And so this chapter not only describes the way back for Jacob, but it also outlines the way back for any believer who has grown cold and indifferent by failing to walk in the path which God has made clear.

Back to Bethel
(35:1-8)

Then God said to Jacob, “Arise, go up to Bethel, and live there; and make an altar there to God, who appeared to you when you fled from your brother Esau.” So Jacob said to his household and to all who were with him, “Put away the foreign gods which are among you, and purify yourselves, and change your garments; and let us arise and go up to Bethel; and I will make an altar there to God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and has been with me wherever I have gone.” So they gave to Jacob all the foreign gods which they had, and the rings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was near Shechem. As they journeyed, there was a great terror upon the cities which were around them, and they did not pursue the sons of Jacob. So Jacob come to Luz (that is, Bethel), which is in the land of Canaan, he and all the people who were with him. And he built an altar there, and called the place El-bethel, because there God had revealed Himself to him, when he fled from his brother. Now Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, died, and she was buried below Bethel under the oak; it was named Allon-bacuth (Genesis 35:1-8).

Insofar as the Scriptures report, God had been silent for nearly ten years, ever since He had commanded Jacob to leave Paddan-aram and return to Bethel (31:3).¹² The question must be asked, “Why did God wait so long to instruct Jacob to get on with the matter of returning to Bethel, as He had clearly commanded him earlier?” To me, the answer is quite simple—until now Jacob wasn’t listening.

In spite of his dramatic encounter with the Angel of Jehovah in chapter 32, Jacob quickly lost any sense of urgency about doing what God had commanded. No doubt Jacob intended to get around to going up to Bethel in time, but there was no hurry in his mind. I have previously suggested that Jacob would have felt obliged to give the tithe that he had promised (28:22), which might have been a bitter pill to swallow. After promising to meet Esau at Seir (33:14), Jacob traveled the opposite direction, first to Succoth, then to Shechem. Jacob agreed to allow his children to inter-marry with the Canaanites in order to preserve peace and to enhance his prosperity (34:8ff.). Jacob seems to have little desire to do the will of God which he knows. God had, after all, clearly spoken. Was it of any value to speak again?

The tragic and painful events of chapter 34 greatly improved Jacob’s ability to hear and obey God. His daughter had been raped, his sons had put the men of Shechem to death, and it appeared that neither he nor his family could live safely in that region any longer. You see, while all of the men of the city of Shechem had been put to the sword, the women, children, and cattle had been taken as booty (34:28-29). The relatives of those who were killed and those taken captive were not inclined to take the actions of Jacob’s sons lightly. Jacob was correct in his assessment of the danger of staying in that area (cf. 34:30). It was only at the point where Jacob sensed great danger and where it seemed impossible to stay in Shechem that Jacob was willing to listen to the voice of God reminding him of his duty to return to Bethel.

Surely there is a principle here for all Christians pertaining to God’s will and man’s. The Christian does have a free will in the sense of being able to choose whether or not he (or she) will obey that which God has commanded.¹³ We can resist the commands of God, but we cannot thwart His ultimate purposes.¹⁴ God allowed Jacob to go his own way and to reap the consequences of his disobedience. But in the final analysis we will do what God has purposed. God does not, like many of us do as parents, yell and holler, fuss and fume, over the disobedience of His children. He is, of course, deeply grieved by disobedience, but he will allow us to go our own way and to reap the painful price of sin. And then, when we have gotten our fill of sin and there is no other way to turn, He will speak to us again, reminding us of that which He has previously spoken. Then, too, we shall surely listen and obey. God’s will can be resisted for a season and at a great price, but ultimately God will create an atmosphere in which we will gladly hear and obey. And then His purposes will be realized in our lives.

Jacob was to return to the place of his beginnings, spiritually speaking, and to dwell¹⁵ there. While oblivious to divine standards of holiness and purity in Succoth and Shechem, Jacob was intent upon putting off impurity before coming into the presence of God. Jacob had to be aware of the presence of the foreign gods in his camp. Further, he seemed to be content to do nothing about them until now. One reason may have been that Rachel, his favorite, had set the precedent when she took with her the household gods of her father (31:19). But here we are told that the possession of such “gods” was much more common in the camp of Jacob than by just Rachel. Part of the explanation for this is the fact that many foreigners had been added to Jacob’s household. While all of the men of Shechem had been put to the sword, the women and children were taken alive. These Canaanites undoubtedly kept their gods with them (or made new ones) when they were taken captive. Finally this idolatry had to be reckoned with.

The foreign gods and also the earrings, which must have had some unacceptable pagan religious associations (cf. Hosea 2:13), were collected and buried under the oak tree near Shechem. Not many years after the Israelites read of the burial (literally, “hiding”) of these pagan artifacts, they would be called upon by Joshua to put away their foreign gods. Under this same oak tree, it would seem, their gods were put away, and a large stone was set up as a witness to this act (Joshua 24:19-28).

One cannot help but remark about Jacob’s casual attitude toward separation and purity while dwelling in Shechem. He tolerated the possession of foreign gods. He was about to enter into a relationship with the Canaanites which would undermine the purity of this chosen race. But all of a sudden, when God called him to return to Bethel, he was greatly concerned about purity. Jacob knew that there could be no approach to God in an impure condition. Perhaps this explains, in part, his reluctance to “go up”¹⁶ to Bethel before now. Following our Lord has always been costly, and men should not do so without counting that cost (cf. Luke 9:57-62). And lest you be too quick to condemn Jacob for this, let me remind you that this is precisely the case today. Many Christians are unwilling or hesitant to fully commit themselves to God for fear of what that commitment will cost them. There is a song which says, “… whatever it takes to be closer to Thee, Lord, that’s what I’ll be willing to do.” I doubt that many of us are willing to make that kind of commitment for fear of what might have to be set aside.

Jacob had every reason to fear some kind of reprisal from the relatives of those Shechemites who had been put to death by his sons. Furthermore, the wives and children, who were taken captive and would be taken away, must have had Canaanite relatives eagerly seeking revenge.¹⁷ After all, what had been done to Dinah was committed on a grand scale by her brothers in their killing the men of Shechem and kidnapping the women and children.

Contrary to his fears, not so much as one finger was raised to resist their departure to Bethel thirty miles or so to the south and then beyond this. The explanation is to be found in the great terror that came from God. The Canaanites feared any military action or resistance because they were convinced of the fierceness of the sons of Jacob and of the might of their God. This same terror would again fall upon the Canaanites when Israel marched from Egypt to Canaan (cf. Exodus 15:16; 23:27; Deuteronomy 2:25).

In this experience Jacob learned a lesson which is pertinent to us as well: safety is not to be found in our own strength nor in alliances with pagans, but in the fear of God, which causes us to maintain the purity He demands.

The fear of man brings a snare, But he who trusts in the Lord will be exalted (Proverbs 29:25; cf. Exodus 14:13-14; Proverbs 8:13; 10:27; 14:26; Isaiah 8:13-15).

National defense was a prominent issue in the last presidential election. I do not wish to imply that I am in favor of no military defense system or in a weak or obsolete one. But I must say that it is not our military strength that is going to keep us secure. Our security will never come from the “arm of the flesh,” but only from the Sovereign God Who cares for His own (cf. Psalm 20:7, 33:13-22; Isaiah 30:1-3, 15, 31:1, 41:10-16; Jeremiah 5:17, 17:5-8).

In obedience to the command of God, Jacob finally returned to Bethel, and there he built an altar, calling the place El-Bethel, for the God of Bethel had revealed Himself there. Nowhere are we told that Jacob gave a tithe, as he had promised years before (28:22). God did not remind him of this promise as He did of the commitment to return and build an altar. I suspect that this is for two reasons. First, there was no need for a tithe here. What would have been done with it? Second, I am convinced that when Jacob made this promise he did so in a bargaining mentality, and God does not bargain with men. God may thus have chosen to let this promise pass by. Some commitments are rashly made, especially by those who are immature. God seems to have overlooked this one, too hastily made by Jacob.

It was here at Bethel that Deborah, Rebekah’s maid, died. We are not told why or when she came to stay with Jacob. It is possible that she came bearing the news of Rebekah’s death and then stayed on with Jacob. No doubt Deborah was one to whom Jacob felt very attached, especially if he knew that his mother had died. Under the oak¹⁸ her body was buried.

God’s Blessing Reiterated
(35:9-15)

Then God appeared to Jacob again when he came from Paddan-aram, and He blessed him. And God said to him, “Your name is Jacob; You shall no longer be called Jacob, But Israel shall be your name.” Thus He called him Israel. God also said to him, “I am God Almighty; Be fruitful and multiply; A nation and a company of nations shall come from you, And kings shall come forth from you. And the land which I gave to Abraham and Isaac, I will give it to you, And I will give the land to your descendants after you.” Then God went up from him in the place where He had spoken with him. And Jacob set up a pillar in the place where He had spoken with him, a pillar of stone, and he poured out a libation on it; he also poured oil on it. So Jacob named the place where God had spoken with him, Bethel (Genesis 35:9-15).

Verse 9 takes us somewhat by surprise, for it seems to suggest that God may have made several appearances to Jacob since he had come up from Paddan-aram.

The word “again” particularly inclines us toward this conclusion. In Genesis 35:1 Jacob was commanded to return to Bethel, where He had appeared to him. The first appearance of God was at Bethel, thirty years previous. The second appearance (“again") was also at Bethel, as recorded in verses 10-13. God did not appear when He commanded Jacob to return to Bethel in verse 1, it would seem, but only spoke to him.

Verse 9 is unusual in that it almost seems to overlook the time which lapsed between Jacob’s departure from Paddan-aram and his going up to Bethel. Moses, under inspiration, wrote in this fashion to suggest something significant for us from the life of Jacob. Verse 9 brushes aside ten years as though they did not exist. Thus, God’s appearance to Jacob “the second time” is recorded as though it happened shortly after he returned to the land of Canaan. The inference I see here is that those ten years were of little or no spiritual value. They were lost years, for they were a time of independence and disobedience on Jacob’s part. Whenever the people of God choose to go their way, they must always return to the point where they departed from the revealed will of God. While it should have taken Jacob only days to get from Paddan-aram, it took ten years. No real growth or progress in Jacob’s spiritual life could take place until he returned to Bethel.

The blessings spoken by God are remarkably similar to those given to Abraham in Genesis 17:4-7. Virtually nothing new was promised Jacob here, and the former promises given to him at Bethel 30 years before were simply reiterated. Jacob would henceforth be called Israel. He would be fruitful and would become a nation and a company of nations, and the land promised Abraham would be his and his descendants. The repetition of the change of Jacob’s name to Israel further assured him that the One he had seen face to face in chapter 32 was the same God who had twice revealed Himself to him at Bethel.

God visibly ascended before Jacob’s eyes from the place where He had spoken (verse 13). Jacob set up a pillar there and poured oil and wine upon it (verse 14). Again, Jacob gave this place, which was presently known as Luz, the name Bethel (verse 6). Once the Israelites possessed this land, it would become known by the name which Jacob had given it.

For Jacob, this event served as a rededication to the God Who had set His love on Him in eternity past and Who had sought him out thirty years before when he was fleeing from Esau. For the sons of Jacob and all those who were in his household, this may have been the first clear evidence and explanation of the faith which he possessed but so poorly practiced before them. Soon they must take up the torch of faith, and the purposes of God will be carried on through them. The faith of Jacob must become the faith of his children.

Heartache in the Family
(35:16-29)

Then they journeyed from Bethel; and when there was still some distance to go to Ephrath, Rachel began to give birth and she suffered severe labor. And it came about when she was in severe labor that the midwife said to her, “Do not fear, for now you have another son.” And it came about as her soul was departing (for she died), that she named him Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin. So Rachel died and was buried on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem). And Jacob set up a pillar over her grave; that is the pillar of Rachel’s grave to this day (Genesis 35:16-20).

Somewhere between Bethel and Bethlehem, Rachel went into hard labor. As the child was being born the midwife tried to encourage Rachel by informing her that it was the son she wanted so badly. We should recall that Joseph, the name she had given her first son, meant, literally, “add to me” (Genesis 30:24), expressing her desire for yet another son. With her dying breath Rachel named this second son Ben-oni, meaning “son of my sorrow.” Jacob would not allow that name to stand, however, and changed it to Benjamin, “the son of my right hand.” Rachel was then buried on the way to Bethlehem, and Jacob and his household proceeded on, having set up a pillar along the way.

Significantly, Moses added that this pillar was still standing in his day. While this may mean little to us, I think that it was of great interest to his first readers, the Israelites, who were about to enter into the land of Canaan. It informed these travelers that if they looked for this pillar when they possessed the land they would find it. What a sense of history this pillar must have helped to create. The events of the past were intended to be remembered and commemorated. Visual reminders had a great place in Old Testament times, not to mention the present (cf. Exodus 13:14ff.; Joshua 4:4-7; I Corinthians 11:26).

Rachel’s death should be viewed from the vantage point of two previous events:

Now when Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, she became jealous of her sister; and she said to Jacob, “Give me children, or else I die” (Genesis 30:1).

Rachel demanded children of her husband out of jealousy toward her sister Leah. She said she would die if she could not bear children. In truth, she would die in the bearing of children.

A second passage is even more striking. In the context of this text, Jacob has fled from Laban, not knowing that Rachel has stolen her father’s household gods (Genesis 31:19-20). After bemoaning the fact that Jacob took his family away before he could give them a proper farewell, he got to the real bone of contention demanding the return of his gods. In response to this charge Jacob hotly retorted:

The one with whom you find your gods shall not live; in the presence of our kinsmen point out what is yours among my belongings and take it for yourself (Genesis 31:32).

While the sentence may have been delayed in its execution, it is my conviction that Rachel’s death is the result, to one degree or another, of these words spoken by her husband.

While Jacob was dwelling beyond the tower of Eder, another painful incident saddened his heart:

Then Israel journeyed on and pitched his tent beyond the tower of Eder. And it came about while Israel was dwelling in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine; and Israel heard of it. Now there were twelve sons of Jacob—the sons of Leah: Reuben, Jacob’s first-born, then Simeon and Levi and Judah and Issachar and Zebulun; the sons of Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin; and the sons of Bilhah, Rachel’s maid: Dan and Naphtali; and the sons of Zilpah, Leah’s maid: Gad and Asher. These are the sons of Jacob who were born to him in Paddan-aram (Genesis 35:21-26).

Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn, initiated an illicit sexual union with Bilhah, Rachel’s maid and later Jacob’s concubine. This report is given to us here because it fits into the chronological scheme at this point, and it prepares us for the time when Jacob will take away from Reuben the rights of the firstborn (Genesis 49:34).

A careful look at this event suggests that there is more to the story than what is seen at first glance. So far as we are told, there is only one act of immorality rather than an ongoing relationship. Jacob was told of it but did nothing.¹⁹ This was probably because the sin had been committed only once and was not repeated. What could be done to prevent what had already happened?

Furthermore, this act is not described in terms of lust or sexual desire, such as the incident with Shechem and Dinah (cf. 34:1ff.). There seems to be little question but what Bilhah was a woman who was far from young. No mention is made of her youthfulness or attractiveness. The deeper significance, I believe, is to be seen in her position as Jacob’s concubine, not in her personal beauty. An incident later in the history of Israel helps us to grasp what prompted this act and the penalty exacted by Jacob.

When David became old and it was time for him to designate who was to replace him as king, he delayed. As a result, Adonijah set out to make a claim to the throne by gaining the allegiance of the leaders of the nation. Only due to the urging of Bathsheba did David designate Solomon, her son, as the heir to the throne. Adonijah then made one last daring attempt to regain supremacy. He did so by asking Bathsheba to intercede with David for one seemingly harmless and innocent request:

Now Adonijah the son of Haggith came to Bathsheba the mother of Solomon. And she said, “Do you come peacefully?” And he said, “Peacefully.” Then he said, “I have something to say to you.” And she said, “Speak.” So he said, “You know that the kingdom was mine and that all Israel expected me to be king; however, the kingdom has turned about and become my brother’s, for it was his from the LORD. And now I am making one request of you; do not refuse me.” And she said to him, “Speak.” Then he said, “Please speak to Solomon the king, for he will not refuse you, that he may give me Abishag the Shunammite as a wife.” And Bathsheba said, “Very well; I will speak to the king for you.” So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah. And the king arose to meet her, bowed before her, and sat on his throne; then he had a throne set for the king’s mother, and she sat on his right. Then she said, “I am making one small request of you; do not refuse me.” And the king said to her, “Ask, my mother, for I will not refuse you.” So she said, “Let Abishag the Shunammite be given to Adonijah your brother as a wife.” And King Solomon answered and said to his mother, “And why are you asking Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? Ask for him also the kingdom—for he is my older brother—even for him, for Abiathar the priest, and for Joab the son of Zeruiah!” Then King Solomon swore by the LORD saying, “May God do so to me and more also, if Adonijah has not spoken this word against his own life. Now therefore as the LORD lives, who has established me and set me on the throne of David my father, and who has made me a house as He promised, surely Adonijah will be put to death today.” So King Solomon sent by Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; and he fell upon him so that he died (I Kings 2:13-25).

Adonijah knew that to claim the king’s harem was to possess the kingdom. That was the basis for his request. Solomon knew it also and had him put to death for treason. Is this not also the explanation for the actions of Reuben? He, like Adonijah, was the older brother, who would have been expected to assume the rights of the firstborn. He, like Adonijah, could, by this act of possessing the harem, assume the headship that seemed to be his by virtue of being the eldest brother.

If this explanation is correct, is this not a kind of poetic justice for his father Jacob, who so desired the headship of the family that he would cheat his brother and deceive his father? The chickens, I am compelled to remind you, do come home to roost. That is precisely what happened here, in my estimation.

As Jacob begins to fade from the spotlight, his twelve sons come to the forefront. Moses therefore lists these twelve sons according to their mothers, beginning first with Leah, then Rachel, and concluding with Bilhah and Zilpah. Previous to this time, God had chosen to fulfill His covenant to Abraham through one son to the exclusion of others. Now God’s people will be begotten through all the sons of Jacob.²⁰

The final event of the chapter seems to have been inevitable—the reconciliation of Jacob, his father Isaac, and his brother Esau:

And Jacob come to his father Isaac at Mamre of Kiriath-arba (that is, Hebron), where Abraham and Isaac had sojourned. Now the days of Isaac were one hundred and eighty years. And Isaac breathed his last and died, and was gathered to his people, an old man of ripe age; and his sons Esau and Jacob buried him (Genesis 35:27-29).

Perhaps the most difficult thing in the world for Jacob to do was to stand before his father, whom he had deceived in order to obtain the blessing. Personally, I view Jacob’s reluctance to return to Bethel and to his father as stemming from his sense of guilt and shame. But reconciliation with God and the renewal at Bethel necessitated the reconciliation described in verses 27-29.

One might conclude that Jacob had scarcely arrived at his father’s home when Isaac died, and so it seems that Jacob arrived just in the nick of time. More careful calculations inform us that there was something like ten years or so between Jacob’s return and his father’s death.²¹ Moses simply did not care to stress this fact. It is time for Isaac to step aside, as well as Jacob, at least for the time being. The burial of Isaac was a cooperative effort of both Jacob and Esau. There is not so much as a hint that Esau still intended to carry out his threat from years past that he would get even with Jacob once his father died (cf. 27:41).

Conclusion

Several lessons may be learned from the events of this chapter. First, I am deeply impressed with the importance of renewal. Christians seem to ever be seeking some new and exhilarating experience. They wish to go from one novel experience to another. In the Scriptures, however, I see little of this happening, either to Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. What Jacob did at Bethel was hardly novel, and what God said to him at His second appearance was nothing new. That should tell us something. What was really important for Jacob was that he gain a deeper and deeper appreciation of what he had already experienced but not fully grasped. He needed nothing new, but a greater grasp of that which was old.

It was George Bush (not the Vice President of the United States but the author of one of the old, classic commentaries on Genesis) who most clearly verbalized this truth:

These incidents may teach us that the most precious favors of heaven often come to us, not in the form of blessings or promises entirely new, but in the repetition or revival of those which we have already experienced in times past. And so, on the other hand, it may be that the most acceptable manner in which they can serve God will be, not by engaging in something unattempted before, but by “doing our first works,” by reminding ourselves of our covenant vows, and seeking anew that spiritual communion which is the life of our souls.²²

I believe it is precisely for this reason that our Lord has commanded believers to frequently and systematically observe the ordinance of the Lord’s Table.²³ It is here, week after week, that we are taken back to our initial encounter with our Lord and reminded that all we are, all that we will be, and all that we will ever accomplish of any eternal value will be on the basis of that which took place on the cross of Calvary 2,000 years ago.

But perhaps I am assuming too much. It may be that I should not be urging you to “go back to Bethel” at all, particularly if you have never been there. If you have never come to that point which Jacob had come to thirty years previous to this time, the point of recognizing your sinfulness and impending peril, the point of recognizing that the only way to God’s heaven is through some means which God Himself provides, then you must come to God by faith for the first time. You must, in biblical terminology, be born again (John 3:3); you must be saved (Acts 4:12; 16:31). I pray that you will do this now by simply acknowledging your sin and your utter inability to gain God’s favor or admission into His kingdom. The way has been provided in the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Who died in your place and Who offers His righteousness to all who will believe on Him alone for salvation.

Jacob’s renewal at Bethel necessitated several actions on Jacob’s part. First, he came to the point where he stopped going his own sinful way and once again obeyed that which he knew to be the will of God. There cannot be renewal without obedience. Second, there cannot be renewal without separation. Jacob put away those foreign gods which he had so long tolerated and which were so offensive to God. Finally, Jacob’s renewal involved reconciliation with those who had been injured and offended by his sins. We cannot be reconciled to God without being reconciled with men (cf. Matthew 5:23-24).

The second lesson which Christians need to learn is that even when we do renew our relationship with God, all things will not go smoothly for us. Life, even the Spirit-filled life, is full of sickness (Philippians 2:25ff.), suffering, and sorrow (II Corinthians 6:4-5; 12:7-10). Walking in the path which God has revealed to us is not strolling along some rose petal-strewn pathway, free from the adversities of life. In fact, these adversities and afflictions are the very things which draw us nearer to God and strengthen our faith (cf. James 1:2-4). Had the tragedy regarding Dinah not occurred or the slaughter of the Shechemites angered the surrounding Canaanites, I am convinced that Jacob would have been content to remain amongst the Canaanites, and worse yet, to have become one of them.

The third lesson has to do with “reaping what we have sown” (cf. Galatians 6:7). Much of the heartache which Jacob experienced in this chapter was the result of his previous sins. Now I want to be very clear that Jacob did not suffer the penalty for his sins. No Christian ever suffers the penalty for sins, for Jesus Christ has borne our sins on the cross. But while the guilt and condemnation are dealt with, the consequences of sin remain. David sought God’s forgiveness for his sin and received it (Psalm 51, 32), but the consequences for his acts were not held back (cf. II Samuel 12:9-12).

The final lesson is what we might call the certainty of sanctification. God had purposed that Jacob would someday return to Bethel and to his father. While Jacob dilly-dallied and drug his feet for ten years, he finally arrived. We cannot thwart the purposes of God for our lives. We may, of course, resist them, but we cannot prevent them.

Let us not conclude, therefore, that it matters little what we do. It matters a great deal. There was much needless heartache and sorrow in Jacob’s life because of his waywardness. Sin is never worth the price. We can be fully assured that what God has begun, He will finish (Philippians 1:6). Whether this is done the “hard way” or the “easy way” is determined by our resistance or cooperation, but God’s purposes will be achieved (Romans 8:28-30). Is this not the very thing which motivates us to be faithful and encourages us when we have failed?

The steps of a man are established by the LORD; And He delights in his way. When he falls, he shall not be hurled headlong; Because the LORD is the One who holds his hand. I have been young, and now I am old; Yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken, Or his descendants begging bread. All day long he is gracious and lends; And his descendants are a blessing (Psalm 37:23-26).

For a righteous man falls seven times, and rises again, But the wicked stumble in time of calamity (Proverbs 24:16).

11 “Bethel was only thirty miles away from Shechem, and yet it was quite ten years since Jacob’s return into Canann. And it was over thirty years since he had made his vow to return to Bethel and acknowledge God’s hand if he were brought back in peace.” W. H. Griffith Thomas, Genesis: A Devotional Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946), p. 329.

12 We can deduce that some time has passed from two lines of inquiry. First, from the age of Dinah in Shechem as compared to her age at the time of Jacob’s departure. When Jacob left Paddan-aram, she must have been a very young child, for Dinah was born after Leah had borne Jacob six sons (cf. 30:21). By the time Jacob was in Shechem, Dinah was of a marriageable age (cf. 34:1ff.). Secondly, we know that Joseph was 17 when he was sold into slavery, and this seems to be not too long after Jacob went to Bethel for the second time (37:2). Since we know that Joseph was born at the end of Jacob’s 14-year contract with Laban (30:25-26), he would have been about six years old when Jacob left Paddan-aram (cf. 31:41). Thus, there is a period of nearly ten years between Jacob’s departure from Paddan-aram and his final arrival at Bethel.

13 The “bondage of the will” is a soteriological concept, unrelated to our present discussion. By it, theologians refer to the inability of any unsaved person to voluntarily “choose” to obey or trust in God. We are by nature “children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3), born “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1). Man cannot first choose God, for he is born at enmity with God. That is why the scriptures speak of God first opening the heart of men (cf. Acts 13:48; 16:14; Philippians 1:6,29). Christians can choose to sin by disobeying the revealed will of God (I John 1:8-9), as countless examples in Scripture evidence, but ultimately we cannot thwart the purposes of God. This is a lesson which Jonah had to learn the hard way.

14 Elsewhere I have referred to the commands of God as His “declared will,” the expressions of the desires of God as His “desiderative will,” and the decree of God as His “determined will.” Only the last of these is inviolable. God’s Word is not always obeyed (sometimes we would better say, not often obeyed), even though God commanded it. God’s desires are not always realized (such as the salvation of all men, I Timothy 2:4), even though it would please Him. But God’s determined ends always come to pass, without a hitch and without delay. (For further information on this subject, consult the series “Guidelines For Guidance,” which I did some time ago.)

15 It may appear from God’s command that Jacob was to “dwell” at Bethel (35:1) and that his departure from Bethel after a time was sinful disobedience. But was it not needful that Jacob return to his father to be reconciled to him and to be with him before his death? Leupold removes our difficulties by explaining the meaning of “dwell” or “tarry”:

“He should ‘tarry’ (shebh, imperative from yashabh; here not in the sense of ‘dwell’ but ‘tarry’) just long enough to carry out the injunction laid upon him. Jacob was not to ‘go up to Bethel to live’ (Meek). This rendering creates an unnecessary conflict with what Jacob actually does.” H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942), II, p. 914.

16 “Up” here does not mean “north,” for Bethel was south. “Up” has reference to the higher altitude of Bethel.

17 Notice that Moses wrote, “. . . and they did not pursue the sons of Jacob” (Genesis 35:5, emphasis added).

18 Both in verse 4 and verse 8, the oak tree is called “the” oak, not “an” oak. This is probably due to a combination of two factors. First, trees were not all that numerous there, and so it may have been the only tree around. Second, it designates a specific oak, probably one that could be pointed out in Moses’ day (cf. verse 20).

19 More precisely, Israel was told of Reuben’s sin and did nothing. The name Israel, rather than Jacob, may suggest that here the patriarch responded rightly (as Israel, not the old “Jacob”) to this situation.

20 The Messiah, of course, will come through only one of Jacob’s sons, Judah (49:8-12).

21 “. . . Isaac’s death is now reported, though it did not take place for another twelve or thirteen years. For shortly after this, when Joseph was sold into Egypt, he was seventeen years old. When he stood before Pharaoh he was thirty (41:46). Seven years later when Joseph was thirty-seven, Jacob came to Egypt at the age of 130 (47.9). Consequently Jacob must have been ninety-three at Joseph’s birth and at the time of our chapter 93 + 15, i.e. about 108 years. But Isaac was sixty years old when Jacob was born; 108 + 60 = 168 = Isaac’s age when Jacob returned home. But in closing the life of Isaac it is proper to mention his death, though in reality this did not occur for another twelve years. Strange to say, Isaac lived to witness Jacob’s grief over Joseph.” Leupold, Genesis, II, p. 929.

22 George Bush, Notes on Genesis (Minneapolis: James Family, 1979), reprint, II, p. 205.

23 The command of our Lord, “This be doing in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19, my translation), is a present imperative, suggesting a continuing observance through the ages, till He comes (cf. also I Corinthians 11:26).

Français

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_36_32k.mp3

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

37. Jacob, Joseph, Jealousy, and a Journey to Egypt (Genesis 36:1-37:36)

Introduction

There is a story (which I am certain is not true) about a man who was the sole survivor of a ship which sank at sea. He was able to make a small raft of some of the ship’s cargo and eventually drift to a desert island. There he constructed a make-shift shelter and lived on what little food he had been able to salvage from the wreckage. Time after time he had attempted unsuccessfully to attract the attention of a passing ship. Finally, he saw a ship approaching more closely and hurriedly set a signal fire ablaze. To his dismay, the ship passed by and was quickly fading from sight. Accidentally, sparks from the signal fire set the thatched roof of his shelter in flames, and the man watched hopelessly and helplessly as all of his provision burned to ashes.

All was lost, he reasoned, and life could not last much longer. Suddenly he noticed that the ship which had passed him by was turning around and approaching the island more closely than before. To his great relief, he was seen by the crew and rescued. Once on board, the grateful survivor went to the captain of the ship to express his thanks. “But what caused you to turn around after you had already passed by me?” he queried. “Why, we saw the signal fire you made by setting your shelter on fire,” the captain responded.

The very thing which seemed to seal the doom of this marooned man was the means of his delivery. What seemed to spell disaster for him became an instrument of his salvation. That is precisely the case with Joseph and Jacob in Genesis 37. A tragic and cruel event occurred which, to Jacob, brought his world to an end. Life was hardly worth living, he reasoned, because he had lost the one thing which meant the most to him. But in the end, the loss of Joseph for a period of years was the means God employed to save the nation from starvation and, worse yet, from a loss of purity by being absorbed into the culture and religion of the Canaanites.

The emotional intensity of the events of this episode in the life of Jacob and his sons is difficult for us to appreciate. We come to this 37th chapter of Genesis in much the same way as we would watch the video replay of a week-old football game. We know the outcome of the story. We know that Jacob was in error when he later cried out, “… all these things are against me” (Genesis 42:36). Only in the throes of crisis or tragedy can we fully appreciate what Jacob is experiencing in this chapter.

Genesis 36: A Few Observations

I have chosen to briefly pass over the details of Genesis 36 because the primary purpose of this chapter has already been realized. You see, the first readers of this chapter were the Israelites who were about to cross over the River Jordan to possess the land of Canaan and to annihilate the Canaanites (cf. Deuteronomy 1:8; 20:16-18). There were, however, some people who were not to be attacked or annihilated, among whom were the Edomites, the descendants of Esau:

And the LORD spoke to me, saying, “You have circled this mountain long enough. Now turn north, and command the people, saying, ‘You will pass through the territory of your brothers the sons of Esau who live in Seir; and they will be afraid of you. So be very careful; do not provoke them, for I will not give you any of their land, even as little as a footstep because I have given Mount Seir to Esau as a possession’” (Deuteronomy 2:2-5).

Lest this command be violated, it was most essential for those Israelites of Moses’ day to know who the Edomites were and to have a carefully documented record of the generations of Esau. That record is the substance of chapter 36. As you can see, this has no direct bearing upon Christians in our age, while it was indispensable for the first readers of this account.

Having said this, I do not wish to leave the impression that there is no value for us in these verses. I would like to suggest two avenues of consideration for us today. First, I am impressed with the fact that Esau was a very gracious man. While he had in the heat of anger threatened to kill his brother for his deception, he received him warmly (33:4ff.), and when prosperity necessitated it, he moved out of his brother’s way:

Then Esau took his wives and his sons and his daughters and all his household, and his livestock and all his cattle and all his goods which he had acquired in the land of Canaan, and went to another land away from his brother Jacob. For their property had become too great for them to live together, and the land where they sojourned could not sustain them because of their livestock. So Esau lived in the hill country of Seir; Esau is Edom (Genesis 36:6-8).

I have maintained that had God elected one or the other of these twins on the basis of likeability He would probably have chosen Esau. At least that is who I would have chosen. While Esau had no regard for spiritual things (Genesis 25:34; Hebrews 12:16-17), he had many fine qualities. In verses 6-8 above, it was Esau who moved out of Jacob’s way just as Abraham gave way to Lot (13:5ff.). God’s elect are not necessarily more likeable people, nor are they any more gracious and kind. That is why election is apart from works, so that God’s free choice is really free (cf. Romans 9:10-13).

Finally, while Esau was rejected on a spiritual plane, he was nonetheless a recipient of the common grace of God. Abraham begged God to bless his son by Hagar, Ishmael, which He did (Genesis 17:18-20; 25:16). But apart from any recorded request by Isaac on Esau’s behalf, God greatly blessed and prospered Esau. This even extended to God’s command to Israel not to attack the Edomites nor to take any of their territory (Deuteronomy 2:1-7; 23:7; Numbers 20:14ff.).

The Generations of Jacob and the Jealousy of His Sons
(37:1-11)

Now Jacob lived in the land where his father had sojourned, in the land of Canaan. These are the records of the generations of Jacob. Joseph, when seventeen years of age, was pasturing the flock with his brothers while he was still a youth, along with the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives. And Joseph brought back a bad report about them to their father. Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons, because he was the son of his old age; and he made him a varicolored tunic. And his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers; and so they hated him and could not speak to him on friendly terms. Then Joseph had a dream, and when he told it to his brothers, they hated him even more. And he said to them, ‘Please listen to this dream which I have had; for behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and lo, my sheaf rose up and also stood erect; and behold, your sheaves gathered around and bowed down to my sheaf.” Then his brothers said to him, “Are you actually going to reign over us? Or are you really going to rule over us?” So they hated him even more for his dreams and his words. Now he had still another dream, and related it to his brothers, and said, “Lo, I have had still another dream; and behold, the sun and the moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me.” And he related it to his father and to his brothers; and his father rebuked him and said to him, “What is this dream that you have had? Shall I and your mother and your brothers actually come to bow ourselves down before you to the ground?” And his brothers were jealous of him, but his father kept the saying in mind (Genesis 37:1-11).

There is a tendency to regard the remaining chapters of Genesis as the “story of Joseph,” but this is not technically accurate. Moses referred to chapter 36 as the “records of the generations of Esau” (36:1,9). In Genesis 37:2 Moses entitled this section “the records of the generations of Jacob.” We must not forget that Jacob will not pass off the scene until Genesis 49, where we find the account of his death. This last section, then, is an account of God’s working in the life of Jacob and of his sons through the instrumentality of Joseph. Joseph is certainly the central figure in these chapters, but he is not the only figure. God is forming a nation out of all the sons of Jacob. Joseph’s sojourn in Egypt and his ultimate elevation to the post of prime minister under Pharaoh makes possible the preservation of Jacob and his sons, as well as teaching all of them some valuable spiritual lessons.

One of the great disservices we do to this text is to fail to grasp the fundamental cause of the animosity of Joseph’s brothers toward him. Generally we tend to think of Joseph as a small lad 8-10 years of age who is a tattletale on his big brothers. That is hardly a crime which deserves death, and it does not fit the details of the account. Joseph is not 7 years old, but 17 (37:2). Now in some senses this is young, but in the Ancient Near East girls of this age were often already married (for example, Dinah 34:lff.), and young men were not infrequently kings at this age (cf. II Kings 11:21).

It is my contention that Joseph was rejected by his brothers because of the authority he exercised over them, even though he was their younger brother. Seventeen was not necessarily young for such authority, but it was younger than his older brothers, and this was indeed a bitter pill for them to swallow. Several convincing lines of evidence converge to document this assertion:

(1) Grammatically, Joseph’s authority is not only permissible, but it is preferable. George Bush, author of the classic commentary on the book of Genesis, strongly holds to the most literal and normal rendering of verse 2, of which he writes,

… literally was tending, or acting the shepherd over, his brethren in the flock. However uncouth to our ears the phraseology, this is undoubtedly the exact rendering and the import of the words we take to be that Joseph was charged with the superintendence of his brethren, particularly the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah.²⁴

Bush goes into considerable grammatical detail to establish his point,²⁵ and I must say that he has convinced me.

(2) After the sin of Reuben, Joseph was given the rights of the firstborn:

Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel (for he was the firstborn, but because he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph the son of Israel; so that he is not enrolled in the genealogy according to the birthright. Though Judah prevailed over his brothers, and from him came the leader, yet the birthright belonged to Joseph), … (I Chronicles 5:1-2).

While it is not until chapter 49 that this transfer is formally stated by Jacob, the sin which precipitated it has already been recorded in Genesis 35:22. It is not unlikely that Jacob expressed his intentions much sooner than this to his sons and even began to give Joseph preeminence over his brothers by this time. Further details seem to demonstrate this.

(3) Joseph’s coat was a symbol of the authority he was granted over his brothers. Jacob’s preference for Joseph was no secret (37:2,3). The coat his father gave him was regarded as evidence of Jacob’s greater love for Joseph above his other sons. Furthermore, this coat indicated more than preference; it symbolized preeminence and superiority of rank.

No one really knows exactly what this coat looked like. Some have suggested that it differed from the coats of Joseph’s brethren in that it had long sleeves,²⁶ in which case it would mark out Joseph as a “white collar worker” while his brothers were mere “blue collar workers.” Just as supervisors are marked out today by the fact that they wear suits, so, we are told, Joseph was set apart by his long-sleeved coat.

While there is considerable conjecture on this matter of the coat, one thing is certain. The term which is used for Joseph’s coat in this chapter occurs elsewhere only in II Samuel 13:18-19. There it is employed for the coat which was worn by Tamar, the daughter of David. While other things may have been symbolized by this garment (such as virginity), the coat was an evidence of royalty.

In the context of our passage I believe that Joseph’s coat was considered to be symbolic of his authority in the same manner as stripes on the sleeve of a military uniform. Joseph’s brothers hated this garment and what it symbolized, for their first act of violence was to strip his coat from him (37:23).

(4) The greatest antagonism toward Joseph was from the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah (verse 2), while the two brothers who attempted to release him (Reuben and Judah) were sons of Leah (37:21,26). In verse 2 Joseph was said to have pastured the flocks of Jacob “along with the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah.” Reuben, and later Judah, sons of Leah, attempted to prevent or at least to modify the plan of the others to kill Joseph. A footnote on verse 2 in the margin of the Berkeley Version²⁷ suggests that the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah would be less disciplined since they were the sons of pagan mothers, while Leah and Rachel would reflect the relatively more godly training of Laban.

There is little doubt that both Bilhah and Zilpah would be on a socially lower plane than Leah and Rachel since the former were mere concubines, while the latter were full-fledged wives. This social stratification would naturally be reflected in the sons of these women, and so it is not difficult to believe that Jacob would have put Joseph in charge of the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah.

(5) Joseph’s report to his father would be a logical and necessary part of his function and authority as a supervisor. Joseph at 17 was no tattletale. This can hardly be the case. Surely this kind of sibling rivalry would be expected but undeserving of such harsh counter-measures by Joseph’s brothers. If Joseph had been placed in a position of authority (a “white collar” job) by his father, then what could be more logical than a report to Jacob on the performance, efficiency, and reliability of those under him?

When Jacob asked Joseph to go to Shechem to check up on his sons and on his flocks (verses 12-14), he was not sending Joseph around the corner to spy upon and then tattle on his brothers. It was 50 miles or more to Shechem and about 70 miles to Dothan! Since Shechem had been the scene of the slaughter of the men of that city years before (34:25ff.), Jacob would not have taken such an assignment lightly. It was the kind of responsibility that he would give only to one who had proven his capabilities as a leader. A sensitive and potentially dangerous mission would not be given to a son without reliability and authority.

(6) The intensity of Joseph’s brothers’ reaction to his dreams indicates that there must have been some substance to their fears of Joseph assuming such great power and prominence. Joseph’s brothers were deeply distressed by his two dreams (verses 8, 11). And when the plot to kill him is first conceived, the dreams are a prominent part of their hostility and motivation:

And they said to one another, “Here comes this dreamer! Now then, come and let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits; and we will say, ‘A wild beast devoured him.’ Then let us see what will become of his dreams!” (Genesis 37:19-20).

Idle or fanciful dreams provide an occasion only for laughter. Under most circumstances the worst that might be considered would be that Joseph needed to be put into a padded cell for his own protection. But if there were already evidence of Joseph’s authority, leadership, and capabilities, fear of even greater status and power would be acted upon with grim determination and zeal.

(7) As a type of Christ, the cause of Joseph’s rejection would most accurately be a refusal to submit to the authority of one who threatened personal power and prestige. Joseph, I have maintained, was rejected by his brethren because they deeply resented the authority his father had granted him over them, especially when they reasoned that it should be theirs. Was this not the very root reason for the rejection of Jesus by the religious leaders of His day? When Jesus taught the people, the response of the masses was significant:

The result was that when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes (Matthew 7:28-29).

What a blow this must have been to the pride of Israel’s leaders. This is the reason why they resisted the Master with the challenge, “By what authority are You doing these things, and who gave You this authority?” (Matthew 21:23).

All of these lines of evidence lead me to the same conclusion: Joseph was rejected by his brethren because he, the youngest of these men (save Benjamin, of course), was placed in a position of authority over them. This rejection of Joseph’s authority, coupled with the specter of even greater preeminence as foreshadowed by his dreams, led them to conclude that they must do away with him in order to protect their own position.

An Evil Plot, An Empty Pit, and an Egyptian Purchase
(37:12-36)

Animosity toward Joseph had continued to build up until the situation was explosive. Now it was only a matter of time and opportunity. That opportunity finally arrived when Jacob sent Joseph to Shechem.

Then his brothers went to pasture their father’s flock in Shechem. And Israel said to Joseph, “Are not your brothers pasturing the flock in Shechem? Come, and I will send you to them.” And he said to him, “I will go.” Then he said to him, “Go now and see about the welfare of your brothers and the welfare of the flock; and bring word back to me.” So he sent him from the valley of Hebron, and he came to Shechem. And a man found him, and behold, he was wandering in the field; and the man asked him, “What are you looking for?” And he said, “I am looking for my brothers; please tell me where they are pasturing the flock.” Then the man said, “They have moved from here; for I heard them say, ‘Let us go to Dothan.’” So Joseph went after his brothers and found them at Dothan (Genesis 37:12-17).

Jacob’s concern for the welfare of his family and his flocks was not unfounded. Shechem was the city where Dinah had been taken by force and where Jacob’s sons, especially Simeon and Levi (34:30), had slaughtered all of the men. Since Jacob had purchased land there (33:19), it would not be unusual for him to make use of it by sending his flocks there to feed on its rich pastureland under the care of his sons. But there was always the danger of some angry relative of one of those Shechemites who were killed or captured seeking vengeance. This seems to be what Joseph was sent to look into. Only a man with proven skill and wisdom would ever be sent to handle a task as sensitive and volatile as this.

Joseph wandered about the fields of Shechem in search of his brothers. It just so happened²⁸ that a man found him who had further happened to see Joseph’s brothers and overhear them saying they were going on to Dothan. Not willing to give up his search and return to his father without completing his task, Joseph went on to Dothan.

While at a considerable distance Joseph was recognized by his brothers. They immediately conspired in a violent and daring plot which would rid them once and for all of their brother:

When they saw him from a distance and before he came close to them, they plotted against him to put him to death. And they said to one another, “Here comes this dreamer! Now then, come and let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits; and we will say, ‘A wild beast devoured him.’ Then let us see what will become of his dreams!” But Reuben heard this and rescued him out of their hands and said, “Let us not take his life.” Reuben further said to them, “Shed no blood. Throw him into this pit that is in the wilderness, but do not lay hands on him”—that he might rescue him out of their hands, to restore him to his father. So it came about, when Joseph reached his brothers, that they stripped Joseph of his tunic, the varicolored tunic that was on him; and they took him and threw him into the pit. Now the pit was empty, without any water in it (Genesis 37:18-24).

It was probably Joseph’s coat that made it possible to identify him so quickly from such a distance. It may also have been that coat which triggered the pent-up feelings of jealousy and hostility toward the beloved son of their father. They saw the great distance from their father and the remoteness of this spot as the ideal opportunity to do away with the threat which Joseph posed. The opportunity for a perfect alibi was also at hand, for wild animals were a threat to life and limb in the open field. They need not even produce a body if they blame Joseph’s absence on his being devoured by a wild beast. Only a bloody robe need be presented to Jacob. His imagination would take care of the rest.

Reuben had good reason to hate his brother, for it was Joseph who would obtain the birthright that could have belonged to him. But it seems that Reuben feared facing his father more than he hated Joseph. He was still the oldest of the family. Whether or not he had the rights of the first-born, he was still saddled with the responsibilities. This may be the explanation for Reuben’s suggestion and his intention to spare the life of Joseph.

Reuben’s actions were hardly heroic. I must admit, however, that I would not have wanted to stand up against these fellows either. They were mean, really mean. These men would make the “nickel defense” of the Dallas Cowboys look like a Boy Scout troop. The slaughter of the Shechemites was only one evidence of their brutal natures. Reuben therefore suggests that they kill Joseph without the shedding of blood. Throw the boy in a cistern and let nature do him in. The idea had some definite advantages, and so the plan was agreed to.

When Joseph arrived, his reception was far from friendly. They tore off his coat, the symbol of all that they rejected, and threw the defenseless young man into a pit. It is significant that this pit was empty, for normally it would have contained water.²⁹ If this had been the case, Joseph would have drowned before the Ishmaelite caravan had arrived. Even the empty pit was a part of God’s providential care of Joseph and his brothers.

The callousness and cruelty of Joseph’s brothers is almost unbelievable.

Then they sat down to eat a meal. And as they raised their eyes and looked, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites was coming from Gilead, with their camels bearing aromatic gum and balm and myrrh, on their way to bring them down to Egypt. And Judah said to his brothers, “What profit is it for us to kill our brother and cover up his blood? Come and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites and not lay our hands on him; for he is our brother, our own flesh.” And his brothers listened to him. Then some Midianite traders passed by, so they pulled him up and lifted Joseph out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. Thus they brought Joseph into Egypt. Now Reuben returned to the pit, and behold, Joseph was not in the pit; so he tore his garments. And he returned to his brothers and said, “The boy is not there, as for me, where am I to go?” So they took Joseph’s tunic, and slaughtered a male goat, and dipped the tunic in the blood; and they sent the varicolored tunic and brought it to their father and said, “We found this; please examine it to see whether it is your son’s tunic or not” (Genesis 37:25-32).

Having thrown Joseph into the pit, they sat down to eat a meal. There is no loss of appetite, no sense of guilt or remorse. And there is no pity, for they eat their meal probably well within hearing of the cries that were continuing to come from the bottom of the pit. I can almost hear one of the brothers raise his voice over the petitions of Joseph and say to one of the others, “Want to trade a mutton sandwich for a cheese?” Only later would these cries haunt the sons of Jacob:

While they were eating, a caravan of Ishmaelites approached them on their way to Egypt from Gilead (verse 25). This gave Judah an idea which would prevent the shedding of Joseph’s blood altogether. Rather than leaving Joseph to die of starvation and exposure, why not sell him into slavery to these traders? This would dispose of their problem, avoid the messy matter of murder, and get rid of any evidence of wrongdoing. Perhaps most appealing, it would provide them with a profit.

I do not see any virtue in Judah’s proposal to his brothers. While Reuben sought to return Joseph to his father, Judah is not said to have any such intention. He did not question the ethics or desirability of Joseph’s murder, only the benefits. Profit was the one word which best summarizes Judah’s motivation. While slavery may seem to be a more humane fate than death, some who lived in such a state of slavery might challenge this fact. Selling a brother as a slave was hardly more commendable than putting him to death. In the end, Joseph was sold to the Midianite³⁰ traders for twenty shekels of silver, the price which Moses later fixed for a young slave boy (Leviticus 27:5).

Reuben had been gone during the time his brothers sold Joseph to the traders. Very likely this was to distract their attention from Joseph in the hope of their leaving him quickly, so that he could return to rescue Joseph. What a shock it must have been for him to return to the dry cistern and find Joseph gone. Reuben, as the oldest son, is the one who must face his father, and that to him is not a very pleasant thought.

Not only were Joseph’s brothers completely aloof to his suffering, but also they almost seemed to delight in the suffering that their report would bring to Jacob. There is no gentle approach, no careful preparation for the tragic news, only the crude act of sending the bloody coat to him and letting him draw the desired conclusion. It was a heartless deed, but one that accurately depicted their spiritual condition at the time.

Like most of us, Jacob jumped to a conclusion, assuming the very worst had happened:

Then he examined it and said, “It is my son’s tunic. A wild beast has devoured him; Joseph has surely been torn to pieces!” So Jacob tore his clothes, and put sackcloth on his loins, and mourned for his son many days. Then all his sons and all his daughters arose to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted. And he said, “Surely I will go down to Sheol in mourning for my son.” So his father wept for him (Genesis 37:33-35).

It was, of course, his son’s tunic, for there was none other like it. And it was covered with blood. Such a blood-stained garment without a body led Jacob to the conclusion his sons desired: Joseph must have been attacked and devoured by a wild animal. Perhaps the brothers of Joseph prided themselves in the fact that they never said Joseph was dead. They simply “deceived” their father into believing this. Isn’t it ironic that this deception involved the killing of a goat, just as the deception of Isaac had (cf. 27:9,16-17,19).

Jacob seemed to have handled the death of Deborah (35:8) and Rachel (35:16-19) with a fair degree of composure, but the death of Joseph simply overcame him. There was no way that his children could comfort him. How hypocritical these efforts must have been anyway. Life for Jacob seemed hardly worth living any longer. The only thing Jacob could look forward to was the grave. For many years Jacob would live with the lie that his son was dead.

In one sense believing this was a gracious thing. Can you imagine the mental torment it would have been for Jacob to know what was actually happening to his son? We have just seen the dramatic conclusion to the hostage crisis in Iran, which lasted less than two years. We know something of the agony of the relatives and friends of these captives, but Jacob would have had to endure such suffering and anguish for over twenty years.³¹ How his soul would have been troubled by the knowledge of Potiphar’s wife pursuing Joseph day after day (cf. 39:10). What heartache would have been Jacob’s had he known of Joseph’s imprisonment (cf. 39:19ff.). Ignorance, in this case, was not bliss, but it was better than a blow-by-blow account of Joseph’s status.

While Jacob was crying, “Woe is me,” God was working all things together for the good of Jacob, Joseph, and his wayward brothers: “Meanwhile, the Midionites sold him in Egypt to Potiphar, Pharaoh’s officer, the captain of the bodyguard” (Genesis 37:36).

Joseph, in fact, was not dead, nor was he outside of the providential care of God. By no accident Joseph ended up in the home of one of the most responsible officers of Pharaoh’s administration. While years would pass by before God’s purposes would become known, the process was under way.

Conclusion

Contextually and historically the sale of Joseph into slavery explains how Joseph (and ultimately the entire nation of Israel) ended up in Egypt, from whence the exodus commenced. More importantly, this chapter tells us a good part of the reason why it was necessary for the 400 years of bondage to occur. The fact that this bondage would take place was no mystery, for God had revealed it to Abraham:

And God said to Abram, “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years. But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve; and afterward they will come out with many possessions” (Genesis 15:13-14).

Spiritually, the state of the sons of Israel was at an all-time low. Nowhere have we yet seen any kind of relationship with God such as that of their forefathers. Internally, there was no unity among these brothers. They were simply the sons of four different mothers perpetuating the strife which existed between them (cf. 29:21-30:24). There was no brotherly love, only the seeking of self-interest. There is no better way to stimulate unity than through persecution. A brotherly quarrel is quickly forgotten and family unity is intensified when outside opposition is introduced. Four hundred years spent among Egyptians, who despised Hebrews (46:34), developed and strengthened the cohesiveness of these tribes of Israel.

Later on in the story of Joseph and his brothers, Joseph will test them in this matter of family unity, for he will offer them the opportunity of gaining their freedom for the expedient sacrifice of their youngest brother (chapters 42-44). Then they showed a change of heart which greatly encouraged and touched Joseph.

Doctrinally, we gain insight into several key biblical truths. First, we are reminded of the teaching of Scripture on the matter of election. We almost have to pinch ourselves to be reminded that the roots of Israel’s race and religion go back to men such as these brothers, who have conspired to do away with their own flesh and blood. In the ninth chapter of Romans Paul taught that election is not based upon the works which a person has done or will do in the future (9:6-13). Surely the choice of these sons of Israel illustrates this principle of election. Nearly anyone else in the land of Canaan would have been as qualified or more so than these cruel and wicked men. Most pagans have a deeper sense of family loyalty than this.

Furthermore, the doctrine of the sovereignty of God is easily seen in this chapter. In Romans it is summarized by these words:

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose (Romans 8:28).

In the book of Ephesians Paul has written:

… also we have obtained on inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, … (Ephesians 1:11).

God had purposed and promised to bring about the fulfillment of His promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob through these sons (35:10-12). Neither Jacob nor Joseph nor Jacob’s other sons nor even Pharaoh himself could prevent or even delay the sovereign purposes of the God of Israel.

The means which God employed to accomplish His will is seen in the doctrine of the providence of God. No one has defined the providence of God better than George Bush:

While the recital flows on with all the charm of a highly-wrought tale of fiction, we are still assured of the truth and reality of every incident, and feel that we are contemplating an epitome of the dispensations of that overruling Power which is “wonderful in counsel and mighty in operation”—which controls the free and voluntary action of intelligent creatures, even when prompted by a spirit of malevolence and rebellion, so as to render them subservient to the accomplishment of those very plans which they are intent upon defeating, while the guilt of the agents remains resting upon them in all its unabated aggravations.³²

In its simplest terms, the providential rule of God is the working out of His plan through sinful and willful men, even when they are actively striving to resist Him and His purposes. All the while, God remains sovereign and in full control. He assumes none of the guilt or responsibility for man’s sins; man must bear the full weight of responsibility for his actions.

The providence of God is not His preferred plan of action, but a back-up system which assures the fulfillment of His eternal purposes. Ideally, God works through believing men and women who will do His will as expressed through His Word. When believers or unbelievers choose to resist the will and Word of God, He resorts to this secondary system. It is decidedly less desirable to willful obedience and submission, for the wayward one always faces the consequences of disobedience and fails to find the joy and fulfillment which comes from obedience. The joy of actively and joyfully participating in the plan and program of God is lost. God’s work goes on, but we are unaware of it, just as Jacob and the brothers of Joseph were ignorant to the hand of God in what was taking place. God is never handicapped by man’s sin and disobedience, but we are always hurt by it.

Few have failed to note the typical significance of the life of Joseph, who in many ways foreshadows the life and work of our Lord.³³ While this is a profitable avenue of study, we must point out that nowhere do the Scriptures specifically refer to Joseph as a type of Christ. So long as such study is viewed as supplementary and secondary in importance, it can be profitably pursued.

The practical applications of the principles found in this passage are many. First, there is a lesson in the matter of divine guidance. Since we have already dealt with the subject of God’s providence, we shall not do any more than to relate this doctrine to the matter of guidance.

God’s revealed will is given to us in His Word. In this sense it was surely not God’s revealed will that brothers should sell one of their own into slavery. Thus, the actions of Joseph’s brothers were sin. God never guides by circumstances alone, but by the Scriptures, His revealed Word. They did find themselves at a secluded spot, far from the scrutiny of their father. There was a pit near at hand, but it was not the revealed will of God that Joseph be cast into it. There was a band of traders conveniently passing by, but selling Joseph into slavery was wrong.

God’s eternal purpose, as stated to Abraham years before (Genesis 15:13-15), was a period of bondage. Joseph’s brothers had no intention of carrying out God’s purpose—they sought only to get rid of Joseph. The plan of God was for the Israelites to sojourn in Egypt but this was not known to the sons of Jacob at this time. (In fact, God had carefully avoided telling Abram where this sojourn was to be or how it would come about.) Seldom is guidance a matter of not knowing the general principles and precepts that should govern our conduct. Most often we “miss” the will of God by deliberately choosing to disobey what we know to be right. But even when we deliberately step out of the revealed will of God, His purposes will continue through His providential guidance. In this sense, we cannot miss the will of God. And, be assured, God will make us aware of our sin and bring us back to the place of willful obedience, though through the hard knocks of experience.

What a commentary this event is on the matter of suffering. I think an excellent title for the entire episode might be “A Severe Mercy,” picking up on the title of a current and popular book. The two terms “severe” and “mercy” seem to be contradictory, but this is never the case for the Christian. That is why the Apostle James wrote centuries later:

Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials; knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing (James 1:2-4).

The writer to the Hebrews has said nearly the same thing in more extensive terms (Hebrews 12:1-13 and, indeed, the entire epistle).

On the one hand, the suffering which we observe in the lives of Jacob, Joseph, and his brothers is needless, the result of sin. Yet it is a part of the gracious dealings and discipline of God to bring these men to Himself and to maturity. In the midst of our suffering this is most often not seen because the truth is veiled by our tears. But the end result of suffering is to be faith, maturity, and joy. So it was for Jacob and his sons. So it will be for every child of God.

All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness (Hebrews 12:11).

The life of Joseph provides excellent material for a study on rejection. We know, of course, that Joseph was not sinless. His sins are not recorded, I believe, in order to provide a more accurate type of Christ and also to illustrate the matter of innocent suffering. Moses, then, portrays an incident where the rejection of Joseph is without good cause. That informs me, as other passages suggest (e.g., I Peter 2:20-25; 3:17; 4:4-5,12-19), that rejection and persecution may come completely without cause. The Christian must be prepared for rejection in this life. It is the badge of discipleship:

If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, “A slave is not greater than his master.” If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also (John 15:18-20).

And indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted (II Timothy 3:12).

Hence let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach (Hebrews 13:13).

Persecution is never to be sought, but it is to be expected and accepted. One part of this persecution is rejection. Few have faced the kind of rejection that Joseph did. He was rejected by his brothers, by Potiphar and his wife (eventually), and by Egyptians in general, who disliked Hebrews. His rejection, and ours, need not indicate any defect on our part, however. It can be an evidence of godliness and purity. Since this is true, our self-image (not self-love) need not suffer self-inflicted pangs of guilt and abuse.

In this chapter God prepared Joseph for the rejection which he was to experience. The two dreams he had were much more for his benefit than for his brothers. They strongly impressed Joseph with the important role he was to play in the outworking of God’s program. In the sight of his brothers and the Egyptians (at least for a time), Joseph was a detriment, an obstacle, and a problem to be removed if possible. To God, Joseph was a key figure for the salvation (in a physical sense) and spiritual instruction of his brethren.

Rejection is an unavoidable part of life for every Christian. If we are living as God desires, we will be rejected of men. Righteous rejection, if I may so label it, is cause for encouragement, not despair. Rejection can best be handled by an awareness that God has a significant role for us to play in His work. Is this not a part of what the New Testament teaching of the body of Christ and the gifts and calling of individual members is all about?

But now there are many members, but one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body, which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our unseemly members come to have more abundant seemliness, whereas our seemly members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, that there should be no division in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it (I Corinthians 12:20-27).

The life of Joseph is a wonderful encouragement to parents, who will someday have to turn loose of their children, allowing them to move out from under their control and protection. It may be in the form of sending a child off to a college campus, removed from the supervision of the parents. It may be by a marriage or a job change. All of us as parents will have to face the time when we cannot control the environment in which our children will live. (Perhaps that is more true, even now, than we would like to admit.)

Joseph was abruptly torn from his father and friends and family. He was removed from any godly influences and encouragement. He was placed among a people who did not believe in his God or his convictions. In Egypt he was subject to the strongest temptations. And yet, apart from any Christian friends or fellowship, Joseph not only survived, but he was strengthened. His father could not save Joseph from this, but Joseph would eventually save his father and brothers from starvation.

God knows how to care for His people. No one is on more dangerous ground than the one who is complacent and smugly secure. No one is safer, regardless of their environment, than he or she who is looking only to God for protection and provision for the need of the moment. When our children have left the security of our nest, they will be secure in the hands of the God who created them and cares for them.

There is an interesting analogy between Abraham and Jacob. Both of them were called upon to give up their beloved sons. Abraham did so voluntarily and actively, Jacob unknowingly and begrudgingly. Both sons were given back to them. It was through these sons, whom these fathers gave up, that the future of the fathers was secured.

Throughout the Scriptures, salvation is never secured without great sacrifice. As it was with Abraham, so it was with Jacob also. These two instances only prepare us for the greatest sacrifice of all when God the Father gave up His Son, Jesus Christ, for our salvation. As Joseph was rejected by his brethren and humiliated by slavery and imprisonment, so Jesus Christ was rejected by the Jewish leaders and His brethren and crucified on a Roman cross among criminals. Through the suffering of Joseph, Jacob and his sons were spared from the ravages of a severe famine. Through the sufferings of our Lord Jesus Christ, those who trust in Him are spared from the eternal wrath of God.

The Word of God declares you to be a sinner, my friend, deserving of the eternal wrath of a holy and righteous God (cf. Romans 3:10-18,23; 6:23). But the good news of the gospel is that Jesus Christ has come to take the place of the sinner, paying the penalty for his sins and providing the righteousness which God requires for eternal life (II Corinthians 5:21; Romans 3:21-22). You may experience the forgiveness of sins and the peace of God by simply acknowledging your guilt and trusting in the work of Jesus Christ on your behalf, for, “Whoever will call upon the name of the LORD will be saved” (Romans 10:13).

24 George Bush, Notes on Genesis (Minneapolis: James Family Christian Publishers, 1979 (reprint)), II, p. 220.

25 Ibid, p. 221.

26 “The gift of a coat of many ‘pieces’ (not ‘colors’), or rather ‘the tunic with sleeves,’ was about the most significant act that Jacob could have shown to Joseph. It was a mark of distinction that carried its own meaning, for it implied that exemption from labor which was the peculiar privilege of the heir or prince of the Eastern clan. Instead of the ordinary work-a-day vestment which had no sleeves, and which, by coming down to the knees only, enabled men to set about their work--this tunic with sleeves clearly marked out its wearer as a person of special distinction, who was not required to do ordinary work.” V. H. Griffith Thomas, Genesis: A Devotional Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946), p. 356.

“The outward distinction which the father bestows upon this son is ‘a long-sleeved cloak,’ kethoneth passim. The kethoneth is the undergarment or tunic, which usually was sleeveless--a thing of about knee-length. But passim means ‘ankles’ or ‘wrists.’ Consequently, this tunic was sleeved and extended to the ankles. It was not, therefore, a garment adapted to work but suitable to distinguish a superior, or an overseer. By this very garment the father expressed his thought that this son should have pre-eminence over the rest.” H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942), II, p. 955.

Not all agree with statements such as these by Thomas and Leupold, Stigers challenges, “There is nothing in any of the texts where the term is used to indicate that the tunic had long sleeves or was of many colors. The AV ‘coat of many colors’ becomes only an attempt to give a meaning to the total term.” Harold Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 271.

27 Gerrit Verkuyl, editor-in-chief, The Berkeley Version in Modern English (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, fifth edition, 1962), p. 37, fn. w.

28 These “strange coincidences” are evidence of the providence of God, which we shall discuss more fully later.

29 “The original word is sometimes rendered ‘cistern,’ a term applied to hollow reservoirs excavated out of the solid rock for the purpose of holding rain water, or to natural cavities containing fountains, which were often walled up with stone to prevent the water from escaping.” Bush, Genesis, II, p. 231.

30 “The alternation of the names Ishmaelites and Midianites in verses 25, 27, 28, 36, and chapter 39:1 would suggest that they were synonymous or overlapping terms, even if no evidence confirmed it. It is in fact settled by Judges 8:24, which says of the Midianites ‘they had golden earrings, because they were Ishmaelites.”’ Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), pp. 182-183.

31 Joseph was 17 years old when he was sold into slavery (37:2). He was raised to a position of power under Pharaoh at age 30 (41:46). The seven years of plenty had already passed and two years of famine had gone by before Joseph revealed his identity to his brothers (45:6-9). Joseph was therefore 39 when he revealed his identity to his brothers, and so 22 years had elapsed since his brothers sold him into slavery.

32 Bush, Genesis, II, p. 219.

33 “Hence the appearance, in our history, of individual types representing the New Testament history of Jesus, such as the jealousy and hatred of Joseph’s brethren, the fact of his being sold, the fulfillment of Joseph’s prophetic dreams in the very efforts intended to prevent his exaltation, the turning of his brothers’ wicked plot to the salvation of many, even of themselves, and of the house of Jacob, the spiritual sentence pronounced on the treachery of the brethren, the victory of pardoning love, Judah’s suretyship for Benjamin, his emulating Joseph in a spirit of redeeming resignation, Jacob’s joyful reviving on hearing of the life and glory of his favorite son, whom he had believed to be dead.” John Peter Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960), I, p. 581.

Français

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_37_32k.mp3

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

38. The Skeleton in Judah’s Closet (Genesis 38:1-30)

Introduction

Interruptions are often perturbing, but they are sometimes vital. Some years ago a couple that my wife and I had come to know told us of one such occasion. The wife knew how upset it made her husband to be interrupted in the middle of a project. Consequently, she walked up to him and stood quietly as he worked happily on a project in the garage. In due time he finished what he was doing and looked up, signaling his wife that it was now permissible to engage him in conversation. Her words took him totally by surprise. Calmly she reported, “The house is on fire.” And it really was!

Genesis 38 is an interruption also, but a very significant one. In chapter 37 our attention was focused upon Joseph, who was cruelly sold into slavery, a somewhat more appealing alternative than murder. In chapter 39 the principal character again is Joseph, this time in the house of Potiphar, Pharaoh’s officer. Chapter 38, therefore, seems to abruptly interrupt the flow of thought. Because of this some scholars of the more liberal persuasion have done a great injustice to this chapter. It is as though the book which Moses has been writing becomes unbearably dull, and this chapter is a kind of literary “centerfold,” spicing up the immaterial with the immoral.

Nothing could be further from the truth. This chapter is absolutely essential to the development of the argument of the book. It occurs by design, fitting beautifully into the context. While chapter 37 has explained how Joseph (and so the entire nation of Israel) wound up in Egypt rather than Canaan, chapter 38 tells us why this Egyptian sojourn was necessary. Chapter 38 provides a backdrop against which the purity of Joseph in chapter 39 stands out the more plainly. Chapters 39 and following describe the price which Joseph had to pay for the sins of his brothers. Chapter 38 suggests some of the consequences of the sin of Joseph’s sale which Judah suffered.

It is true that the chapter might be rated “PG” due to the immorality that is depicted.³⁴ And yet, when you read the story carefully, there is much that is not said that could have added “spice” to the account. Hollywood would have much embellishing to perform before a saleable movie could be made from this record. And while some immoral acts are related, there is nothing here which would in any way entice us to experience these sins personally.

I am especially impressed with the message of this chapter because of its applicability to God’s people today. The very forces which were active in Judah’s day are at work today. The dangers described in chapter 38 which threatened the very ongoing of God’s purposes for Israel are those which threaten to hinder the program of God through His church in our own day. And the same God who providentially overruled the sins of men to bring about the fulfillment of His purposes then is alive and well and unchanging this very hour.

Judah’s Family
(38:1-11)

And it came about at that time, that Judah departed from his brothers, and visited a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah. And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua; and he took her and went in to her. So she conceived and bore a son and he named him Er. Then she conceived again and bore a son and named him Onan. And she bore still another son and named him Shelah; and it was at Chezib that she bore him. Now Judah took a wife for Er his first-born, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah’s first-born, was evil in the sight of the LORD, so the LORD took his life. Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” And Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so it came about that when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground, in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also. Then Judah said to his daughter-in-law Tamar, “Remain a widow in your father’s house until my son Shelah grows up”; for he thought, “I am afraid that he too may die like his brothers.” So Tamar went and lived in her father’s house (Genesis 38:1-11).

The sale of Joseph was only the “beginning of woes” for his father Israel. Directly on the heels of this sin flow the events of chapter 38. Unity among the sons of Israel was never a significant force. The selling of Joseph was only one indication of this, and even here, the brothers were not of one mind about it. But now Judah has chosen to leave his brothers and his father for “greener grass,” namely fellowship and union with the Canaanites.

Judah’s troubles began with an association with Hirah, an Adullamite. The events of the chapter as a whole inform us that Hirah was a close friend and a very poor influence on Judah. Wherever Hirah is mentioned there is trouble in store for Judah. While with Hirah at Adullam, Judah saw a certain Canaanite woman whose name is never given. She is only referred to as “Shua’s daughter” (verse 12, cf. verse 2). I take it from the fact that stress is laid on Judah’s seeing this woman (“and Judah saw there,” verse 2) that her outward appearance may have been his only consideration in taking her as a wife. Since this seems to have been influential in Jacob’s selection of a wife, we need not be surprised at this. It was, then, a purely physical choice. Certainly no spiritual considerations were taken into account.

I could not help but look back to chapter 34 where we are told of Shechem taking Dinah. It is said of him that he “saw her, he took her and lay with her” (34:2). There is very little difference between those words and the description we have in verse 2 of chapter 38. Judah “saw” this woman and “took her” and “went in to her.” Only the last expression differs, but both describe a physical union. The act which angered Israel’s sons to the point of murder is very much the same as Judah’s taking of a wife.

Three sons were born from this union of Judah and the Canaanite woman: Er, Onan, and Shelah. For the first son, Tamar was acquired for a wife. Er, however, was so evil that God took his life. His sins are not detailed, for they are irrelevant to the point of the passage. Onan was then instructed by Judah to marry Tamar and raise up seed to his brother. Since the headship of the family (the birthright) normally went to the firstborn, this was a necessary act.

We may be somewhat taken back by this early reference to what is later known as “levirate marriage.” Centuries later Moses commanded it as recorded in the book of Deuteronomy:

When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. And it shall be that the first-born whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out from Israel. But if the man does not desire to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to establish a name for his brother in Israel; he is not willing to perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.” Then the elders of his city shall summon him and speak to him. And if he persists and says, “I do not desire to take her,” then his brother’s wife shall come to him in the sight of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face; and she shall declare, “Thus it is done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.” And in Israel his name shall be called, “The house of him whose sandal is removed” (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).

Such marriage did not originate with the Law of God given through Moses. It had been a common practice in the Near East for centuries. It served a very practical purpose, that of ensuring the ongoing of the family name. As such, it was commanded in the Law of Moses. More and more, I am becoming conscious of the fact that the Law of Moses did not necessarily initiate entirely new principles and precepts, but simply ratified many of those already existent (cf. also 35:2; 14:20, 28:22).

Onan knew that the offspring from his union with Tamar would only further the cause of his deceased brother rather than his own. Consequently he was not willing to have any children by her. To prevent Tamar from conceiving, Onan “spilled his seed on the ground” (verse 9). Such an act was regularly practiced, and God took the life of this man for his wickedness also.

Many are those who have tried to make this passage the prooftext for banning any method of birth control. Because of the strong emotional and moral implications involved here, we must take careful note of what it is that is called evil. I believe that Onan was condemned for three reasons. First, Onan’s sexual conduct was “contrary to nature.” While Paul was speaking of homosexuality and perhaps other perversions in Romans 1:26-27, what was practiced by Onan was also contrary to nature. It would be difficult, in my estimation, to defend Onan’s actions as “natural.”

Second, Onan was disobedient in his actions. His society at least commended the raising of seed to a brother’s name, and his father had directly commanded it (verse 8). We are led to infer from the story that Judah never knew why children had not been conceived, for only Tamar would have known the cause. From Judah’s biased perspective it was Tamar who must be the jinx, and this prompted him to withhold his last son.

Third, Onan sinned because his motivation was evil. Not only did Onan sin against his father and Tamar, but he sinned primarily against his dead brother. Onan put his own personal interests above his brother’s inability to continue the family line. In essence, Onan’s act was the product of self-seeking at the expense of others. Just as Joseph’s brothers had no “brotherly love,” neither did this son of Judah.³⁵ In this sense he was surely a “son of his father.”

Personally, I think that we do the text an injustice if we conclude that any and every form of birth control is sin on the basis of this passage alone. Birth control in any form would have been evil for Onan, but that is not the same as saying it is wrong in any form for us, for we have not been commanded to raise up seed as he was. Birth control (or any act, for that matter) is evil if it is motivated by self-seeking and if it is clearly an act of disobedience. “Whatever is not of faith is sin” (Romans 14:23) must be one standard by which we measure our every action. Many, I fear, do prevent the conception of children for purely selfish reasons. Some practice birth control out of a lack of faith, doubting that God will provide materially or emotionally. Since “children are a gift of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3), I believe that one should carefully consider his real reasons for birth control, but I cannot step beyond this to say that it is always wrong. There may be reasons of health, for example, which would dictate that measures should be taken to prevent conception. Abortion, of course, is an entirely separate issue.

Once Onan was dead, Judah became very reluctant to give his youngest (and last) son to Tamar. It never seemed to occur to him that it was his sons who were the problem, not Tamar. Probably Shelah was too young at first to assume the role of husband and father, but more than enough time elapsed to solve this problem. Finally Tamar was convinced that Judah had no intention of giving Shelah to her. If she were to bear children to carry on the name of her first husband, she must force the issue, she concluded.

Judah’s Fornication
(38:12-19)

Now after a considerable time Shua’s daughter, the wife of Judah, died; and when the time of mourning was ended, Judah went up to his sheep-shearers at Timnah, he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite. And it was told to Tamar, “Behold, your father-in-law is going up to Timnah to shear his sheep.” So she removed her widow’s garments and covered herself with a veil, and wrapped herself, and sat in the gateway of Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah; for she saw that Shelah had grown up, and she had not been given to him as a wife. When Judah saw her, he thought she was a harlot, for she had covered her face. So he turned aside to her by the road, and said, “Here now, let me come in to you”; for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law. And she said, “What will you give me, that you may come in to me?” He said, therefore, “I will send you a kid from the flock.” She said, moreover, “Will you give a pledge until you send it?” And he said, “What pledge shall I give you?” And she said, “Your seal and your cord, and your staff that is in your hand.” So he gave them to her, and went in to her, and she conceived by him. Then she arose and departed, and removed her veil and put on her widow’s garments (Genesis 38:12-19).

After a considerable period of time two events occurred which set the scene for Judah to depart even further from the faith of his fathers. Already Judah had left his brothers and formed an alliance with Hirah. He had married a Canaanite and produced three children, two so wicked that God had to remove them. In time, Judah’s Canaanite wife, whose name is never mentioned, passed away. In a sensually-oriented and sexually-perverted society³⁶ this placed Judah in a vulnerable position. Also, sufficient time had passed for Shelah to grow up and take Tamar as a wife to raise up children to Er, the eldest brother. But while Tamar was officially regarded as the wife of Shelah, the marriage was never consummated, for Judah had never given Shelah to Tamar.

Judah, along with his unsavory companion Hirah, went up to Timnah to shear the sheep. News of this reached Tamar and signaled her to set into action a plan to provide a son to carry on the name of her first husband. In her society not only were the younger brothers able to raise up seed to her husband, but also her father-in-law, Judah.³⁷ Since Judah was unwilling to risk the loss of his last and only living son, Tamar determined to force the matter, becoming pregnant by Judah. Judah was wrong in withholding Shelah, but so was Tamar by taking these matters into her own hands.

In my estimation Tamar was not taking a “long shot” in what she attempted in the gateway of Enaim.³⁸ The moral atmosphere of the annual sheep-shearing might best be understood when compared to a contemporary television commercial. Visualize a group of hard-working shepherds finishing an exhausting, hot, and thirsty week among the sheep, leaving the fields after having completed this annual task. Suddenly one calls out to the others, “It’s Miller time!” With a girl in one arm and a bottle of booze in the other, the celebration begins. Tamar knew well that this was the kind of thing that took place at sheep-shearing season.³⁹

Not only did she know men in general, but she knew Judah very well. Moral purity does not seem to be one of his virtues. There is little doubt that this wasn’t Judah’s first encounter with a prostitute. He does not evidence any of the naivety of one who is new at this sort of thing. He handled the arrangements like an experienced man of the world. Tamar was convinced that if she could only look like a prostitute, Judah would take things from there and that her purposes would be realized.

With all the savoir-faire of one who was worldly wise, Judah negotiated terms acceptable to both parties. It was probably common practice to ask for some kind of pledge since little could be done to force the “client” to pay after the fact. Judah was therefore not taken back by Tamar’s insistence that some guarantee be given. Not that Tamar had any interest in payment. She wanted only to become pregnant by Judah. But the pledge that was given would serve to prove at a later time that Judah was the father of the child that was conceived from this union.

The seal, cord, and staff were not items purchased from mass-produced stock. Each had distinctive characteristics which were peculiar to the owner. The seal was the ancient cylinder seal used in the making of contracts. It was the counterpart of our Master Charge card today. The seal was a cylinder with the unique design of its owner carved in it. When a contract was made, hot wax was put on the document and the seal was rolled over it, leaving the impression of the owner of the seal. Judah’s seal was one of a kind, as were those of others.⁴⁰ He would therefore immediately recognize it as his own. The same was true of the staff. Possession of these gave Tamar proof of the identity of the father of her child when he was born.

Judah’s Folly
(38:20-26)

When this encounter ended Judah and Tamar went their separate ways. Judah never knew the identity of this “prostitute,” and Tamar went back to her normal routine, living as a widow in her father’s house. Normally such an affair would have been quickly forgotten, but several events occurred which made this immoral interlude a nightmare that Judah would never be able to put out of his mind.

When Judah sent the kid by his friend the Adullomite, to receive the pledge from the woman’s hand, he did not find her. And he asked the men of her place, saying, “Where is the temple prostitute who was by the road at Enaim?” But they said, “There has been no temple prostitute here.” So he returned to Judah, and said, “I did not find her; and furthermore, the men of the place said, ‘There has been no temple prostitute here.’” Then Judah said, “Let her keep them, lest we become a laughingstock. After all, I sent this kid, but you did not find her.” Now it was about three months later that Judah was informed, “Your daughter-in-law Tamar has played the harlot, and behold, she is also with child by harlotry.” Then Judah said, “Bring her out and let her be burned!” It was while she was being brought out that she sent to her father-in-law, saying, “I am with child by the man to whom these things belong.” And she said, “Please examine and see, whose signet ring and cords and staff are these?” And Judah recognized them, and said, “She is more righteous than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah.” And he did not have relations with her again (Genesis 38:20-26).

Hirah was sent to pay the prostitute and retrieve the pledge which Judah had given her. A subtle but significant change of words occurs here, which is indicative of a serious flaw in Judah’s character. Judah thought that the woman in the gateway of Enaim was a mere prostitute (verse 15, a harlot). But when Hirah searched for her he asked for the whereabouts of the “temple prostitute” (verses 21, 22).⁴¹ The religion of the Canaanites was so corrupt that prostitution was a part of their worship of the god of fertility. Judah, in his spiritual and moral dullness, was ignorant of such distinctions. To him it was merely an affair, but to the Canaanites it was an act of worship. Immorality would almost invariably lead to idolatry. Yet Judah was virtually aloof to these dangers.

Not finding the “temple prostitute” and, worse yet, being told that there was no such person to be found, placed Judah in a very awkward and potentially embarrassing position. It would seem that someone had gotten the best of him, but he was powerless to do anything about it. Who would ever report a theft to the authorities under such delicate circumstances. The more he sought to find this woman, the more his folly would become public knowledge. These were the kind of stories that were swapped in jest. Judah had no desire to become the laughingstock of the town. He had tried to find the woman and pay her, better to take his losses and hope this was the end of the matter.

As one month, then two, and nearly three passed by without incident, Judah may have begun to breathe a little easier. It seemed as though he had gotten off easy. The woman had not appeared again, nor was there any sign of his personal pledge. It never entered his mind that the matter would end up as it did.

One day Judah was informed that Tamar was pregnant. This was not mere fornication, but it was adultery, for Tamar was pledged to marry Judah’s third son, Shelah.⁴² Judah’s righteous indignation must have been awesome. She must be burned! This was an unusually severe punishment, even more than the Law required. The usual punishment prescribed by the Law of Moses was stoning (Deuteronomy 22:20-24). In cases of unusual wickedness, there was punishment by burning (Leviticus 20:14; 21:9). Why, then, was Judah demanding such treatment for his daughter-in-law? It may have been a sub-conscious overcompensation for his own immorality. Often we attempt to cover up our own sinfulness by a severity in our response to the sins of others.

On the other hand, it may have been even more devious. It is possible, in his low spiritual state, that Judah saw this as the solution to a problem over which he had long agonized. Sooner or later he would have to face the fact that Shelah, his only living son, was pledged to Tamar. There was no doubt but that he was old enough to assume the role of husband and father, but Judah feared losing this son also (38:11). If Tamar were put to death, his problem would be solved. No Tamar, no threat. It was almost too good to be true.⁴³ While we can only conjecture on this point, it is not difficult to believe that this could be true at this time in his life. Judah’s sentence set in motion a sequence of events he would not have believed.

Tamar’s response to the situation was incredibly subdued and submissive. Frankly, I would have shouted that Judah was the father of this child from the housetops. I would have sought to maximize his embarrassment. What an opportunity to capitalize on the situation and find satisfaction for the years of delay and deceit in keeping Shelah from her. But she, it would seem, privately presented the evidence to Judah and politely urged him to carefully consider it. She made no condemning accusations but only submitted the seal, the cord, and the staff to Judah.

What a shock this must have been to Judah. It never occurred to him that he was the guilty party who should suffer the penalty he had pronounced with his own lips. Judah, the forefather of the Messiah and the great grandson of Abraham, had to say of this woman, “She is more righteous than I” (verse 26). It is worthy of note that he does not say she is more righteous than he in the matter of the immorality committed, but in that she acted so as to procure a son that was rightfully hers, while Judah refused to give her Shelah as he had promised. As to his act of immorality, Judah had no comment. What a contrast to his response to the report of Tamar’s “harlotry.”

Judah may have had some kind of turnabout here, for he did not again have any physical relations with Tamar. Also, the next time we read of him he is again back with his brothers and father. Some kind of spiritual renewal must have taken place.

Jesus’ Family
(38:27-30)

And it came about at the time she was giving birth, that behold, there were twins in her womb. Moreover, it took place while she was giving birth, one put out a hand, and the midwife took and tied a scarlet thread on his hand, saying, “This one came out first.” But it came about as he drew back his hand, that behold his brother came out. Then she said, “What a breach you have made for yourself!” So he was named Perez. And afterward his brother came out who had the scarlet thread on his hand; and he was named Zerah (Genesis 38:27-30).

The closing paragraph of the chapter describes the birth of the twins that resulted from the union of Judah and Tamar. Since the twin that was first to emerge from the womb traditionally possessed the rights of the firstborn, some kind of identifying mark was placed on the first to issue from the womb. When one of the boys thrust out a hand, a scarlet thread was tied about it, assuming that he would shortly come forth. The hand was withdrawn, however, and the firstborn was the other boy. This firstborn was named Perez, while the next son, the one with the scarlet thread, was named Zerah. As later genealogies will prove, this firstborn son, Perez, was to be the son of Judah who would carry on the messianic line until the time of David, and ultimately, of Jesus (cf. Ruth 4:12; Matthew 1:3).

Conclusion

Historically, this chapter had much to teach the ancient Israelites. To begin with, this event underscores the necessity of a sojourn in Egypt. Spiritual purity was essential for the purposes of God to be realized. Judah, the son through whom the Messiah would be born (Genesis 49:8-12), was so carnal that he was willing to marry a Canaanite woman, to have a heathen for his closest companion, and to enter into an illicit relationship with a cult prostitute. Something drastic had to be done, and the exile in Egypt was God’s remedy. There, living among a people who detested Hebrew shepherds (43:32; 46:34), even if the Hebrews were willing to inter-mingle and intermarry with these people, the Egyptians would not even consider such a thing. Racial bigotry, if not religious piety, would keep the people of God a separate people. While the sojourn in Egypt was in many respects a bitter experience, it was a gracious act on the part of God. Those Israelites who had gone through the exodus experience could begin to sense this as they read this account.

No Israelite could take this record seriously without a deep sense of humility. Israel’s “roots,” if you will pardon me for saying so, were rotten. They could not look back upon their ancestry with any feelings of smugness and pride. There were too many skeletons in the closet for that. Instead, they must acknowledge that whatever good had come to Israel was the result of grace alone.

The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but because the LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, the LORD brought you out by a might hand, and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt (Deuteronomy 7:7-8).

This was a lesson too quickly forgotten, for the Israelites of Jesus’ day took great pride in their ancestry and relied upon their “roots” for righteousness:

And do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, “We have Abraham for our father;” for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham (Matthew 3:9).

They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s offspring, and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, ‘You shall become free’?” (John 8:33)

Righteousness comes only from God through faith. Our first ancestor, Adam, failed to live by God’s standards and thus sinned. All of his offspring, like Adam, are sinners (Romans 5:12) and thus in need of a righteousness not their own. Jesus Christ, God’s Son, has come to this world to take our sin upon Himself, to bear the penalty for our sins, so that we can have His righteousness and spend eternity with God.

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him (II Corinthians 5:21).

And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise (Galatians 3:29).

The principal theme of this chapter is divine providence, which draws the entire section together; God is at work bringing about His purposes through men who are actively pursuing sin. In chapters 37 and 39 and following, God is providentially at work to fulfill His promise to make the descendants of Jacob a great and mighty nation (cf. 35:11), and at a time when these brothers were only intent upon diminishing their numbers. In chapter 38 God is at work, providentially assuring the fulfillment of His promise to provide a Messiah through the descendants of Judah (49:8-12).

Ideally, God’s sovereign power and all-wise and loving purposes are accomplished through obedient servants. But when His children go their own way, God’s infinite power is channeled through unwilling, disobedient men and women, who, in spite of themselves, achieve God’s plans. This they do unknowingly and unpleasantly.

Who would ever have thought that there was any chance of the messianic line continuing through Judah from the initial events of this chapter? Here was Judah, the ancestor of Messiah, taking a Canaanite wife, failing to keep his promise to his daughter-in-law, and propositioning a prostitute, who would just have well been a part of a pagan religious cult? In spite of all of Judah’s sins and in spite of Tamar’s impatience, Perez, the forefather of David and of the Savior, was born. Who but God could have brought such a thing to pass?

Many Christians are being taught that God’s purposes can only be achieved if we are faithful and obedient. What can they possibly say about this chapter in that regard? And who of us would want to believe that God’s purposes were contingent upon our commitment and consistency? Nothing could be further from the truth than thinking that God is somehow limited by man’s sinfulness.

The doctrine of the providence of God is one of the most comforting truths in all of the Bible, for it assures me that what God says, He will do, even if I am found to be actively resisting it. If the promise of eternal salvation were not dependent upon God’s character and His power, Who can bring about His will in spite of man, what kind of promise would it be? I might just as well quit now and avoid the rush. But if God’s promises are sure (as they are, Philippians 1:6) then I can diligently work for these goals, realizing that I cannot lose, even when I am faint of heart or go my own way through disobedience or rebellion.

At this point many are frightened by the implications of the sovereignty of God. They fear that Christians will conclude, “Why bother to obey God, to struggle against the desires of the flesh, or to fight the spiritual warfare? After all, if God’s will is going to be done whether I obey or not, why obey?”

There is the danger of God’s sovereignty and my security tempting me to complacency. That is why this problem is addressed in Scripture (Romans 5:19-6:23). But the danger does not disprove the doctrine. Many Christian heresies are the illogical misapplications of biblical truth. In the book of Romans, for example, the expression “God forbid” is an indication that this is the case. The principle is valid, but the application is not. Thus, when Paul teaches that “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Romans 5:20), we recognize this doctrine to be true and one that is illustrated in Genesis 38. But to conclude from this that one should therefore sin in order that grace might abound even more (Romans 6:1) is an improper extension of a biblical principle. Some have been inclined to reject the doctrine of God’s sovereignty because of what some have done with it practically. It is the practice which should be condemned, not the doctrine.

Since much of what God does in this world is through His providential guidance, it is vital that we understand its implications for Christians today. The first is that godly living is necessary for the glory of God. Had we not been given the divinely inspired account of the sale of Joseph into slavery, we would not have imagined that it was part of God’s eternal plan. At best, unbelievers would have considered the outcome of the incident good luck or mere coincidence. You see, when God works providentially through disobedient men and women, not only are the instruments unaware of the hand of God, but so are the onlookers.

In chapter 39 we are told, “Now his master saw that the LORD was with him and how the LORD caused all that he did to prosper in his hand” (verse 3). Why could this be said of Joseph’s master but not of his brothers nor of the Midianite traders nor of Hirah nor Tamar? It was because God was working through men in spite of themselves. Joseph gave a clear testimony to his faith in God; his good work and divine blessing verified his faith in the God of Israel. Judah did not witness to Tamar as he was bargaining over the price of her services. Hirah probably never learned that Judah was to play a part in the purposes of God.

The point is this: while God can accomplish His purposes without man’s cooperation by His providential working in this world, He can best be exalted and proclaimed to unbelievers through those who trust in Him and obey His will. Lest we be tempted to be lax in our spiritual lives, convinced that God’s will will ultimately be done anyway, let us remember that God desires to be glorified in His saints (cf. Genesis 49:3; II Thessalonians 1:10,12).

The second implication stemming from the doctrine of God’s providential rule is that we Christians must view every circumstance through the eyes of faith. Judah did not realize at the time that God’s promises were being fulfilled through his act of immorality. Joseph did not fully know that his sale into slavery was going to bring about the deliverance of his brothers and father. There will be many times in the life of the Christian when it will appear that everything is falling apart at the seams. Tragedy, disputes, divisions, and heartache will afflict us so long as we are in these mortal bodies. We, too, must trust that in these times of adversity there is a God Who does work providentially in our lives. This is the assurance that we have from Romans 8:28:

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

Only the eye of faith will see the hand of God in the hard times of life.

While the doctrine of the providence of God is the major theme of this chapter, there are a number of implications that can be drawn from the text as well. Let me suggest some of these for further consideration.

(1) Spirituality is not evidenced by the standards which we hold for others, no matter how vigorously. God judges men on the basis of those standards by which they live their own lives. Judah was willing to stone Tamar and then burn her body for the very sin which he committed. In the New Testament we find this same concept:

Therefore you are without excuse, every man of you who passes Judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the some things (Romans 2:1).

(2) In Jacob’s day, as in our own, one of Satan’s highest priorities is the attack on the home of the people of God. The purposes of God were to be realized in the families of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It was the breakdown of the family which seriously threatened (from a human vantage point) the purposes of God. Today the same challenge faces the Christian family.

(3) In Jacob’s day, as in our own, the same basic issues are at stake. The family was under attack, as the church is today, on two major fronts. The first is in the area of purity and separation. Judah eagerly committed the sin for which he (or at least his brothers) put an entire city to the sword. He married a Canaanite and would have had sexual relations with a cult prostitute. Today our children are facing incredible pressure to conform to the world around them, to date and marry unbelievers, and to forsake the faith they have learned from their family.

Separation from the world is especially important in the matter of the friends that we choose. As Judah slipped away from his family, he entered into an alliance with Hirah, a man who was always present when Judah got into trouble. It is the apostle James who wrote so long ago,

You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? (James 4:4)

The second front in Satan’s attack on the family and the church is the matter of unity and brotherly love. Joseph’s brothers had no brotherly love and no essential unity. Judah’s son Onan had no sense of obligation to his deceased brother and was motivated only by self-interest and selfish ambition. So far as he was concerned, it did not matter if Tamar ever had a child, but God had determined that she would be the one through whom the Messiah would come.

The New Testament abounds with passages which exhort us to practice brotherly love (cf. Romans 12:10; I Thessalonians 4:9; Hebrews 13:1; II Peter 1:7). The reason why we lack this kind of love and the unity which it fosters is that we, like Onan, are concerned more with our own interests than with those of others. Listen to the solution which Paul has outlined:

If therefore there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Philippians 2:1-8).

(4) There are times when we must deal with things which are dirty. I am aware of the text which instructs us,

And do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them (Ephesians 5:11-12).

It was necessary to deal with the sins of Onan and Judah because the Messiah was to come from the seed of Judah. Sexual sins in Judah’s family had very serious ramifications. The sins of Er were not necessary to instruct us, so they are not even named. While the sins of Onan and Judah are mentioned, there are no unnecessary details given. Our curiosity is not stimulated, nor are we in any way stimulated or encouraged to repeat these sins. Indeed, we are shown the painful price that was paid because of them. Sometimes sin must be exposed. In such cases, let us deal with it as Moses did.

34 Even a great commentator like Leupold suggests that this chapter is “entirely unsuited to homiletical use, much as the devout Bible student may glean from the chapter.” H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942), II, p. 990.

35 “The enormity of Onan’s sin is in its studied outrage against the family, against his brother’s widow and against his own body. The standard English versions fail to make clear that this was his persistent practice.” Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), p. 188.

36 “. . . for evidence of the demoralized conduct of the Canaanites has been found on every hand, in the remains of city after city of the Canaanites.” Harold G. Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 256. Here, Stigers refers the reader to M. F. Unger, Archaeology and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965), pp. 168-177.

37 “Marriage customs in this area provided for marriage within the husband’s house. Tamar could be reserved for other sons and even for her father-in-law, but she could not contract marriage for herself.” Harold G. Stigers, Genesis, p. 279. Stigers here refers the reader to C. H. Gordon, Introduction to Old Testament Times (Ventnor, N. J.: Ventnor Publishing Co., 1953), p. 123.

38 This is the view of Leupold, who writes, “She makes calculations that seem to have but one chance in a hundred of being realized, but just that one chance is sufficient.” Leupold, Genesis, II, p. 982.

39 “Sheep-shearing was a festive time (cf. I S. 25:4, 11, 36), when sexual temptation would be sharpened by the Canaanite cult, which encouraged ritual fornication as fertility magic.” Kidner, Genesis, P. 188.

40 “The ‘seal’ (chotham) may have been a ring or even a cylinder seal, such as the Babylonians commonly used. This was always carried around upon his person by the well-to-do man, suspended by the ‘cord’ (pethil); cf. Song 8:6. The ‘staff’ may have been like those which, according to Herodotus, the Babylonians carried, having at its head a specially carved figure of an apple, or a rose, or a lily, or an eagle, or any such thing, for no man may carry a staff without a device,’ (Herodotus 1:195, cited by Delitasch).” Leupold, Genesis, II, pp. 984-985.

41 “When Hirah sought out Tamar, he used a different word to describe her (qedesah) connoting a religious prostitute, available to the Canaanites who come to worship at shrines of the fertility goddess. Harlotry was not the stigma to the Canaanites that it was to Israel. A qedesah was distinguished from a zoneh . . . . Offerings to a qedesah were kids, as was Judah’s.* He considered qedesah and zoneh to be the same.” Stigers, Genesis, p. 280.

* S. Talmon, “Desert Motifs,” in Biblical Motifs, ed. A. Altmann (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966), ii:3.

42 “Tamar was regarded as the affianced bride of Shelah, and was to be punished as a bride convicted of a breach of chastity.” C. F. Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), I, p. 342.

43 Stigers suggests this when he writes,

“Yet one may ask, was he willing to let her be done away with in this manner to eliminate having to give her to Shelah? Does the apparent harshness of the sentence support this view?” Stigers, Genesis, p. 281. It should be noted that Stigers considers this a possibility, but is not strongly inclined to believe it to be the case.

Français

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_38_32k.mp3

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

39. From the Penthouse to the Prison (Genesis 39:1-23)

Introduction

When I was in college (too many years ago to say), a strange thing happened as I was walking between classes. Since I attended college in Seattle, Washington, there was always more than enough rain to go around. Consequently, there was frequently a patch of mud here and there. A fellow classmate who I did not know was walking beside me when, all of a sudden, the girl coming toward us was in trouble. She had attempted to save a precious moment in time by cutting across the grass rather than staying on the sidewalk. As you may have guessed, she found the mud and began to lose her balance. Her books were thrown into the air, and as she was on her way down, she made a desperate grab for the fellow alongside me, who happened to be closer to her than I was.

Failing to grasp the situation as an opportunity to be chivalrous, the young man jumped free of her grasp, and the inevitable happened. She fell to the ground, books and papers flying about her, and she was a muddy mess. As gracefully as she could at such a moment, she snatched up the majority of her belongings and hurried away, hardly unnoticed.

It all happened so suddenly that it was hard to sort things out for a moment. Mechanically both I and the other fellow started out again on our way to the next class. Finally, feeling compelled to give some word of explanation, my companion confessed, “I thought she was going to attack me.”

Many who live in our day would look at Joseph’s actions the same way that we would view the response of my classmate. Joseph, an eligible young bachelor who was quickly rising in power and prestige, missed his chance to make the most of a golden opportunity. The two situations are not at all alike, however. The college student had the opportunity to spare a young woman physical harm and personal embarrassment. Joseph was faced with a married woman who had persistently thrown herself at him. He had little to gain and everything to lose.

As you would expect, this chapter has some valuable lessons to teach us regarding how to face temptation, but I do not believe that is the central message which God intended for us to learn here. The thread which ties the entire narrative of chapter 39 together is the theme of suffering. Few would disagree with the statement that God was with Joseph in Potiphar’s penthouse, but many would question how God could be with Joseph in the prison. All would agree that Joseph’s prosperity in Potiphar’s house came from God due to his faithfulness as a hardworking servant, but how many can say with as much conviction that Joseph’s purity with regard to Potiphar’s wife rightly resulted in his being put into prison.

Since Christians today seem to think that obedience should always bring success and prosperity, Joseph’s imprisonment should cause us to rethink the success strategies that are so popular in our circles. While Joseph would have made a great after-dinner speaker during the peak of his career with Potiphar, how many would have asked him to lecture during his years in prison? Much of our thinking concerning suffering and success needs to be challenged and changed. I know of no better place to begin than in Genesis 39.

The Results of Righteousness—Promotion and Prison
(39:1-18)

A brief look at the chronology of Joseph’s life will enable us to gain a better grasp of what takes place in this chapter. When Joseph was sold by his brothers he was 17 (37:2). At the time he was elevated to a position of power by Pharaoh, he was 30 (41:46). Thirteen years thus elapsed between his arrival in Egypt and his promotion to the second highest office in the land. Furthermore, we know that two years passed from the time the chief cupbearer was restored to his former position by the Pharaoh (41:1). That leaves us with eleven years that Joseph was either in the house of Potiphar or in the prison. Joseph’s rise to power was therefore not achieved quickly or easily.

Now Joseph had been taken down to Egypt; and Potiphar, an Egyptian officer of Pharaoh, the captain of the bodyguard, bought him from the Ishmaelites, who had taken him down there. And the LORD was with Joseph, so he became a successful man. And he was in the house of his master the Egyptian. Now his master saw that the LORD was with him and how the LORD caused all that he did to prosper in his hand. So Joseph found favor in his sight, and became his personal servant; and he made him overseer over his house, and all that he owned he put in his charge. And it come about that from the time he made him overseer in his house, and over all that he owned, the LORD blessed the Egyptian’s house on account of Joseph; thus the LORD’s blessing was upon all that he owned, in the house and in the field. So he left everything he owned in Joseph’s charge; and with him around he did not concern himself with anything except the food which he ate (Genesis 39:1-6a).

From these first six verses we can determine a sequence of events which culminated in Joseph’s promotion to the second highest position of power in Potiphar’s household. Joseph was a shepherd, so it would have been natural for him to begin his “career” in the fields of Potiphar. His success would first have been observed by his master there. Good reports reached the ears of Potiphar, who then brought him into his house (verse 2). Now, under the watchful eye of his master, the administrative skills of this Hebrew shepherd boy were even more apparent.

Potiphar not only observed that Joseph was a valuable employee, but also he discerned that his effectiveness was due to his relationship with his God (verse 3). Joseph had to have revealed his Hebrew origins from the beginning (cf. also verse 14), as well as his own faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. While he could have taken all of the credit for his unusual abilities, Joseph gave the glory to God. I do not think that Potiphar discerned this from his religious sensitivity⁴⁴ but from Joseph’s clear and consistent testimony. While no one would have ever guessed that Judah was blessed of God (cf. chapter 38), Joseph’s life was one that brought glory to God. Obedience and purity give glory to God in a way that disobedience and immorality cannot.

Potiphar was wise enough to recognize the extraordinary ability of Joseph. Under his supervision more and more authority was given to this Hebrew. Not only did God bless the areas over which Joseph was given authority, but Potiphar was blessed in proportion to the authority he gave Joseph. Eventually, Potiphar made Joseph his administrative assistant and gave him full charge over every facet of his enterprise. Potiphar was wise enough to stay out of Joseph’s way and let him handle virtually everything, save the food which he ate and the woman he had taken as his wife.

This gradual rise to power over a number of years was not unrelated to the test he was to face in the person of Potiphar’s wife. Had Joseph not proven himself to be such a capable leader, she would hardly have acknowledged his existence. And had he not come to such a position of power in Potiphar’s house, his temptation would have been inconceivable.

Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance. And it come about after these events that his master’s wife looked with desire at Joseph, and she said, “Lie with me.” But he refused and said to his master’s wife, “Behold, with me around, my master does not concern himself with anything in the house, and he has put all that he owns in my charge. There is no one greater in this house than I, and he has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do this great evil, and sin against God?” And it come about as she spoke to Joseph day after day, that he did not listen to her to lie beside her, or be with her. Now it happened one day that he went into the house to do his work, and none of the men of the household was there inside. And she caught him by his garment, saying, “Lie with me!” And he left his garment in her hand and fled, and went outside (Genesis 39:6b-12).

Jacob was a physically attractive young man. Interestingly, the same description of Joseph is used with reference to his mother also (cf. 29:17). But his good looks were not the only reason why he caught the eye of Potiphar’s wife. (Incidentally, do you notice that this woman, like the wife of Judah, is never named?) It was “after these events” (verse 7), namely Joseph’s rise to power and position, that the physical attractiveness of Joseph registered with this woman. There is little chance that she would have had any interest in a slave, a mere hired hand. But a man who had great leadership abilities and good looks—well, that was something else. The text indicates that it was over a period of some time that this woman came to the conclusion she must have him.

Joseph probably had his “office” inside the house of Potiphar. He now had the authority to come and go wherever and whenever he pleased. He had constant and ready access to the house of Potiphar. We should not go too far afield if we were to assume that Potiphar was often away from home (cf. 39:16). After all, he held an important position under Pharaoh, and with a capable administrator like Joseph, why should he concern himself with matters at home?

It was inevitable that contact with Potiphar’s wife would be more frequent and under more private conditions. More and more, this woman began to capitalize on this. Finally, she brazenly propositioned him (verse 7). From then on she hounded him, probably engineering opportunities to entice him and persistently trying to break down his resistance.

The temptation of Joseph is strikingly parallel to the test of Adam and Eve in the garden. They had free use of everything in the garden, save the fruit of one tree. So Joseph had access to anything of Potiphar’s except his wife. But while the forbidden fruit just hung there tempting Adam and Eve, Potiphar’s wife actively pursued Joseph.

Joseph dealt with this persistent pursuit in three stages. First, he endeavored to reason with the woman. He explained to her that he had come to a position not only of power, but also of privilege and trust. To possess his master’s wife and satisfy his own personal desires was to violate the sacred trust which was committed to him. Furthermore, she was a married woman, and as such their relationship would be adulterous. For both of these reasons the act which Potiphar’s wife proposed was one that would be a great sin against God.

But Potiphar’s wife was in no reasonable mood. She cared little for Joseph’s logic, and so Joseph had to continually resist her advances. Even her requests which sought to bring the two in closer contact were refused. It appears that at times she appealed to him only to be near her, but Joseph knew all too well that she wanted more, and even this would be inappropriate. He was not responsible to meet either her emotional or physical needs, which were the concern only of her husband.⁴⁵

Finally, Joseph had to run from her. Day after day she sought to break down his defenses. In fact, she may have been spurred on by his resistance, for this made him even more of a challenge. Always before there had been someone about, it seems, but at last they were alone, hardly an accident I would think. At least there were no men about (verse 11).

I doubt that anyone who worked as a domestic in Potiphar’s house was ignorant of their mistress’ intentions toward Joseph. It does not appear that she cared whether they knew or not, for she daily hounded him. But when they were alone, she must have thought that Joseph would now be persuaded. Was he not resisting because he was afraid of the consequences of being caught? Who would know now? And so she boldly grasped him by his garment and pled with him.

This was no time to reason with the woman. It was not a time to “pray about it” or to meditate. The only godly course of action was to flee from her. This Joseph did by slipping out of his garment and leaving it in her grasp. Hurriedly, Joseph went outside where one would suppose there were others about and no further advances could be made.

As is often the case, the passion of love can quickly turn to hate (cf. II Samuel 13:15). The garment left behind by Joseph was still in the hands of Potiphar’s wife, who hastily devised a plan to make him regret his resistance.

When she saw that he had left his garment in her hand, and had fled outside, she called to the men of her household, and said to them, “See, he has brought in a Hebrew to us to make sport of us; he came in to me to lie with me, and I screamed. And it come about when he heard that I raised my voice and screamed, that he left his garment beside me and fled, and went outside.” So she left his garment beside her until his master came home. Then she spoke to him with these words, “The Hebrew slave, whom you brought to us, came in to me to make sport of me; and it happened as I raised my voice and screamed, that he left his garment beside me and fled outside” (Genesis 39:13-18).

Calling the men of the household, whose absence had precipitated her final pass at Joseph, she accused him of attempting to rape her. Not only did she appeal to the emotional reaction that such a crime would bring, but she also highlighted the fact that this “attack” was by a detested foreigner, a Hebrew (verse 14, cf. 43:32; 46:34). Because no one had been about, she could claim to have screamed, which no one could have heard from such a distance. This explains why the “attack” occurred with no apparent cries for help. The scream she falsely reported did explain the garment of Joseph in her hands, however, for she alleged that when she cried out it frightened Joseph so that he left his garment and fled.

It was truly a story worthy of this woman. There is no record of any response on the part of those to whom she told this tale, those who all were under the authority of Joseph. Personally, I doubt that any of them believed her account. Day after day they had observed her giving him the eye (verse 10), but never had he acted inappropriately toward her. Indeed, the only talk of the hired hands may have been about how Joseph avoided her and how some of them were compelled to accompany him into the house.

The response of the other slaves did not really matter, though, for they were no more inclined to report to Potiphar about his wife’s misconduct than was Joseph. Neither were they willing to take Joseph’s side and deny the account of this woman when her husband returned. What husband would not burn with anger and indignation if told this story?

Now it came about when his master heard the words of his wife, which she spoke to him, saying, “This is what your slave did to me”; that his anger burned. So Joseph’s master took him and put him into the jail, the place where the king’s prisoners were confined; and he was there in the jail. But the LORD was with Joseph and extended kindness to him, and gave him favor in the sight of the chief jailer. And the chief jailer committed to Joseph’s charge all the prisoners who were in the jail; so that whatever was done there, he was responsible for it. The chief jailer did not supervise anything under Joseph’s charge because the LORD was with him; and whatever he did, the LORD made to prosper (Genesis 39:19-23).

Potiphar’s response was predictable. A slave, a Hebrew slave no less, had attempted to violate his wife. Naturally Potiphar was angered beyond words. Joseph is not said to have been questioned, but even if he were, the truth would be harder to bear than the accusation against this slave. If not touched with some sense of compassion, it must at least have troubled Potiphar to have to imprison such a valuable employee, for much of what he possessed was the result of Joseph’s service.

Certainly, Potiphar’s punishment of Joseph is not nearly as severe as we would have expected. As “captain of the bodyguard” (verse 1), he must have had authority to execute criminals. Such a crime as rape, attempted by a foreigner, must have been considered worthy of death. Instead, Potiphar cast him into “the” prison, the place where political prisoners were confined (verse 20). The word for this jail is unique, suggesting that there is something of particular interest here.⁴⁶

Two passages in chapter 40 make it almost certain that the prison referred to is located nowhere other than in Potiphar’s house, probably in a dungeon in the basement.⁴⁷

So he put them in confinement in the house of the captain of the bodyguard, in the jail, the same place where Joseph was imprisoned (Genesis 40:3).

And he asked Pharaoh’s officials who were with him in confinement in his master’s house, “Why are your faces so sad today?” (Genesis 40:7).

Taken together we know that Joseph was imprisoned in a house which belonged to the “captain of the bodyguard” (40:3), and we know this captain to be Potiphar (39:1). Finally, Joseph is said to have been in confinement “in his master’s house” (40:7). Where else could the prison be but in Potiphar’s house?

This would certainly fit the details of the story as Moses recorded it. First, it explains why the place of confinement was called “the” jail (verse 20); it was the jail that was located on the premises of Potiphar’s estate. It also explains why the chief jailer so quickly placed matters under Joseph’s charge. Joseph was a man well known to the chief jailer if our suggestion is correct. Finally, it is consistent with the doubts that Potiphar may have had concerning the truthfulness of his wife’s accusations. Even if he did believe his wife, Potiphar could continue to benefit from Joseph’s uncanny abilities if he confined him in the prison that was found in his own house.

Joseph, so far as I can tell, was thus demoted. He was banned from the penthouse and bound in the prison. He went from the top floor to the basement. And if that is the way it was, I can visualize Potiphar going down to Joseph each day to discuss the stock market, the economic conditions of the country, and all of the areas which used to be under Joseph’s direct control. Now he was only a consultant.

Conclusion

When we compare the first part of the chapter with the last, we are forced to a very significant conclusion: God was with Joseph every bit as much in the prison as He was in the penthouse. In verses 2 and 3 we are told that the Lord was with Joseph as he worked for his master. We are told the same thing in verses 21 and 23 regarding God’s presence with him while in the prison. Again, in verses 2 and 3 it is recorded that God prospered Joseph and made him successful. This same statement is also made in verses 21 and 23 when Joseph was in the prison.

The conclusion is undeniable: God is present as much with His saints when they are suffering as when they are peacefully prospering. More than this, a man can prosper as much in times of affliction as in times of affluence and ease. God does not grow hot-house Christians. He causes our roots to grow deep in the soil of adversity in order that we may better know and serve Him.⁴⁸

We might expect Joseph to be cast into Potiphar’s prison if he had committed some terrible sin, but the reason for his captivity was his moral purity. It was because he would not go to bed with Potiphar’s wife that he was wrongly accused and condemned. Righteous living does not always bring about flower-strewn pathways; often it brings about the opposite. Joseph’s experience is only one example of this.

What a lesson this chapter provided for the Israelites who first read this account from the pen of Moses. They should have known that Joseph’s experience was not the exception but the rule, for it was they who had just spent 400 years in Egypt suffering as slaves under the cruel hands of their masters, and through no fault of their own. It was this people who would read from the book of Deuteronomy:

And you shall remember all the way which the LORD your God has led you in the wilderness these forty years, that He might humble you, testing you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not. And He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD (Deuteronomy 8:2-3).

David, later in the history of this nation, was prepared for leadership and the prominence and power of being the king of Israel by being unjustly persecuted by King Saul. Throughout the Scriptures we are taught that suffering is not abnormal, but it is a part of God’s gracious dealing in the lives of His children to develop maturity and obedience. Even our Lord was subjected to the discipline of God which is common to Christians:

In the days of His flesh, when He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and who was heard because of His piety, although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered; and having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation (Hebrews 5:7-9).

We dare not forget that this time of adversity was designed for Joseph’s good as well as for the good of his kinsmen. Let me suggest three ways in which Joseph’s time of service to Potiphar was profitable to him. In these three areas, and no doubt in many others, we see that the hand of God was good and gracious in this time of affliction.

First, the service to Potiphar was beneficial to Joseph in that it prepared him for the important task which lay ahead, that of serving as the second highest official in the land of Egypt. If one were to know that such a position of power and responsibility was 13 years in the future, how would one best prepare for it? Surely it would be necessary to learn the Egyptian language, as Joseph did (42:23), as well as their culture (cf. 43:32). There were no language schools, especially for foreigners like the Hebrews. In the providence of God we can now see that this experience was, for Joseph, Potiphar’s Prep School. Here he learned the language, culture, and political interworkings of the nation, incidentally but not accidentally.

Second, Joseph’s imprisonment by Potiphar, while unpleasant, was probably the answer to his prayers. Knowing that day after day this woman persisted at trying to break down Joseph’s resistance, I would imagine that one of his most oft-repeated and earnest supplications was, “Lord, protect me from this woman.” And that is precisely what those prison bars did. His imprisonment was the answer to his prayers. Those bars and chains (cf. Psalm 105:17-18) in no way hindered God’s plans for Joseph, but they did keep Potiphar’s wife from him, the very thing he sought, unsuccessfully, to accomplish on his own. How frequently the answers to our prayers come wrapped in a different package than we expected.

Finally, it was in this prison that God had planned for Joseph to have an appointment with a man who would introduce him to Pharaoh and his position of power. Who would ever have thought that a job interview would have been conducted in such an unlikely place. But it was in that prison for political figures (verse 20) that Joseph was appointed to meet with the cupbearer of Pharaoh, the man who would someday tell this ruler of Joseph’s unusual ability to interpret dreams. Humanly speaking, to avoid imprisonment would have meant breaking an appointment which would lead to an incredible future.

The necessity of suffering and adversity is everywhere taught in the Scriptures, particularly that of suffering which is undeserved or results from righteousness. It is to be viewed as a part of the normal Christian life and expected as a result of righteous living.

But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the surpassing greatness of the power may be of God and not from ourselves; we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body (II Corinthians 4:7-10).

For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake (Philippians 1:29).

For indeed when we were with you, we kept telling you in advance that we were going to suffer affliction; and so it came to pass, as you know (I Thessalonians 3:4).

Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you; but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing; so that also at the revelation of His glory, you may rejoice with exultation. If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. By no means let any of you suffer as a murderer, or thief, or evil doer, or a troublesome meddler; but if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but in that name let him glorify God (I Peter 4:12-16).

Since suffering innocently is a part of the normal Christian experience, let me suggest two practical implications. First of all, it suggests to Christian parents that the loving thing to do for our children is not to give them anything too quickly or easily. In our materialistic society, loving our children is equated with indulging them with every kind of material possession and luxury. To condition our children to expect the Christian life to be just like this is to greatly mislead them. They will tend to grow up expecting God to be an indulgent father who gives to His children all that they want and desire and Who will keep them from all uncomfortable experiences and deprivation. A loving father is one who disciplines his children in such a way as to develop obedience and endurance:

Furthermore, we had Earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, that we may share His holiness (Hebrews 12:9-10).

Second, many Christians have grown up under indulgent parents, who have taught their children not to expect suffering, trials, and hardship in life. I must tell you, my friend, if that is the way you were raised, your experience does not fit reality or God’s revealed Word. Your parents may have been well-intentioned, but they were totally wrong. God cannot be expected (and certainly not demanded) to continue to make your life easy, just as your parents did. In love, God will bring difficulties into your life in order to build up your faith and develop maturity and endurance. If you have been pampered and protected, your whole life outlook needs to be reshaped to conform to the way life is and the way God works in the lives of His own.

This chapter also has much to teach us about facing temptation. Two major misconceptions are exposed in the account of Genesis 39. The first is that we are to look for temptation to come in some dramatic fashion and in one momentous event. When we think of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife, we think only of the one incident, the one described in verses 11 and 12. The significance of this particular incident is that it was the final attempt to seduce Joseph. By his refusal and running off without his garment, Potiphar’s wife brought about the false accusation of Joseph which led to his imprisonment.

The text tells us plainly, however, that the temptation of Joseph took place “day after day” (verse 10). The temptation of Joseph took place over an extended period of time, then, and in a variety of forms. Joseph did not deal with temptation victoriously in one momentous occasion, but in the day-to-day events of life. More than this, the victory which Joseph won over sin on that last occasion was directly related to his previous decisions.

A mistake that we often make is to look for our tests to come in some dramatic confrontation where the issues are crystal clear. By thinking in this fashion we tend to overlook the necessity for standing apart from sin in the mundane and seemingly insignificant matters of daily living. Joseph had settled the issue at hand long before this final confrontation. That decision had to do with the use or misuse of his master’s possessions. As a slave he faced the temptation of taking things which belonged to Potiphar and using them for his own benefit (cf. Titus 2:9-10). Practicing honesty in the smaller matters made it much easier for him to resist the temptation to take advantage of his master’s wife. How we handle the day-to-day temptations of life often determines how we will face the major issues that arise only occasionally.

Second, the temptation which Joseph successfully resisted was not one that pictures the ideal situation for the Christian. I said to someone the other day, “Most Christians want to resist temptation, but they want to be propositioned first.” For Joseph, just the pursuit by Potiphar’s wife could have been ego inflating. Think of the fact that a woman finds you attractive and desires to be with you. But, you see, Joseph could do nothing about the temptations of Potiphar’s wife. She was the only one over whom Joseph was not in authority. That is why he found it necessary to run from her.

In most of our situations we cannot say that the temptations we face are beyond our control, for we are not a slave like Joseph was. Many of the temptations we face are those which we have allowed, and perhaps even encouraged.

I heard a true story of a man who was an alcoholic. A godly preacher was counseling with him, trying to help him avoid another fall. He asked the man how he happened to walk by the tavern. Was it on his way home? The man had to confess that it was not and that he had to take a longer way home in order to pass by it. The real problem was that the man wanted to be tempted and to fall.

Joseph’s experience gives us valuable insight into the words of our Lord when He taught us to pray, “And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil” (Matthew 6:13). Our Lord was not suggesting that God needs to be begged not to tempt us (cf. James 1:13-14), but he was telling us that the desire of our hearts should be that we not only resist sin, but also shun situations which will solicit us to sin.⁴⁹ In this sense, we should never desire to reproduce or repeat Joseph’s victory over this particular temptation. His circumstances do not provide us with an ideal, but his attitude not to encounter the temptation of this woman by so much as having any contact with her whatsoever gives us an example to follow (cf. verse 10).

Our chapter has several other lessons by way of inference. The first of these pertains to the matter of spiritual gifts. Joseph’s gift was one of administration. Do you notice that wherever he was, and no matter what the circumstances, his gift began to bear on that situation? I believe Joseph became a leader and manager in the house of his father, much to the dismay of his brothers. In the fields of Potiphar and then in his house and finally in his prison, he used his gifts to prosper his master. It comes as no surprise that this same ability would become evident to Pharaoh also.

In the New Testament we are taught that every Christian has at least one spiritual gift (e.g., I Corinthians 12:7,11). These gifts are bestowed for the common good, not just for the pleasure or enrichment of the one to whom the gift is given (I Corinthians 12:7). These gifts are to be utilized as a stewardship (I Peter 4:10). Many Christians seem to be waiting for the ideal time and place to utilize their gifts rather than to employ them wherever they are. Wherever there is a need that we are able to meet, we should meet that need. The New Testament teaches us that not only is the gift we are given within the sovereign will of God, but also the place where it is to be utilized and the results it will bring.

Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. And there are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons (I Corinthians 12:4-6).

Let us learn from Joseph that no matter where we may be, we are to use the gift(s) that God has given us to the good of those about us and to the glory of the God Who has given them to us.

One final word should be said about the matter of prosperity. Prosperity in the Bible should not always be equated with financial affluence. Of course God may give some financial means, and this is not wrong (cf. I Timothy 6). However, being rich is not the norm for the Christian, even for those who are spiritual (cf. I Corinthians 1:26-29; Matthew 19:23-24). Joseph, we are told, was blessed of God, and the Lord prospered him greatly (Genesis 39:2-3, 21-23)—but he was a slave. He did not work for wages. He was not in the company profit sharing program. The prosperity which God speaks of here is the blessing that God gave in the exercise of his gift so that Potiphar prospered (financially) and so that the chief jailer was successful (probably in non-monetary matters). As the writer of the Proverbs put it, “It is the blessing of the Lord that maketh rich” (Proverbs 10:22). The blessings which God poured out upon Joseph were not to be measured by his bank book, nor will they necessarily be for us.

If you are reading this message without ever having come to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, I urge you to do so now. But I want you to understand that trusting in Him, while it assures you of forgiveness of sins and eternal life, will not guarantee a carefree and trouble-free life. What it does promise is that every hardship, every injustice, every trial, will be from the hand of God for your good and His glory. He will be personally present in every trial, and His purposes will someday prove to have been good and perfect for the Christian.

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose (Romans 8:28).

44 Griffith Thomas seems to give Potiphar credit for greater religious sensitivity than he deserves when he states,

“Not that Potiphar had any spiritual insight into the ways of Jehovah, but being in some sort a religious man, he became convinced that Joseph’s powers must come from a Divine source.” W. H. Griffith Thomas, Genesis: A Devotional Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946), p. 370.

45 It is possible, though not necessarily probable, that Potiphar was unable to meet his wife’s physical needs. Leupold states: “It seems very strange that a eunuch should be married, as we learn of Potiphar in this chapter. Two possibilities confront us, and the choice between them is difficult. It actually happened in days of old that eunuchs had wives. On the other hand, the term ‘eunuch’ (saris) very likely lost its original meaning and came to signify: prominent court officials.” H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942), II, p. 992.

46 “An unusual word, sohar, found only in these chapters, is used for prison: the Hebrew root suggests a round structure and therefore perhaps a fortress, which is the term used by LXX.” Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), p. 191.

47 Bush convincingly holds this position, citing the work of Jamieson:

“Scarcely, indeed, is there any point in which the notions and practices of the people of the East differ so essentially from ours as in those which relate to the treatment of criminals; for while in Europe there are places reared for the confinement of offenders, and officers specially appointed to have the custody of them, the houses of the highest and greatest persons in the East, are not unfrequently dedicated to the purposes of a prison, and men who fill public and official stations of the greatest dignity, perform the duties of an office which, in our estimation, is the most ignoble. From the earliest times, the jails in the East have been of this description, and under the care of persons of elevated rank; and as it is highly probable that the palace of Joseph’s confinement was some dungeon, or secluded port of the house of Potiphor, who was the principal state officer of Egypt at the time, the knowledge of this circumstance furnishes a natural way of accounting for the freedom allowed to Joseph by the deputy jailer, . . .” George Bush, Notes on Genesis (Minneapolis: James and Family, reprint, 1979), II, p. 257.

48 “The symmetry of this chapter, in which the serene opening (1-6) is matched, point for point, at a new level at the close (19-23) despite all that intervenes, perfectly expresses God’s quiet control and the man of faith’s quiet victory. The good seed is buried deeper, still to push upward; the servant, faithful in a little, trains for authority in much.” Kidner, Genesis, p. 189.

49 This petition establishes the principle that the true saint will not only desire to overcome temptation, but he will hate sin so much that he will not even desire to be put to the test. There is absolutely no suggestion that God would ever tempt us in the sense of soliciting us to sin (James 1:13-14). The most effective prayers are those which request that which God has promised. It is the attitude of heart that shuns not only sin but the occasion which solicits it that our Lord is teaching by example.

Français

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_39_32k.mp3

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

40. How to Get Out of the Pits (Genesis 40:1-23)

Introduction

A couple I know had an experience which resembles events in the life of Joseph which we have studied up to this point. The husband went out to his car one morning only to discover that it wouldn’t turn over because the battery had been stolen. After lifting up the hood, he discovered a note which said something to this effect: “I’m sorry I had to take your battery, but it was an emergency and I had to get to the hospital. I will return your battery as soon as I can.” A little later the battery was returned with another note: “Thank you so much for the use of your battery. To express our appreciation and to make up for the inconvenience we have caused you, here are two tickets to the Dallas Cowboy game this Sunday.”

The couple was ecstatic. They were fans of the Cowboys and were thrilled at the opportunity to go to the game. What a wonderful turn of events this had been. But when they returned home from the game they discovered, to their dismay, that their apartment had been cleaned out. The football tickets had simply been a ruse to get them out of the house.

Joseph’s life, too, had several curious turns of events. Just at the time when things seemed to be going his way circumstances would rapidly change, and hope was seemingly lost. At 17 he was the leader of his brothers, but that only got him thrown into a pit. Due to the band of Ishmaelite traders who “happened by” and at the suggestion of Judah, they sold him instead of leaving him there to die. As Joseph’s abilities became evident to Potiphar, the Egyptian official who had purchased Joseph as his slave, he found himself rising to a position second only to that of his master. Joseph’s refusal to have an affair with Potiphar’s wife resulted in false charges and his incarceration in Potiphar’ prison. And once again in Genesis 40 when it looks as though the butler will be able to make an appeal to Pharaoh on Joseph’s behalf, Joseph’s hopes seem to be dashed on the rocks of reality.

How Joseph handles the “pits” of his life provides us with a key to his ability to live in undeserved and unpleasant circumstances with faith, hope, and love. And what enabled him to live a day at a time also proved to be the means by which God brought about his release and rise to the second highest office in the land of Egypt.

Many of us live “in the pits” too. They may not be the pits of a literal variety, but rather of the unpleasant realities of life, such as circumstances over which we have no control and from which we are not able to remove ourselves. Since those who will live godly lives will suffer persecution and hardship (cf. II Timothy 3:12; James 1:2-4, I Peter 4:12ff.), we must learn from Joseph the way to live life in the pits to the glory of God and for our own sanity and serenity. That lesson, while found not only in Genesis 40, is here to be seen for all those who desire to learn it.

A Divine Appointment
(40:1-8)

Then it came about after these things the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt offended their lord, the king of Egypt. And Pharaoh was furious with his two officials, the chief cupbearer and the chief baker. So he put them in confinement in the house of the captain of the bodyguard, in the jail, the some place where Joseph was imprisoned. And the captain of the bodyguard put Joseph in charge of them, and he took care of them; and they were in confinement for some time. Then the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were confined in jail, they both had a dream the same night, each man with his own dream and each dream with its own interpretation. When Joseph came to them in the morning and observed them, behold, they were dejected. And he asked Pharaoh’s officials who were with him in confinement in his master’s house, “Why are your faces so sad today?” Then they said to him, “We have had a dream and there is no one to interpret it.” Then Joseph said to them, “Do not interpretations belong to God? Tell it to me, please” (Genesis 40:1-8).

Two of Pharaoh’s officers had committed unknown offenses which greatly angered their master and resulted in their imprisonment (verses 1, 2). One was the king’s cupbearer, whom we shall call the butler; the other was the chief baker. These offenses were not mere indiscretions, but some clear-cut act of disobedience or misconduct, as the original term indicates.⁵⁰ These two officers, now fallen from the favor of Pharaoh, were placed under Joseph’s authority in the prison where he, too, was held in bonds.

Because of the details given in chapter 40 it is certain that the prison was in the dungeon under the house of Potiphar. In verse 3 we are informed that the prison was the same one in which Joseph was held captive and that this confinement took place in the “house of the captain of the bodyguard,” the official who has already been identified as Potiphar (39:1). In verse 7 the butler and the baker are reported to be kept with Joseph “in his master’s house.” This can be none other than Potiphar. And finally, Joseph pleads, “Get me out of this house” (verse 14), and he also says, “Even here I have done nothing that they should have put me into the dungeon” (verse 15). The “here” must refer to Potiphar’s estate, where he was brought as a slave and kept as such in the prison.

One must marvel at Joseph’s submissive spirit. He was still regarded as the slave of his master there in the prison. In fact, he was given greater and greater responsibilities there (39:22-23). Evidencing his continued confidence in Joseph’s abilities, Potiphar placed these two officials under Joseph’s authority (40:4). How would you feel toward Potiphar and the task of looking after these men after what Potiphar had done to you? Joseph not only obeyed his master in this, but he made it his business to minister to these men, even to the point of keeping them in good spirits.

After some time had passed, both the butler and the baker had a dream on the same night. The dream of each man was distinct and the meaning different (verse 5). We are told that Egyptians believed that dreams were indicative of future events,⁵¹ and so these two were most concerned by the fact that here, in the dungeon, there was no one qualified to interpret their dreams for them. Their futures had been revealed to them in their dreams, but they could not be interpreted, and the realization of this brought great distress to them. Their downcast faces reflected their great dismay.

Joseph was quick to observe that something was wrong. Body language alone told him that there was a need to be met. The confidence which he had gained over the days they had been together in confinement made it easy for Joseph to ask about this and for them to respond candidly. Each had a dream, they reported, but no one was there who was able to give them the meaning.

With a confidence too contagious to resist, Joseph reminded his companions that the interpretations of dreams belong to God. Since this was the case, they need only tell their dreams to Joseph. He, and they, expected an interpretation of the dreams of the previous night. Joseph’s absolute confidence informs us of his spiritual condition. A man in his circumstances might well question whether or not there even was a God. Many Christians, like the friends of Job, would wonder if his imprisonment were not the result of sin. Joseph was assured of God’s love and care. His eagerness to hear and interpret these dreams reveals his confidence of God’s love and care in his life. The eagerness of the butler to relate his dream to Joseph indicates that he, too, sensed God’s closeness to this Hebrew.

The Good News and the Bad News
(40:9-19)

So the chief cupbearer told his dream to Joseph, and said to him, “In my dream, behold, there was a vine in front of me; and on the vine were three branches. And as it was budding, its blossoms came out, and its clusters produced ripe grapes. Now Pharaoh’s cup was in my hand; so I took the grapes and squeezed them into Pharaoh’s cup, and I put the cup into Pharaoh’s hand.” Then Joseph said to him, “This is the interpretation of it: the three branches are three days; within three more days Pharaoh will lift up your head and restore you to your office; and you will put Pharaoh’s cup into his hand according to your former custom when you were his cupbearer. Only keep me in mind when it goes well with you, and please do me a kindness by mentioning me to Pharaoh, and get me out of this house. For I was in fact kidnapped from the land of the Hebrews, and even here I have done nothing that they should have put me into the dungeon” (Genesis 40:9-15).

The butler’s dream corresponded closely with his previous position under Pharaoh. The dream must therefore indicate what the future held for him, especially in regard to being the cupbearer of Pharaoh. The vine before him, having three branches, rapidly budded, blossomed, and produced grapes, which he squeezed into the cup of Pharaoh and then put into his hands, just as he had formerly done. The three branches signified three days, Joseph told the butler. The dream foretold the restoration of the butler to his former position. In three days things would return to the way they had been previously.

A man in Joseph’s position could easily have taken advantage of his circumstances. Frequently men in charge of prisoners would give preferential care to those who were willing and able to pay for it (cf. Acts 24:17,26). These two officers were eager to learn the meaning of their dreams, a service that Joseph could have rendered for payment. He did, however, request that he be remembered before Pharaoh (verse 14), for the circumstances which led to his arrival in Egypt, as well as those which brought him to prison, were a matter of injustice which Pharaoh could correct.

We all know that everyone is innocent in their own eyes (cf. Proverbs 16:2), and so Joseph’s claim would not be anything unexpected of one in his state. But his ability to interpret the dream of the butler would prove that he was telling the truth before the God Who had revealed the meaning of this dream. He really was innocent. Joseph asked for no favors before the fact, but only after his words were proven to be according to truth. It was a reasonable request, for it only asked for what was just and fair.

Joseph’s one request of the butler gave further testimony to the great faith of this Hebrew prisoner. He was so certain that his interpretation was true that he made a request of the butler which he never considered in the case of the baker. He asked to be remembered before Pharaoh when his words came to pass. It is one thing to venture an opinion on the meaning of a man’s dream, but quite another to make a request for your freedom based upon the outcome of your interpretation. Joseph was convinced that God had spoken through him. While content to remain in the dungeon so long as God willed, Joseph also made every effort to be removed from that place through the channels legitimately available to him.

The butler was encouraged to share his dream with Joseph on the basis of God’s ability to interpret dreams and because of his confidence in Joseph’s relationship with his God. The baker, however, was motivated only by the fact that Joseph’s interpretation was good news to the butler. He, too, is now eager to report his dream to Joseph and thus to have an optimistic forecast of his future.

When the chief baker saw that he had interpreted favorably, he said to Joseph, “I also saw in my dream, and behold, there were three baskets of white bread on my head; and in the top basket there were some of all sorts of baked food for Pharaoh, and the birds were eating them out of the basket on my head.” Then Joseph answered and said, “This is its interpretation: the three baskets are three days; within three more days Pharaoh will lift up your head from you and will hang you on a tree; and the birds will eat your flesh off you” (Genesis 40:16-19).

We have already been informed that the dreams of each official were different and distinct, each with its own meaning (40:5). The baker did not seem to realize this because he eagerly reported his dream, thinking the outcome would also be favorable (verse 16). In his dream he had three baskets filled with various kinds of white bread. The birds were coming to him and eating the bread out of the top basket.

There was a certain similarity between the dreams of the butler and the baker. The baker’s dream also corresponded with his previous position under Pharaoh. He was a baker, and so his dream centered about three baskets filled with bread, just as the butler saw a vine with three branches. In both cases the number “three” pertained to the number of days until the fulfillment of the dreams. But here the similarities end dramatically. The bad news for the baker was that in three days’ time he would have his head lifted off, not lifted up. He was to be hanged, and his body left for the birds to feast upon (and also, probably, for the eyes of the people to look upon). It was a horrible prophecy, and Joseph naturally did not ask this man for any favors in the future.

But why is such a gruesome prediction necessary anyway? Was Joseph not unduly candid in his interpretation? First, we should notice that the two dreams, when taken together, tended to strengthen the testimony of Joseph that God was with him and enabled him to interpret dreams. Joseph did not, as is often done, give nebulous and vague predictions. He gave two very specific prophecies to two persons, yet they were exactly opposite in their outcome. If both came true, it would be much harder to attribute Joseph’s accuracy to good luck.

We do not know with any assurance that Joseph’s words were deliberately graphic or intentionally cruel. They certainly are to us. But let us also remember that these dreams were from God. Interpretations were of God, as Joseph claimed (verse 8), because their dreams had come from Him. God gave these dreams to these men in order to prepare them for things to come. Joseph’s task as an interpreter was not to create God’s message, nor did he dare to change it. He spoke as God directed. The message of the baker’s dream was one from God, and it was true. Neither in its content nor in its tone did Joseph dare to edit this divine revelation.

While we are most inclined to appreciate the fact that the baker’s dream was gorey, let us not forget that it was also, at least in a sense, gracious. The three days were given both to the butler and to the baker not just to agonize, but to prepare for what the future held. Would it have been less cruel for Joseph to have lied to the baker about his future? If he had lied, then there would have been no incentive for him to consider his ways and turn in faith to the God from whom this warning had come. Far better to be warned of the “wrath to come” and to prepare for it than to be deceived and face it unprepared.⁵²

These two dreams and their interpretations contain a striking parallel to the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Both the butler and the baker had “sinned” against their master and had rightfully incurred his wrath. Both awaited the condemnation they deserved. One was pardoned and granted a restoration of fellowship and function at the hand of his master. The other received the punishment that he was due and paid the penalty of death.

The Bible declares to us that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). As guilty sinners we deserve the penalty of our sins, which is eternal death and separation from God, but there is for us the offer of forgiveness through the provision of Jesus Christ.

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 6:23).

When He comes for His own, some will spend eternity with Him, while others will live in eternal separation from His love and power:

And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day … (II Thessalonians 1:9-10).

The message of salvation, for all who would believe, is this:

Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household (Acts 16:31).

Many Christians desire to share with the unsaved only the good news of salvation through faith in the work of Jesus Christ on their behalf. While this is both true and necessary, it is not the whole story. The warning must also be given that to reject Christ is to continue on the path to destruction.

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God (John 3:16-21).

I have a friend who shares the gospel something like this: “Well there’s the good news, and there’s the bad news. The good news is that Jesus Christ is coming again. The bad news is, boy is He mad!” The gospel is good news, but its rejection necessitates the bad news of eternal condemnation and separation.

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshipped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. And death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:4-6,12-15).

The gospel is not our message to men; it is God’s. We can no more alter it than Joseph could change the interpretation of these men’s dreams. We must tell it like it is.

Incidentally, this ability to “tell it like it is” is a vital quality in a leader. We are naturally inclined to gather about us men who will tell us what we want to hear rather than to confront us with what we need to hear. The news Joseph had to share with Pharaoh was not entirely good news, but it was the truth. On the basis of this message from God, provision could be made for the times of adversity which lay ahead. Pharaoh wanted a man under him who would tell him the truth, not give him reports designed only to make him feel good about his administration. This unpleasant task of telling the baker what his future held was not only for his good, but for Joseph’s, who would continue to “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15).

Prophecies Fulfilled, But Promises Forgotten
(40:20-23)

Joseph’s hopes must have soared when the three days passed and both the butler and baker experienced the fulfillment of his prophecies. Surely the butler would not fail to show his gratitude by speaking a word to Pharaoh, and hopefully this would be soon. But this was not to be the case.

Thus it came about on the third day, which was Pharaoh’s birthday, that he made a feast for all his servants; and he lifted up the head of the chief cupbearer and the head of the chief baker among his servants. And he restored the chief cupbearer to his office, and he put the cup into Pharaoh’s hand; but he hanged the chief baker, just as Joseph had interpreted to them. Yet the chief cupbearer did not remember Joseph, but forgot him (Genesis 40:20-23)

The third day happened to be Pharaoh’s birthday. Such an occasion called for feasting and festivities. On such an occasion the services of both the butler and baker would have been required, and their absence would thus be conspicuous. The impression I get from verse 20 is that both the butler and the baker are brought to the banquet on an equal footing of status and prestige. Then, for some unexplained reason, the butler is given his former post, while the baker is taken out and hanged. Perhaps the butler had responded correctly to the king’s generosity while the baker had not. If this is so, the baker did not take heed to the interpretation to the dream which Joseph had given.

Impossible as it seems, the butler forgot all about Joseph for two years. Perhaps at first the butler intended to keep his promise to Joseph but never found the right moment to mention the injustice done to Joseph. As the days went by, thoughts of Joseph’s sufferings were suppressed, along with all the other painful memories triggered by any recollection of that prison. Finally, Joseph was completely forgotten until the king, too, had a dream which could not be interpreted.

Joseph’s rising hopes were dashed upon the rocks of reality for the last time. As he gained power and position in the house of Potiphar, Joseph must have hoped that he could appeal either to his master or perhaps through him to the Pharaoh so that he could be freed to return to his father and his homeland. His purity in the matter of Potiphar’s wife brought him to the dungeon again, just as his brothers had cast him into the pit. Then, when he had the opportunity to interpret the dream of the butler, it began to look as though Joseph could appeal to Pharaoh through this man once he was restored to his position of influence with the king. Two years of silence from the palace eroded away what little hope must have remained.

Conclusion

Those two years spent in Potiphar’s prison must have been the darkest days of Joseph’s life. These years are passed over by Moses in complete silence. We read in the book of Proverbs,

Hope deferred makes the heart sick, But desire fulfilled is a tree of life (Proverbs 13:12).

If Joseph were ever in the dumps, it must have been now. Yet we are never told that Joseph suffered from the normal emotional reactions to his circumstances that are common to every man. Instead, we find in chapter 40 a beautiful lesson in how to deal with despair and depression.

The first thing that enabled Joseph to endure his adverse circumstances was an absolute and unshakeable confidence in the fact that God was with him in his suffering. Twice in the previous chapter we have been told by Moses that God was with Joseph. In the first instance, we are not taken by surprise that God would be with Joseph on his way up in the organization of Potiphar (39:2-3) But we are told just as emphatically that God was with Joseph while he was in the pits (39:21-23). In chapter 40 no one could have had the confidence Joseph did that God was able to interpret dreams through him, apart from an intimate walk with God in that dungeon. And no one could have convinced the butler of this unless there were evidence of it to be seen.

The tragedy of our day is that some Christians are teaching that if a Christian merely has enough faith, he will never need to suffer, for (they say) that the death of Christ provides deliverance from all adversity and affliction.⁵³ While this doctrine may be considered as encouraging to the saint, it produces just the opposite result.⁵⁴ Had Joseph believed that if he only had the faith he could have been instantly delivered from his troubles, his faith would have been devastated by the fact that his troubles did not go away. If freedom from pain and problems is solely dependent upon my faith, then when pain and problems come my way, there must be something wrong with my faith. Joseph would then have been questioning his own relationship with God, perhaps even the existence of God, at the very time when he should have been ministering to others and giving testimony to his faith. If our faith does not endure the storms of life, what good is it?

Fortunately, Joseph believed in a God who is not only all-wise and all-loving, but all-powerful. The God he served did place his servants in circumstances that were difficult and unpleasant, but He also gave a sufficient measure of His grace to endure it. The testimony of Joseph in these dark days is a reminder to every Christian that even the righteous will suffer and that such suffering is in the will of God to accomplish His purposes. No promise is more comforting to the suffering saint than this:

I will never leave you, nor will I ever desert you (Deuteronomy 31:6; Joshua 1:5; Hebrews 13:5).

And lest we fear that such a promise is only for the pious, men like Joseph, we need only be reminded that a rascal like Jacob was assured,

And behold, I am with you, and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land; for I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you (Genesis 28:15).

The second reason for Joseph’s serenity in suffering was his assurance that God could and would deliver him from his suffering in His good time and in His way. The dreams of the butler and the baker must have brought to Joseph’s mind the two dreams which he had had as a lad in the land of Canaan (Genesis 37:5-11). In both dreams God confirmed His purpose to elevate Joseph above his brethren and even his father. Nowhere did God indicate the timing or the means of this promotion. Joseph must have smiled to himself as he sat there in that prison, knowing that someday, somehow, God was going to deliver him.

Joseph’s confidence was no wild-eyed optimism. I know that many, even in Christian circles, are advocating a “positive mental attitude” methodology to bring us out of the pits of mediocrity and despair. I believe it is Zig Ziglar, author of See You at the Top, who has been quoted as saying, “I’m such an optimist, I’d go after Moby Dick in a rowboat and take the tartar sauce with me.”

Unless God has instructed us to “pursue Moby Dick in a rowboat,” the mere fact of our optimism will not give us success in such an endeavor. Positive thinking is only biblical insofar as it pursues biblical goals using biblical means and is motivated by biblical desires. The confidence which Joseph had was a confidence based upon divine revelation.

The watchword for Christians in the midst of suffering is not escape, but endurance:

All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness (Hebrews 12:11).

And after you have suffered for a little, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen, and establish you (I Peter 5:10).

The third reason for Joseph’s ability to cope with his captivity is found in his selfless ambition to serve others rather than to squander his energies in self-pity. One evidence of this is found in verse 4:

And the captain of the bodyguard put Joseph in charge of them, and he took care of them [literally, ‘he ministered to them,’ margin, NASV]; and they were in confinement for some time.

The term “took care of” is normally not an expression used for menial service but for ministerial service. It is employed in the Old Testament for the ministry of Aaron (Exodus 28:35,43) and of the Levites (Deuteronomy 10:8) and the priests (I Kings 8:11). I do not want you to think that this word is used solely of religious ministry (e.g., Genesis 39:4), but it does have decided religious connotations. Personally, I believe that Joseph saw his service wherever he was as an act of devotion toward God and thus as ministry in the highest sense of the word. This would be in accord with what the New Testament teaches servants:

Urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect (Titus 2:9-10).

There is absolutely no place on earth where some kind of ministry to others is not possible, for even if we are in solitary confinement, we can intercede on behalf of others (cf. Philippians 1:1-11).

Ministering to the needs of others had two very beneficial effects on the life of Joseph. For one thing, it kept him from continually wallowing in self-pity. He did not have time to pity himself when he was busily meeting the needs of others about him. Had Joseph been feeling sorry for himself, he would never have observed the sad countenances of the butler and the baker, nor would he have done anything about it even if they had brought the matter up.

A teacher of mine in college shared a personal illustration of how we save our lives by giving them up in the service of others. He had spent several years of the second world war in a prisoner of war camp in Japan. (Incidentally, he was awarded a presidential citation for promoting peace and harmony among the prisoners by implementing and overseeing a program of careful measurement and distribution of the meager supplies provided for those in the camp.) He observed that those who thought only of themselves, hoarding up what little food they could beg, borrow, or steal, often crawled in a corner and died. Strangely, those who sought to care for others, even by giving generously of their own supplies, survived. Ministering to others has a most beneficial effect upon those who serve.

Beyond the immediate value of Joseph’s service to others was the fact that his service was the means to his final deliverance. Had Joseph not observed the needs of those under his care, he never would have ended up in Pharaoh’s palace. Had he not interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker, the butler could not have told Pharaoh that he knew of a Hebrew who had the ability to interpret dreams. And so an act which, at the moment, seemed to have no great significance was the turning point of Joseph’s career. His faithful ministry in that dungeon opened the door for a far greater ministry in the palace of the Pharaoh.

What a striking parallel is to be found in the New Testament in the life of the apostle Paul. Paul had been falsely accused and thrown into prison because of these charges. While in confinement, the apostle penned an epistle to the saints at Philippi. His great concern was not for himself, but it was for those to whom he had earlier preached the gospel. The first eleven verses record the substance of his prayer life on their behalf.

Paul could have shared many unpleasant details of his imprisonment, but he did not. Even the preaching of some out of impure motives caused him to rejoice because the gospel was nonetheless being proclaimed (Philippians 1:15-18). Far from hindering the work of God, Paul’s imprisonment accelerated it. It gave other Christians the courage and confidence to boldly proclaim their faith (1:14). And it also enabled the gospel to be proclaimed throughout the entire praetorian guard (1:13). Is it any wonder, then, that in the concluding verses of this epistle Paul could write,

All the saints greet you, especially those of Caesar’s household (Philippians 4:22).

At the time of his conversion, Saul was told of God’s purposes for his life:

But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake” (Acts 9:15-16).

Caesar’s household was reached with the good news of the gospel, but in a way that Paul would never have expected and some Christians refuse to accept—through unjust suffering. The most humble circumstances are the occasion of some of God’s greatest works. Who, for example, would have thought that anything of significance could have come from a stable in Bethlehem?

Joseph was a great success, but in a vastly different way than what we are told to expect today. The biblical key to success is found nowhere else than in the epistle of St. Paul to the Philippians: “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:13).

Here, we have the full assurance that we can do anything when empowered by the Lord, Who loved us and gave Himself for us. Nothing is impossible to those who receive their strength from our Lord. Christians should never be pessimistic concerning the possibilities which can be realized in Christ. Pessimism is not befitting the Christian.

In this sense the proponents of PMA (Positive Mental Attitude) have a word which many Christians need to hear. Great men through the ages, such as D. L. Moody, have been motivated by the challenge, “The world has yet to see what God can do through a person who is fully committed to Him.” But we must also beware that in fleeing from unbelieving pessimism we do not venture too far to presumption, putting God to the test by overstepping ourselves and expecting God to bail us out—jumping off the pinnacle of the temple, as it were. God is not obliged to make us wealthy, well-liked, or free of woes. God has promised to be with those who belong to Him wherever they are and to bring us to maturity, but not to pamper us or to jump through our hoops.

Second, we need to remember that the “all things” which Paul has said he can do include such things as suffering and doing without. In the context of this verse we read,

Not that I speak from want; for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am. I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need (Philippians 4:11-12).

Contentment, not comfort, is the key to successful living.

Third, those great things which I am able to do are not the result of my works, but through His power. “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:13).

If by having a “positive mental attitude” we mean having self-confidence, then we have completely missed the point. Our confidence and our enablement is to be found only in Him working through us. When we begin to take some of the credit for ourselves, God has to remind us Who is accomplishing things for His glory. That is why our greatest strength comes at the point of our greatest weakness, so that we must rely upon Him and not on ourselves:

And such confidence we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God (II Corinthians 3:4-5).

But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the surpassing greatness of the power may be of God and not of ourselves (II Corinthians 4:7).

And because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet me—to keep me from exalting myself! Concerning this I entreated the Lord three times that it might depart from me. And He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong (II Corinthians 12:7-10).

May God enable us to face our difficulties as from God. May we be assured that He is with us in our trials and that He will remove us in His time and in His way. And may we determine, by God’s grace, to minister to others in our affliction.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort; who comforts us in all our affliction so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God (II Corinthians 1:3-4).

50 “When it is said that they ‘offended’ their lord, the verb used, hate’u implies actual guilt on the part of each, for literally it means, ‘they sinned.”’ H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942), II, p. 1005.

The point of the word is not that the butler and the baker were guilty of some indiscretion or inadvertently offended Pharaoh but that they committed some sin which rightly angered this potentate. The same Hebrew word is found in Genesis 20:6,9; 39:9; 42:22; Exodus 20:20, in this same sense. While Joseph was innocently imprisoned, these two officials were not.

51 “On the dreamers’ part, the conviction that the dreams had a meaning is equally in character: it was common belief in Egypt that they were predictive, and a body of writings grew up on the art of interpreting them.” Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), p. 193.

52 The purpose of prophetic revelation which speaks of impending judgment is to turn men to God in repentance:

Then the word of the LORD came to me saying, “Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?” declares the LORD. “Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel. At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it, if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it” (Jeremiah 18:5-8).

This is why Jonah dreaded preaching a message of condemnation to the people of Ninevah (cf. Jonah 3:5-4:3). He knew that God was gracious and not willing that men should perish. In the same way, I believe, the prediction of the death of the baker was intended to bring him to repentance.

53 In his classic work Knowing God, J. I. Packer devotes an entire chapter to the matter of suffering and the error of those who insist that the Christian need not experience it. I will cite several excerpts from this chapter, hoping you will read the entire book:

“A certain type of ministry of the gospel is cruel. It does not mean to be but it is. . . .

“What kind of ministry is this? The first thing to say is that, sad as it may seem, it is an evangelical ministry. Its basis is acceptance of the Bible as God’s Word and its promises as God’s assurances. Its regular themes are justification by faith through the cross, new birth through the Spirit, and new life in the power of Christ’s resurrection. . . .

“The type of ministry that is here in mind starts by stressing, in an evangelistic context, the difference that becoming a Christian will make. Not only will it bring a man forgiveness of sins, peace of conscience, and fellowship with God as his Father; it will also mean that, through the power of the indwelling Spirit, he will be able to overcome the sins that previously mastered him, and the light and leading that God will give him will enable him to find a way through problems of guidance, self-fulfillment, personal relations, heart’s desire, and such like, which had hitherto defeated him completely. How, put like that, in general terms, these great assurances are scriptural and true--praise God, they are! But it is possible so to stress them, and so to play down the rougher side of the Christian life--the daily chastening, the endless war with sin and Satan, the periodic walk in darkness--as to give the impression that normal Christian living is a perfect bed of roses, a state of affairs in which everything in the garden is lovely all the time, and problems no longer exist--or, if they come, they have only to be taken to the throne of grace, and they will melt away at once.” J. I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1973), pp. 221-222.

54 Joe Bayly has an excellent discussion on the detrimental effect of presumptuously praying the prayer of faith for healing in the case of the terminally ill in the chapter entitled “Prayer and Terminal Illness.” Joseph Bayly, The Last Thing We Talk About (Elgin, Illinois: David C. Cook Publishing Co., 1973), pp. 80-88.

Français

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_40_32k.mp3

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

41. From the Pit to the Palace (Genesis 41:1-57)

Introduction

The story is told of a man who was drafted into the armed forces. Wherever he went he would stoop to pick up any piece of paper which was on the ground. And every time he picked up a piece of paper, he would look at it, shake his head no, and then throw it away. It didn’t take long for his superiors to become aware of his actions and to determine to find the underlying cause. Finally, in desperation, they granted him a medical discharge. The soldier was summoned to the office of his superior officer and was handed the official form which granted his release. Looking carefully at it, he exclaimed, “This is it! This is what I’ve been looking for!”

Many of us are like that soldier in that we go through life waiting for the one big break that will turn our life around and that will give us riches and fame, prosperity and power. For some, that break is thought to come from Wall Street, and it will be written in the Dow Jones averages. For others, the lucky break is expected to come in Nashville, Hollywood, or Las Vegas. Most of us tend to think of our success as coming from some life-changing, momentous event.

It is very easy to misunderstand Genesis 41 by superimposing this false conception of success on the experience of Joseph when he was exalted to the second highest position in all of Egypt. We may look at the dreams of Pharaoh and the mention of Joseph by the cupbearer as the lucky break of Joseph’s life, which broke the chain of frustrating turns of events which had previously plagued him. Someone has even suggested that Joseph may well have been aware of Murphy’s Law: “Whatever can go wrong probably will.”⁵⁵

Genesis 41 does not tell us the entire story, however. It merely provides us with a vantage point whereby we may look back upon past events and see their part in bringing Joseph to Pharaoh’s palace. We may also look ahead and see the reason why God brought Joseph to his position of power in the way He did. Joseph’s life story was no fairy tale. Moses did not tell us that after Joseph was promoted by Pharaoh he lived “happily ever after.” Joseph has been promoted for a definite purpose, and we dare not overlook this in the joy of seeing him taken out of the pit and placed in a position of power and prestige in Pharaoh’s palace.

Pharaoh’s Revelation and Joseph’s Release
(41:1-13)

Now it happened at the end of two full years that Pharaoh had a dream, and behold, he was standing by the Nile. And lo, from the Nile there came up seven cows, sleek and fat; and they grazed in the marsh grass. Then, behold, seven other cows came up after them from the Nile, ugly and gaunt, and they stood by the other cows on the bank of the Nile. And the ugly and gaunt cows ate up the seven sleek and fat cows. Then Pharaoh awoke. And he fell asleep and dreamed a second time; and behold, seven ears of grain came up on a single stalk, plump and good. Then behold, seven ears, thin and scorched by the east wind, sprouted up after them. And the thin ears swallowed up the seven plump and full ears. Then Pharaoh awoke, and behold, it was a dream. Now it came about in the morning that his spirit was troubled, so he sent and called for all the magicians of Egypt, and all its wise men. And Pharaoh told them his dreams, but there was no one who could interpret them to Pharaoh (Genesis 41:1-8).

Two full years had passed,⁵⁶ and Joseph is still confined in Potiphar’s prison, forgotten by the cupbearer of the Pharaoh despite Joseph’s favorable interpretation and plea to be remembered after his predictions came to pass (40:14-15). God chose to work through means other than human instruments, and thus He spoke to Pharaoh in two dramatic dreams. Both dreams were very real and most disturbing. After each, Pharaoh was awakened (41:4,7). These dreams were remarkably Egyptian, for the cows came from out of the river Nile, and the grain was withered by a well-known and dreaded east wind.⁵⁷ The sight of cows cooling themselves in the river and feeding on the lush marsh grass was typically Egyptian.

The dream was distressing to the Pharaoh because it was twice experienced in varying forms, interrupted by his being awakened. The meaning was a puzzle, for the seven lean cows remained lean and gaunt, even after consuming the fat cattle. The same was true with the grain. It was not normal for cows to eat cows or grain to consume grain, but surely the lean things should have been fattened by what they ate. Something had to be wrong, but what was it?

The king’s usual source of information, the magicians,⁵⁸ were totally baffled, as was Pharaoh. They could not fathom the meaning of the dream. These men should not be confused with magicians of our own day. They did not wear tuxedos and pull rabbits out of hats. They were the wisest, best educated men of Pharaoh’s kingdom, schooled in the art of interpreting dreams. Lest we may be puzzled by the inability of these men to discern the meaning of these two dreams, at least in general terms, let us be reminded of the fact that the two dreams were a revelation from God, and the things of God can only be grasped through His Spirit (cf. I Corinthians 2:10-16).

The king’s frustration at having such impressive dreams and yet being unable to know their meaning was too similar to the experience of the cupbearer to be overlooked. Joseph was finally brought to the cupbearer’s mind, and Pharaoh was told of the unusual Hebrew slave with whom this official had “spent time.”

Then the chief cupbearer spoke to Pharaoh, saying, “I would make mention today of my own offenses. Pharaoh was furious with his servants, and he put me in confinement in the house of the captain of the bodyguard, both me and the chief baker. And we had a dream on the same night, he and I; each of us dreamed according to the interpretation of his own dream. Now a Hebrew youth was with us there, a servant of the captain of the bodyguard, and we related them to him, and he interpreted our dreams for us. To each one he interpreted according to his own dream. And it came about that just as he interpreted for us, so it happened; he restored me in my office, but he hanged him” (Genesis 41:9-13).

Nowhere does the cupbearer mention the injustice of Joseph’s imprisonment. The “offenses” of which he spoke (verse 9) do not seem to be related to his forgetting Joseph, but rather to his sins against Pharaoh for which he was cast into prison under Joseph’s custody. The substance of the cupbearer’s words to his master was that this young Hebrew slave was highly skilled in interpreting dreams.

No mention of his character or his religious faith was made. Joseph’s release and the matter of making right the wrongs committed against him were of no interest to the cupbearer, at least as far as his own words inform us.

Pharaoh’s Problem and Joseph’s Plan
(41:14-36)

Then Pharaoh sent and called for Joseph, and they hurriedly brought him out of the dungeon; and when he had shaved himself and changed his clothes, he came to Pharaoh. And Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I have had a dream, but no one can interpret it; and I have heard it said about you, that when you hear a dream you can interpret it. Joseph then answered Pharaoh, saying, “It is not in me; God will give Pharaoh a favorable answer.” So Pharaoh spoke to Joseph, “In my dream, behold, I was standing on the bank of the Nile; and behold, seven cows, fat and sleek came up out of the Nile; and they grazed in the marsh grass. And lo, seven other cows came up after them, poor and very ugly and gaunt, such as I had never seen for ugliness in all the land of Egypt; and the lean and ugly cows ate up the first seven fat cows. Yet when they had devoured them, it could not be detected that they had devoured them; for they were just as ugly as before. Then I awoke. I saw also in my dream, and behold, seven ears, full and good, came up on a single stalk; and lo, seven ears, withered, thin, and scorched by the east wind, sprouted up after them; and the thin ears swallowed the seven good ears. Then I told it to the magicians, but there was no one who could explain it to me” (Genesis 41:14-24).

Joseph was hurriedly brought out of Potiphar’s dungeon, but he did not face Pharaoh until he had shaved and changed his clothes. This was not just “cleaning up,” which surely was needed; it was a cultural concession. To the Hebrews, a beard was a mark of dignity (cf. II Samuel 10:4-5; Ezra 9:3), but for the Egyptian it was an offensive thing.⁵⁹ Joseph took the time to shave himself so as not to unnecessarily offend the king of Egypt. When Joseph came before Pharaoh, the distressing dreams of the previous night were immediately brought up. Pharaoh had heard that Joseph could interpret them.

What an opportune moment for Joseph to capitalize upon! If Jacob had been in his son’s sandals, things would have gone very differently, I believe. He would likely have used the occasion to make a bargain with the king—his freedom for Pharaoh’s request. Jacob would have had a special on interpretations that week. At the very least he would have made certain that Pharaoh understood the injustice of his present circumstances. “You see, Pharaoh, I would really like to help you with your problem, but my mind is so troubled with my circumstances just now that I can’t think …”⁶⁰

As much as Joseph desired to be released from his captivity, he never brought up the subject. His first concern was not with his own comfort, but with God’s glory. The ability to interpret dreams, which Pharaoh had credited to Joseph, was not his at all. Only God can interpret dreams, Joseph quickly corrected. The young Hebrew slave’s words not only clarified the source of his ability, but they also seemed to give Pharaoh hope that the outcome of Joseph’s ministry to him would bring him comfort in his distress (verse 16). With these words, Pharaoh eagerly repeated his dreams to Joseph, closing by confessing the inability of his most able counselors to give him any word of explanation (verse 24).

Now Joseph said to Pharaoh, “Pharaoh’s dreams are one and the same; God has told to Pharaoh what He is about to do. The seven good cows are seven years; and the seven good ears are seven years; the dreams are one and the same. And the seven lean and ugly cows that came up after them are seven years, and the seven thin ears scorched by the east wind shall be seven years of famine. It is as I have spoken to Pharaoh: God has shown to Pharaoh what He is about to do. Behold, seven years of great abundance are coming in all the land of Egypt; and after them seven years of famine will come, and all the abundance will be forgotten in the land of Egypt; and the famine will ravage the land. So the abundance will be unknown in the land because of that subsequent famine; for it will be very severe. Now as for the repeating of the dream to Pharaoh twice, it means that the matter is determined by God, and God will quickly bring it about. And now let Pharaoh look for a man discerning and wise, and set him over the land of Egypt. Let Pharaoh take action to appoint overseers in charge of the land, and let him exact a fifth of the produce of the land of Egypt in the seven years of abundance. Then let them gather all the food of these good years that are coming, and store up the grain for food in the cities under Pharaoh’s authority, and let them guard it. And let the food become as a reserve for the land for the seven years of famine which will occur in the land of Egypt, so that the land may not perish during the famine” (Genesis 41:25-36).

Joseph skillfully interpreted the two dreams. His interpretation closely followed the two dreams in many particulars, a fact which could hardly have been unnoticed by Pharaoh and which added credibility to Joseph’s explanation. The two dreams, while different in some details, were one in their meaning (verse 25). Both dreams were given in order to indicate the certainty of what was to occur (verse 32). In each instance “seven” was the time involved—seven years. The fat cows and the plump heads of grain were indicative of the seven years of abundance which were to commence soon in Egypt. The seven gaunt cows and the seven scorched and withered heads of grain foretold the famine which was to follow the years of plenty. The bottom line was that Egypt was to have seven years of plenty followed by a famine so severe that all of the previous abundance would be consumed.

How easy it would have been to stop here. There was good news and bad news for Pharaoh—abundance followed by famine. But Joseph was more than a prophet; he was an administrator. Not only was he able to foretell “things to come,” but he was also competent to analyze the situation and determine the best course of action in order to minimize its detrimental effects. And so a decisive plan of action was proposed to Pharaoh along with the predictions that were given.

A capable administrator was required. He should be instructed to take command of the situation and to gather up a double portion of the bumper crops that would be produced by the land in the years of prosperity. Under him, men should be appointed to make collections and supervise the storage of the land’s produce. These surpluses should be brought into the cities for safe-keeping and later distribution. By these means the effects of the famine could be minimized.

I have become more convinced than ever, having gained a deeper appreciation for the character and humble spirit of Joseph, that it never entered into his mind that he should be the one appointed over this project. Self-interest had never been manifest in his character or conduct prior to this. He did not even mention his unjust imprisonment. Furthermore, who could ever have conceived of a Hebrew slave being elevated to the second highest office in the land? Regardless of the person in charge, the plan would have to be followed in order to deal with the famine which was predicted.

A Promotion by Pharaoh
(41:37-45)

Now the proposal seemed good to Pharaoh and to all his servants. Then Pharaoh said to his servants, “Can we find a man like this, in whom is a divine spirit?” So Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Since God has informed you of all this, there is no one so discerning and wise as you are. You shall be over my house, and according to your command all my people shall do homage; only in the throne I will be greater than you.” And Pharaoh said to Joseph, “See I have set you over all the land of Egypt.” Then Pharaoh took off his signet ring from his hand, and put it on Joseph’s hand, and clothed him in garments of fine linen, and put the gold necklace around his neck. And he had him ride in his second chariot; and they proclaimed before him, “Bow the knee!” And he set him over all the land of Egypt. Moreover, Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Though I am Pharaoh, yet without your permission no one shall raise his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.” Then Pharaoh named Joseph Zaphenath-paneah; and he gave him Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera priest of On, as his wife. And Joseph went forth over the land of Egypt (Genesis 41:37-45).

While there was a certain amount of relief resulting from Joseph’s interpretation, the greatest comfort came from his proposed plan of action and the evidence of his competence to oversee the matter. Even the magicians unanimously concurred (But then, who among them would have dared to disagree!) that Joseph was the man for the job.

While Pharaoh’s statement gives testimony to his conviction that Joseph had divine enablement, I do not think that his understanding was such as to equip him to write a theology of the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament. I believe that Pharaoh was willing to grant Joseph’s assertion that God was with him and that he had spiritual enablement. He was thus willing to acknowledge that there was a god who, through a divine spirit, worked through Joseph. At this point his conception of Joseph’s religion was extremely elementary. More time with Joseph likely changed this.

The best that Joseph could have dared to hope for was a release from his imprisonment. How far beyond this was his elevation to a position of power and prestige! Tokens of his new authority were the signet ring, fine garments, a gold necklace, and the royal chariot, preceded by those who proclaimed the fame and position of Joseph (verses 42, 43). That chariot may not have been the Rolls Royce of Pharaoh’s fleet, but it was at least a Mercedes Benz. Just as Joseph was second only to Potiphar, now he was to answer only to Pharaoh (verses 40, 44).

Pharaoh took two other highly symbolic actions which helped to cement Joseph’s new position with the people of the land. First, Joseph was given an Egyptian name. There are numerous conjectures as to what this name meant.⁶¹ Frankly, I do not have the slightest idea what that name meant, nor do I care. An Egyptian name, whatever it meant, signified that in Pharaoh’s mind Joseph was not a “mere Hebrew” (which were despised by the people of Egypt (43:32, 46:34), but an Egyptian. Among the American Indians the counterpart to this would have been to make Joseph a blood-brother of the tribe.

This is further confirmed by the gift of an Egyptian wife, Asenath (verse 45). Many Christians are troubled by the fact that Joseph took a wife from among the Egyptians. Let me ask you a very practical question. Had you been Joseph, where would you have gone to find a godly wife? Would you have gone to Judah, who was willing to sleep with a Canaanite cult prostitute? Would you have gone to your brothers, who tried to kill you? Would you go to a man like Laban? Where could a man find a godly wife in those days?

God had not yet given any commandments regarding marriage, but what was later laid down in the law did not forbid a marriage such as that of Joseph:

When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands, and you take them away captive, and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife (Deuteronomy 21:10-13).

Only marriage to a Canaanite woman was forbidden by God:

But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you, in order that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the LORD your God (Deuteronomy 20:17-18).

We must, therefore, conclude that Joseph did not sin by taking this Egyptian woman to be his wife. The fact that she was the daughter of an Egyptian priest (verse 45) does not necessarily indicate otherwise. I doubt very much that Pharaoh would have given Joseph a wife who would have been an offense to him or a contradiction to his beliefs. I further doubt that Joseph would have taken her as his wife if she would have been a detriment to his spiritual life. The kind of man who could say “no” to Potiphar’s wife would surely have declined Potiphera’s daughter⁶² if she would hinder his faith.

A Program Implemented
(41:46-57)

The final section serves several purposes. First, it reveals the accuracy of Joseph’s interpretation. Second, it evidences the administrative astuteness of Joseph in handling the affairs of state in preparation for the famine to come. Finally, it reveals to us Joseph’s continued spiritual commitment to the God of his fathers.

Now Joseph was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh, king of Egypt. And Joseph went out from the presence of Pharaoh, and went through all the land of Egypt. And during the seven years of plenty the land brought forth abundantly. So he gathered all the food of these seven years which occurred in the land of Egypt, and placed the food in the cities; he placed in every city the food from its own surrounding fields. Thus Joseph stored up grain in great abundance like the sand of the sea, until he stopped measuring it, for it was beyond measure. Now before the year of famine came, two sons were born to Joseph, whom Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera priest of On, bore to him. And Joseph named the first-born Manasseh, “For,” he said, “God has made me forget all my trouble and all my father’s household.” And he named the second Ephraim, “For,” he said, “God has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction.” When the seven years of plenty which had been in the land of Egypt came to an end, and the seven years of famine began to come, just as Joseph had said, then there was famine in all the lands; but in all the land of Egypt there was bread. So when all the land of Egypt was famished, the people cried out to Pharaoh for bread; and Pharaoh said to all the Egyptians, “Go to Joseph; whatever he says to you, you shall do.” When the famine was spread over all the face of the earth, then Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold to the Egyptians; and the famine was severe in the land of Egypt. And the people of all the earth come to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth (Genesis 41:46-57).

Just as Joseph had indicated, the next seven years were marked by great abundance. The land produced in such quantity that the grain held in reserve for the future was beyond measure (verse 49). Joseph skillfully carried out the plan which he had proposed to Pharaoh, storing up a fifth of the grain in the cities for later use. At the end of the seven years of plenty, the famine hit Egypt with severity. The people came to Pharaoh requesting bread, and he sent them to Joseph, telling them to do whatever he said (verse 55). Joseph opened the storehouses and began to sell grain to the Egyptians and to those from other lands, some of whom would be his own brothers.

During the years of Egypt’s great prosperity Joseph was blessed with two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim. The names which they were given give us further indication of Joseph’s spiritual condition during these exhilirating years in Pharaoh’s palace. Manasseh, which means “making to forget” (margin, NASV), was Joseph’s expression of his gratitude toward God, Who had enabled him to forget “all my trouble and all my father’s household” (verse 51). I do not think that this should be understood in a negative way as though Joseph had no more interest or concern for them. Certainly God’s rich blessings had enabled him to blot out the painful memories of the past, especially the hurt and bitterness which could only harbor a grudge against his brothers and seek an opportunity to get revenge.

Nor should we get the impression that Joseph had no more longings to see his father or his brothers I understand Joseph to mean that he was not overwhelmed with a compulsion to return home out of loneliness, but he was content to remain in the land where God had brought him. Had he returned to his home in Canaan, he could not be the deliverer of his family as God had purposed, and the nation would not be strangers in this foreign land as God had indicated to Abraham many years before:

While I do not wish to offer a new translation, this paraphrase may help to express the meaning which I think Joseph was trying to convey in the naming of Manasseh: “For,” he said, “God has made me forget all my trouble with my father’s household.” The bitterness was gone. Joseph was able, even now, to see that while his brothers were wrong in their actions, God had meant it for good (cf. 50:20). With this attitude Joseph could exercise sufficient self-control to keep from revealing his identity too quickly, and thus bring his brothers to genuine repentance by a careful program of instruction unimpeded by feelings of anger and vengeance.

The name Ephraim, that is “fruitfulness” (margin, NASV), conveyed the assurance of Joseph that it was God who had given him prosperity and blessing in the land of his affliction. To Joseph, affliction and blessing were not contradictory, for God was able to turn sorrow into joy.

Conclusion

This episode in the life of Joseph brings us to a vantage point from which we may look backward and forward. Looking back, we must realize that Joseph’s elevation is not the result of one lucky break, but rather of a chain of painful but divinely purposed events. Had Joseph not said “no” to Potiphar’s wife and been unjustly cast into prison with the cupbearer, he could never have been recommended to the king. And had Joseph not been cruelly treated by his brothers and sold into slavery, he would never have been in Potiphar’s house. What a beautiful illustration of Romans 8:28:

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

Looking ahead, we see that the story does not end with chapter 42, for while Joseph is the principal character of this section, he is not the sole object of God’s attention and activity. While there is a sense in which Joseph was blessed because of his faithfulness, there is the even broader perspective that Joseph’s promotion was not for his own prosperity as much as for his brothers’ preservation. Joseph’s position of power and prosperity enabled him to become the “savior” of his brethren. We must be humbled by the fact that while God cares for us as individuals, He often has a broader purpose for what He gives to us. Spiritual gifts, for example, are not given for our own benefit so much as for the upbuilding of others:

But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good (I Corinthians 12:7).

As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God (I Peter 4:10).

We need to be very careful about using Joseph as a model in the matter of suffering and glory. In the ultimate sense, Joseph does illustrate the truth that suffering comes before glory and, indeed, even prepares us for glory. The Christian life will be marked by suffering, as countless passages of Scripture inform us (for example, John 15:19; II Corinthians 1:3-5; Philippians 1:29; II Timothy 3:12; Hebrews 12:7-13; James 1:2-4; I Peter 4:12-19), but we know that we will enter into many of the joys of our salvation and the glory which is our Lord’s at His return (II Thessalonians 1:3-12; I Peter 1:3-12). Let us be very careful, however, that we do not view Joseph as a promise that all who are faithful in suffering will be brought to glory and prosperity in this life.

Perhaps my point can best be illustrated by a contrast between the lives of Joseph, who lived out these events, and Moses, who recorded them for us. Joseph began in the land of Canaan and ended up in the land of Egypt with the nation Israel under his care. Moses began in the land of Egypt and ended up in the land of Canaan with the nation Israel under his care. Joseph began his life as a shepherd in the pastures of his father and was exalted to the palace of Pharaoh. Moses was taken as an infant into the palace of the Pharaoh, but later he became a shepherd among the flocks of his father-in-law.

Do you see how very differently God used these two men to accomplish His purposes? While it was necessary, in the purposes of God, to elevate Joseph from the pasture to the palace in order to save the seventy people of God (46:27), it was necessary for Moses to step down from the palace in order to lead the people of God out of bondage:

God’s purposes are not achieved through only one method or pattern for all men. He raises some up, giving them power and prosperity, while He humbles others. We have no right to demand that God treat us just as He did Joseph, for He may choose to deal with us as He did Moses. Or, more likely, He may deal with us is some way that is entirely different from the way he directed either Joseph or Moses. Joseph, then, is no guarantee that faithful obedience will always lead to position, prosperity, and power in this life. One need only recall the life of Job to correct such shallow thinking.

Now I have a very important word for those who sloppily have made an arbitrary and unbiblical distinction between the “secular” and the “spiritual,” or between “full-time” Christians and the “laity.” Do you notice that God has brought about the deliverance of His people not through Judah, from whom Messiah would come, and not through Levi, through whom the priestly class would originate, but through Joseph, a paper shuffler, a desk jockey, an administrator?

As spiritual as he was, I can well imagine that many in our own day would have approached Joseph with words similar to these: “Joseph, as spiritual as you are, you should consider attending seminary and going into full-time ministry.” How could a secular ministry ever be fulfilling to a man as spiritual as Joseph? God did not raise up a preacher nor a priest, but an administrator to deliver His people from extinction. Let us beware of categorizing occupations in such a way as to make some more spiritual than others. Everyone is a full-time minister in the Scriptures, but some are called to labor in one sphere while others are called to another. Spirituality is totally independent of one’s occupation. One’s job is a matter of both gift and calling, not of spirituality.

In this same line, Joseph was not promoted by Pharaoh (in human terms) because he was spiritual, but because he was skillful and knowledgeable. Pharaoh recognized Joseph to be a man who had divine enablement, but he could have cared less who his “god” was. He was only concerned with finding a man who could do the job which needed to be done. Many Christians think that God is obligated to bless or that His people are bound to patronize people simply because they are Christians. During our recent elections it was sometimes implied that we should vote for a person solely on the basis of a profession of faith. When I go to a surgeon, I will go to the one who is the best, regardless of whether he (or she) is a pagan, an atheist, or a devout Christian. God is not restricted to working only through saints, you know. Many of us who are Christians are not very good at what we do, either because we are lazy, or we think that God is obliged to bless us only because we give testimony to our faith. Joseph’s testimony would have had little impact if he had proven to be wrong or had failed miserably to administrate the collection of grain. Let us enhance our testimony by doing well what we do. As the writer of the proverb puts it:

Do you see a man skilled in his work? He will stand before kings; He will not stand before obscure men (Proverbs 22:29).

While I believe that God elevated Joseph because he trusted in God and obeyed, I am just as confident that Pharaoh elevated him because he was diligent and skillful in what he did. Piety without proficiency is folly. We praise God in our work as well as in our words. One without the other is useless.

Joseph’s life is a commentary on the principle that: “He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much” (Luke 16:10).

Joseph did nothing different in Pharaoh’s palace than he did in Potiphar’s penthouse or in his prison. In every instance Joseph exercised his God-given ability to administrate. While the features of each job may have differed, the functions were the same. Joseph, I am certain, did well in the palace because he had done his work diligently and faithfully wherever he had been previously.

How often we are like the unfaithful steward who had only one talent and who hid it because he thought it was too insignificant to bother with. How much more others had to offer, he rationalized. But his master called him wicked and lazy (Matthew 25:26). Only those who are faithful with present opportunities and duties have any basis for expectation of greater responsibilities and privileges. Our primary duty is not to dream of what the future may hold, but to do what the present provides us. He is a fool whose “eyes are on the ends of the earth” (Proverbs 17:24), always waiting for his ship to come in, for that one lucky break, but doing nothing in the present.

The biblical principle which we must practice is rather this: “Commit your works to the Lord, And your plans will be established” (Proverbs 16:3).

It is not wrong to have biblical goals, but it is foolish to devote our energies to future and glorious dreams when present duties are being neglected. It is not wrong to have “high hopes” as the song says it, but it is foolish to keep “butting the dam” when our head is only getting bloodier and bloodier. God has given us a work to do now; let us be faithful in doing that. And let us remember that the things which God has in store for us are even greater than our minds can conceive (I Corinthians 2:9). Our highest dreams may fall far short of that which God has in store for those who do the little things of the present well and leave the future to Him.

Finally, a word about adversity. I think we can all see how God used adversity to prepare Joseph for the promotion and power he receives in chapter 41. But have you noticed that it was national disaster which provided the occasion for this promotion? Pharaoh would never have promoted Joseph unless he knew that there were trying days ahead and difficulties which were beyond him and his wisest advisors. That is when the Josephs are needed, in adversity.

Some of us, as Christians, would do well in the matter of prophecy. We are great prophets of doom. We love to stand up and proclaim to the world that the world is going to Hell on a bobsled. And we stop just at this point, with only the bad news. Joseph did not stop here; he had a message of hope, a message which provided a solution for the problems of that day.

The ultimate solution to the problems of mankind is a spiritual one. The crises of our lives are, at bottom, a result of sin. And the solution to the problem of sin is one that only God, through the death of His Son on the cross of Calvary, has the answer to. Let us be faithful to offer men hope and not just despair. It is in man’s darkest hours that the message of the gospel is most desperately needed and when godly men and women are turned to.

But let us not stop with this, as fundamental and primary as it is. We live in days of tremendous difficulty. It takes little wisdom or ability to confirm the fact that things are bad, but it takes the wisdom which only God gives to offer solutions to the practical problems of hunger and injustice, of energy and ecology. Let us, like Joseph, speak to these issues too, with wisdom and skill, and by this add credibility to the faith which we proclaim.

55 Edward R. Dayton, Christian Leadership Letter, World Vision International, February, 1981, p. 3.

56 It is not possible to determine, with any degree of certainty, whether this two years begins with the imprisonment of Joseph or with the release of the cupbearer. The value of such a fact would only be to enable us to determine the chronology of Joseph’s life more precisely.

57 “The essentially Egyptian character of this section, and indeed of the entire narrative of Joseph, is worthy of constant notice, for it provides us with one of the watermarks of the Pentateuch enabling us to perceive its historical character and its truthfulness to life. It is not too much to say that at no period after the time of Moses could anything so true to Egyptian life have been written out of Egypt by a member of the community of Israel.” W. H. Griffith Thomas, Genesis: A Devotional Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1946), p. 389.

58 “Magicians is another Egyptian-based word, hartummim: it appears to be part of a composite title for those who were expert in ritual books of priest-craft and magic. They appear in Exodus 7:11 where spells were needed; here they would be consulting the considerable literature on dreams . . .” Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), pp. 194-195.

59 “The bath and the shave are designed to make Joseph ritually and socially acceptable to Pharaoh. (None of the Egyptians wore beards. Beards shown on the monuments are ceremonial and even Queen Hatshepsut wore an imitation one, as is to be seen on the representations left to her after Thutmosis III had her images defaced or removed.) Change of clothing was necessary to suit Joseph’s status as a wise counselor.” Harold G. Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 288.

60 I confess, I may be getting carried away with Jacob’s traits; however, he surely was a schemer and a “wheeler-dealer.” In chapter 43 he will rebuke his sons for telling the truth to Joseph (verse 6). At least this is the way I would have handled the situation with Pharaoh.

61 “The practice of giving foreigners on Egyptian name is very well attested, but no agreement exists on the meaning of Zaphenath-paneah. Egyptian-based interpretations have been offered as diverse as ‘God has spoken and he lives’ (G. Steindortf), ‘He who knows things’ (J. Vergote), and ‘(Joseph), who is called Ip’ ankh’ (K. A. Kitchen).” Kidner, Genesis, p. 197.

62 Incidentally, there is absolutely no reason to see any connection between Potipher and Potiphera, other than a similarity of sound.

Français

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_41_32k.mp3

Passage:

42. The Proper Use of Power (Genesis 42:1-38)

Introduction

Only those who know me best realize what a sweet and innocent child I was. There were exceptions, of course, but very few. It is one of those rare occasions that comes to my mind as we approach the reunion of Joseph and his brothers in Genesis 42. Every summer my sister and I attended church camp. One summer camp was held in what was reputed to be a condemned orphanage (and I still believe it was). I was placed in a small room with a friend from my church, a very quiet and obedient fellow. One day it occurred to me that our room contained the electrical panel for the entire campground. As you can guess, the temptation was too great—for me at least. After darkness had fallen and everyone was dependent upon the lights, I threw the cutoff switch, disengaging the electrical power for the entire camp.

You can imagine the pandemonium this created. I still laugh as I think of it. It took a short time for everyone to fumble about for their suitcases, searching them until they located their flashlights. This was only the beginning, for there followed many pleasure-filled minutes watching the camp leaders walking about the camp, following wires and trying to find the source of the problem. Sooner or later, I knew, they had to come to me, for I was the only one who could solve their problem. I shall, however, spare you the details of what happened when they did, at last, arrive.

If we are honest about it, most of us dream of having the opportunity to be in complete control of things. How glorious and ego stroking it would be to have something happen that would bring the world groveling at our feet. Think of the pleasure such an experience could bring. Think of what you could do in a situation where you had absolute control.

Such was Joseph’s position in Genesis 42. The famine had created an international disaster. People from the surrounding nations heard that Egypt alone had provisions enough to survive the famine that had ravaged the Near Eastern world. And who should arrive to buy bread but Joseph’s brothers, who had thrown him into a pit to starve, while they ate their lunch, oblivious to his cries for help. Can you imagine the thoughts that would go through the mind of someone in Joseph’s position?

Until now, I have always considered the suffering and injustice of Joseph at the hands of his brothers, Potiphar’s wife, and his master to be the greatest tests of his life, but I was wrong. What test could possibly be greater than the one which Joseph faced in Genesis 42? Here he was, faced by his brothers, absolutely destitute and defenseless, while Joseph had unlimited power. Without a doubt this was the greatest test of Joseph’s character. It is one thing to be tested when you are powerless to resist. It is quite another to be given the opportunity to get revenge when your enemies are mere putty in your hands.

While poverty, suffering, or injustice may be tests that come our way from time to time, I believe that we, like Joseph, are tested most by the power that is ours and the way that we use it. For this reason, we must take a hard look at what enabled Joseph to use the power at his disposal for the betterment of his brothers rather than as an opportunity to vent all the bitter feelings that could have been his.

Reunion
(42:1-7)

While the famine was said to be world-wide (41:57), it was particularly intended to be the cause of Jacob’s family going down into Egypt where they would remain for more than 400 years:

And God said to Abram, “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years” (Genesis 15:13).

The events of chapter 42 are thus the occasion for the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham:

Now Jacob saw that there was grain in Egypt, and Jacob said to his sons, “Why are you staring at one another?” And he said, “Behold, I have heard that there is grain in Egypt; go down there and buy some for us from that place, so that we may live and not die.” Then ten brothers of Joseph went down to buy grain from Egypt. But Jacob did not send Joseph’s brother Benjamin with his brothers, for he said, “I am afraid that harm may befall him.” So the sons of Israel came to buy grain among those who were coming, for the famine was in the land of Canaan also. Now Joseph was the ruler over the land; he was the one who sold to all the people of the land. And Joseph’s brothers come and bowed down to him with their faces to the ground. When Joseph saw his brothers he recognized them, but he disguised himself to them and spoke to them harshly. And he said to them, “Where have you come from?” And they said, “From the land of Canaan, to buy food” (Genesis 42:1-7).

The scene in Canaan is almost amusing. The brothers of Joseph stand in the presence of their father, deeply distressed by the fact that their food supply is nearly depleted, and there is no hope of replenishing it so long as the famine persists. Jacob, aware of the availability of grain in Egypt, prodded his sons into action with the rebuke, “Don’t just stand there, go down to Egypt and get some grain.”

Jacob’s partiality toward the sons of Rachel (which had nearly gotten Joseph killed) is still very obvious. While the other ten sons were sent to Egypt, Benjamin was kept near, under the watchful eye of his father (verse 4). It could not have been because Benjamin was too young, for he had to have been in his twenties by now.⁶³ At the age of 17 Joseph had been sent a considerable distance from home to check on his brothers (37:2,12). Perhaps the circumstances of Joseph’s disappearance were too suspect for Jacob to take another chance by leaving Benjamin in the care of his other brothers.

The ten brothers arrived in Egypt along with many others to buy grain from Joseph. Without realizing they were fulfilling the prophecy of Joseph’s two dreams years before (37:6-11), his brothers bowed low before him, expressing the respect due to one of such high office. How tempting for Joseph to ask them to bow just a little lower or perhaps to do so just one more time. How easy it would have been to bask in the honor and power which was now his. But all we are told is that Joseph recognized these men as his brothers, yet his identity was not known to them. More than twenty years, along with a clean-shaven face, Egyptian clothing, customs, and language, precluded any thought that this potentate might be their brother. He had, after all, been sold as a slave.

From verse 7 alone we might be inclined to think that Joseph was being harsh with his brothers out of a spirit of vengeance. Certainly this would be the normal reaction of anyone as mistreated as Joseph had been by his brothers. His severity, however, was a “disguise” (verse 7), an effort to keep his identity a secret. Character, someone has said, is what we are in the dark, and Joseph was keeping his brothers “in the dark” until their character could be determined.

Confrontation
(42:8-17)

The key to Joseph’s actions is found in the next two verses. Here we gain an appreciation for Joseph’s motives and methods in dealing with his brothers:

But Joseph had recognized his brothers, although they did not recognize him. And Joseph remembered the dreams which he had about them, and said to them, “You are spies; you have come to look at the undefended parts of our land” (Genesis 42:8-9).

Far more is meant by verse 9 than that Joseph merely remembered his dreams about his brothers and recognized their fulfillment in their bowing down to him. All this would have done would have been to puff up his pride. Joseph not only realized the fulfillment of his dreams but also the reason for them. He saw that God had a purpose for placing him in his position of power, and this purpose was for him to function as the family head, protecting and preserving his family. He had great power and prestige, but God had given these to him for a purpose much greater than merely to seek revenge. He saw that leadership involved power, but that it also brought upon him the weight of responsibility. At times the greatest need is not to be aware of the power at our disposal, but of the purpose for which this power has been given.

I need to digress for just a moment to show how our character affects our understanding and application of the Word of God. It has been observed by saints and sinners for centuries that “you can make the Bible say anything you want.” Like it or not, this is true. Think of what Joseph could have made of his dream. This was a message from God! If he had been dominated by bitterness and hatred, Joseph could have viewed his vision as a mandate from God to make life miserable for his brothers. Hadn’t God revealed to him that his brothers would bow down to him? He could have rubbed their proverbial noses in the dirt and given them a proof text for it, had he wished. It is alarmingly possible for us to justify sinful actions with biblical texts if we choose to, but this will always be at the expense of other clear passages which we have chosen to ignore.

And Joseph remembered the dreams which he had about them, and said to them, “You are spies; you have come to look at the undefended parts of our land.” Then they said to him, “No, my lord, but your servants have come to buy food. We are all sons of one man; we are honest men, your servants are not spies.” Yet he said to them, “No, but you have come to look at the undefended parts of our land!” But they said, “Your servants are twelve brothers in all, the sons of one man in the land of Canaan; and behold, the youngest is with our father today, and one is no more” (Genesis 42:9-13).

Joseph’s severity was feigned, not real. He needed to learn more information without his brothers realizing who he was or what he was attempting to accomplish. His harshness was intended to produce fear, for at this point in the lives of his brothers fear produced more facts than faith. In their fear they blurted out the things which Joseph yearned to know. Was his father alive? And how was Benjamin? Desperately trying to talk their way out of the charge that they were spies, they supplied him with facts they would never have given otherwise. Later Jacob would rebuke his sons for what they revealed (43:6). Disclosing the disappearance of one brother and the existence of another in Canaan provided Joseph with the opportunity to test his brothers in the area of their greatest failure.

And Joseph said to them, “It is as I said to you, you are spies; by this you will be tested; by the life of Pharaoh, you shall not go from this place unless your youngest brother comes here! Send one of you that he may get your brother, while you remain confined, that your words may be tested, whether there is truth in you. But if not, by the life of Pharaoh, surely you are spies.” So he put them all together in prison for three days (Genesis 42:14-17).

Joseph narrowed the situation down to two options: either they had come as spies, in which case their story about a younger brother was a mere fabrication, or they were telling the truth. The matter could easily be settled by their producing the younger brother. All of the brothers would be detained except one, who could be dispatched to bring back the proof of their honesty. How cleverly Joseph handled this situation to bring about his desired ends without his brothers seeing his purpose in it all.

Joseph then placed all of the brothers in confinement. I cannot prove it, but my suspicion is that the prison was probably one that we know well—Potiphar’s prison. More significant is that Joseph put them in confinement together (verse 17). More than giving them comfort, as opposed to solitary confinement, it caused them to consider the meaning of what was taking place in their lives. This is more fully seen in their conversation recorded in later verses. Even if not bodily present with his brothers in prison,⁶⁴ his heart must have been with them in their confinement. This was not punishment, but it was preparation, just as his confinement had been. It served to intensify their comprehension of the gravity of the situation.

Diminished Demands
(42:18-24)

The outcome of Joseph’s dealings with his brothers was considerably less harsh than what was first threatened. He had first maintained that all of the brothers would be held captive while only one was to be sent for Benjamin (verse 16). But now he has reduced his demands considerably.

Now Joseph said to them on the third day, “Do this and live, for I fear God: if you are honest men, let one of your brothers be confined in your prison; but as for the rest of you, go, carry grain for the famine of your households, and bring your youngest brother to me, so your words may be verified, and you will not die.” And they did so. Then they said to one another, “Truly we are guilty concerning our brother, because we saw the distress of his soul when he pleaded with us, yet we would not listen; therefore this distress has come upon us.” And Reuben answered them, saying, “Did I not tell you, ‘Do not sin against the boy’; and you would not listen? Now comes the reckoning for his blood.” They did not know, however, that Joseph understood, for there was an interpreter between them. And he turned away from them and wept. But when he returned to them and spoke to them, he took Simeon from them and bound him before their eyes (Genesis 42:18-24).

Those three days must have been miserable. They must have been filled with fear and foreboding. Would they ever return to their father? Would they ever regain their freedom? And, most delicate, who would be the one who was released to return to Canaan while the others remained captive? For them, Joseph’s experience, which took years, was condensed to days. Joseph’s words to them were like the sunrise dispelling the darkness. His words are filled with hope and encouragement, not fear and judgment. “Do this and live,” Joseph urged them (verse 18). Life, not death, joy, not misery, was what Joseph desired for his brothers. But certain changes had to occur before this could be their experience. The self-interest and cruelty which had caused them to sell him into slavery must be dealt with. That would not come easily or quickly, but it would come.

Joseph’s statement, “I, too, fear God” (verse 18) should have been the cause of much deliberation in the days and months to come. What could this “Egyptian” despot possibly have meant by these words? I understand this statement to be a technical expression reserved for use only by those who had a genuine faith in the one true God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. When Abraham stood before Abimelech, trying to explain his deceit in passing off his wife as his sister, he said,

Because I thought, surely there is no fear of God in this place; and they will kill me because of my wife (Genesis 20:11).

The expression “to fear God” was a technical one, I believe, equivalent to our contemporary expression “born again.” It was spoken by Joseph to inspire hope and to encourage contemplation of what was taking place. It was only after Joseph had given expression to his faith that his brothers began to recognize the hand of God in their lives through these events.

Another cause for encouragement was the significant decrease in the demands that were made upon these foreigners. While they were initially told that all must remain captive while one would be allowed to return home for Benjamin, now all but one may return to the land of Canaan. They are expected to take life-sustaining grain to their needy families and then to return with their youngest brother. The words “and they did so” (verse 20) seem to indicate that the ten agreed to the terms Joseph laid down and set out to do them, only to be resisted by their father upon their return (cf. verses 36-38).

It is at this point that the brothers began to talk among themselves, unaware that Joseph understood every word. All along he had used an interpreter, giving them the impression that this “Egyptian” could not speak their language. This kept them from even considering that they might know him, let alone that they might be related to him.

The relationship between their present predicament and their treatment of Joseph was too obvious to overlook. Each of them acknowledged that their difficulties were the result of their sin in regard to Joseph. They had pled for mercy and not received it, just as Joseph had cried for help from the pit and they had ignored him. Reuben then reminded them of his warnings and their resistance. Sin always has consequences, and they were beginning to realize how painful these can be.

The heart of Joseph is openly revealed in verse 24. Having overheard the spiritual soul-searching that went on among his brothers, Joseph could contain his emotions no longer. He had to leave their presence, lest by his tears they should discover his identity. Joseph’s actions were not those of a man who did not care for his brothers, but of one who cared so much that he resisted the urge to identify himself in order to promote their spiritual well-being.

It was Simeon who was chosen by Joseph to remain behind. Was there any particular reason for this choice? It seems so. In a marginal note, the editors of the Berkeley Version suggest,

With Reuben absent when Joseph was sold down to Egypt, Simeon was the responsible leader, being next to the oldest; hence his being retained. ⁶⁵

This, in my opinion, is worthy of consideration.

Payment Returned
(42:25-28)

Then Joseph gave orders to fill their bags with grain and to restore every man’s money in his sack, and to give them provisions for the journey. And thus it was done for them. So they loaded their donkeys with their grain, and departed from there. And as one of them opened his sack to give his donkey fodder at the lodging place, he saw his money; and behold, it was in the mouth of his sack. Then he said to his brothers, “My money has been returned, and behold, it is even in my sack.” And their hearts sank, and they turned trembling to one another, saying, “What is this that God has done to us?” (Genesis 42:25-28).

It was time for his brothers to return home, for their families were soon to run out of grain. Orders were given to fill his brothers’ bags with grain and to return their payment, but to conceal it within their bags. Probably to ensure that they would not discover the money until it was too late to turn back, provisions were made to meet their needs on the journey home. I would imagine that smaller, separate sacks were provided with food for the men and perhaps their animals, so that the grain sacks with the money would not need to be opened until they arrived home.

Inadvertently, one of the brothers opened his large sack to feed his donkey and discovered his money returned. The brothers’ response was, in my estimation, a sign of positive growth. Evil men would have laughed at the stupidity of the servant who must have misplaced the payment and would have enjoyed having put one over on the Egyptians. Such an event would have been considered a stroke of good luck. Yet these men were distraught, for they saw that this was the hand of God, not fate, and that this might be discovered back in Pharaoh palace where their brother Simeon was being held prisoner. They knew that they had promised to return with Benjamin. If this missing money was made known to Joseph, things might not go so well for them on their next visit. It never seemed to occur to the other eight brothers that their money would be found in their sacks too (cf. verse 35).

Initially I thought that Joseph’s motive for returning their money was in order to test them—a test of their honesty. But why, then, would the smaller provision sacks have been prepared in order to keep the sacks with the money from being opened? Did he wish to see if they would make restitution on their next trip? Perhaps so, for they did sell him into bondage for money (37:25-28). Frankly, I do not think Joseph intended this as a test, though it proved to be so. I believe that he had no intention of selling anything to his brothers, but rather of supplying their needs freely. This would then be an illustration of the principle taught in Proverbs:

If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink (Proverbs 25:21).

Give, the proverb instructs us, not sell. For me, this is all the explanation needed for Joseph’s actions.

Jacob’s Sons Return and Report
(42:29-38)

When they came to their father Jacob in the land of Canaan, they told him all that had happened to them, saying, “The man, the lord of the land, spoke harshly with us, and took us for spies of the country. But we said to him, ‘We are honest men; we are not spies. We are twelve brothers, sons of our father; one is no more, and the youngest is with our father today in the land of Canaan.’ And the man, the lord of the land, said to us, ‘By this I shall know that you are honest men: leave one of your brothers with me and take grain for the famine of your households, and go. But bring your youngest brother to me that I may know that you are not spies, but honest men. I will give your brother to you, and you may trade in the land”’ (Genesis 42:29-34).

Upon their arrival the brothers had quite a story to tell. Jacob certainly insisted on an explanation for the absence of Simeon. Still, there is not the response of grief we might expect if one of his more beloved sons had been taken captive. A blow-by-blow account was given by the nine, ending with the bad news that Benjamin would have to be taken along on the next trip if they expected to see Simeon again or to purchase more grain (verse 34).

Apparently the sacks of grain were being unloaded and opened as the report was given to Jacob, for his response to the whole affair is delayed until the discovery of the money in the rest of the sacks which they brought back.

Now it came about as they were emptying their sacks, that behold, every man’s bundle of money was in his sack; and when they and their father saw their bundles of money, they were dismayed. And their father Jacob said to them, “You have bereaved me of my children: Joseph is no more, and Simeon is no more, and you would take Benjamin; all these things are against me.” Then Reuben spoke to his father, saying, “You may put my two sons to death if I do not bring him back to you; put him in my care, and I will return him to you.” But Jacob said, “My son shall not go down with you; for his brother is dead, and he alone is left. If harm should befall him on the journey you are taking, then you will bring my gray hair down to Sheol in sorrow” (Genesis 42:35-38).

I find it interesting to compare the response of Joseph’s brothers to the discovery of the money in the one sack along the way (verses 27-28) with that of Jacob here. There the hand of God was seen. Here nothing is said of God, but only of bad luck and of personal disaster for Jacob.

In these chapters dealing with the life of Joseph, three different responses to adversity are seen. For Joseph, his suffering was ultimately from the hand of a loving heavenly Father, Who was near in his affliction (cf. 39:23, 21-23; 40:8; 41:16,51-52). For his brothers, their adversity was punishment from an angry God, Who was getting even with them for their sin (42:21-22, 28). For Jacob, it was no more than the fickle hand of fate or, worse yet, the stupidity of his sons, that made his life miserable (42:36-38). And yet in every instance affliction was the gentle and gracious hand of God, drawing His sons closer to Himself.

Jacob was in a far different spiritual state than his son Joseph. No wonder it fell to Joseph to function as head of the family so that a spiritual lesson would be learned and the faith of all would be strengthened. How self-centered Jacob’s words are. “Poor me!” That is the essence of them. He could not see the gentle hand of God in all of this, but it was there regardless. While affliction drew Joseph ever closer to God, Jacob had seemingly forgotten his faith.

A further indication of the breakdown in Jacob’s spiritual life was his reaction to the necessity of sending Benjamin to Egypt. Reuben sought to assure Jacob that things would work out all right. Jacob was not to be convinced. Indeed, he was not willing to even take a chance on losing Benjamin. In effect, this meant that Jacob was willing to sacrifice his son Simeon rather than run any risk of losing his favored son Benjamin. Partiality was still very much a part of Jacob’s nature.

No wonder Jacob’s sons were willing to sell Joseph into slavery to secure their own selfish interests. For their own gain, they were willing to let Joseph live out his life in Egypt as a slave. This is exactly the effect of Jacob’s decision here. Rather than run the slightest risk of losing his beloved Benjamin, Jacob would allow Simeon to spend the rest of his life in Pharaoh’s prison and give that Egyptian potentate (Joseph) the impression that his sons’ words were untrue. Joseph’s brothers were truly sons of their father.

Jacob could not live without Benjamin, he protested. There was no way that he would ever give him up (verse 38). And yet this was precisely the way God had determined to save Jacob and all his family. Just as Abraham expressed his faith by showing his willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac (22:1-19), Jacob must be willing to give up his son Benjamin. The very thing Jacob thought would destroy him was to be the means of his salvation. But this is dealt with in the next chapters. How blind we are to the workings of God, especially when we are going our own way.

Conclusion

In order to understand how Joseph was able to handle his position of power and use it in a way which honored God and blessed his family, we must understand some biblical principles of power. Let me attempt to spell these out.

(1) Power, like money, is not evil, but a stewardship. If the power we hold is legitimate power, then it is power that is given by God. From the beginning of the creation, power was given to man by God:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth” (Genesis 1:26; emphasis added).

In Genesis 9:5-7, governmental authority was given to man, and this power is reaffirmed in the New Testament:

Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God (Romans 13:1).

When Pilate sought to evoke a response from Jesus by impressing Him with the authority he had, Jesus quickly put this power in proper perspective. It was delegated power, given by God:

Jesus answered, “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; …” (John 19:11).

Joseph was well aware that the power he had was given by God. We can see this, for example, when Pharaoh told Joseph that he was aware of his ability to interpret dreams. Joseph was quick to clarify that this power was not his, but God’s:

And Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I have had a dream, but no one can interpret it; and I have heard it said about you, that when you hear a dream you can interpret it.” Joseph then answered Pharaoh, saying, “It is not in me; God will give Pharaoh a favorable answer” (Genesis 41:15-16).

The first step toward pride and misuse of power is to forget the source from which our power has come and to overlook the responsibility it brings upon us as stewards:

For who regards you as superior? And what do you have that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it? (I Corinthians 4:7).

(2) Power is not to be sought for self-gain, but used to serve others. Money is only evil when it is sought for its own sake:

But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith, and pierced themselves with many a pang (I Timothy 6:9-10).

The same is true of power. The Old Testament prophet Ezekiel charged Israel’s leaders with having lost sight of the purpose for their power. They began to use it to serve their own ends:

Then the word of the LORD came to me saying, “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel. Prophesy and say to those shepherds, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “Woe, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flock? You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat sheep without feeding the flock. Those who are sickly you have not strengthened, the diseased you have not healed, the broken you have not bound up, the scattered you have not brought back, nor have you sought for the lost; but with force and with severity you have dominated them”’” (Ezekiel 34:1-4).

The same evil use of power was evident when our Lord walked upon the earth. He sternly rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for their arrogance and pride as leaders:

Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things, and do not do them. And they tie up heavy loads, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries, and lengthen the tassels of their garments. And they love the place of honor at banquets, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called by men, Rabbi. But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted” (Matthew 23:1-12).

No wonder the disciples were continually inclined to think in terms of rank and to strive after preeminence and power (Mark 9:34, 10:35-45; Luke 9:33, 22:24). Greatness cannot be measured in terms of power, but in terms of service. This is why our Lord said of Himself:

For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many (Mark 10:45).

Is it any surprise that the basic issue between Jesus and the religious establishment was that of authority (cf. Matthew 21:23)? Here was where the great difference was to be seen in their ministries. Jesus used His power to serve others while they sought it to serve their own ends.

As Joseph recalled his dreams, he must have realized that his power was God-given, not to satisfy selfish desires, but to save the nation Israel from physical famine and from spiritual decadence. Therefore he gave grain freely to his brothers rather than to make them “eat crow” to get it. Power in the hands of a servant is a blessed thing, but power in the hands of a tyrant is a curse.

(3) Power is obtained and exercised in various ways. This is not a principle that is particularly evident in our passage, but it is one that enables us to see the application of the principles underlying Joseph’s use of power to our own day and time. You and I will likely never be elevated to the second highest office in our land. Because power comes in a variety of forms, whatever kind of power we have must be seen in the light of the biblical principles pertaining to power. Let me suggest several types of power which are all about us in our time and culture.

Positional Power. The first form of power is that which comes with office. A sergeant in the army has authority⁶⁶ over a private simply because of his position. An employer has authority over an employee (some might challenge this nowadays). A manager or supervisor has authority over those under him or her. A parent has certain authority over his child, and so on.

Positional power is not to be confused with personal character or with intrinsic worth. A man who is a rotten person may be a sergeant. Such power is not the product of one’s personal qualities but of one’s position. A father may be a good one or a bad one, and so with any position. The power which should be granted with any position may be used wickedly, righteously, or not at all, depending upon the one in that position. Joseph had positional power by virtue of his political office of second in command, accountable only to Pharaoh. As Pharaoh expressed it, “Go to Joseph; whatever he says to you, you shall do” (41:55).

Situational Power. While positional power is the formal mechanism for allocating power, circumstances also have a way of putting power into our hands, for a time at least. For example, suppose that you are a used car salesperson and someone comes into your lot to look at cars. They find a particular car they like but think the price is too high. They tell you they will think it over and get into their car to drive off. Just as their engine starts, clattering and banging begins under the hood, followed by billows of smoke, one last gasp, and silence. That salesperson now has situational power.

Joseph had situational power as well as positional power. He was second in command to Pharaoh, but his brothers were not under his authority for they lived in Canaan. Once the famine came and Jacob was desperate to purchase grain to keep his family alive, circumstances were such that his sons were forced to come to Joseph and to be subject to his whims. They had no other alternative.

Many of us fail to appreciate the power that comes to us from time to time because of particular situations that give us the upper hand. We may think of these times as opportunities, and we may view our power as “clout” and our manipulations as shrewd. In reality we may be using situational power to gain the advantage over our fellows. I find it interesting to consider the Old Testament Law in the light of this kind of power. God seemed to make it extremely difficult for a Jew to take advantage of his brother just because he was in dire straits (and thus disadvantaged). Money could not be loaned to him at interest (Exodus 22:25-27), and the poor were to be generously loaned what they needed (Deuteronomy 15:7-11). At the end of seven years all debts were to be canceled (Deuteronomy 15:1-2), and slaves were to be released (Deuteronomy 15:12-15). In the fiftieth year all property purchased from a fellow-Israelite had to be returned to its original owner (Leviticus 25:8-17).

It must be said that a distinction is drawn between Israel’s conduct toward a fellow-Israelite and their conduct toward a non-Israelite. Interest could be charged of non-Israelites for example (Deuteronomy 23:19-20). But never was undue advantage to be taken of anyone, even of foreigners (Exodus 22:21; 23:9,12; Leviticus 19:10). Situational power is never to be viewed as an opportunity to gain an advantage over a brother.

Expert power. Somewhat more pragmatic is the matter of expert power. Normally, though not always, expert power is based upon performance. Few people ask a mechanic where he received his training, or a doctor for that matter. What they really want to know is whether or not that person knows what he is doing.

Joseph provides us with as good an example of this kind of power as can be found. Pharaoh did not really care about Joseph’s past, his prison record, or his nationality. What mattered to him, in his time of need, was whether or not he could interpret his dreams. Beyond his ability to do this, Joseph demonstrated his ability to administrate by proposing a plan of action to deal with the seven years of famine. Joseph’s positional power was granted because of his expert power. Pharaoh was right to place Joseph in a position of power because he had the ability to fulfill the requirements of the job.

Expert power can be easily abused. A “scientist,” in our day of “sciencism,” is regarded as being an expert, when this may not be the case. Some scientists tell us that the world did not begin as the creative product of an infinite God. They need not be right just because they are scientists, even if they are speaking of matters in their own field of study. Einstein, I am told, was wrong in a number of his scientific theories, but people assumed him to be an expert in every area of scientific investigation. Worse yet, Einstein began to make speculations in other areas, such as theology, where he had little knowledge or expertise.

Those of us who have had the luxury of a seminary education are automatically elevated to the level of a religious “expert,” while this need not be the case. The mere mention of a Hebrew or Greek word, or the employment of an unfamiliar theological term can silence the objection of a godly and mature saint who is intimidated by such apparent expertise. Education can greatly sharpen an open and inquisitive mind, but it can also provide ammunition for a narrow mind which seeks only further confirmation of previously conceived prejudices and opinions.

Especially beware of those times when we who stand behind the pulpit begin to speak authoritatively of things concerning which we have little or no expertise. It is a very tempting thing to use the power of the pulpit and the appearance of an open Bible to substantiate our prejudices and theories. Let us not attempt to misuse the power of our expertise by attempting to add force to our opinions on things about which we are ill informed.

Psychological power. There are various forms of psychological power available to most of us. For example, when I taught school I sometimes found it necessary to paddle students. In particularly serious situations I would take the student(s) to the principal’s office and sit them on the floor. Everyone who entered would look down at them and, either verbally or by body language, ask why they were there. In addition to this, I could place the paddle on the desk where they could fix their attention on its every feature (such as the air holes, for added “umpfh”). By the time the paddling time came around, the greatest impact had already been made.

What power Joseph had over his brothers in this area! This was a foreign land, and these Hebrew shepherds could neither speak the language (cf. 42:23), nor were they well thought of by the Egyptians (cf. 43:32; 46:34). They were men from the country, and this was the big city (cf. 41:35). The pomp and circumstance of their surroundings as well as the feigned austerity and harshness of Joseph were just about enough to unnerve these brothers (cf. 43:18). In addition to their fear, Joseph could easily have played upon their guilt, which was not concealed from him (cf. 42:21-22). These men were like putty in the hands of one as shrewd as Joseph. Such power could have been easily corrupted.

Today psychological power is a very common phenomenon. Many men have great power because of their physical prowess, booming voices, and aggressive, assertive personalities (these people make great salesmen). People usually step back and let them control the situation rather than run the risk of confrontation or opposition. Saul had this awesome kind of demeanor, I think (cf. I Samuel 9:1-2). Incidentally, so did Goliath (I Samuel 17:1-12), as well as the Nephilim (Numbers 13:32-33). Women who are striking in appearance also have tremendous psychological power.

Those of us who are neither physically awesome nor attractive still have some opportunities to exercise psychological power, however. Women have the uncanny ability to “turn on the tears,” thereby disarming many of us of the opposite sex. Men who have violent tempers have the ability to control things simply by virtue of everyone’s desire not to trigger an explosion that will scald everyone unfortunate enough to be around at the time of a temper tantrum.

There is a variant of psychological power which is especially effective in religious circles. I have labeled this Christian clout “pious power.” Pious power takes advantage of the impression of greater spirituality by preying upon the insecurity or inferiority feelings of those who feel less spiritual. By the employment of pious expressions, spiritual jargon, or even tear-filled eyes, those we wish to manipulate are inclined to feel unspiritual, immature, or uncommitted if they do not do what we suggest. This may be done either by an aggressive and assertive Moses-like leader, or by a meek and humble appearing “saint.” Who, for example, can turn down a request to teach a Sunday School class by one who tells us that they have prayed about it for months, often in the early morning hours, and God has told them we are the one to perform this sacred task? That is pious power.

Reward and punishment power. While other forms of power have been identified and discussed in the secular arena,⁶⁷ I wish only to mention one further form of secular power. It is the power that comes from our ability to give or withhold desirable rewards and the power that can execute or stay judgment.

A parent most obviously has this kind of power. Husbands can sulk or refuse to talk to their wives, and the wives have subtle ways of punishing their husbands. Preachers from behind the safety (sanctity?) of the pulpit may praise the efforts of certain “cooperative” individuals, or they may “ask for prayer” for those who are resistant to their plans and programs. Joseph, too, had great reward and punishment power over his brothers. He could imprison them as traitors, or he could bestow an abundance of blessings upon them (cf. 45:10-11,16-20).

Spiritual power. All of the previous types of power can be used to the glory of God, but they are, in reality, a secular type of power. In contrast to these we must make mention of what I shall refer to as spiritual power.

Spiritual power does not originate from within man, but it comes from God, Who is the all-powerful Creator and Sustainer of the universe. This power is available to every believer.

But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the surpassing greatness of the power may be of God and not from ourselves (II Corinthians 4:7).

So David blessed the LORD in the sight of all the assembly; and David said, “Blessed art Thou, O LORD God of Israel our father, forever and ever. Thine, O LORD, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, indeed everything that is in the heavens and the earth; Thine is the dominion, O LORD, and Thou dost exalt Thyself as head over all. Both riches and honor come from Thee, and Thou dost rule over all, and in Thy hand is power and might; and it lies in Thy hand to make great, and to strengthen everyone” (I Chronicles 29:10-12).

… and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might (Ephesians 1:19).

Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen (Ephesians 3:20-21).

Spiritual power is inconsistent with human devices and manipulative techniques.

And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. And my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God (I Corinthians 2:1-5).

Spiritual power is manifested through the Spirit of God.

“Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,” says the Lord of hosts (Zechariah 4:6).

But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth (Acts 1:8).

Spiritual power is not given to those who are humanly capable and confident, but to those who are weak and dependent upon Him for enablement.

For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face, He was despised, and we did not esteem Him (Isaiah 53:2-3).

For who regards you as superior? And what do you have that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it? You are already filled, you have already become rich, you have become kings without us; and would indeed that you had become kings so that we also might reign with you. For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men. We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are prudent in Christ, we are weak but you are strong; you are distinguished, but we are without honor. To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed and are roughly treated, and are homeless; and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure; when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things even until now (I Corinthians 4:7-13).

And He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong (II Corinthians 12:9-10).

He gives strength to the weary, And to him who lacks might He increases power. Though youths grow weary and tired, And vigorous young men stumble badly, Yet those who wait for the LORD Will gain new strength; They will mount up with wings like eagles, They will run and not get tired, They will walk and not become weary (Isaiah 40:29-31).

Spiritual power is the divine enablement to save, to keep, to sanctify, to serve, and to rise from the dead when our Lord comes again.

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name (John 1:12).

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to every one who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Romans 1:16).

… who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time (I Peter 1:5).

… seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence (II Peter 1:3).

And Jesus come up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:18-20).

But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you (Romans 8:11).

Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power (I Corinthians 6:14).

(4) Spiritual results are the product of spiritual power, not of political power. The great temptation for Joseph was to employ his political power in order to get even with his brothers for the evil they had done to him. While Joseph did employ his secular power to benefit his brethren, it was, in my opinion, his spiritual power which had the greatest results.

Did you notice that while Joseph’s feigned harshness produced fear, it was his graciousness that resulted in spiritual awareness and the beginnings of repentance? The gruff accusations of Joseph did produce the facts he sought about his father and brother (42:8-13), but it was grace that caused his brothers to consider their circumstances as coming from the hand of God. It was only after Joseph released his brothers from prison and relaxed his demands and offered hope and life by assuring them that he, too, feared God (42:18) that they began to consider God’s hand in their dilemma (42:21-22). And it was after they realized that their money was given back to them in the grain sack that they said, “What is this that God has done to us?” (42:28).

How clear this all becomes in the light of the teaching of the apostle Paul in the book of Romans:

Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, says the LORD. But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:17-21).

That is what Joseph’s dealings with his brothers are all about. He was in a position to employ secular power to vent all of his feelings of anger and bitterness but, instead, he used the spiritual power of God, manifested in serving and setting the interests of others first. That began a process of restoration in his brothers.

The selfless spirit of Joseph is a remarkable contrast to the self-seeking spirit of Jacob and his ten sons. Joseph could never expect to see his brothers restored by the exercise of secular power, motivated by selfish desire. There is a law of physics which states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Human power, motivated by carnal motives, brings about similar reactions. Spiritual power, exercised from godly motives, brings about spiritual ends. Like produces like.

What kind of power do you employ, my friend? And how do you exercise that power that is in your hand? Fathers, do you employ mere physical superiority to bring about only compliance from your children? Or do you use spiritual power to bring about spiritual submission? Do we frustrate our children by a misuse of our power? Do we discourage and embitter our wives by using the authority God has given us in our marriage only to serve our own interests rather than to enrich and enhance our mate? The question which Joseph poses to every Christian is this: How do we exercise the power which is at our disposal? Do we use it to serve others or to seek our own selfish ends?

Perhaps we have resorted to secular, worldly power to achieve our goals, even godly goals, simply because we are more accustomed to it. I fear that much that we attempt to accomplish for God is done through merely secular means. Many of our churches could probably be taken over by unbelieving executives and administrators, and we might not even know the difference. Mere religious forms are no guarantee of spiritual power:

… holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power … (II Timothy 3:5).

May God enable us to employ spiritual power through spiritual means for His glory and our good.

63 Joseph was born at the end of Jacob’s 14 years of service to Laban, and at the time Jacob asked to be released (30:25). We know also that Jacob served Laban another 6 years before leaving to return to the land of Canaan (cf. 31:38). Adding to these 6 years several more spent dallying in Succoth and Shechem (33:18-34:31), we conclude that Benjamin must have been ten or more years younger than Joseph. Joseph was 30 when he entered into Pharaoh’s court (41:46) and the seven years of plenty had passed, with the famine under way. That would make Joseph around 39 and Benjamin no older than 29. Since Benjamin was alive when Joseph was sold into slavery at the age of 17 (37:2), and he was now 22 years older, Benjamin would have to be at least 22 and not older than 29. In other words, he was not a child.

64 The appearance is that Joseph sent the ten brothers to be confined for three days, during which he is not said to have visited them. It would seem that what occurs in verses 18-23 is that Joseph summoned his brothers to him from the jail and spoke to them from his quarters. If this is so, that which is overheard is not spoken in the jail, but in Joseph’s headquarters.

65 The Berkeley Version in Modern English (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Fifth Edition, 1962), p. 44, fn. f.

66 Technically, there is a difference between power and authority. Authority refers to the right one has to command, while power refers to the ability. In many instances there are two chains-of-command, a formal one and an informal one. This is the result of giving authority to people who lack the power to carry out their task. As a result, some one with power (legitimate or otherwise) arises who gets the job done, but outside the system.

67 For a more thorough treatment of the various types of power, handled from a secular point of view, see Joseph L. Massie and John Douglas, Managing: A Contemporary Introduction (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973), pp. 337 ff.

Français

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_42_32k.mp3

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

43. The Fears of Jacob and the Tears of Joseph (Genesis 43:1-34)

Introduction

I have long been under the impression that the events of Joseph’s life were as much, if not more, for Jacob’s sake as for his sons. Compared to his father, Judah is a spiritual giant in Genesis 43 and 44. The only one who is resisting Benjamin’s return to Egypt is Jacob, who has firmly rejected Reuben’s proposal:

But Jacob said, “My son shall not go down with you; for his brother is dead, and he alone is left. If harm should befall him on the journey you are taking, then you will bring my gray hair down to Sheol in sorrow” (Genesis 42:38).

When the writer of the New Testament book of Hebrews speaks of the patriarchs in the “hall of faith” of chapter 11, he has only these words concerning Jacob:

By faith Jacob, as he was dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and worshipped, leaning on the top of his staff (Hebrews 11:21).

To me this is incredible. The only example of faith which this writer finds worthy of mention is an event in the flickering years of his life. It is not until he has one proverbial foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel that his faith is worth writing about!

The first 15 verses of Genesis 43 center about Jacob and his debate with Judah over the matter of the return to Egypt for grain. Jacob desires his nine sons to go, but without Benjamin. Judah refuses to go without Benjamin and seeks to persuade his father to let him go. In this dialogue we find the faith of Jacob exceedingly weak. His leadership in this time of crisis is not a pattern for us to follow. His fears are completely unfounded; and if he had gotten his way, his family would not have been saved.

Verses 16-25 focus our attention upon Joseph’s brothers. The predominant theme of these verses can be summarized by two words, “fear” and “works.” The brothers’ fears, like their father’s, are completely unfounded. They sought by the works of their hands to win Joseph’s acceptance and favor. When Joseph brought them to his house for a feast, they feared that it was designed to be an opportunity to take them as slaves. Joseph, however, wished only to shower them with blessings.

Verses 26-34 fix our attention on Joseph. Jacob hoped only that he would be kind enough to let Simeon go and not to detain Benjamin. Joseph would do far more than this. Joseph’s brothers hoped that Joseph would believe them and not make them his slaves (as they had made him a slave); instead Joseph brought them into his home and gave them a magnificent meal. If Jacob and his sons were filled with fears, Joseph’s eyes were filled with tears, tears of love and compassion. His only desire was to see a change of heart in his brothers and to once again see his father.

Jacob and Judah
(43:1-15)

We men are going to find Jacob’s response to his circumstances most distressing, for it serves as an illustration of leadership very poorly exercised. The characteristics of Jacob’s leadership are all too familiar today.

His first response was to “put it off,” to delay in taking action until the matter had reached crisis proportions. Joseph had made an agreement with his brothers that they would take the desperately needed grain home and then return with Benjamin:

“… if you are honest men, let one of your brothers be confined in our prison; but as for the rest of you, go, carry grain for the famine of your households, and bring your youngest brother to me, so your words may be verified, and you will not die.” And they did so (Genesis 42:19-20).

This is what his brothers purposed to do, but they were prohibited by Jacob, who refused to let Benjamin leave his side (42:38). Not until their grain had virtually run out did Jacob face up to the matter:

Now the famine was severe in the land. So it come about when they had finished eating the grain which they had brought from Egypt, that their father said to them, “Go back, buy us a little food” (Genesis 43:1-2).

Judah put his finger on Jacob’s procrastination when he chided, “For if we had not delayed, surely by now we could have returned twice” (Genesis 43:10).

If the first principle of Jacob’s administration was “put it off,” the second was “play it down.” One of the ways we can put things off is by convincing ourselves that they are not really all that important. Jacob minimized this matter of the famine, Simeon’s captivity, and the inevitable fact that all his sons would have to return to Egypt. I find a clue to this in verse 2 where Jacob said, “Go back, buy us a little food.” Why would he possibly tell his sons to buy only a little food? Why would they not buy all the grain they could carry? Naturally, he did not know that the famine was to last another five years (cf. 45:6), but he was aware that the famine was severe (43:1). Rather than face the problem head on, Jacob wanted to dabble with it a piece at a time. More than anything, I believe he hoped that if only a little grain were sought, perhaps the governor (Joseph) would not hold to his original demand that Benjamin accompany his brothers on their next trip.

Judah, however, was unwilling to accept the minimizing of his father. After all, it was not Jacob who would have to stand before that Egyptian governor and explain Benjamin’s absence. Joseph had insisted that he would not see these men again unless their youngest brother was with them. The leadership of their father, authority seldom challenged, was firmly rebuffed. They would not return for more grain unless Benjamin accompanied them.

Judah spoke to him, however, saying, “The man solemnly warned us, ‘You shall not see my face unless your brother is with you.’ If you send our brother with us, we will go down and buy you food. But if you do not send him, we will not go down; for the man said to us, ‘You shall not see my face unless your brother is with you’” (Genesis 43:3-5).

Jacob was shaken by the stand which his sons took, but he was not willing to succumb to their demands that easily. The next verses display a further attempt to deny reality and to defer sending Benjamin to Egypt.

Then Israel said, “Why did you treat me so badly by telling the man whether you still had another brother?” But they said, “The man questioned particularly about us and our relatives, saying, ‘Is your father still alive? Have you another brother?’ So we answered his questions. Could we possibly know that he would say, ‘Bring your brother down’?” (Genesis 43:6-7).

Hoping to alter the course of history, Jacob sought to change the minds of his sons by placing the responsibility for their circumstances solely on them. In effect, Jacob said to his sons, “It’s all your fault. None of this would have happened if you hadn’t told the Egyptian about your youngest brother.” If it were all their fault, then why should they be belligerent about trying to solve the matter on their own without jeopardizing the life of Benjamin and the happiness of their father?

But the matter went much deeper than this. It was not just a matter of telling family secrets out of school—it was an issue of being truthful. The information they gave to Joseph was in response to very direct questioning (43:7). The reason for this directness would only be learned at a later time when Joseph disclosed his identity. Jacob, then, was rebuking his sons for telling the truth. The old ways of deception were still there, and in times of adversity Jacob did not hesitate to employ them. Jacob’s response might be summarized, “Why didn’t you do as I would have done? Lie about it.”

While Reuben’s efforts to persuade his father to let Benjamin return to Egypt with the others had been resisted, Judah begins to emerge as a leader in the family. His words encourage Jacob to make that painful decision to let Benjamin go:

And Judah said to his father Israel, “Send the lad with me, and we will arise and go, that we may live and not die, we as well as you and our little ones. I myself will be surety for him; you may hold me responsible for him. If I do not bring him back to you and set him before you, then let me bear the blame before you forever. For if we had not delayed, surely by now we could have returned twice” (Genesis 43:8-10).

Reuben promised to assume full responsibility for the safety of Benjamin and offered his own two sons if he were to fail:

You may put my two sons to death if I do not bring him back to you; put him in my care, and I will return him to you (Genesis 42:37).

At that point in time, Jacob had no intention of letting go of his favored son. In addition to this, he may not have had much respect for Reuben because of his previous sin of laying with Bilhah, his concubine (35:22).

Judah’s offer is once more forcefully made. He urged his father to stop thinking of himself and to act in accordance with his responsibility for the entire clan. While Jacob spoke only of “I,” “me,” and “my,” Judah thought in terms of “we,” “us,” and “our” (contrast 42:36,38 with 43:8). Judah seems to speak for all his brothers in refusing to go again to Egypt without Benjamin. He also rebukes Jacob for his needless delay in sending Benjamin to Egypt. Whereas Reuben offered only his sons in return for his failure, Judah offers himself as the guarantee of a successful mission (verse 9).

I believe it was a combination of all these forces—the severity of the famine, the depletion of the Egyptian grain, the threat of the brothers not to return to Egypt without Benjamin, and the assurances of Judah—which persuaded Jacob to consent to release Benjamin for the journey to Egypt. The verses which follow indicate that Jacob is only passively and reluctantly surrendering to his circumstances. His leadership at this time lacks any sign of spiritual maturity or great faith.

Then their father Israel said to them, “If it must be so, then do this: take some of the best products of the land in your bags, and carry down to the man as a present, a little balm and a little honey, aromatic gum and myrrh, pistachio nuts and almonds. And take double the money in your hand, and take back in your hand the money that was returned in the mouth of your sacks; perhaps it was a mistake” (Genesis 43:11-12).

Jacob’s first thought is to “sweeten the pot” with a few of the choicest products⁶⁸ of the land of Canaan. Undoubtedly this is not thought of so much as a bribe as a token of benevolence and respect (cf. I Samuel 16:20; 17:18). Certainly these delicacies would not offend the governor of Egypt and might even win his favor. In addition to bringing these gifts, Jacob instructed his sons to take both the money they had found in their sacks and the additional money needed to buy a new supply of grain, and they were to give this double amount to the governor. Perhaps the money was misplaced in their sacks and their returning it would be further evidence of their honesty.

Finally, Jacob gave Benjamin into the care of his sons and his God.

“Take your brother also, and arise, return to the man; and may God Almighty grant you compassion in the sight of the man, that he may release to you your other brother and Benjamin. And as for me, if I am bereaved of my children, I am bereaved.” So the men took this present, and they took double the money in their hand, and Benjamin; then they arose and went down to Egypt and stood before Joseph (Genesis 43:13-15).

Some biblical scholars such as Bush, Thomas, and Leupold⁶⁹ believe that here, at last, we see Jacob rising to the occasion with faith and maturity. I cannot agree with them. I see more carnality than spirituality in these events. Let me give several reasons for my conclusions.

First, the release of Benjamin has been reluctant and only in the face of insurmountable pressure, both from the famine and from his family. Jacob said, “If it must be so, then do this …” (verse 11). Jacob is not active, but passive, and he is more influenced by fear than faith. Second, while Jacob refers to God Almighty, El Shaddai,⁷⁰ he is not praying as much as wishing. We do not pray by saying, “May God do such and such,…” but by speaking to God Himself, “God, I ask that you …” Finally, the words, “If I am bereaved of my children, I am bereaved” (verse 14) are not evidence of faith, but an expression of fatalism.

The words of Jacob are similar in tone to those of Queen Esther: “… And if I perish, I perish” (Esther 4:16). Many feel that Esther is demonstrating godly faith here also, but there are numerous reasons for challenging this. The name of God is never found in the book of Esther; neither is one instance of prayer to be found. The feast of Purim, which was instituted in the book (9:20ff.), was never sanctioned by God. The book portrays the fate of those Jews who chose to remain outside the promised land when God had made it possible to return (cf. Esther 1:1; Ezra 4:6). As a result, we see that the Jews were no more saved by Esther’s secular shrewdness than Jacob was enriched by peeling those poles while tending Laban’s flocks. God, acting providentially, spared the Jews from annihilation at the hands of their enemies. Esther’s words, like Jacob’s, were fatalistic. “What will be, will be” may be true, but the attitude which underlies this is often contrary to faith.

Taken as a whole, we can suggest the principles which seemed to have governed Jacob’s actions at this time in his life. I do not recommend them to anyone, but at least we shall spell them out in order to stimulate a re-appraisal of our own leadership.

Jacob’s Seven Laws of Leadership

(1) Whatever problems arise today are best dealt with tomorrow. Jacob delayed acting decisively on the issue of sending Benjamin to Egypt until the situation reached crisis proportions. Given enough time anything could happen, Jacob reasoned, and he was willing to wait indefinitely on this slim hope.

(2) No problem can possibly be as bad as it seems. If the first principle betrays a “mañana mentality,” the second is the effort to minimize the problem to the point that it hardly seems worth giving time to its solution. If the problem is not serious, then it can be put off indefinitely.

(3) Honesty is not the best policy. Jacob still had a lot of the old deceiver in him. He believed that good communication only causes problems. He thought that the less others knew about him, the better off he and his family were. Judah was thus rebuked for telling Joseph any facts about the family. Many Christians today operate on this same principle. They think that keeping others from knowing them well avoids problems, but they, like Jacob, are desperately misled. Sin loves secrecy and darkness, while righteousness loves the light (cf. John 3:19-21).

(4) Always look out for number one. Jacob’s leadership was consistently exercised in the light of his own personal interests. It was Judah who urged his father to think of others rather than himself (cf. verse 3). No leader is harder to follow than the one who seeks only his own interests. Conversely, no leader is easier to follow than the one who seeks the best interests of those he leads (cf. Ephesians 5:22ff.).

(5) As much as is possible, see to it that others receive the blame for any problems. Jacob sought to place the responsibility on Judah and his brothers because they told the truth (verse 6). A good leader is one who is willing to accept the responsibility for his mistakes.

(6) If our efforts to solve a problem fail, add money. Jacob hoped that his presents, along with double payment, would help achieve his desired ends. Christians are often accused of being the last to reach for their wallets. Whether this is true or not, we are all tempted to resort to monetary solutions to our problems. We may pay our children for behaving as they should or offer to pay whatever it takes to solve their problems. Money seldom solves problems, while it causes many.

(7) When all else fails, trust God. It is no accident that Jacob mentions God last. It never seemed to occur to him as it did to Joseph that God was active in all of his troubles. His wish that God would be with his sons is only a last-ditch effort when it should have been his first line of defense. “Foxhole religion” is not new, and it did not cease with Jacob.

Joseph’s Brothers—Fears and Futile Efforts
(43:16-25)

Joseph’s brothers came with a plan of action previously outlined by their father. They would offer the Egyptian governor a gift of some of Canaan’s best products (verse 11), and they would give back the money which had been returned in their sacks (verse 12). As events began to develop on their return to Joseph in Egypt, the situation seemed even more foreboding, and these two strategies were now pursued with desperate diligence.

When Joseph saw Benjamin with them, he said to his house steward, “Bring the men into the house, and slay an animal and make ready; for the men are to dine with me at noon.” So the man did as Joseph said, and brought the men to Joseph’s house. Now the men were afraid, because they were brought to Joseph’s house; and they said, “It is because of the money that was returned in our sacks the first time that we are being brought in, that he may seek occasion against us and fall upon us, and take us for slaves with our donkeys.” So they came near to Joseph’s house steward, and spoke to him at the entrance of the house, and said, “Oh, my lord, we indeed came down the first time to buy food, and it came about when we come to the lodging place, that we opened our sacks, and behold, each man’s money was in the mouth of his sack, our money in full. So we have brought it back in our hand. We have also brought down other money in our hand to buy food; we do not know who put our money in our sacks.” And he said, “Be at ease, do not be afraid, Your God and the God of your father has given you treasure in your sacks; I had your money.” Then he brought Simeon out to them (Genesis 43:16-23).

When Joseph looked out and beheld Benjamin with his older brothers, he set a plan in motion, apparently without talking to them. He instructed his servant to take these men into his house and to prepare a meal for them in a way that parallels the reception of the prodigal son in the New Testament (Luke 15:11-32).

Unaware that they were being taken into Joseph’s home to partake of the noon meal, they thought it was they who were destined for slaughter. Their fears were largely due to being taken to his house (verse 18). We must remember that prisons were located in the homes of well-to-do political figures. Now what do you suppose was to be found at Joseph’s house? These brothers were not so much concerned with being conducted into this house as they were with being confined under it, in the dungeon. Perhaps this was the dungeon where Simeon was being detained.

In desperation they took the steward aside to explain how they had found their money in their sacks and that they had brought it with them to repay it. The steward sought to calm their fears⁷¹ by assuring them that he had received the money for their grain. Indeed he had, but he did not mention to them that it was he, under Joseph’s orders, who also returned it. In keeping with later biblical instruction on giving (cf. Matthew 6:2-4), the steward informed these men that it was their God and the God of their father who had provided this money (verse 23). To further assure them, he brought out Simeon and returned him to them.

Then the man brought the men into Joseph’s house and gave them water, and they washed their feet; and he gave their donkeys fodder. So they prepared the present for Joseph’s coming at noon; for they had heard that they were to eat a meal there (Genesis 43:24-25).

By this time the men had learned that the reason for their being brought to Joseph’s home was to partake in the noon meal with him (verse 25). Anticipating Joseph’s arrival, they first were given water to drink and freshen up and fodder to feed their animals. After this, they set themselves to the task of preparing the gift which they would present to Joseph when he arrived (verse 25).

I think they must have put a great deal of effort into the preparation and presentation of the gift. For one thing, it appeared that they had gained some favor in the eyes of Joseph, to be invited for a meal. What better time to follow up with their gift? Also, their efforts to give back the money found in their sacks had been brushed aside. It had seemingly not made the impression which they had hoped for. Everything seemed to ride on how they handled matters when they again met Joseph. I can imagine these men arranging their goods, first one way and then the other. How important this gift was going to be, they supposed.

Joseph’s Brotherly Love
(43:26-34)

What a contrast we find between the fears of Jacob and his sons in the previous verses and the tears of Joseph in this last section. Joseph’s deep love for his brothers is, of course, not yet evident to them, but it is made known to us. It makes the fears of previous verses look as foolish as they really are.

When Joseph came home, they brought into the house to him the present which was in their hand and bowed to the ground before him. Then he asked them about their welfare, and said, “Is your old father well, of whom you spoke? Is he still alive?” And they said, “Your servant our father is well; he is still alive.” And they bowed down in homage. As he lifted his eyes and saw his brother Benjamin, his mother’s son, he said, “Is this your youngest brother, of whom you spoke to me?” And he said, “May God be gracious to you, my son.” And Joseph hurried out for he was deeply stirred over his brother; and he sought a place to weep; and he entered his chamber and wept there. Then he washed his face, and came out; and he controlled himself and said, “Serve the meal.” So they served him by himself, and them by themselves, and the Egyptians, who ate with him, by themselves; because the Egyptians could not eat bread with the Hebrews, for that is loathsome to the Egyptians. Now they were seated before him, the first-born according to his birthright and the youngest according to his youth, and the men looked at one another in astonishment. And he took portions to them from his own table; but Benjamin’s portion was five times as much as any of theirs. So they feasted and drank freely with him (Genesis 43:26-34).

To Joseph’s brothers nothing was more important than those pistachio nuts and almonds. These nuts, along with the other products of the land of Canaan, were expected to win Joseph’s favor. He never gave them a glance. He did not ask how they were grown or what year they were produced. He didn’t care. Joseph was only concerned with people, not pistachio nuts; he cared about his brother Benjamin, his father Jacob, and the rest of his brethren. His first utterance sought information on the health of his aged father (verse 27). Next he turned his attention to Benjamin, who he had not seen for over twenty years. Joseph pronounced upon Benjamin a blessing which should have sounded strange coming from an Egyptian (cf. Genesis 33:5,11; Numbers 6:25; Psalm 67:1).

Seeing the only other son of his mother was too much for Joseph to contain. Quickly he left the presence of his brothers to weep and to regain control of his emotions (verse 30). After regaining his composure and washing his face, Joseph returned and ordered the meal to be served. In complete harmony with the Egyptian culture (and to continue concealing his identity), Joseph ate at one table, his Egyptian servants at another, and his brothers at still another table, somewhat separate, yet in front of him. A situation similar to that which existed between Jews and Gentiles in the New Testament period must have dictated this separation.

Most puzzling of all, Joseph had arranged for his brothers to be seated in the order of their ages, from the oldest to the youngest. While all of his brothers were well fed, Benjamin received a portion that was five times greater than his brothers. The seating arrangement did not pass Joseph’s brothers by without notice, and they were amazed at how this could be done. While it did not suggest to them that Joseph was their brother, it did convince them that this man had a knowledge and insight that was far from normal. He possessed a power greater than others (cf. 44:15).

I have always felt that the preferential treatment of Benjamin was a part of Joseph’s plan to test his brothers, but I am less impressed by this view after studying this chapter. I do believe that giving Benjamin five times as much as any of his brothers served to remind the rest of his preferential status (mainly from his father, but even from Joseph). It did provide the setting for the test of Joseph’s brothers in chapter 44, for they were now given the opportunity to do away with Benjamin, with no real blame to themselves.

While Joseph’s generosity to Benjamin served to highlight the fact that he was now, in place of Joseph, the favored son, I don’t believe this was Joseph reason for his actions at the table. This, like the return of the money to his brothers, was motivated by genuine love and benevolence. Joseph did have a more intimate relationship with Benjamin, and he did not hesitate to reveal it. This act provided more food for thought for his brothers to digest. I do not in any way see this multiplied portion as anything sadistically or improperly motivated. I view it as an indication of Joseph’s deep love for his brother.

I must admit that somehow I have had it in my mind that Joseph had the entire encounter with his brothers mapped out from start to finish. I viewed him as almost mechanically going through each step of the program, knowing exactly how his brothers would respond and what he would do in turn. I don’t really think this is how it happened. I am convinced that Joseph understood his responsibility as head of the family and as God’s instrument to bring his father and brothers to the point of spiritual insight and genuine change. I believe that he did this in just the same way that we serve as God’s instruments, one step at a time. The kindness which Joseph showed to his brothers in chapter 43 was with no hidden or ulterior motives, but only to bestow blessing upon them. The test of chapter 44 is seen to be necessary in the light of their departure, yet without fully revealing their character. The blessings at Joseph’s disposal were to be poured out on men who had shown genuine repentance. That repentance would become evident in the test which was to follow.

Conclusion

Contextually and historically, chapter 43 serves at least two functions. First, it reveals the fears of Jacob and his sons to be entirely groundless. The best that these men could hope for was the release of Simeon and the safe return of all the men (verse 14). Little did these men know that the governor of Egypt was the son of Jacob and brother to his sons. What God had planned for them through the instrumentality of Joseph was more than they could ask or think (cf. I Corinthians 2:9). While Joseph had faced his trials with faith, his father and brothers agonized in their testing, plagued with unfounded fears.

In a very special way, chapter 43 prepares us for the “acid test” of chapter 44. We might be inclined to view Joseph as engineering this plot in order to vent some of his hostilities toward his brothers. Was this not a cruel and inhuman test? The answer is a resounding “No!” as evidenced by the genuine tears of love and compassion he shed, unknown to his brothers, in chapter 43. Why did Moses inform us of the emotional feelings of Joseph (42:23-24, 43:30) if they were not known to his brothers? Simply because he intended for us to understand Joseph’s motivation for his actions. Every test and every hardship which Joseph imposed upon his brothers was an act of genuine love.

What a lesson this gives us in the area of discipline. We are inclined to glibly tell our children, “This hurts me more than it does you,” when we correct them, and I would hope from the example of Joseph that this is really so. Discipline that makes us feel better should be subject to careful scrutiny. Discipline that brings genuine tears to our eyes is from a heart filled with love. I believe this is consistent with what Paul intended when he wrote,

Brethren, even if a man is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; looking to yourselves, lest you too be tempted (Galatians 6:1).

I learn another lesson from Joseph. I see that in his dealings with his brothers he found it necessary to control his emotions in order to do what was right. Now his emotions were not wrong, and thus to be denied or repressed. Joseph’s tears were the proper response to his circumstances. His tears were shed in private to conceal his identity, but his emotions were brought under control so as to do what was best for his brothers. Had Joseph’s emotions reigned, his brothers would not have been brought to genuine repentance. If Joseph had merely “done what his heart told him,” he would have immediately revealed his identity, but stimulating their spiritual growth was more important.

Our emotions are God-given, and most of us (men, at least) are always trying to deny them. Tears were not a shame to Joseph; they simply did not further his purpose. It is a commonly held viewpoint that we should do what our heart tells us to do, that we should let love lead the way. I do not believe this is true if we equate “love” with our emotional feelings. Biblical (agape) love is not an emotion so much as it is a commitment. Acting in love may involve acting contrary to our feelings.

Let me seek to illustrate this. Those of us who believe in spanking our children (as the Bible instructs us, Proverbs 13:24; 19:18; 23:13-14) know how this works. We hardly have gotten the paddle into our hand when our child begins to wail as if he or she is dying, but we haven’t done anything yet. Those cries tug at our heart strings, and our hearts plead with us to put down the rod. At this point our emotions must be controlled, and love must will to do what is right. It should be no pleasure to punish our children, and the pain we cause ourselves may indicate that what was done was in genuine love.

This is what the apostle spoke of when he wrote,

And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment (Philippians 1:9).

Love, that is, real love, must always be regulated by and subject to knowledge and discernment. What may appear to be loving, may be the opposite.

What a beautiful picture this chapter provides us of the discipline which God exercises in the lives of His children. Only Joseph fully recognized all of these things as coming from the hand of a loving and caring God (cf. 45:5-8; 50:20). Jacob and his other sons saw it mainly as the “fickle hand of fate.” When some did realize that their trials were from God, it would appear that they perceived an angry God who was only seeking vengeance (cf. 42:21,28). This is just the way they viewed Joseph, as a harsh and angry man (cf. 43:3). But just as Joseph’s severity was feigned (42:7), so God’s apparent harshness toward His children is unreal. The discipline which comes from God, like that which came from Joseph, is from a heart filled with grief and injured love (cf. Hebrews 12:1-13). Its desired end is not revenge, but restoration. It seeks to bring us to the place where His blessings may once again flow freely into our lives. But so long as we choose to go our own wayward way, we will discover that “… the way of the treacherous is hard” (Proverbs 13:15).

Joseph’s brothers provide us with an excellent illustration of salvation. In their current spiritual state they faced Joseph with the greatest fear. They perceived their only “salvation” to be in their “works” of returning the money they found in their sacks and in the pistachio nuts and other presents they brought from Canaan. The first was refused by the steward, and the second was ignored by Joseph. It was not their works that endeared these brothers to Joseph; it was their relationship to him. That is what they did not yet realize.

In the same way today sinful men dread the thought of standing before a righteous and holy God. The future must be faced with great fear. Frantically men and women seek to gain God’s favor and acceptance by their “pistachio nuts” of good works. Such things as trying to live by the Golden Rule or the Sermon on the Mount, joining the church, and being baptized, are unacceptable to God as a basis for salvation. What saves a man or a woman is a relationship with Him through Jesus Christ.

When we stand before the throne of God, the only thing God will be interested in is our relationship to His Son, Jesus Christ. As our Lord Himself put it,

I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me (John 14:6).

This is the consistent message of the Bible:

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name (John 1:12).

And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12).

And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life (I John 5:11-12).

Have you come into a relationship with Jesus Christ? I urge you to acknowledge that you are a sinner, deserving of God’s eternal wrath. Let your eternal destiny rest in Jesus Christ, Who died in your place and Who offers you His righteousness and eternity with Him. Realize that any work which you may do will do nothing to gain God’s favor; He is pleased only with the work which Christ has already done on the cross of Calvary.

From Jacob we can learn a number of lessons. First, as we have already pointed out, Jacob provides us with an excellent example of how we are not to lead. Second, Jacob reminds us that it is our efforts to save ourselves that lead to our ruin. It is only when we give up striving to save our life and accept God’s provision that we are saved.

For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake shall find it (Matthew 16:25).

Jacob was putting all his hopes for the future on his son Benjamin (42:38; 44:29-31). Without Jacob’s realizing it, God had purposed to save him and his sons through Joseph, who was rejected by his brothers, marked for death, and who was, so far as Jacob knew, dead. Later this son who “was no more” was elevated to the throne where he was able to save his brethren. Jacob’s hopes were placed on the wrong son. It was through Judah, who offered himself in place of Benjamin, and Joseph, who was rejected and then exalted, that Jacob and his sons were saved. Jacob would be saved God’s way or not at all. God had to systematically pull out all the props from under him before he was willing to accept things God’s way. How characteristic this is of us.

Finally, Jacob reminds us that the only reason the saints persevere is because God perseveres to bring about the accomplishment of what He has promised. Humanly speaking, if Jacob had gotten his way (by keeping Benjamin home with him, where it was “safe”), the nation would never have gone to Egypt where it was spared from physical famine and spiritual disaster (e.g., Genesis 38). Jacob was in no way furthering God’s purposes; he was fighting them. God saved the nation in spite of him. How encouraging it is to know that our ultimate destiny is in His hands, not ours.

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus (Philippians 1:6).

68 “. . . a little balm and a little honey (. . . either new honey from bees, or more probably honey from grapes,--a thick syrup boiled from sweet grapes, which is still carried every year from Hebron to Egypt), gum-dragon and myrrh . . . , pistachio nuts and almonds,’ . . . which are not mentioned anywhere else, are, according to the Samar. vers., the fruit of the pistacia vera, a tree resembling the terebinth,--long angular nuts of the size of hazel-nuts, with an oily kernel of a pleasant flavor; it does not thrive in Palestine now, but the nuts are imported from Aleppo.” C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), I, p. 360.

69 For example, note these words of Thomas: “At length Jacob recovered his spiritual equilibrium, and consented to let Benjamin go. He also told them to take a gift to the great man in Egypt. In the old days he had tried to appease his brother Esau, and here again he adopted the same policy. Not only so, they were to take double money in their hand, and the money that was brought again in their sacks. He also commended them to the God of Power (El-Shaddai), praying that the Mighty God would give them mercy before the man and send back Simeon and Benjamin. The old man’s closing words indicate a fine spirit of acceptance of the Divine will: ‘If I be bereaved of my children, I am bereaved.”’ W. H. Griffith Thomas, Genesis: A Devotional Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946), p. 417.

In addition, Leupold states, “Jacob’s words at this point are not a timid wish but a powerful benediction spoken in faith.” H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942), II, p. 1066.

Perhaps Bush is the strongest in his position, for he writes, “It is not the sullen consent of one who yields to fate while his heart rebels against it. No; he yields in a manner worthy of a man of God; proposing first that every possible means should be used to conciliate the man, the lord of the land, and then committing the issue of the whole to God.” George Bush, Notes on Genesis (Minneapolis: James Family Christian Publishers, 1979), II, p. 313.

70 “God Almighty . . . was a title specially evocative of the covenant with Abraham (17:1) and therefore of God’s settled purpose for this family.” Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), pp. 203-204.

“As El Shaddai, or ‘the almighty God’ the deity is seen to be not only creator and sustainer of the universe, but also the initiator and keeper of covenants. As such He is seen to move clearly in the human sphere shaping natural forces to spiritual ends.” “God, Names Of,” H. B. Kuhn, The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975, 1976), II, p. 763.

It was by this name that Isaac blessed Jacob before his escape from Esau (Genesis 28:3). It was also by this name that God identified Himself as He reiterated the covenant first made with Abraham (Genesis 17:1ff.) to Jacob at the time of his return to Bethel (Genesis 35:11).

71 The expression “be at ease” is literally “peace to you” (margin, NASV, verse 23). It was used elsewhere to calm the fears of Gideon (Judges 6:23).

Français

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_43_32k.mp3

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

44. The Final Test: Dothan Relived (Genesis 44:1-34)

Introduction

Thirteen years ago I spent one summer teaching high school courses in a medium security prison. While I had many interesting experiences, one of my colleagues had one encounter with a prisoner which is pertinent to our passage. This teacher was showing a movie to his class, but one student attempted to take advantage of the darkness and catch a nap. On several occasions my friend came upon him sleeping and gave him a little shake. It was useless, for by this time he was deep in sleep and no mere nudge would awaken him. Finally he was shaken somewhat more vigorously. He awakened with a start, shook his fist in the teacher’s face and blurted out, “If you ever do that again, you’re going to get it!”

Now there was always a guard stationed in the hall, and this was certainly the time for his services. My teacher friend gradually worked his way to the door where he signaled the guard, and the hostile student was removed from class and taken to the “hole” where he spent a week in solitary confinement. He, of course, had a great deal of time to consider his threat. When he returned to his class after that week of solitude, he went up to my friend to apologize. “Sir,” he said, “I want you to know that I didn’t really mean what I said to you last week. What I meant to say was, ‘If you ever do that again, you might get it!’”

I hope we all realize that this falls somewhat short of real repentance. As I read the account of Joseph’s dealings with his brothers, I am disturbed by the fact that it took perhaps a year or more before he revealed his identity to them.⁷² Why did it have to take so long? I believe it was because there was no evidence of genuine repentance until the events of chapter 44. While Joseph’s brothers had come to the point of recognizing the hand of God in their trials during their first journey to Egypt (cf. 42:21-22,28), their response was more one of regret than repentance. It was the genuine repentance of Judah and his brothers in chapter 44 which caused Joseph to disclose his identity and thus turn their sorrow to rejoicing.

The reason this chapter is so vital to us centuries later is that repentance is an indispensable part of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and yet it is seldom discussed and frequently misunderstood. Our Lord’s last words to His disciples speak of the necessity of repentance:

… and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day; and that repentance for forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His name to all the nations—beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24:46-47).

Let us approach, then, this final test of Joseph’s brothers to learn more of this matter of repentance.

Arrest
(44:1-13)

The noon meal finally finished, Joseph instructed his steward to provide his brothers with as many provisions as they could carry.

Then he commanded his house steward, saying, “Fill the men’s sacks with food, as much as they can carry, and put each man’s money in the mouth of his sack. And put my cup, the silver cup, in the mouth of the sack of the youngest, and his money for the grain.” And he did as Joseph had told him (Genesis 44:1-2).

As he did on the first journey to Egypt, Joseph ordered his steward to place in their sacks the money they had given for their grain. In addition to this, the silver cup which belonged to Joseph was placed in the sack of Benjamin, thus setting the scene for the final test of his brothers.

As soon as it was light, the men were sent away, they with their donkeys. They had just gone out of the city, and were not far off, when Joseph said to his house steward, “Up, follow the men; and when you overtake them, say to them, ‘Why have you repaid evil for good? Is not this the one from which my lord drinks, and which he indeed uses for divination? You have done wrong in doing this’” (Genesis 44:3-5).

Joseph’s brothers must have spent the night at his house, for they were “sent off” at first light (verse 3). No more had they gotten out of sight than Joseph ordered his steward to pursue them, charging them with theft and bringing back Benjamin, in whose sack the silver cup was sure to be found. The instructions which Joseph gave are cited as a quotation, but surely more detailed orders were given, for what happens is much more complex than what Joseph commanded his steward.

A serious difficulty arises with this silver cup that is hidden in Benjamin’s sack. The servant described it as the cup which his master used for divination (verse 5). And in verse 15 Joseph claimed to have knowledge through divination.⁷³ The difficulty lies in the fact that later revelation strictly forbids divination:

You shall not eat anything with the blood, nor practice divination or soothsaying (Leviticus 19:26).

There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer (Deuteronomy 18:10).

How could one as spiritual as Joseph be guilty of using a method of gaining knowledge that was an abomination to God?

Some feel that Joseph really did use the method of divination.⁷⁴ Also, we are reminded that, at this point in time, divination was not clearly condemned by divine revelation.⁷⁵ Other explanations have also been suggested.⁷⁶ I am rather strongly inclined to believe that this is just one more element of the carefully constructed disguise of Joseph, who posed as a true Egyptian. Such a godly man as he is unlikely to have employed methods which God would later condemn. Some of the commandments of the Mosaic Law, while recorded later, were known and observed in much earlier times, such as the law of levirate marriage (cf. Genesis 38:8; Deuteronomy 25:5-6).

When speaking to his steward Joseph referred to this cup differently than we would expect: “And put my cup, the silver cup, in the mouth of the sack of the youngest …” (Genesis 44:2).

Who, more than his personal steward, would have recognized this silver cup as the divining cup of his master? That is, of course, assuming that Joseph used the cup for divination. But suppose that he never used the cup for divining. How, then, would Joseph have referred to it? Just as he did. He called it “my cup, the silver cup” (verse 2). I contend that Joseph referred to his cup in this way because it reflected the actual use of that cup in such a way as to distinguish it (for his steward’s sake) from any other cup. He wanted a particular cup placed in Benjamin’s sack, and so he distinguished it by its uniqueness; it was Joseph’s cup—his drinking cup—which was silver.

This also explains why Joseph gave very specific instructions to his steward as to how he should refer to this cup when accusing his brothers of theft: “Is not this the one from which my lord drinks, and which he indeed uses for divination?” (Genesis 44:5).

Why did he give his trusted steward such latitude in everything but the specific wording of the accusation? I would suggest that it is precisely because the steward would never have worded his rebuke in this way. Why? Because not only the charge was false, but the impression given was also not true to the facts. If Joseph never used that silver cup for divination, how would his steward ever have conceived to refer to it in that way? He would have spoken of it just as Joseph did to him. He would have called it his master’s silver drinking cup, for no doubt it was used during the noon meal which Joseph shared with his brothers.

But why all this subterfuge? Why would Joseph want his brothers to think that the cup was used for divination when it was not? As for me, the answer is obvious. Joseph wanted to continue to reinforce his disguise as an Egyptian. He also wanted to impress upon his brothers that he knew everything. He had been able to seat his brothers at the table according to their age, an act that astonished and puzzled them (43:33). As Hebrews, they would expect Joseph to seek divine revelation through such means, and they would be drawn away from considering that he might know about them because they were his brothers. Furthermore, it would discourage them from concealing the truth from him since they were inclined to believe he knew everything.

Joseph’s faithful steward now set out to accomplish what his master commanded. Joseph’s brothers had been lulled into a false sense of confidence, one which would lead them to pronounce upon themselves their own sentence.

So he overtook them and spoke these words to them. And they said to him, “Why does my lord speak such words as these? Far be it from your servants to do such a thing. Behold, the money which we found in the mouth of our sacks we have brought back to you from the land of Canaan. How then could we steal silver or gold from your lord’s house? With whomever of your servants it is found, let him die, and we also will be my lord’s slaves.” So he said, “Now let it also be according to your words; he with whom it is found shall be my slave, and the rest of you shall be innocent. Then they hurried, each man lowered his sack to the ground, and each man opened his sack. And he searched, beginning with the oldest and ending with the youngest, and the cup was found in Benjamin’s sack. Then they tore their clothes, and when each man loaded his donkey, they returned to the city (Genesis 44:6-13).

Overtaking these Hebrew men as they headed back to their father, the steward accused them of stealing the silver “divining” cup. With smug confidence and self-righteousness the brothers assured the steward that such a thing was beyond them. After all, had they not attempted to return the money which they found in their sacks from the first journey? If they would not keep money that was accidentally placed in their sacks, much less would they consider taking as common thieves what was not theirs. Assured of their innocence, they overcompensated by pronouncing their own sentence if found guilty: let the thief, if indeed there was one, be put to death, and let all the rest become slaves. Slavery was what these men had most feared (cf. 43:18), and yet they were willing to risk it because they were certain of their innocence.

Knowing that he would discover the cup and probably knowing the intent of his master in this situation to test them in the matter of family cohesiveness and loyalty, the steward wisely and graciously modified their self-imposed sentence: no, let the one in whose sack the cup is found become Joseph’s slave and all the rest go free.

Each man hastened to take down his sack and open it, for they were certain that their innocence would be proven. While nothing is said of the gold which was placed in each man’s sack (verse 1), the discovery of this money in each of their sacks must have made their hearts sink just as it had before (42:28, 35). Their logic had been, “How could they think of stealing his silver cup if they would not take his money?” And yet for some unknown reason they did have his money. A growing sense of dread must have come over these men as each learned that his money had found its way back to his sack. The basis for their righteous indignation was gone. But the steward makes no mention of their money. All he wished to discover was the thief of the cup. From the oldest to the youngest, the steward made his way down the line until he reached Benjamin, the last. Their world came crashing in upon them all when the cup was discovered.

Here was the first phase of the final test of Joseph’s brothers. While they had initially insisted that the thief die and the others remain as slaves, the steward set the penalty as slavery only for the culprit. The others could go on their way. And yet, all of the brothers tore their clothes as a sign of grief and mourning, and all of them returned to Joseph’s house. Had they acted only in self-interest, they would have renounced Benjamin as a thief, deserted him, and fled from Egypt as quickly as possible. But something different was taking place. These were not the same men that had determined to do away with Joseph at Dothan (cf. Genesis 37:18ff.).

More than twenty years had passed since they had sold Joseph into slavery, and yet it was as though they were reliving the event in the person of Benjamin. Before, they had resented the fact that Joseph had observed their misconduct and reported it to Jacob (37:2). Further, they resented the favoritism Jacob showed to Joseph (37:4) just as Jacob was now partial to Benjamin (cf. 44:27-31). When far from the watchful eye of their father, they found an occasion to get rid of Joseph. First they decided to kill him violently (37:20), then to starve him to death in a pit (37:22), and finally to sell him into slavery for silver (37:26-28).

Now they were faced with a most similar situation. Benjamin, Jacob’s beloved, was in their care, far from Jacob’s protection. He was accused of a terrible crime for which there was no opportunity to establish his innocence. They, without any real guilt, such as they deserved before, could merely choose to walk away and enjoy their liberty at Benjamin’s expense. They could return to their father just as they had done so long ago and break his heart with the news that his other son was “no more.” More than twenty years later, the same temptation faces these men. Will they evidence a change of heart, or will they act in self-interest? That is what Joseph must know. The moment of truth has arrived.

A principle recorded later in Israel’s history surely finds application here:

So your life shall hang in doubt before you; and you shall be in dread night and day, and shall have no assurance of your life. In the morning you shall say, “Would that it were evening!” And at evening you shall say, “Would that it were morning!” because of the dread of your heart which you dread, and for the sight of your eyes which you shall see. And the LORD will bring you back to Egypt in ships, by the way about which I spoke to you, “You will never see it again!” And there you shall offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but there will be no buyer (Deuteronomy 28:66-68).

God told His people that when they obeyed Him, He would pour out His blessings upon them (Deuteronomy 28:1-14), but disobedience would bring discipline (28:15ff.) Like Joseph’s brothers, those who choose to disobey the will of God bring upon themselves the appearance of being in constant danger of extinction and annihilation. How true this appeared to be at this time in the life of Joseph’s brothers. Their life seemed to hang by a thread, but oh how strong the thread!

Guilt Admitted
(44:14-17)

The self-confidence of only a few verses previous (verses 7-9) has been completely eroded away by the discovery of the cup. There is now no attempt at making a defense or giving any explanation. Instead, there is an admission of guilt, not just on Benjamin’s part but on the part of all.

When Judah and his brothers came to Joseph’s house, he was still there, and they fell to the ground before him. And Joseph said to them, “What is this deed that you have done? Do you not know that such a man as I can indeed practice divination?” So Judah said, “What can we say to my lord? What can we speak? And how can we justify ourselves? God has found out the iniquity of your servants; behold, we are my lord’s slaves, both we and the one in whose possession the cup has been found.” But he said, “Far be it from me to do this. The man in whose possession the cup has been found, he shall be my slave; but as for you, go up in peace to your father” (Genesis 44:14-17).

On their first visit the brothers had only been impressed with the severity of this Egyptian potentate (cf. 42:7; 43:3-5,18). Here was a man to be feared. But on this second mission they had also gained an appreciation for the generosity and kind intent of the governor. The sumptuous noon meal and the generous provisions and accommodations were not intended to disarm these men, but to assure them of the kindness of Joseph. In effect, they had seen both the “goodness and severity” (cf. Romans 11:22) of Joseph. I believe part of the reason they returned en masse to Joseph was that they had gained an appreciation for his integrity. He was one to whom they could appeal. He was a man of integrity and justice. This, to me, is the best explanation of the events of the last chapter, especially Joseph’s generosity and his hospitality at the noon meal.

Joseph is still at home as the heartbroken party returns. They fall prostrate before him, no longer seeking justice as before (verses 7-9), but mercy. Joseph rebuked them for their wicked deed, again reminding them of his ability to learn (by “divination”) the true facts of the matter. They could not deceive him; he knew all. That is the thrust of his words.

Judah seeks to convey their brokenness. They are without any defense. He does not acknowledge guilt in the matter of the cup, nor does he seek to give an explanation. He does confess that they now see the origin of this disaster. It is God against whom they have sinned (verse 16). It is not for the theft of Joseph’s cup that they are now in trouble, but for their sins of the past. While not stated (how, after all, would this Egyptian know anything of their previous sins?), Judah’s acknowledgment of sin must refer primarily to the sale of Joseph into slavery. As all were guilty of that sin (except Benjamin, interestingly), so they are all guilty before the governor of Egypt, and thus all are his slaves. They will suffer together since they shared in a common act of sin.

But Joseph would not hear of this. Why should all suffer for the sin of one? As a mere Egyptian he could not know of their past sins. He was only intent upon making matters right in regard to the theft of his silver cup. No, all would be sent home to their father except Benjamin, and he would remain as Joseph’s slave (verse 17).

Judah’s Appeal
(44 18-34)

Judah once again assumes the role of spiritual leader among his brothers. It was he, after all, who had offered himself as surety for Benjamin’s safe return. Now that seems a rather remote possibility. Nevertheless, there is something about Joseph which inspires an appeal for mercy. Had he not inquired with great interest about Benjamin and Jacob? And did he not take great interest in the fact of their father’s health and well-being (43:27)? Contrary to Jacob’s preferences and advice (43:6), Judah was determined to tell Joseph the truth with no excuses and to appeal to his graciousness as evidenced at the meal they had shared (43:31-34).

Then Judah approached him, and said, “Oh my lord, may your servant please speak a word in my lord’s ears, and do not be angry with your servant; for you are equal to Pharaoh. My lord asked his servants, saying, ‘Have you a father or a brother?’ And we said to my lord, ‘We have an old father and a little child of his old age. Now his brother is dead, so he alone is left of his mother, and his father loves him.’ Then you said to your servants, ‘Bring him down to me, that I may set my eyes on him.’ But we said to my lord, ‘The lad cannot leave his father, for if he should leave his father, his father would die.’ You said to your servants, however, ‘Unless your youngest brother comes down with you, you shall not see my face again.’ Thus it came about when we went up to your servant my father, we told him the words of my lord. And our father said, ‘Go back, buy us a little food.’ But we said, ‘We cannot go down. If our youngest brother is with us, then we will go down; for we cannot see the man’s face unless our youngest brother is with us.’ And your servant my father said to us, ‘You know that my wife bore me two sons; and the one went out from me, and I said, “Surely he is torn in pieces,” and I have not seen him since. And if you take this one also from me, and harm befalls him, you will bring my gray hair down to Sheol in sorrow.’ Now, therefore, when I come to your servant my father, and the lad is not with us, since his life is bound up in the lad’s life, it will come about when he sees that the lad is not with us, that he will die. Thus your servants will bring the gray hair of your servant our father down to Sheol in sorrow. For your servant became surety for the lad to my father, saying, ‘If I do not bring him back to you, then let me bear the blame before my father forever.’ Now, therefore, please let your servant remain instead of the lad a slave to my lord, and let the lad go up with his brothers. For how shall I go up to my father if the lad is not with me, lest I see the evil that would overtake my father?” (Genesis 44:18-34).

With a humble petition for forbearance, Judah beseeches his brother to give him the opportunity to tell the whole story from beginning to end (verse 18). It was Joseph who had inquired about their father and younger brother (verse 19), and they had responded with the truth. They had also mentioned that Benjamin had a brother who was deceased and that their father was deeply attached to Benjamin because he was the only remaining child of his mother (verse 20). It was Joseph who had insisted upon seeing this brother, although they had attempted to explain how their father would not want him out of his sight (verses 21-22). In spite of their efforts to dissuade him from it, Joseph had demanded to see this brother as proof of their honesty (verse 23). When they returned home, they reported all this to their father Jacob (verse 24). He later asked his sons to return for more grain, but they refused to go without Benjamin, for they took the Egyptian governor’s words seriously (verses 25-26).

Judah now attempts to paint an accurate picture of the pitiful condition of their father by reporting his words as spoken to his sons (verses 27-29). His beloved wife, he had said, had borne him only two sons. When the oldest went out from him and did not return, he was forced to conclude that this son had died, a victim of wild beasts. To take Benjamin, the only other son of Rachel, and not return with him would break his heart. Not only would he enter his grave in sorrow, but he also implied that his death would even be hastened by his grief.

Judah’s predicament is now described (verses 30-32). If Joseph can somehow understand the dilemma in which Judah finds himself, perhaps he will be sympathetic to his petition which concludes his appeal (verses 33-34). The life of this aged man of whom Joseph has inquired is inseparably intertwined with his youngest son, Benjamin (verse 30). To return to Canaan without this son would bring to pass that which Jacob himself had suggested, his untimely and uncomforted death (verse 31). And Judah is most directly related to this situation, for it is he who had assured his father of Benjamin’s safe return, offering himself as surety (verse 32).

The facts have all been laid out. The situation is now seen in the light of what Benjamin’s captivity would do to this patriarch about whom Joseph seemed to show concern. If only Joseph would consent to a substitution, much of this suffering could be averted. Let him remain as Joseph’s prisoner, Judah pled (verse 33), for he could not bear to face his father without Benjamin. He would prefer to remain a slave in Egypt than to be free in Canaan and witness the pain and suffering he had helped to impose upon his father (verse 34).

Conclusion

Everyone knows what happens next. Joseph will identify himself as their brother, and the entire situation is suddenly reversed. But that is the subject of the next chapter. The question which we must concern ourselves with is this: Why did Joseph suddenly reveal his identity now? What caused him to suddenly throw off his disguise?

A casual consideration of this passage might lead us to conclude that Judah had been successful in tugging at Joseph’s heart strings. Joseph disclosed himself because he could stand it no longer. This explanation is not sufficient, and it does not fit the facts. On previous occasions Joseph had also been emotionally touched (42:24; 43:30), but he had always been able to restrain these emotions. It was not that now his emotions finally controlled Joseph, but that Joseph’s purposes had been realized. Judah’s appeal did not change Joseph’s heart so much as it revealed that Judah’s heart had undergone a significant change since the day many years before when he had been instrumental in selling Joseph into slavery. In short, Joseph was now able to reveal his identity because genuine repentance had been evidenced.

Up until this moment there was insufficient evidence of repentance. Previous chapters have indicated that Joseph’s brothers recognized their suffering as the result of their sin, but at best they felt only regret. They wished, I believe, that they had not sold Joseph into slavery. Perhaps they were sorry that their father had to suffer as he did. And they regretted that they had to endure the consequences of their sins. This was a good beginning, but it was not enough. Regret is no more than what we would expect from anyone who is faced with the unpleasant consequences of sin. Every prisoner regrets their crime, or at least the fact that they were caught. But repentance is more than regret.

The regrets of Judah and his brothers had not brought them to the point of confessing their sin to Jacob nor of making any attempt to learn of Joseph’s fate. But now, given the opportunity to repeat their sin, there is a significant change of heart and action on the part of Joseph’s brothers, as exemplified by Judah. They had once determined to do away with Joseph, regardless of its impact upon Jacob, in order to seek revenge and to avoid becoming Joseph’s subordinates. Now, just the opposite was true. Judah was willing to become the slave of Joseph, even though he was declared innocent of the theft of the silver cup. He could not stand the thought of causing any further suffering. That, my friend, is genuine repentance.

That brings us to the point of defining repentance. Repentance is the recognition of our sins which results in the kind of sorrow that brings about a change in our intellect, emotions, and will. In other words, repentance recognizes sin and is genuinely sorry for it, so much so that this sin will be shunned and a new course of action will be sought.⁷⁷

The principle which underlies the protracted dealings of Joseph in the lives of his brothers is this: there can be no reconciliation without genuine repentance. That is what caused Joseph to delay so long in revealing his identity to his brothers. If there were to be true unity in his family, there must first be true reconciliation. And that reconciliation would not come before his brothers experienced and evidenced biblical repentance.

Let me mention some illustrations of repentance in the New Testament. The prodigal son sinned by demanding his inheritance and squandering it on loose living. He eventually came to suffer the consequences of his sin, feeding swine in a far country and having no food but that which he fed the hogs. His regrets eventually turned to repentance. He realized the foolishness of his sins and yearned for fellowship with his father, even as a hired servant. He came to his senses and returned home to his father, not seeking justice, but mercy, and his father warmly received him (Luke 15:10ff.). That was biblical repentance. Genuine sorrow for sin brought about a change in this son’s thinking and actions. He forsook his sins (cf. Luke 15:18) and returned to his father, who gladly received him back.

The rich young ruler, on the contrary, came to Jesus in order to gain salvation without changing his values, priorities, or lifestyle. He went away sorry, but not repentant or saved, for he could not part with his old way of life (Matthew 19:16-22). Zaccheus, on the other hand, evidenced genuine repentance and conversion when he sought to make right the sins of his past (Luke 19:1-10).

I dare say that you and I would not have gone to such lengths to restore our fallen brothers as did Joseph. And the reason, I fear, is that we have too little appreciation for the biblical doctrine of repentance. We do not think it necessary, nor do we seek to produce it in the lives of others.

In the preaching of John the Baptist (Matthew 3:2, etc.), our Lord (Matthew 4:17, etc.), and the apostles (Mark 6:12; Acts 2:38; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20), repentance was an inseparable part of the message of the gospel. Why, then, is it not so important to us? Why do we not make it a part of the gospel we proclaim? Perhaps it is due to a misconception of the grace of God.

I can well remember hearing the teaching which emphasized the word “confess” rather than repentance. We are correctly told that “confess” does not mean “to be sorry,” but “to agree with,” “to say the same thing.”⁷⁸ While this is undeniable, it is wrong to conclude that because “confess” does not mean “to be sorry,” being sorry is unnecessary. Confession is the evidence of genuine repentance.⁷⁹ Thus, the “sorry” element is found in the word “repentance,” not in the word “confess.”

I once heard it said that in former years a Roman Catholic would come to the priest for confession saying something to the effect, “Father, I have … and … and I want to confess this to you.” Nowadays it is entirely a different story, which goes more like this: “Dig me daddy, I goofed again.” I fear that we who are Protestants are guilty of much the same mentality toward our sins. To admit guilt, we suppose, is to obtain forgiveness. I do not believe that the Bible anywhere teaches this. Reconciliation is based upon genuine repentance, not just on some kind of glib recital of wrongs committed.

I do not think that this is true only in the realm of spiritual relationships, but in every area of our relationships. I believe that God does heal marriages. I have seen what appeared to be a hopeless marriage marvelously transformed. But genuine reconciliation here requires repentance too. What an offended mate fears most is the kind of situation where their partner admits wrongdoing, pleads for forgiveness, and promises radical changes, but where nothing really changes. In short order, old patterns are resumed, and old problems relived. Repentance does not guarantee that old problems will not recur, but it does assure us that sins are recognized as such and shunned. Repentance does not desire to make sin a habit, and it looks to God for enablement to live in a godly way. In Romans 7 we see the agony of a man who is not living as he should, or even as he desires, but he does not love his sin; he hates it. His agony originates in his hatred of sin and his desire to do right. There is a repentant spirit here which must exist.

As Paul would have us know from the book of Romans, repentance is a great start, but it is not enough. Our recognition of sin and a corresponding desire to reverse our actions is a prerequisite to righteous living, but there is more that is needed. In addition to desiring a new course of action, we must find a new source of ability. The wonderful news of the grace of God is that He has not only made provision for our salvation, but He also has made provision for our sanctification:

Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit (Romans 7:24-8:4).

Joseph’s dealings with his brothers have a great deal of application to men today. For those who have never come to faith in Christ, there is an illustration of salvation. God, like Joseph, desires to pour out upon men, whom He loves, the riches which are His to give. But men cannot be blessed until their sins have been dealt with. To Joseph’s brothers, this Egyptian potentate was all-wise and all-powerful, but harsh and to be feared. Yet to us, he was a loving brother whose tears revealed his heart and his earnest desires. In order to bring his brothers to repentance, Joseph had to put them to the test and make their lives appear to be in peril. But when they recognized themselves as sinners deserving any sentence Joseph had to pronounce upon them, repentance was realized, and Joseph was free to reveal himself to be a loving brother, not a vengeful master.

If you have never come to recognize your sin, desire to forsake it, and to confess it before God, then you, like Joseph’s brothers, will look upon God with only dread and fear. The thought of standing before God will be more fearful to you than Joseph’s brothers’ contemplation of returning to stand for sentencing before him. But once you realize your sins and the rightful penalty that should be yours—once you come to God, not to barter and bargain for blessings, but to cast yourself upon His mercy—then you will come to see the other side of God. He is a loving Father, who desires to pour out His blessings upon you. He wants to save you and to enable you to live a life that pleases Him and you.

Regretting your sins and their consequences in your life is not enough. That sorrow for sin must turn to a hatred of sin, a desire to turn from it, and a dependence upon God for forgiveness from sin and freedom from its power. Jesus Christ has come to earth, fully God and fully man. He has taken upon Himself the penalty for your sins. He offers you the kind of righteousness which God requires for salvation and eternal life. If you will acknowledge your sins, turn from them, and trust in the Savior God has provided, then you will be born again. You can be restored to fellowship with God just as Joseph’s brothers could once again have intimacy with their kinsman. But let me assure you, God will not make life easy for you nor pour out His blessings upon you until you have learned the need for and experienced repentance.

For Christians, we must be reminded that repentance is a vital element of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is not a popular doctrine, as you know. It is a dimension of the gospel that is often omitted, thinking that it will be easier to save souls if we leave it out. But salvation will not and cannot occur without it.

And Peter said to them, “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).

Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead (Acts 17:30-31).

… solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21).

… but kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance (Acts 26:20).

As we actively pursue the “ministry of reconciliation” (II Corinthians 5:18-21), let us not forget that reconciliation cannot occur without repentance.

Once we are saved, the need for repentance is not over. The way salvation is conceived is also the way it is continued:

As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him (Colossians 2:6).

I believe this to be a part of what Paul meant in the book of Romans when he said,

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect (Romans 12:2).

The process which begins at conversion is an ongoing one. As we daily present ourselves to God, we ought to be learning more of His mind and thus become aware of new truths, as well as being convicted of transgressions of which we were previously unaware. John called this “walking in the light as He is in the light” (I John 1:7). We should continually be experiencing the renewal of our mind, which should result in renouncing the ways of darkness and walking in the light which we have been given. Repentance, in this sense, will go on throughout our lives until we have, in His presence, been transformed into full conformity with Him.

Unfortunately, there will come times of willful disobedience. Our feet will slip, and we shall sin in ways of which we know better. In times such as these, repentance must also be found in order for full fellowship and intimacy with God to be appreciated and experienced:

But I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Remember therefore from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you, and will remove your lampstand out of its place—unless you repent (Revelation 2:4-5).

And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: “The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this: ‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I would that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked. I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire, that you may become rich, and white garments, that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed, and eye salve to anoint your eyes, that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; be zealous therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any one hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him, and will dine with him, and he with Me’” (Revelation 3:14-20).

For Christian and non-Christian alike, repentance is a step beyond recognition of sin and regret of its consequences; it is the decision to turn from sin to Him who is sinless and whose way is that of righteousness. It is turning from our sins and our self-effort and relying upon our Lord Jesus Christ for forgiveness and enablement. How beautifully the Apostle Paul describes this step beyond regret in his epistle to the Corinthians. Let us use it as our guide:

For though I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it; though I did regret it—for I see that that letter caused you sorrow, though only for a while—I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful, but that you were made sorrowful to the point of repentance; for you were made sorrowful according to the will of God, in order that you might not suffer loss in anything through us. For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation; but the sorrow of the world produces death. For behold what earnestness this very thing, this godly sorrow, has produced in you, what vindication of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what avenging of wrong! In everything you demonstrated yourselves to be innocent in the matter. So although I wrote to you it was not for the sake of the offender, nor for the sake of the one offended, but that your earnestness on our behalf might be made known to you in the sight of God (II Corinthians 7:8-12).

72 It would appear that the first journey to Egypt for grain occurred in the first year of the famine (cf. 42:1ff.). It would take some time for Joseph’s brothers to travel from Canaan to Egypt and return, plus the fact that Jacob resisted any thought of a second trip to Egypt until all the grain was gone and his sons pressured him to face reality and release Benjamin (cf. 43:2,10). When Joseph revealed his identity to his brothers at the end of their second journey to Egypt, he said that five years of famine remained (45:11), indicating that two of the seven years of famine had elapsed. An estimate of one year, therefore, cannot miss the mark by much.

73 “As far as such practice is concerned, it is said to have been used in several forms. Some poured clear water into a bowl or a cup and then strewed into the water small pieces or particles of gold and of silver or even of precious stones. Some poured oil into the water. Still others observed the manner in which light rays broke on the surface. Usually the resulting designs to be observed in the water, whether from the particles thrown into it or from the oil, were construed after certain rules in order to draw conclusions as to the future.” H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942), II, p. 1081.

74 “It would seem clear from the narrative that Joseph was in the habit of using the art of divination.” W. H. Griffith Thomas, Genesis: A Devotional Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946), p. 418.

75 “Unless this was part of his pose, Joseph here took his colouring from Egypt, in a matter on which no law was as yet in being.” Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), p. 205.

76 “There still remains the possibility, as Vilmar points out, that it may actually have pleased God to use some such means in order to convey higher revelation to Joseph.” H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis, II, p. 1081.

“But as Vergote points out, the phrase whereby he certainly divineth could be translated ‘about this he would certainly have divined.’ It is a small difference, but it would give added point to verse 15, where the implication would be: ‘Did you think you could be undetected?’ It also meets the objection, such as it is, that divining by means of a cup is not otherwise clearly attested for the Egypt of this period.” Kidner, Genesis, p. 205.

77 “Repentance, penitence, and conversion are closely linked. Whenever someone gives his thought and life a new direction, it always involves a judgment on his previous views and behaviour. This process is expressed in the NT by three word groups which deal with its various aspects: epistrepho, metamelomai, and metanoeo. The first and third both mean turn round, turn oneself round, and refer to a man’s conversion. This presupposes and includes a complete change under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Metamelomai expresses rather the feeling of repentance for error, debt, failure and sin, and so it looks back. Hence, it does not necessarily cause a man to turn to God. Epistrepho is probably the widest conception, because it always includes faith. We often find pisteuo, believe, expressly used with metanoeo, since faith complements repentance. . . .” Colin Brown, ed., “Conversion, Penitence, Repentance, Proselyte,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), I, pp. 353-354.

Berkhoff distinguished three elements of repentance:

“a. An intellectual element. There is a change of view, a recognition of sin as involving personal guilt, defilement, and helplessness. It is designated in Scripture as epignosis hamartias (knowledge of sin), Rom. 3:20, cf. 1:32 . . .

“b. An emotional element. There is a change of feeling, manifesting itself in sorrow for sin committed against a holy and just God, Ps. 51:2,10,14. . . .

“c. A volitional element. There is also a volitional element, consisting in a change of purpose, an inward turning away from sin and a disposition to seek pardon and cleansing, Ps. 51:5,7,10; Jer. 25:5.” L. Berkhoff, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1941), p. 486.

78 “Homologeo (Soph. onwards) and homologia (Hat. onwards) are compounds of homos, the same, similar, and lego, say, or logos, word, speech. Hence, homologeo means to say the same, i.e., agree in one’s statements, and homologia means agreement, consent.” D. Furst, “Confess,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. I, p. 344.

79 “Confession is a sign of repentance . . . and thus a mark of the new life of faith.” Ibid., p. 346.

Français

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_44_32k.mp3

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

45. The Fundamentals of Forgiveness (Genesis 45:1-28)

Introduction

Near a town in the state of Washington, millions of gallons of radioactive atomic wastes are being stored in huge underground tanks. The tanks have a life expectancy of 20 or 30 years. The wastes within them will remain deadly for about 600 years.⁸⁰

We live in a society which, like those tanks in Washington, is trying to store up anger that sooner or later is going to break forth, causing pain and misery for many. We are all familiar with the popular bumper sticker in Dallas which reads, “I’m Mad Too, Eddie.” The other day I saw one that said, “I’m Mad At Eddie.” Basically, there are far too many hostile people going around looking for some way to unload their anger. Anger takes a tremendous toll on those about us:

Eighty percent of all murders are committed by people who have some relationship with the victim. Somebody gets angry, there’s a gun or knife handy, and tragedy results. According to hospital records, innumerable parents have inflicted serious injuries upon their small children in fits of temper. One authority estimates that 60,000 children a year in America are beaten to death, that more children under five years of age are killed by their parents than die of disease.⁸¹

Besides hurting others, anger is killing us. Suppressed anger and bitterness are eating away at our health and peace of mind:

Research indicates that unprocessed anger can produce all sorts of physical disorders. Dr. Leo Madow in his book, Anger, suggests that these physical problems range all the way from arthritis to asthma, from urinary disorders to the common cold. And we have known for a long time that anger can cause serious emotional disorders when it is not handled effectively.⁸²

All of this should compel us to conclude that anger is one of the great problems of our time.

Dr. Leon Saul, psychiatrist and author, writes, “I believe man’s hostility to man is the central problem in human affairs … that it is a disease to be cured and prevented like cancer, TB, or smallpox, and that its cure will result in healthier, better living—not only for society in general but for each individual in particular.”⁸³

While it is not the solution to every instance of anger,⁸⁴ forgiveness is the answer to much, if not most, of the anger we experience in life. Unresolved anger leads to bitterness, hostility, and revenge. Forgiveness leads to freedom and reconciliation. No character in the drama of the book of Genesis better illustrates the fundamentals of forgiveness than Joseph, and no chapter more clearly defines and describes the essentials of forgiveness than chapter 45.

Those years which Joseph spent in slavery and prison could have been the occasion for a slow burn that might have ignited into an explosion of anger at the sight of his brothers. How angry Joseph could have been with God for getting him into such a situation. But Joseph recognized that God was with him in his sufferings and that these were from the loving hand of a sovereign God. Most of all, Joseph could have been angry with his brothers, who had callously sold him into slavery.

The high point of Joseph’s relationship with his brothers comes in chapter 45, for it is here that there is a reconciliation brought about between them. This was made possible on the brothers’ part by their genuine repentance, regretting their sin with regard to Joseph, and reversing their actions when a similar situation was presented with regard to Benjamin. But on Joseph’s part, reconciliation was achieved through his sincere and total forgiveness of his brothers for the evil they had committed against him.

Forgiveness is a vital part of the Christian experience. It is necessary in terms of our relationship with God:

For if you forgive men for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions (Matthew 6:14-15).

Forgiveness is also an essential part of our responsibility toward others, both friends and enemies:

Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. And be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you (Ephesians 4:31-32).

You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you; in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous (Matthew 5:43-45).

Let us, then, seek to learn the lessons on forgiveness which this chapter offers us.

A Speech to the Speechless
(45:1-15)

Then Joseph could not control himself before all those who stood by him, and he cried, “Have everyone go out from me.” So there was no man with him when Joseph made himself known to his brothers. And he wept so loudly that the Egyptians heard it, and the household of Pharaoh heard of it (Genesis 45:1-2).

It may appear at first glance that Joseph simply was overcome by his emotions so that he was compelled to disclose his identity. I have already suggested that this was not the case.⁸⁵ Even when his emotions did involuntarily emerge, Joseph simply left the presence of his brothers, wept, and returned (cf. 43:30-31). Joseph revealed himself to his brothers because they had evidenced real repentance, which made reconciliation possible.

Now that it was time to reveal himself, Joseph wished this to be done alone. I find several possible reasons for Joseph expelling the Egyptians from his presence before he made himself known to his brothers. First, this was a family matter. It was to be an intimate time, and outsiders would not add anything to that moment. Perhaps also Joseph felt that the full release of his emotions, held in check for years, would cost him the esteem of his servants. Mainly, however, I believe that it was for another reason that Joseph commanded everyone to leave except his brothers: it was in order to deal with the matter of the sin of his brothers in strictest privacy. If Joseph intended for no one but his brothers to observe the outpouring of his emotions, it didn’t work, for “the Egyptians heard it” (verse 2), and this report even reached Pharaoh’s ears (verses 2, 16).

Previously, I have tended to read verses 3-15 from Joseph’s perspective without much attention to how his brothers must have responded, but Moses carefully describes the emotional trauma they underwent:

Then Joseph said to his brothers, “I am Joseph! Is my father still alive?” But his brothers could not answer him, for they were dismayed at his presence. Then Joseph said to his brothers, “Please come closer to me.” And they come closer. And he said, “I am your brother Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt. And now do not be grieved or angry with yourselves, because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life. For the famine has been in the land these two years, and there are still five years in which there will be neither plowing nor harvesting. And God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant in the earth, and to keep you alive by a great deliverance. Now, therefore, it was not you who sent me here, but God; and He has made me a father to Pharaoh and lord of all his household and ruler over all the land of Egypt. Hurry and go up to my father, and say to him, ‘Thus says your son Joseph, “God has made me lord of all Egypt; come down to me, do not delay. And you shall live in the land of Goshen, and you shall be near me, you and your children and your children’s children and your flocks and your herds and all that you have. There I will also provide for you, for there are still five years of famine to come, lest you and your household and all that you have be impoverished.”’ And behold, your eyes see, and the eyes of my brother Benjamin see, that it is my mouth which is speaking to you. Now you must tell my father of all my splendor in Egypt, and all that you have seen; and you must hurry and bring my father down here.” Then he fell on his brother Benjamin’s neck and wept; and Benjamin wept on his neck. And he kissed all his brothers and wept on them, and afterward his brothers talked with him (Genesis 45:3-15).

Put yourselves in the sandals of these brothers for a moment. They had been treated graciously by Joseph, given the hospitality of his home and his table and bountiful provisions for their families back in Canaan (cf. 43:32-44:1). Then they were stopped and searched, each of them being found with their money in their sack and Benjamin with Joseph’s cup in his possession (44:6-13). Their guilt was acknowledged and all were willing to remain as Joseph’s slaves, but Joseph refused to detain any except Benjamin, the “guilty” party (44:14-17). Judah then made an impassioned appeal for mercy on his aged father, offering himself in place of Benjamin (44:18-34).

It is at this point that chapter 45 begins. Judah and his brothers anxiously await a verdict from Joseph, one that will affect the course of their lives. Without knowing who Joseph is or what he intended to do, the brothers saw this potentate send everyone out of the room. They could perhaps see the tears flowing down his cheeks and his chest heaving with emotion. But what was the source of this great emotion? Was it anger, which would lead to further trouble? How could it be otherwise?

If they thought the worst had come, it had not, at least in their minds, for now this Egyptian blurted out in their own tongue, “I am Joseph!” That was the worst news they could ever have hoped to hear. It brought them no relief, but only new avenues of anxiety. It was bad enough to stand before a powerful Egyptian governor who was angered at the theft of a cup, but to realize that he was their brother whom they had sold into slavery—that was too much! Before, they at least had a hope that this judge would be impartial and that mercy might motivate him to accept their appeal. But now their judge must surely be their enemy, whom they had unjustly condemned. How could they hope for better treatment from him? No wonder they were petrified (cf. verses 3ff.).

Fear and guilt were written on their ashen faces, and their silence confirmed this to Joseph. They had nothing more to say, no more appeals left, no hope for mercy. Every word recorded in the first 15 verses of chapter 45 is spoken by Joseph because his brothers were speechless (verse 3). Not until Joseph had demonstrated that he had forgiven them and loved them did they speak (verse 15).

Joseph’s first words declared his identity, followed quickly by an indication of concern about his father (verse 3). He, like Judah and the others, cared greatly for his elderly father. The thought of Jacob’s grief was unbearable to Joseph as well as to the rest. But he also cared for his brothers. They must have shrunk back from him in horror, but Joseph asked them to draw near (verse 4).

Nowhere in this chapter is the sin of his brothers minimized. At the very outset Joseph identified the treatment they had given him as sinful. Forgiveness, you see, does not seek to minimize sin, but to neutralize it. We must remember, though, that they have already come to the point of recognizing their actions as sin (cf. 42:21) and of repenting of it (chapter 44). Since they have come to recognize the magnitude of their sin, Joseph need not belabor that point. The stress, instead, falls upon the totality of the forgiveness he has given them or, as the song writer has described it, “grace greater than all my sins.”

Joseph’s words are filled with hope and encouragement. Verses 5-8 assure these men that their sin had not thwarted the purposes of God. “You sold me,” Joseph said, “but God sent me” (verse 5). Their purpose was to destroy, but God’s was to save. Men may sin by attempting to do what is unacceptable to God, while at the same time they are accomplishing what God has purposed.

… this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death (Acts 2:23).

The doctrine of the sovereignty of God assures us that while men may do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons, God can cause that “evil” to accomplish His good and perfect purposes.

We know that the righteous God hates all sin with a perfect and irreconcilable hatred; but it is his prerogative to bring good out of evil, and no sin can be committed without his knowledge, or in opposition to his holy counsels. Sinners are as really the ministers of his providence as saints, and he glorifies himself by the wickedness which he hates and punishes, as well as by that holiness which he loves and rewards.⁸⁶

In the words of sacred Scripture, “For the wrath of man shall praise Thee; …” (Psalm 76:10).

Salvation, not destruction, was the purpose of God in what had happened. How, then, could Joseph even consider doing to his brothers what they feared? The famine, now two years long, had five years remaining before it had run its appointed course. Jacob and his sons must come to Egypt where Joseph could provide for them, thus sparing the nation. While God did not sanction their means or their motives, Joseph was destined to go to Egypt where he would be the instrument by which Israel would be spared as a remnant and which would later be kept alive by a “great deliverance” (literally, an “escaped company,” verse 7, margin, NASV).

This prophecy goes beyond the previous revelation given to Abram concerning Israel’s sojourn in Egypt:

Abram was not told that the “land that is not theirs” would be Egypt, nor was he told how Israel would come to live there. Neither is it mentioned that their “exodus” would be some kind of escape. The point of all this is that even if Joseph was aware of God’s words to Abram, he could not have known all that he spoke here to his brothers. There may well be, then, an element of prophecy here. God may have revealed to Joseph at some time (such as when he was in prison?) His purposes in allowing him to suffer rejection and persecution.

In the final analysis, it was not his brothers who were responsible for sending Joseph to Egypt, but God, for the purpose of bringing about their salvation. And in the process Joseph was elevated to his position of power and prominence, advisor to Pharaoh⁸⁷ and ruler over all of Egypt. We have a saying, “All’s well that ends well,” which finds a measure of truth in these words of Joseph. Joseph’s explanation of all that had happened and God’s reason for it is followed by an exhortation to return quickly to the land of Canaan, get their father, their families, and their flocks and return to Egypt (verses 9-13).

Approximately a year had passed since Joseph’s brothers had first arrived in Egypt, but this delay was not due to any apathy or aloofness on Joseph’s part—he simply had to wait patiently until his brothers had evidenced a change of heart and mind (repentance). Now Joseph urges his brothers to quickly bring their father down to Egypt (verse 9) where they would live near him in the land of Goshen. Here, it would seem, his family would be able to pasture their flocks, be relatively close to him, and yet remain somewhat distant from the urban populace of Egypt, who disliked Hebrews (cf. 46:34).⁸⁸

In these verses there is a noticeable emphasis upon the glory and splendor which Joseph has attained in Egypt. For some this appears to be out of character for Joseph, who has previously been marked by modesty and humility. Why would he now flaunt his position before his brothers? There are several explanations, one or more of which may satisfy our concerns.

First, the glory which Joseph now possesses would serve to encourage his brothers, who are guilt-ridden for the wicked deed they committed against him by selling him as a slave. Joseph would thus be reminding them that his humiliation and suffering were the means to his promotion and exaltation. Look what their sin had brought about in Joseph’s life! Second, it would comfort Jacob and assure him of Joseph’s ability to provide for the entire family during the famine. Finally, it was a glory which Joseph desired to share unselfishly with his brothers. His motive would thus be Christ-like:

These things Jesus spoke; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Thy Son, that the Son may glorify Thee, even as Thou gavest Him authority over all mankind, that to all whom Thou hast given Him, He may give eternal life. And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent. I glorified Thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which Thou hast given Me to do. And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I ever had with Thee before the world was, … And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one; …” (John 17:1-5, 22).

With this, Joseph fell upon the neck of his closest brother, Benjamin, and wept. Benjamin likewise wept on his neck. Finally, Joseph wept on the rest of his brothers, who, in the end, were relieved sufficiently to begin conversing with him. It would be a long time before these men could fully grasp the grace of forgiveness which was granted by Joseph.

Pharaoh Is Pleased
(45:16-20)

It is incredible that Joseph’s desire was to save his family rather than to seek revenge. He virtually insisted that his brothers leave quickly and bring down their entire family as soon as possible. But the icing on the cake was the confirmation of Joseph’s hospitality by none other than Pharaoh himself.

Now when the news was heard in Pharaoh’s house that Joseph’s brothers had come, it pleased Pharaoh and his servants. Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Say to your brothers, ‘Do this: load your beasts and go to the land of Canaan, and take your father and your households and come to me, and I will give you the best of the land of Egypt and you shall eat the fat of the land.’ Now you are ordered, ‘Do this: take wagons from the land of Egypt for your little ones and for your wives, and bring your father and come. And do not concern yourselves with your goods, for the best of all the land of Egypt is yours’” (Genesis 45:16-20).

Pharaoh had received the report (if indeed he had not heard Joseph weeping loudly himself, cf. verse 2) that there was a reunion between Joseph and his brothers. We almost expect Pharaoh to be pleased, but such a response would have to be unusual. We know that Hebrews were not well thought of by Egyptians (43:32; 46:34). If Pharaoh knew the specifics of how Joseph had come to Egypt, he would certainly not have any warm feelings toward his brothers.

I can think of only two reasons why Pharaoh should be so pleased to hear of the arrival of Joseph’s brothers. The first reason is obvious: Pharaoh had the greatest respect for Joseph. Joseph had virtually saved his kingdom and would greatly enhance his position in Egypt (cf. 47:13-26). Anything that pleased Joseph would make Pharaoh happy.

There is yet another explanation for the joy of Pharaoh which I believe to be very instructive. It also helps us to better understand why Joseph sent out his Egyptian servants when he revealed his identity to his brothers. It would seem that Joseph never informed Pharaoh of the injustice done to him by his brothers. Joseph did insist to the butler and the baker of the Pharaoh that he was innocent, yet he did not reveal the guilt of his brothers:

Only keep me in mind when it goes well with you, and please do me a kindness by mentioning me to Pharaoh, and get me out of this house. For I was in fact kidnapped from the land of the Hebrews, and even here I have done nothing that they should have put me into the dungeon (Genesis 40:14-15).

While Joseph maintained his own innocence, he never exposed the guilt of his brothers or of Potiphar’s wife. As a result, Pharaoh did not have to overcome any feelings of anger toward Joseph’s brothers and thus could warmly welcome them as long-lost relatives who had finally found their way to their brother. Silence about the sins of others makes their restoration a much easier process.

Joseph was a very capable administrator, as we have already seen (chapter 41). While it is not stated, Joseph surely had spoken with Pharaoh about his brothers before he asked them to come to Egypt and promised them the land of Goshen (verse 10). It was no coincidence, then, when Pharaoh confirmed Joseph’s offer, extending the offer of Egypt’s finest and commanding them to take wagons on which to bring Jacob and the women and children (verses 17-20). His generosity extended even beyond that which Joseph had indicated. The goodwill of both Joseph and Pharaoh were confirmed. The sooner they returned to Canaan for their families and flocks, the better.

Joseph’s Journey Instructions
(45:21-24)

Before their departure to Canaan, Joseph gave his brothers provisions for their journey, as commanded by Pharaoh, as well as some last minute instructions.

Then the sons of Israel did so; and Joseph gave them wagons according to the command of Pharaoh, and gave them provisions for the journey. To each of them he gave changes of garments, but to Benjamin he gave three hundred pieces of silver and five changes of garments. And to his father he sent as follows: ten donkeys loaded with the best things of Egypt, and ten female donkeys loaded with grain and bread and sustenance for his father on the journey. So he sent his brothers away, and as they departed, he said to them, “Do not quarrel on the journey” (Genesis 45:21-24).

Provisions for the journey would probably have been as before (42:25), including grain, bread to eat, something to drink, and fodder for their animals. Also, each of the brothers was given a change of clothing This should come as no surprise, for when the silver cup was discovered in Benjamin’s sack, all of the brothers tore their garments as a sign of mourning (44:13).

Benjamin was given five changes of garments and 300 pieces of silver. We have seen partiality before. Isaac preferred Esau above Jacob. Jacob favored Rachel above Leah. In every instance, partiality had disastrous effects. Why, then, did Joseph also show partiality to Benjamin? Of course, Benjamin was the only other son of his mother. And Benjamin did not have a part in the sale of Joseph either. But was this partiality toward him wise?

I believe that Joseph’s actions were deliberate and with good intention. Partiality was one of the factors in Joseph’s rejection by his brethren (cf. 37:3-4). Joseph had shown partiality toward Benjamin just as his father had persistently done, but now his brothers had chosen not to sacrifice him for their own gain. Joseph, I believe, did not avoid showing partiality toward Benjamin because that is the way life is. Some people are better looking than others. Some are good athletes, while others are not. Some are smarter than others. Life is full of distinctions. Joseph did not stop making distinctions because they would always exist, and his brothers would have to learn to live with them. Our Lord seemed to place Peter, James, and John in a privileged position, and John was called “the one whom Jesus loved.” Repentance and conversion do not make our problems go away, but they do give us the strength to deal with our problems.

Joseph sent his father ten donkeys loaded with the best that Egypt had to offer, the “first fruits” of what lie ahead (cf. verse 18). I would imagine that this gift far outclassed the “best of the land” which Jacob had sent by his sons (cf. 43:11). As they parted Joseph gave his brothers one last word of instruction, “Do not quarrel on the journey” (verse 24). As we read this Scripture before preaching on this text, a number of people in the audience laughed. I don’t blame them, because I have to smile each time I read it. Joseph knew his brothers well. I imagine that quarreling was a part of the bad report that he had given his father many years before (37:2). Being sons of four mothers, such rivalry would not be uncommon. Probably the only thing they ever agreed upon completely was doing away with Joseph. They, like the many rival groups in Jesus’ day, could unite when it came to rejecting one who threatened them all.

Joseph had good reason for supposing that his brothers might quarrel on the journey home. Not long before this he had overheard a conversation which they did not think he could understand:

Then they said to one another, “Truly we are guilty concerning our brother, because we saw the distress of his soul when he pleaded with us, yet we would not listen; therefore this distress has come upon us.” And Reuben answered them, saying, “Did I not tell you, ‘Do not sin against the boy’; and you would not listen? Now comes the reckoning for his blood” (Genesis 42:21-22).

Although they were forgiven, they would face a great temptation to try to assess the precise measure of guilt of each person. The buck would be passed, and a heated argument would no doubt ensue. All of this was profitless since all had been forgiven. Their trip would be a happier one if they focused upon grace and not guilt.

Jacob Rejuvenated
(45:25-28)

I can visualize what the return of Jacob’s sons must have been like. Jacob, like the father of the prodigal son, must have anxiously waited for any sign of his returning sons. Since Benjamin was among them, his interest was intense. Every passer-by was carefully scrutinized to see if he were one of his sons. Jacob’s fears probably intensified as the days passed. Every conceivable mishap would be considered. Finally the silhouette of the sons appeared on the horizon. Meticulously, each head was counted, and to his great relief, all were present, especially Benjamin. But what of all those extra persons and the carts which accompanied his sons? What did this mean?

Then they went up from Egypt, and come to the land of Canaan to their father Jacob. And they told him, saying, “Joseph is still alive, and indeed he is ruler over all the land of Egypt.” But he was stunned, for he did not believe them. When they told him all the words of Joseph that he had spoken to them, and when he saw the wagons that Joseph had sent to carry him, the spirit of their father Jacob revived. Then Israel said, “It is enough; my son Joseph is still alive. I will go and see him before I die” (Genesis 45:25-28).

The words “Joseph is alive” were impossible to believe. How could this be true? Hadn’t his sons assured him that Joseph had died? Wasn’t the evidence compelling? Now Jacob may have been old, but he was far from senile. Things just did not add up. There had to be some explaining by his sons. Painful though it was, I believe that the whole sordid story was spelled out. I am persuaded that confession was made because it was necessary in order to convince Jacob that Joseph was alive. It also seems to underlie the prophecy Jacob made concerning Joseph:

Isn’t it interesting that Joseph is never said to command his brothers to confess to their father, nor is their confession reported by Moses. But why should it be made public? This was a family matter that was dealt with in private. Just as Joseph had asked the Egyptians to leave his presence when he dealt with matters between himself and his brothers, so we are not present for their confession to Jacob. Moses wrote these things for our instruction (I Corinthians 10:11), not to satisfy our curiosity.

All of the evidence led to the conclusion that Joseph was indeed alive. The broken spirit of Jacob was immediately revived. He now yearned to see his son before his death. And lest we think that Jacob was on the verge of death, let us recall that he had yet seventeen years to spend with his son in Egypt (47:28). All that Jacob had feared was going against him suddenly appeared in its true light. It was the hand of God in his life, sparing him from the physical and spiritual death of Canaan by preparing a place for him in Egypt.

Conclusion

If the key word for chapter 44 is repentance, then the key to chapter 45 is forgiveness. These two elements are essential for any genuine and lasting reconciliation: repentance and forgiveness. Let us give careful attention to this matter of forgiveness as it is illustrated in the life of Joseph.

A Definition of Forgiveness

If we are to be a forgiving community, we must first of all know what forgiveness is. While several Greek and Hebrew words are employed to convey forgiveness, essentially forgiveness means to release or set free. It is used of the cancellation of a debt, of release from a legal obligation, and of the termination of marriage by divorce (which frees the divorced party to re-marry, cf. Deuteronomy 24:1-4). In general, we can say that forgiveness is a conscious decision on the part of the offended party to release the offender from the penalty and guilt of the offense committed. This release not only frees the offender from guilt and punishment, but it also frees the forgiver of anger and bitterness.

Forgiveness is not leniency or overlooking sin. Only once in the New Testament do we find reference to sin being “passed over”:

… for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed, … (Romans 3:23-25).

Here, God “passed over” man’s sins not because He took them lightly, but because He took them so seriously that He shed the blood of His only Son. He “passed over” the sins of the past, knowing that the price would be paid when Christ appeared and was rejected of men and put to death on the cross of Calvary. When we pass over sins, it is because we do not wish to deal with them—ever, now or later.

Forgiveness is not free. Sin must always have a price that is paid. But forgiveness is the decision on the part of the offended to suffer the penalty due the offender. If a banker pardons a loan, it means that the borrower does not have to repay his debt, but it also means that the lender suffers the loss of the money loaned and not repaid. If society pardons a criminal, it means that society suffers the consequences of the criminal’s act, not the criminal. If I go to your house and break a vase and you forgive me for my error, you suffer the loss of the vase, not I.

This definition of forgiveness perfectly describes the pardon which God offers to men through the cross of Jesus Christ. All men have sinned against God and deserve the penalty of eternal destruction (Romans 3:23; 6:23). But God loved us and sent His Son to die for our sins so that we might have eternal life (John 3:16). God did not overlook our sins, but He bore the penalty for them. That is genuine forgiveness. And all who place their trust in Jesus Christ as the One who died for their sins will experience this forgiveness. It is this forgiveness which all men must either accept (resulting in salvation) or reject (resulting in damnation):

He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God (John 3:18).

Finally, our definition of forgiveness must include the fact that true forgiveness is not earned. If a man commits a crime and he serves out his prison sentence, he is not forgiven; he has simply paid his debt to society. If a man cannot pay back a loan within the time allotted but is forced to pay it out over some more extended period of time, his debt has not been forgiven. If our forgiveness is the kind that demands that the person “pay for it” before we will forgive, then we are not giving forgiveness. That may be justice, but it is not mercy. It may be law, but not grace. Just as we can in no way contribute to the forgiveness and salvation which Christ has accomplished on the cross of Calvary, so no one we forgive can be forgiven and yet forced to pay for their offense against us.

Principles of Forgiveness

Having defined biblical forgiveness, let us seek to lay down some principles of forgiveness which we learn from the example of Joseph in Genesis 45.

(1) Biblical forgiveness should be granted quickly. Joseph could hardly have granted forgiveness to his brothers here in chapter 45. The forgiveness that was expressed for the first time here by Joseph was first experienced here by his brothers, but long before this, Joseph had forgiven these men in his heart. How else could he have walked so closely to his Lord and so cheerfully and faithfully served, regardless of his circumstances? Joseph had experienced the freedom of forgiveness long before his brothers.

In the New Testament, anger is always to be dealt with quickly:

Be angry, and yet do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and do not give the devil an opportunity (Ephesians 4:26-27).

The sooner forgiveness is granted and reconciliation is achieved, the better it is for all involved:

Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way; in order that your opponent may not deliver you to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison (Matthew 5:25).

(2) Biblical forgiveness should be granted privately. I see a great deal of wisdom in Joseph requiring his servants to leave the room while he dealt with the sins of his brothers. It made matters much easier for Pharaoh and the Egyptians to be ignorant of all the injustices these brothers had committed against Joseph. This, too, is according to biblical instruction:

Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all transgressions (Proverbs 10:12).

A fool’s vexation is known at once, but a prudent man conceals dishonor (Proverbs 12:16).

He who covers a transgression seeks love, But he who repeats a matter separates intimate friends (Proverbs 17:9).

And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother (Matthew 18:15).

We should always seek restoration and reconciliation on the lowest, most private level so that the fewer there are who are aware of the sin, the easier the offender can be forgiven and forgotten.

(3) Biblical forgiveness must be given freely and unconditionally. Forgiveness is free in that the forgiver willingly accepts the loss or pain personally. In brief, forgiveness is a matter of grace, not works, and grace does not make demands upon the one who receives it. Joseph must have forgiven his brothers long before they had come to repentance. He did not wait to see the anguish of their souls until he forgave them, but he did so freely and without requirement. This suggests also that forgiveness may be refused. As He was dying upon the cross, our Lord said, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34).

That forgiveness accomplished by His death on the cross is rejected by many. Those who perish do not do so because there is no forgiveness, but because they have rejected God’s forgiveness.

(4) Forgiveness that is biblical must be granted sacrificially. The price of Joseph’s forgiveness was more than twenty years of separation from his father, slavery, and even a sentence in prison. Not a small price to pay, but then forgiveness does not come without sacrifice. Because of this, forgiveness is better shown than said. Joseph never actually used the word “forgive,” but his words and actions conveyed it. Just as it is too easy to say, “I’m sorry,” so it is possible to glibly say, “I forgive you.” Genuine forgiveness has a price tag, and few are those who are willing to pay it.

(5) Biblical forgiveness is not provisional, but permanent. Just as conditions cannot be demanded before forgiveness is granted, neither can they be laid down for forgiveness to remain in force. Seventeen years after Joseph assured his brothers they were forgiven, they feared that this grace had terminated at the death of their father (50:15-21). While we will hardly “forget” the transgressions of others against us, we can certainly refuse to call them to remembrance or to dredge them up in the future.

For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more (Jeremiah 31:34).

(6) Biblical forgiveness seeks the correction and restoration of the offender. I fear that what has been said might lead to the conclusion that once forgiveness is granted, all need for correction is gone. Not so! I believe that Joseph forgave his brothers years before he saw them, but remember that it was a year or so until he disclosed his identity to them. This was because he needed to be assured that they had changed their attitude toward their sin (repented).

When our children sin we may very well need to spank them as well as to forgive them. We may forgive the thief for stealing our money, which we may never see again, but the law still exacts a punishment for theft. A forgiving spirit dissolves our anger and animosity toward the offender, and it commits our vengeance to God, since He alone knows the extent of the sin (cf. Romans 12:11-21; I Peter 2:21-25).

Forgiveness, as I understand it, deals first of all with our personal animosity and violated rights in such a way that we can deal with sin impartially and lovingly, or we can commit the matter entirely to God where we cannot or should not take matters into our own hands. Forgiveness, like one facet of love, seeks the best interest of another, even at our own expense. But since we do seek the good of the other party, correction may be required (cf. Matthew 18:15ff.; Galatians 6:1).

Perhaps the best analogy comes from the dealing of God in the life of the disobedient saint. Since all the sins of the Christian, past, present, and future, are forgiven at Calvary, God will not punish the saint who is forgiven once for all. But there is still the need for discipline and correction. The forgiveness of our sins assures us that God is rightly related to us, but discipline causes us to draw more closely to him.

“My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, Nor faint when you are reproved by Him; For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, And He scourges every son whom He receives.” It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, that we may share His holiness. All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness (Hebrews 12:5-11).

The Basis of Forgiveness

All of us should realize that forgiveness is a mark of godly character and conduct. Our problem is not knowing we should do it, but the doing of it. How can we forgive those who have hurt us so deeply? Let me make several suggestions.

(1) Seriously consider the Scriptures which command us to forgive (cf. Ephesians 4:25-32; Colossians 3:12-17, etc.). Recognize that forgiveness is not an option, but a command.

(2) Consider your own sinfulness and the forgiveness which God has freely given you.

And Jesus answered and said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” And he replied, “Say it, Teacher.” “A certain money-lender had two debtors: one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they were unable to repay, he graciously forgave them both. Which of them therefore will love him more?” Simon answered and said, “I suppose the one whom he forgave more. And He said to him, “You have judged correctly.” And turning toward the woman, He said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has wet My feet with her tears, and wiped them with her hair. You gave Me no kiss; but she, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss My feet. You did not anoint My head with oil, but she anointed My feet with perfume. For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much, but he who is forgiven little, loves little.” And He said to her, “Your sins have been forgiven” (Luke 7:40-48).

The more we are aware of our own sinfulness and the forgiveness we have received, the easier it is to forgive others.

(3) Meditate upon the sovereignty of God in the offense committed against you. Can you say, like Joseph, “And as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good …” (Genesis 50:20)? The doctrine of the sovereignty of God means that whatever evil is committed against us has been designed by God to come into our lives for a purpose that is good (Romans 8:28). Job’s suffering at Satan’s hand (and by God’s permission—Job 1, 2) resulted in praise to God, instruction for Satan, and a lesson for Job. In the final analysis, Job was blessed far more than he had been before his trials began (cf. Job 42:10-17). When a messenger of Satan buffeted Paul, it was to produce humility and to teach him that God’s strength comes in our weakness (II Corinthians 12:7-9). Behind our enemy is a loving God, who brings affliction and suffering into our lives for our good and His glory.

(4) Give careful consideration to the matter of servanthood. Usually we find that when others mistreat us we battle with our offended pride, and we struggle because our rights have been violated. Forgiveness originates from a servant-like attitude.

Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Philippians 2:3-8).

The supreme example of humility is our Lord Himself. He set aside His rights and prerogatives in order to be rejected of men and hanged (innocently) upon a cruel cross. Servanthood for our Lord spelled out suffering and shame for the good of others. Forgiveness is not so difficult for the humble as it is for the haughty. If our sinless Savior was willing to die on the cross for sinners, is it such a great thing for Him to ask us to sacrifice our own interests for those of others?

Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a man bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God. For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls (I Peter 2:18-25).

(5) Meditate on the characteristics of biblical love. It is not an emotional feeling, but a decision of the will. Its earmarks are described by Paul for us to contemplate:

Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things (I Corinthians 13:4-7).

Have you found the forgiveness of your sins in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary? Jesus Christ, the sinless Son of God, came to earth and took upon Himself the reproaches of men and the rejection of God. He became sin for us (II Corinthians 5:21) and suffered its painful consequences. You may find forgiveness from your sins by trusting that Jesus Christ died in your place and bore your sins on the cross.

My Christian friend, are you harboring anger and bitterness because of the sins others have committed against you? I pray that you will find the freedom of forgiveness that Joseph experienced which enabled him to be reconciled to his brothers and to minister to them for his own good, the good of his brothers, and the glory of God.

80 Margaret Johnston Hess, “What To Do With Your Anger,” Eternity, April, 1972, p. 15.

81 Ibid., p. 14.

82 Robert C. Larson with Neil C. Warren, “You Can Be Angry and Still Be Good,” Moody Monthly, December, 1974, p. 51.

83 Leon J. Saul, The Hostile Mind (New York: Random, 1956), p. 14, as quoted by David W. Augsburger, The Freedom of Forgiveness: 70 X 7 (Chicago: Moody Press, 1970), p. 59.

84 Sometimes anger is called for, as is expressed by this passage from The Temptation to be Good by A. Powell Davies (p. 119):

“That is one of the truly serious things that has happened to the multitude of so-called ordinary people. They have forgotten how to be indignant. This is not because they are overflowing with human kindness, but because they are morally soft and compliant. When they see evil and injustice, they are pained but not revolted. They mutter and mumble, they never cry out. They commit the sin of not being angry.

“Yet their anger is the one thing above all others that would make them count. If they cannot lead crusades, or initiate reforms, they can at least create the conditions in which crusades can be effectual and reforms successful. The wrath of the multitude could bring back decency and integrity into public life; it could frighten the corrupt demagogue into silence and blast the rumor monger into oblivion. It could give honest leaders a chance to win.” Quoted by Norman V. Hope, “How To Be Good--And Mad,” Christianity Today, July 19, 1968, p. 5.

85 See Lesson 44.

86 George Bush, Notes on Genesis (reprint ea.; Minneapolis: James Family Christian Publishers, 1979), II, p. 335. Bush goes on to add, “Yet for our humiliation let us remember that the nature of sin is not altered by the use that God makes of it. Poison does not cease to be poison, because it may enter into the composition of healing medicines.” Ibid.

87 “The phrase a father to Pharaoh, a recognized title of viziers and high officials, J. Vergote interprets as virtually ‘king’s adviser’ (p. 114f.).” Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), p. 207.

88 “It is believed that in these days the Egyptian court was held in Zoan or Tanis, perhaps twenty or twenty-five miles directly north of Goshen.” H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942), II, p. 1095.

“Goshen is a name which remains unattested, so far, in Egyptian remains; but 47:11 gives us the name it bore in later times, ‘the land of Rameses.’ This name, coupled with the fact that the district was fertile (47:6) and near to Joseph at court, suggests that it was in the eastern part of the Nile delta, near Tanis, the seat of the Hyksos kings of the seventeenth century and of the Ramessides of the thirteenth century, the probable periods of Joseph and Moses respectively.” Kidner, Genesis, p. 207.

Français

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_45_32k.mp3

Biblical Topics:

Basics for Christians

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

46. Life Begins at 130 (Genesis 46:1-47:12)

Introduction

An elderly couple, each of whom had reached the ripe old age of 100, went to the divorce court to terminate their marriage of many years. The judge granted their petition, but he could not resist asking them why, after all these years, they had sought a divorce. “Oh, we would have done it long ago,” they replied, “but we were waiting for our children to die.”

No man has ever been so eager for death to come as Jacob. For years now he has spoken of it:

Then all his sons and all his daughters arose to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted. And he said, “Surely I will go down to Sheol in mourning for my son.” So his father wept for him (Genesis 37:35).

Then Israel said, “It is enough; my son Joseph is still alive. I will go and see him before I die” (Genesis 45:28).

He will speak of death yet again in our Scripture passage:

Then Israel said to Joseph, “Now let me die, since I have seen your face, that you are still alive” (Genesis 46:30).

Why would this patriarch be so eager to die? Jacob’s confession to Pharaoh provides us with a clue to his preoccupation with death:

So Jacob said to Pharaoh, “The years of my sojourning are one hundred and thirty; few and unpleasant have been the years of my life, nor have they attained the years that my fathers lived during the days of their sojourning” (Genesis 47:9).

While Joseph’s brothers had come to repentance in chapter 44 and realized the forgiveness of Joseph in chapter 45, it is not until this time, late in the life of Jacob, that he comes to a significant turning point of his life. While he may well have been saved years before (cf. 28:10ff.), he has not come to grasp the fundamentals of the faith until now. For this reason I have chosen to entitle this message “Life Begins at 130,” for it is at this age that Jacob comes to grasp the essence of knowing God and serving Him. In our lesson we shall attempt to underscore the factors involved in this turnabout in Jacob’s life.

Divine Guidance
(46:1-7)

Fourteen years ago my wife, our first child, and I left the lush green vegetation of Washington state for Dallas, Texas, where I would attend seminary.

We had already moved a number of times, but never so far away from home. It was a traumatic experience. But can you even conceive of what this move to Egypt must have meant to Jacob?

When my family and I came to Dallas, I was not yet 30 years old. When Jacob arrived in Egypt, he was 130 years old (47:9). He could have been on Social Security for over 65 years. Older people especially are attached to their home and furnishings because it gives them a sense of security. Jacob had to leave all that was familiar to him to go to a foreign land, live among those with a different culture and language, and cope with an attitude that was hostile to Hebrews (43:32; 46:34).

So Israel set out with all that he had, and came to Beersheba, and offered sacrifices to the God of his father Isaac. And God spoke to Israel in visions of the night and said, “Jacob, Jacob.” And he said, “Here I am.” And He said, “I am God, the God of your father; do not be afraid to go down to Egypt, for I will make you a great nation there. I will go down with you to Egypt, and I will also surely bring you up again; and Joseph will close your eyes.” Then Jacob arose from Beersheba; and the sons of Israel carried their father Jacob and their little ones and their wives, in the wagons which Pharaoh had sent to carry him. And they took their livestock and their property, which they had acquired in the land of Canaan, and came to Egypt, Jacob and all his descendants with him: his sons and his grandsons with him, his daughters and his granddaughters, and all his descendants he brought with him to Egypt (Genesis 46:1-7).

Jacob had hastily packed his belongings, gathered his family, and begun the long trek to Egypt, just as Joseph had urged (45:9). When he had gotten as far as Beersheba, Jacob seemed to feel the full impact of what he was setting out to do. Beersheba was a place rich in the history of his forefathers. Abraham had called upon the name of the Lord here (21:33) and had settled in this place after offering up Isaac on Mt. Moriah (22:19). Here at Beersheba Isaac had been visited by God, and the covenant made with Abraham was reiterated (26:23-25). It would seem that Jacob lived at Beersheba when he deceived his father and obtained his blessing (chapter 27), for it was from this place that he had fled from Esau and departed to Haran (28:10).

Beersheba was also at the southern extremity of the land of Canaan. Later the land of promise would be spoken of as “from Dan to Beersheba” (e.g., Judges 20:1), Dan being at the northern border and Beersheba at the south. Once Jacob left Beersheba, traveling south, he would be leaving the land of promise, which was the land that God had promised Abraham (12:1-3; 15:7,18-21), Isaac (26:2-4), and Jacob (28:13; 35:12). How could Jacob be assured of God’s blessing if he was leaving the land of promise?

More than this, Jacob was leaving Canaan to go to Egypt. Many years before, there had been a famine in Canaan, and Abram had gone to Egypt to survive. This had proven to be a very painful experience, one that seemed to be contrary to God’s word (cf. Genesis 12:10ff.). Later there was yet another famine, and Isaac considered going to Egypt, but God forbade him with these words:

How, then, could Jacob leave Canaan to enter Egypt without stepping outside the will of God? It is this matter which must have overwhelmed Jacob. I believe that he determined not to go one step further until his doubts were resolved. Consequently, it was at Beersheba that Jacob offered sacrifices to the God of his father (verse 1). The precise expression “offered sacrifices” is employed only once before in Genesis:

Then Jacob offered a sacrifice on the mountain, and called his kinsmen to the meal; and they ate the meal and spent the night on the mountain (Genesis 31:54).

There Jacob offered a sacrifice as a part of a non-aggression pact between himself and Laban. It was an agreement made with God as their witness. If either failed to live up to his commitment, God would serve as his judge.

The expression is used very frequently later on in the Pentateuch for sacrifices of various kinds.⁸⁹ Only the context clearly indicates the precise nature of the sacrifice. In our passage (46:1) it would seem most natural for Jacob to be seeking divine guidance concerning his journey down to Egypt. God’s response in verses 2-4 supports this conclusion.

By means of a vision which must have come in his sleep (cf. 15:12ff.) God assured Jacob that it was His will for him to depart from Canaan to dwell in Egypt. Three assurances were revealed to confirm God’s approval of the move to Egypt. First, the God of Isaac (and, of course, Abraham, 26:24) promised Jacob that He would go with him to Egypt and in that pagan land would make of him a great nation. Many years before, God had assured Jacob at Bethel that He would be with him as he journeyed north to Haran (28:15). Now He would be with him as he traveled south to Egypt. Strangely, it would be in Egypt, not Canaan, that his offspring would multiply into a great nation (verse 3).

Second, God would bring Jacob back to Canaan, the land of promise. I do not think that Jacob felt he would bodily and personally return to Canaan so quickly, for he knew his death must be imminent. Furthermore, God told Jacob that Joseph would close his eyes, and it was unlikely that Joseph would be leaving Egypt for some time, if ever. It was necessary for the nation of Israel to return to the land of promise, for there all of God’s promises would be fulfilled concerning the land:

And the land which I gave to Abraham and Isaac, I will give it to you And I will give the land to your descendants after you (Genesis 35:12).

Third, God would give Jacob comfort in his time of death. After the report of Joseph’s brothers, Jacob drew the conclusion that his favorite son had been killed by a wild beast, just as they had hoped (37:20,31-33). He believed that the loss of Joseph would bring about his premature and painful death:

Jacob would, in fact, live nearly forty years longer, and instead of dying without his son to comfort him, Joseph would be there to close his eyes at the moment of his death. God would go with Jacob to Egypt and greatly multiply him there. He would comfort him in his moment of death through the presence of Joseph. And He would bring Israel back to Canaan as a mighty nation. With this, Jacob could enthusiastically proceed to Egypt. The entire family now made their way to Egypt with Jacob the patriarch.

The Genealogy of Jacob
(46:8-27)

Several observations seem necessary to understand the purpose for including the genealogy of Jacob at this point in the book of Genesis. First, in later genealogical lists slight differences appear, but this is only to be expected and does not in any way affect the reliability of the accounts.⁹⁰ Second, by-and-large, women are not included in this list. This is not because they are unimportant, but because it does not fit the purpose of the listing. Third, the expression “the sons of Israel” (verse 8) must be taken in the broader sense of “the descendants of Israel,” for more than his sons are named,⁹¹ and thus some of those named may not have been born at the time Jacob and his descendants went down to Egypt.⁹² Fourth, all those named in Numbers 26 as heads of tribes or families are found in this listing of descendants in Genesis 46.⁹³

The explanation for all of these observations is rather simple: Moses here intended not to name every person who went into Egypt, but every leader of family or clan who would come forth from Egypt.⁹⁴ It was vitally important for those who came forth from Egypt to know their “roots” since the land would be divided according to tribes. In addition to this, tasks were assigned and the nation was administrated by tribal and family divisions. The purpose of Moses in this genealogy, therefore, is selective. It does not intend to name every person coming out of Canaan,⁹⁵ but to name those who will become tribe and family heads. Thus there is a genealogical continuity throughout the entire sojourn in Egypt.⁹⁶

Joseph Greets Jacob
(46:28-30)

More years have been lived away from Joseph than with him. Now, after a separation of nearly 22 years, father and son meet once again in happy reunion:

Now he sent Judah before him to Joseph, to point out the way before him to Goshen; and they came into the land of Goshen. And Joseph prepared his chariot and went up to Goshen to meet his father Israel; as soon as he appeared before him, he fell on his neck and wept on his neck a long time. Then Israel said to Joseph, “Now let me die, since I have seen your face, that you are still alive” (Genesis 46:28-30).

Judah had been sent ahead by his father to get directions to Goshen. Israel proceeded ahead, guided by Judah, until their party arrived in Goshen. Joseph traveled there by chariot and met his father. Years of fears, regrets, and bitterness must have flowed from the soul of the patriarch as the tears flooded from his eyes. Much that could have been said of this reunion was not recorded, for it was an intimacy not to be invaded by curious eyes. Jacob, satisfied at the sight of his son, was now ready to die in peace (verse 30), but God still had 17 years of blessing in store for him (47:28).

Getting Goshen
(46:31-47:6)

Joseph is known to be a capable and efficient administrator. He is not about to become careless when it comes to settling his family in Egypt. The utmost care is given to seeing that the family is located in the land of Goshen. The meticulous details of Joseph’s instructions are followed exactly by his brothers.

And Joseph said to his brothers and to his father’s household, “I will go up and tell Pharaoh, and will say to him, ‘My brothers and my father’s household, who were in the land of Canaan, have come to me; and the men are shepherds, for they have been keepers of livestock; and they have brought their flocks and their herds and all that they have.’ And it shall come about when Pharaoh calls you and says, ‘What is your occupation?’ that you shall say, ‘Your servants have been keepers of livestock from our youth even until now, both we and our fathers,’ that you may live in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is loathsome to the Egyptians.” Then Joseph went in and told Pharaoh, and said, “My father and my brothers and their flocks and their herds and all that they have, have come out of the land of Canaan; and behold, they are in the land of Goshen.” And he took five men from among his brothers, and presented them to Pharaoh. Then Pharaoh said to his brothers, “What is your occupation?” So they said to Pharaoh, “Your servants are shepherds, both we and our fathers.” And they said to Pharaoh, “We have come to sojourn in the land, for there is no pasture for your servants’ flocks, for the famine is severe in the land of Canaan. Now, therefore, please let your servants live in the land of Goshen.” Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Your father and your brothers have come to you. The land of Egypt is at your disposal; settle your father and your brothers in the best of the land, let them live in the land of Goshen; and if you know any capable men among them, then put them in charge of my livestock” (Genesis 46:31-47:6).

Pharaoh had already promised Joseph’s family the best of Egypt (45:18), but Joseph was careful to see to it that this became reality. His family was sent to Goshen even before he greeted them or they were presented before Pharaoh. Possession may have been nine points of the law in those days also. When Joseph reported the arrival of his family, he knew that Pharaoh would want an interview with them. They were told to stress the fact that they were shepherds and that this was their sole occupation, as it had been for generations. This would assure that they would be given the land of Goshen, not only because it would provide pasture for their flocks, but because it would keep the Hebrews somewhat removed from the Egyptians, who despised shepherds (46:34).

The conversation went as Joseph expected, and the result was that Pharaoh gave Joseph’s family the land of Goshen to dwell in. Furthermore, since Pharaoh owned herds also, some of Joseph’s family could be employed in caring for his livestock (verse 6). I doubt that this was the kind of job many of the Egyptians were willing to accept, disliking shepherds as they did.

But why was getting Goshen such an important objective that so many verses were devoted to the details of its acquisition, while such an emotional moment as the reunion of Jacob and Joseph was so sketchily described? Let me suggest several reasons, beginning with those least important. First, Goshen must have been some of the best land in Egypt. That is what Pharaoh promised (45:18) and what he professed to give (47:6). Second, it was located near enough to Joseph that he could see his family frequently:

And you shall live in the land of Goshen, and you shall be near me, you and your children and your children’s children and your flocks and your herds and all that you have (Genesis 45:10).

By far the most important reason for settling in the land of Goshen was in order to keep his family isolated and insulated from the culture and religion of Egypt. Joseph was strong enough to survive life in the city and in the palace, but he had already been given an Egyptian wife, the daughter of a priest, and an Egyptian name (41:45). What would become of the nation Israel if they were brought into the city and integrated into Egyptian life? That is why Joseph ordered his brothers to say that their only occupation was that of a shepherd. Joseph saw the disdain for shepherds as a blessing in that it would keep the two cultures from merging. To have lived and worked in the city with the Egyptians would have been disastrous. Joseph, I believe, clearly saw this, and thus he was diligent to have his family settled in Goshen.⁹⁷

A Patriarch Blesses a Pharaoh
(47:7-12)

Then Joseph brought his father Jacob and presented him to Pharaoh; and Jacob blessed Pharaoh. And Pharaoh said to Jacob, “How many years have you lived?” So Jacob said to Pharaoh, “The years of my sojourning are one hundred and thirty; few and unpleasant have been the years of my life, nor have they attained the years that my fathers lived during the days of their sojourning.” And Jacob blessed Pharaoh, and went out from his presence. So Joseph settled his father and his brothers, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had ordered. And Joseph provided his father and his brothers and all his father’s household with food, according to their little ones (Genesis 47:7-12).

The time came for Joseph to present his father to Pharaoh. Pharaoh’s graciousness to Jacob no doubt reveals his respect for this aged man as well as his regard for Joseph. How strange it seems to read that Jacob blessed Pharaoh (47:7,10). While it is possible that this was little more than a greeting,⁹⁸ I take it in the stronger (and much more common) sense of blessing, such as that in the next chapter (48:15,20). After all, the Abrahamic Covenant contained the promise that Abraham and his offspring would be a blessing to all those who blessed them:

And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed (Genesis 12:3).

Is this not what we see taking place in chapter 47? Pharaoh had greatly exalted Joseph and blessed him. Now he is extending that blessing to all of Joseph’s family. Jacob responds by pronouncing a blessing upon Pharaoh. And indeed, Pharaoh was blessed by Israel. Joseph had virtually saved his kingdom, and in the next section he will obtain possession of almost all of Egypt’s wealth, including the people themselves (47:13-26). The presence of Israel in Egypt was a blessing to this emerging nation, but it also greatly blessed the Egyptians. The Abrahamic Covenant is finding partial fulfillment in this sojourn.

The most surprising feature of Jacob’s interview with Pharaoh is Jacob’s appraisal of his life to this point in time:

This does not fit the contemporary concept of a good testimony. In essence, Jacob has told Pharaoh that his life has been short and sour. That isn’t a very good case for Christianity is it? The thrust of much evangelism today is that trusting Christ and following God makes your life happy, joyful, and free from trials and tribulation. If it hadn’t been for the testimony of Joseph, Pharaoh would have thought very poorly of the God of Israel.

And yet what Jacob said was true. His earthly beginnings were prophetic of his life. He struggled with his brother in the womb (25:21-26). He lived in a home where the parents were divided in their affection for their children (25:28). He gained the blessing of his father by deception and then was alienated from his family because of the hatred of Esau (chapter 27). He spent years in exile, serving his deceitful uncle Laban. He sought one wife and ended up with four (29:18ff.), and the outcome of this was continual competition and strife (29:30ff.). He finally fled from his uncle and eventually had to make a non-aggression pact with him lest further conflict arise (chapter 31). He suffered the loss of the purity of his daughter Dinah at Shechem and feared the reprisal of Canaanite kinsmen when his sons killed the men of the city and took the women, children, and cattle as booty (chapter 34). Rachel, his most beloved wife, died prematurely along the way to Bethlehem (35:16-19). His oldest son lay with one of his concubines (35:22), and his favorite son was tragically lost and presumed dead. Finally, there was the famine which threatened the existence of his family, and the second in command to Pharaoh appeared to be taking even his youngest son away. Jacob, you see, was correct in his evaluation of his life.

There was a significant difference between the suffering which Jacob alluded to and that which Joseph endured. Joseph’s suffering was undeserved; Jacob’s was not. Jacob suffered virtually every painful experience because of his willfulness and foolish choices. He deceived his brother. He chose to live near Shechem rather than to go up to Bethel. He unwisely showed preference for Joseph. The suffering which Jacob experienced was due almost entirely to his sinful decisions and responses.

Jacob did not see the hand of God in his adversity, but Joseph did. Jacob became more fearful and protective, while Joseph was forgiving and eager to serve others, even at his own expense. In his adversity Joseph grew closer to God, while Jacob seemed to drift farther and farther away. In this interview with Pharaoh all of these bitter experiences may have begun to come into focus. He was wrong when he had concluded that “all these things are against me” (42:36). His fears did not conform to the facts.

So Joseph settled his father and his brothers, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had ordered. And Joseph provided his father and his brothers and all his father’s household with food, according to their little ones (Genesis 47:11-12).

Conclusion

I see this as the great turning point in Jacob’s life. Just as his sons had to come to the place where they acknowledged their sins and turned from their wicked ways, so Jacob seems to do here. I believe that he saw all of his sorrow as the result of his sin, but now he was beginning to see God in an entirely different light. The things which Jacob tried to withhold and protect (Rachel, Joseph, Benjamin) were the very things that were taken from him. It was only by giving up Benjamin that he gained him. And in giving up Benjamin he preserved not only Benjamin’s life, but that of the entire nation.

I see Jacob’s path of suffering and sorrow as the result of an entirely wrong concept of Christianity (if you prefer, we will call it a relationship with God). In chapter 28 God first outlined his promises to Jacob as the heir of the covenant with Abraham:

And behold, the LORD stood above it and said, “I am the LORD, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie, I will give it to you and to your descendants. Your descendants shall also be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread out to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south; and in you and in your descendants shall all the families of the earth be blessed. And behold, I am with you, and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land; for I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you” (Genesis 28:13-15).

This was an unconditional covenant, and the benefits were assured, regardless of Jacob’s actions. (Indeed, we must agree that all of the blessings Jacob has experienced thus far were in spite of his actions rather than because of them.) God’s promise was one of pure grace, but Jacob’s concept was one of works. He thought that God would bless him as he produced and gave God a piece of the action:

Jacob’s vow was a bargain with God. His obedience and faithfulness to God were conditional. He would serve God only IF God protected him, prospered him, and brought him back to Canaan safely. In this case, Jacob would serve God and would give a tenth to Him. God never took Jacob up on this proposition. Never was the tithe given, nor was it asked for. Jacob was, in our words, a “wheeler-dealer,” and he could not be allowed to bargain with God.

You see, God does not work with men on the basis of works. His grace is not conditioned by our faithfulness, but guaranteed by His. He does not want or need our contributions; He desires only our trust and our worship. Of course there are commands to obey and standards to be kept, but these are not what merit God’s blessings. Instead, these are the proper response to grace. Indeed, these are the evidence of grace working in and through the believer.

As Jacob stood before Pharaoh, he recognized that all of his striving had been for naught. The land which he wrested from the hand of Esau was left behind. So far as I can tell he never enjoyed the fruits of his deceptive labors. The blessings which he did experience were not the result of his activity (such as peeling those poles, 30:31ff.), but of divine grace, sovereignly wrought (32:11-13). Now Jacob was old, and in the face of famine he was helpless and hopeless. As he entered Egypt, he could not rely on his former devices to provide for and protect him and his family. In short, Jacob had to trust in God and not himself.

This was the beginning of a whole new life. It was only 17 years, but it was life lived in the blessings which only grace can give. Those 17 years were the happiest, most fulfilling years of Jacob’s life. He did not live in Canaan, but he had entered into “Canaan rest,” that rest which is obtained only by faith, and it is forfeited by unbelief (cf. Hebrews 3-4).

Many Christians, like Jacob, spend the vast majority of their lives, as the song describes it, “Workin’ like the Devil, Servin’ the Lord.” Foolishly, they think that God’s blessing is obtained as we struggle to get ahead, even at the expense of others and of biblical standards of conduct. Perhaps your life, like Jacob’s, has been largely a disaster. It is not too late. Life for Jacob began at 130. Life for you can begin right now as you learn to rest in Him and to rely upon His promises. There will be striving, but it will be striving to do what is right, not striving to protect your rights.

The life of rest is not the life of ease or of freedom from pain and sorrow. Joseph, like Jacob, suffered much hardship, but Joseph suffered innocently and in a godly way. God does not offer you a life of ease, but a life of learning to rely upon Him, of looking for Him to exalt you in the proper time, rather than your getting ahead at the expense of others.

I find it noteworthy to observe that while the book of Genesis covers a period of thousands of years, almost half of the book is devoted to the life and times of Jacob. Abraham, the great man of faith, spans chapters 11-24; Isaac, chapters 21-35; Joseph, chapters 30-50; but Jacob outspans them all, from chapter 25 through chapter 50. Why is it that Joseph was such a great and godly man, and yet he had no tribe named after him? Why did he not have a son whose heir would be the priestly line? Why did Messiah not come forth from Joseph rather than Judah? I do not know, other than the fact that God chooses to accomplish His purposes through men like Jacob and Judah, and you and me. If Joseph is a type of Christ, then surely Jacob is a type of most Christians. One reason why so much time and space is allotted to Jacob (in my opinion) is that it took this long for him to grasp the matters of salvation and sanctification.

The primary lesson I have learned from the life of Jacob is the greatness of the grace of God. Surely it was nothing else, nothing less than grace which saved and sanctified Jacob. And so it is for you and me. We cannot bargain with God, for we have nothing to offer. We cannot get ahead by striving in our own strength, but only by resting in Him. We must labor to enter into that rest (Hebrews 4:1), but by His strength, not ours. That is the lesson which Jacob learned. And this is the truth which made the last chapter of Jacob’s life the best. I do not know what chapter your life is in. Perhaps you are in one of the early chapters, perhaps the last. But this one thing I know: every chapter of our life can be a blessing if it is marked by humble dependence and grateful obedience.

Perhaps you have not yet come to know God as Jacob did. For you the message of the gospel is clear, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved” (Acts 16:31). Recognize that your striving has only led to struggle and suffering. Believe that God’s offer is one of free grace, that it is only He who can give you peace, rest, and the assurance of blessing and salvation. That lesson is a prerequisite for walking with God. May you learn it today.

89 BDB says the Hebrew noun zebach “. . . seems not only to be used for all these special forms but also to include other festal sacrifices not defined in the codes of law. The ritual was the same for the entire class. They were all sacrifices for feasts in which the flesh of the victim was eaten by the offerers, except so far as the officiating priests had certain choice pieces and the blood and fat pieces went to the altar for God.” Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1966), p. 257.

90 “Now at least two parallel lists are available--disregarding the partial list of Exod. 6:14ff.--namely Num. 26 and I Chron. 4-6. A comparison with these indicates that certain of the names found above were in circulation also in another form, usually pretty much like the ones above, sometimes radically different as to form but similar in meaning.” H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942), II, p. 1111.

91 “Beney Jisra’el (v. 8) cannot be translated ‘sons of Israel,’ for all that follows indicates that the broader term ‘descendants’ or ‘children of Israel’ is meant.” Ibid.

92 “However, from Numbers 26:38-40 and I Chronicles 7:6ff.; 8:1ff. it appears that some of these names are of grandsons, presumably included by anticipation (cf. Heb. 7:10).” Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), p. 209.

93 “In the account of the families of Israel at the time of Moses, which is given there, we find, with slight deviations, all the grandsons and great-grandsons of Jacob whose names occur in this chapter, mentioned as the founders of the families, into which the twelve tribes of Israel were subdivided in Moses’ days.” C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), I, p. 371.

94 “From all this it necessarily follows, that in the list before us grandsons and great-grandsons of Jacob are named who were born afterwards in Egypt, and who, therefore, according to a view which we frequently meet with in the Old Testament, though strange to our modes of thought, came into Egypt in lumbis patrum. That the list is really intended to be so understood, is undoubtedly evident from a comparison of the ‘sons of Israel’ (ver. 8), whose names it gives, with the description given in Num. xxvi. of the whole community of the sons of Israel according to their fathers’ houses, or their tribes and families.” Ibid.

95 “But the text speaks of those who came out of Jacob (v. 26), while many more than these went down to Egypt, forming the nucleus of the ‘Israel people.’ The total of wives is a maximum of fourteen, Joseph’s wife being already in Egypt. A computable minimum of persons who went down to Egypt thus is 1 (Jacob) + 70 + 14 wives = 85. Yet remember that the women and children of Shechem were absorbed into the clan (34:29), some of whom no doubt became wives. Remember also that of the servants or slaves of Isaac’s house some, if not all, came to Jacob, swelling the number of those he already possessed (30:48), so that there may have been 300 or more persons attached to Jacob’s tent.” Harold G. Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 319.

96 “The rule by which the nation descending from the sons of Jacob was divided into tribes and families (mishpachoth) according to the order of birth was this, that as the twelve sons founded the twelve tribes, so their sons, i.e. Jacob’s grandsons, were the founders of the families into which the tribes were subdivided, unless these grandsons died without leaving children, or did not leave a sufficient number of male descendants to form independent families, or the natural rule for the formation of tribes and families was set aside by other events or causes.” Keil and Delitzsch, I, p. 372.

97 “Joseph saw the importance of emphasizing this, to ensure that Pharaoh’s goodwill would be to the family’s real benefit, not to their detriment by drawing them into an alien way of life at the capital.” Kidner, Genesis, p. 210.

98 “In vv. 7 and 10 the word ‘blessed’ does not fit this context; it is doubtful that Jacob would bless Pharaoh. However, there is another sense of barak which makes it more understandable. Since this is an audience, greetings, not blessings, are in order. This word is used, as in 28:1, for the appearance of anyone before another. It may well include the thought of peace as is the custom in Middle East territories, but not blessing in the sense of benediction. In v. 10 the sense would be ‘take one’s leave,’ that is, speak peace again at parting.” Stigers, Genesis, p. 319.

Français

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_46_32k.mp3

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

47. A Proper Perspective of Poverty and Prosperity (Genesis 47:13-31)

Introduction

While I was browsing through a bookstore some time ago I came across a book that had an eye-catching title: Sacred Cows Make Good Hamburger. I did not buy the book, nor have I ever read it, but the subject was fascinating. Unfortunately, while this may be true I do not see many standing in line to grind that hamburger. Some of our strongly held convictions may be good material for hamburger, but the one who challenges our thinking is not going to be very popular. Frankly, I have agonized over the task that is mine in explaining and applying this text in Genesis 47, not because it is unclear, but because it runs counter to the grain of the teaching in many Christian circles.

Many of the Jews of Jesus’ day thought that prosperity and spirituality were inseparable. In our time it is just the opposite. We are frequently told that we can not prosper or have a savings account while there are others who have less than we. Particularly we Americans are on a guilt trip because we are prosperous while much of the world lives in poverty. Some of this guilt may be well founded, but not necessarily all of it.

Joseph’s actions in this chapter do not fit our preconceived notions very well, for he sold grain to starving men. Not only did he accumulate all the money in the land, but he also gathered up all the cattle and the land, and even the people were enslaved. How could a man who, to this point, has a flawless record suddenly be so greedy and insensitive? And if Joseph troubles us, so must the entire nation of Israel, for they greatly prospered while the Egyptians sank deeper and deeper into poverty. It would seem that much of Israel’s affluence was at Egypt’s expense. How can we justify God’s blessing Israel in this way?

As I suggested, some of our ideas may make good hamburger. Let us consider these verses very carefully, for they help us to gain a proper perspective on poverty and prosperity.

Pharaoh’s Prosperity and Egypt’s Poverty
(47:13-26)

Now there was no food in all the land, because the famine was very severe, so that the land of Egypt and the land of Canaan languished because of the famine. And Joseph gathered all the money that was found in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan for the grain which they bought, and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh’s house. And when the money was all spent in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, all the Egyptians came to Joseph and said, “Give us food, for why should we die in your presence? For our money is gone.” Then Joseph said, “Give up your livestock, and I will give you food for your livestock, since your money is gone.” So they brought their livestock to Joseph, and Joseph gave them food in exchange for the horses and the flocks and the herds and the donkeys; and he fed them with food in exchange for all their livestock that year. And when that year was ended, they came to him the next year and said to him, “We will not hide from my lord that our money is all spent, and the cattle are my lord’s. There is nothing left for my lord except our bodies and our lands. Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for food, and we and our land will be slaves to Pharaoh. So give us seed, that we may live and not die, and that the land may not be desolate” (Genesis 47:13-19).

For two years now the famine has been severe in Egypt and Canaan (45:5). All private reserves of wheat have been exhausted, and all the money of Egypt and Canaan had been spent in buying government grain from Joseph. And the famine lingered on and on. In desperation the Egyptians approached Joseph, reminding him of their plight. Joseph knew that while their money was gone their wealth was not, for they still possessed many cattle. Had these cattle remained the possession of the Egyptians they would have perished, for there was no grass for pasture and no grain for feed. And who but Pharaoh would want them, for no one could sustain them through these years of drought? In this sense Joseph did the Egyptians a favor to take the cattle off their hands by exchanging them for grain which they must have to survive. Some of these livestock may have been purchased by the Israelites, who were keepers of flocks (46:34) and who were relatively unaffected by the famine (47:27). Many, if not all, of the flocks which Joseph purchased for Pharaoh may have been cared for by Joseph’s brothers (cf. 47:6).

The sale of their livestock enabled the Egyptians to live through another year. As the following year approached, they found themselves once again appealing to Joseph for life-sustaining grain. They did not have either money or cattle, but they still possessed two valuable commodities: land and labor. At their own suggestion, the Egyptians exchanged their land and their labor for grain to survive the famine. Their land would belong to Pharaoh, they said, and they would be his slaves. Joseph also agreed to provide them with grain for seed when the famine ended and planting time came (47:18-19).

So Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh, for every Egyptian sold his field, because the famine was severe upon them. Thus the land became Pharaoh’s. And as for the people, he removed them to the cities from one and of Egypt’s border to the other. Only the land of the priests he did not buy, for the priests had an allotment from Pharaoh, and they lived off the allotment which Pharaoh gave them. Therefore, they did not sell their land. Then Joseph said to the people, “Behold, I have today bought you and your land for Pharaoh; now, here is seed for you, and you may sow the land. And at the harvest you shall give a fifth to Pharaoh, and four fifths shall be your own for seed of the field and for your food and for those of your households and as food for your little ones.” So they said, “You have saved our lives! Let us find favor in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh’s slaves.” And Joseph made it a statute concerning the land of Egypt valid to this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth; only the land of the priests did not become Pharaoh’s (Genesis 47:20-26).

And so the ownership of the land in Egypt changed hands—that is, all the land except that being acquired by the Israelites (verse 27) or maintained by the priests, who were supported (like the Israelites) by Pharaoh (verse 22). The people were brought in from the rural areas to the cities (verse 21). This was probably for a couple of administrative reasons. First of all, the grain was stored in the cities (41:35) and thus could be more efficiently distributed there. Perhaps also, removing the people from their land made the transfer of ownership more tangible and permanent. Once their land was left, the emotional attachment to it would tend to weaken.

The terms of the servitude of the Egyptians were spelled out by Joseph (verses 23-24). Joseph acquired both the people and their land for Pharaoh. When the famine ended, he would provide them with seed for planting. When crops were again harvested, one fifth would be given to Pharaoh. The rest would belong to the people for food, fodder, and seed for the next crop. Moses writes that it was under these conditions that Egypt was found in his own day. What happened during Joseph’s administration continued on until the time when Moses was in the palace of the Pharaoh (verse 26). Who, better than Moses, would know this?

Some find it hard to believe that Joseph could be a party to the acquisition of all the wealth of Egypt, along with the people themselves. Before we are too quick to condemn Joseph, several observations should be considered.

(1) Neither the grain nor the gain belonged to Joseph, but to Pharaoh. That is why I entitled this section “Pharaoh’s Prosperity and Egypt’s Poverty.” Joseph cannot be condemned for selling the grain rather than giving it away because it was not his to give. And all the profit was Pharaoh’s. Joseph’s actions did not bring him personal gain at Egypt’s expense. His duty was to further Pharaoh’s interests, and this he did very well.

(2) The favor which Pharaoh bestowed on Joseph’s relatives was a matter of grace, which he determined to grant the Israelites just as he did the priests. There was a great discrepancy between the good fortune of the Israelites and the economic failure of the Egyptians, but this was not due to Joseph’s choice so much as it was Pharaoh’s.

(3) The “slavery” which the Egyptians submitted to was not the harsh and unfair variety which we know from our own nation’s history. Slavery does not have to be cruel and harsh, although it can be, just as a dictatorship does not have to be harsh and repressive (as when Christ will reign over the world). The slavery of which Joseph spoke was more the arrangement that a “sharecropper” would make with a land owner and could still do in our nation today. Slavery to these Egyptians meant the non-ownership of their lands and a 20% tax on their production. Having just passed April 15th and annual income tax returns and payments, most of us might be inclined to think that the Egyptians got off too easily. Who among us would not settle for a mere 20% tax?

(4) Such “slavery,” even among the Israelites, was not condemned:

And if a countrymen of yours becomes so poor with regard to you that he sells himself to you, you shall not subject him to a slave’s service. He shall be with you as a hired man, as if he were a sojourner with you, until the year of jubilee. He shall then go out from you, he and his sons with him, and shall go back to his family, that he may return to the property of his forefathers. For they are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale. You shall not rule over him with severity, but are to revere your God (Leviticus 25:39-43).

Even when a fellow Israelite was overtaken by poverty, he could sell himself as a slave to another. Such slavery was not forbidden, but the slave owner was cautioned to possess this slave in a gentle and gracious way. This is just what we see Joseph doing.

(5) We should not be distressed at the actions of Joseph when the Egyptians praised him and regarded him as their savior:

So they said, “You have saved our lives! Let us find favor in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh’s slaves” (Genesis 47:25).

If the Egyptians suggested this arrangement in the first place (verse 19) and then gratefully submitted to it (verse 25), why should we become so upset, unless, of course, we do not like to think such a thing could happen to us? Such an economic condition may be undesirable, but it is not unbiblical.

(6) Much of the dilemma of the Egyptians was of their own making. Joseph created neither the seven years of plenty nor the seven years of famine; he predicted both and proposed a program to deal with them. His plan did cost the Egyptians their fortunes and some of their freedom, but it also saved them from certain death. The dire need of the land of Canaan is readily explainable, but why was there this need in Egypt? I must forewarn you that I am reading between the lines, but it is my contention that the dire poverty of the Egyptians was a dilemma of their own making.

If Joseph was the competent administrator he was portrayed to be, surely he informed the general population of the famine coming after the seven years of plenty. This would secure their cooperation in carrying out the plan Joseph had proposed to alleviate the devastation of the coming years of drought. Furthermore, if Joseph believed “that government governs best which governs least,” he would have endeavored to get the nation to follow his example in saving up for the years of adversity. Joseph accumulated one fifth of the crops of the land during the abundant years. That left four-fifths of a bumper crop for the Egyptians. Should they not have been storing up grain for the famine as well as Joseph? But it would seem that they thought the years of plenty would go on and on. Why not spend some of this excess profit? They seem to no more have expected the famine to come than the people in Noah’s day looked for a flood. The Egyptians, I believe, were informed that hard times were coming, yet they failed to prepare for them. No wonder they did not complain about Joseph’s handling of this matter and heralded him as a savior.

All lines of evidence lead us to the same conclusion: Joseph was just as godly a man here as he had been elsewhere. He wisely had prepared for the future, and his laying up a store of wheat made it possible for him to save his nation from disaster.

Israel’s Prosperity and Egypt’s Poverty
(47:27)

While the Egyptians were fainting under the famine, the Israelites were flourishing. Egypt’s loss, to some degree, was their gain:

Now Israel lived in the land of Egypt, in Goshen, and they acquired property in it and were fruitful and became very numerous (Genesis 47:27).

Israel prospered in spite of the famine and the poverty which Egypt experienced. This small, select group prospered while the mainstream of Egyptian populus were impoverished. It may not be too much to say that the Israelites prospered at Egypt’s expense. For example, the land they acquired was probably purchased at a good price from an Egyptian farmer who knew he would lose his land anyway. The cattle that were obtained were possibly purchased from a farmer who would have otherwise watched them starve to death. What was purchased might have been at ten cents on the dollar.

This raises some questions about the prosperity of the Israelites during the famine. Was it wrong for them to be prosperous while others were doing without? Was it right for them to buy land while others had to give theirs up? Before we become too smug, let me ask you a question. Have you ever gone to a “going out of business” sale? Of course you have. And did you insist that the business sell you its merchandise at full retail price because times were hard? No, you delighted at getting something drastically marked down. That business’ loss was your gain, and you went away proud of the bargains you found.

Lest we lose our sense of perspective, let me also remind you that the prosperity of Israel at this time paved the way for her future persecution. Stigers, in his excellent commentary on Genesis, entitles verses 13-26 “Foundations for oppression.”⁹⁹ A little lesson in history will help put this section into perspective.

Before Joseph or Jacob entered the land of Egypt, there had been a large influx of Asiatic Semitic slaves into Egypt. They congregated largely in the Delta region of Egypt, the same area where Goshen was located. Over a period of time these Hyksos land owners formed a political coalition which gave them great power in the Delta. At a weak point in Egyptian political power, the Hyksos coalition overthrew the throne, and a Hyksos Pharaoh was installed. It is most likely that the Pharaoh under whom Joseph served was a Hyksos.¹⁰⁰ This explains, at least in part, why a Pharaoh would be eager to install a Hebrew slave into such a high office. A fellow Palestinian would be trusted more than a native Egyptian. It also explains why the Pharaoh would encourage the immigration of Hebrews from Canaan. They could enhance his political position and be potential allies if and when the Egyptians attempted to regain power.

Later on, when Joseph had long since died and the Hyksos dynasty had been overthrown, the Egyptians were not inclined to feel favorably toward the Israelites, who had collaborated with the Hyksos and had prospered while they had been impoverished. And if another attempt were made to overthrow the throne of Egypt, the Hebrews might well be expected to become allies in such an effort. No wonder they were disliked, distrusted, and dealt with as a serious threat to Egypt’s security:

And Joseph died, and all his brothers and all that generation. But the sons of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly, and multiplied, and became exceedingly mighty, so that the land was filled with them.

Now a new king arose over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. And he said to his people, “Behold, the people of the sons of Israel are more and mightier than we. Come, let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply and in the event of war, they also join themselves to those who hate us, and fight against us, and depart from the land.” So they appointed taskmasters over them to afflict them with hard labor. And they built for Pharaoh storage cities, Pithom and Raamses (Exodus 1:6-11).

It might not be going too far to suggest that the initial success of the descendants of Jacob and their later persecution provides us with a prototype of later Jewish persecution. I am not a historian, but I believe this to be evident, for example, in Germany before the second world war. Germany’s economy had suffered greatly, and yet it was evident that those who were the successful bankers and financial giants were the Jews. The Jews then became the scapegoat for all the political woes of the nation and were severely persecuted and oppressed by the Nazi regime.

Principles Pertaining to Prosperity and Poverty

From these verses describing the prosperity of Pharaoh and the people of God several principles which help us to more precisely define the relationship between prosperity, poverty, and political freedom are brought into focus.

(1) Freedom is a privilege, not a right. Americans, due to our heritage as a free people, are inclined to look upon freedom as a right rather than a privilege. But history reminds us that most of the people who have ever lived have not had the privilege of freedom as we know it. Paul, in writing to those who were slaves, said,

Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that (I Corinthians 7:21).

It was not wrong to be a slave, nor did it prevent one from having a godly testimony (cf. I Peter 2:18-25). Joseph was able as a slave to effectively serve God and man. But freedom is surely preferable, and if it can be obtained we should take advantage of that opportunity.

What concerns me about this generation of Americans is that by assuming freedom to be a right rather than a privilege to be maintained, we will lose the freedom that others died to obtain and maintain. Rights are taken for granted because we assume that they cannot be taken away. Privileges must be earned, and they can easily be lost if neglected. Many American Christians fail to vote or to involve themselves in the political process, and in so doing they endanger the freedoms that are theirs. It was not wrong for Joseph to “enslave” the Egyptians because freedom is not a right, but a privilege.

Slavery, of course, does have the potential for evil and abuse. The history of slavery in America makes this abundantly clear. Let me hasten to say, however, that not all slave owners were harsh and ungodly. As an institution, slavery cannot be broadly and generally condemned, for the Bible never strictly forbids it. Surely, it is not the most desirable status in life. That is why Paul encouraged those who were able to obtain their liberty. Slavery does afford evil men with the opportunity to misuse people and treat them unfairly. Such treatment must always be condemned and resisted, but this kind of abuse is flagrant in every institution, whether it be government, economics, marriage, or family. Power and authority will always be misused by wicked and cruel men, but that does not mean that all power is therefore to be abolished. The French Revolution underscored this in blood.

(2) Prosperity is not a right, but a privilege and a responsibility. In the Old Testament God promised Israel prosperity if they would faithfully obey Him and keep His commandments:

However, there shall be no poor among you, since the LORD will surely bless you in the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess, if only you listen obediently to the voice of the LORD your God, to carefully observe all this commandment which I am commanding you today. For the LORD your God shall bless you as He has promised you, and you will lend to many nations, but you will not borrow; and you will rule over many nations, but they will not rule over you” (Deuteronomy 15:4-6).

But God also made it clear that while this was His promise, this ideal would never be fully realized:

For the poor will never cease to be in the land; therefore I command you, saying, “You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land” (Deuteronomy 15:11).

In the book of Proverbs it is oft repeated that prosperity is the result of diligence, while poverty is the result of idleness:

Poor is he who works with a negligent hand, But the hand of the diligent makes rich (Proverbs 10:4; cf. 12:27; 13:4; 14:23; etc.).

This is a maxim, however, and not an inviolable promise.

In the New Testament, prosperity is not proof of either piety (Luke 6:24) or carnality (Matthew 27:57), but a matter of calling, toward which the poor and the prosperous must have the right perspective:

But let the brother of humble circumstances glory in his high position; and let the rich man glory in his humiliation, because like flowering grass he will pass away. For the sun rises with a scorching wind, and withers the grass; and its flower falls off, and the beauty of its appearance is destroyed; so too the rich man in the midst of his pursuits will fade away (James 1:9-11).

With either poverty or prosperity we must learn the secret of contentment:

I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need. I can do all things through Him who strengthens me (Philippians 4:12-13).

But godliness actually is a means of great gain, when accompanied by contentment (I Timothy 6:6).

Wealth is to be employed in ministry to others (I Timothy 6:17-19). Poverty does not prohibit a genuine desire to minister (cf. I Kings 17:8-16; Mark 12:41-44; II Corinthians 8:1-5), while prosperity provides greater opportunity and greater responsibility (I Timothy 6:17-19; cf. Matthew 13:12; Luke 12: 47-48).

(3) In the Bible, poverty is not viewed as an intrinsic evil that must be abolished. Just as the institution of slavery was tolerated, so poverty is also. It is not a pleasant state, but neither is it an intolerable one (cf. Philippians 4:12-13). Our Lord became poor so that we might be made rich (II Corinthians 8:9), and so also the apostle Paul experienced poverty (II Corinthians 6:4-5, etc.). Jesus said,

Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be satisfied (Luke 6:20-21).

He also said, “for the poor you always have with now; …” (John 12:8).

Wealth, actual or desired, is evil when it receives an undue amount of our thought and concern (Matthew 6:24-34), when it is given excess importance (Luke 16:10-11,14), when it is wrongfully gained (Luke 3:13-14), selfishly stored up (Matthew 6:19-21; Luke 12:13-21), or sinfully squandered (Luke l5:11ff.; James 5:5). It is evil if we find our security in it (Matthew 19:16-22; I Timothy 6:17). But poverty is likewise evil if it is the result of lack of consideration or responsibility (I Timothy 5:8) or lack of diligence (II Thessalonians 3:6-15). Poverty, like prosperity, is neither good nor evil, except as we view it and use it.

(4) The problem of poverty cannot be solved simplistically. The simple solution to the problem of the famine in Egypt, we suppose, would have been for Joseph to open up the granaries of Egypt and give the grain to the Egyptians. The question then becomes, “On what basis should the grain be given out?” How would you feel about the fellow who drove up in his new Rolls Royce and asked you to “fill er up” with grain? Welfare is never quite so simple as it first seems. In some scriptures we are told to give to those in need:

He who is generous will be blessed, For he gives some of his food to the poor (Proverbs 22:9).

He who gives to the poor will never want, But he who shuts his eyes will have many curses (Proverbs 28:27).

In other scriptures we are told to lend to the poor, but not at interest:

‘Now in case a countryman of yours becomes poor and his means with regard to you falter, then you are to sustain him, like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you. Do not take usurious interest from him, but revere your God, that your countryman may live with you. You shall not give him your silver at interest, nor your food for gain (Leviticus 25:35-37).

Elsewhere, in Proverbs 11:26 we are told,

He who withholds grain, the people will curse him, But blessing will be on the head of him who sells it.

Another Proverb says,

A worker’s appetite works for him, For his hunger urges him on (Proverbs 16:26).

And still elsewhere Paul instructs us,

For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: If anyone will not work, neither let him eat (II Thessalonians 3:10).

We have a wide range of responsibilities to the poor because there are a wide variety of reasons for poverty. To those who are willfully poor, that is, those who will not work, we have no obligation but to rebuke them. We must allow their hunger to prod them into activity. For those who are temporarily without funds, we should loan them money with the expectation of being paid back, but not with interest. Others who are completely helpless should be given what they need with no thought of repayment. And for some of those in Old Testament times, the faithful Israelites were not only to buy their goods, but purchase them as a servant (Leviticus 25:39ff.)

Two primary goals should be fixed in our mind regarding charity that really benefits the recipient: First, it should seek to preserve the dignity of the needy; and second, it should promote the diligence of the needy. In Old Testament times the able-bodied who were in need were provided for by leaving sufficient food for them to glean:

Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest (Leviticus 19:9; cf. 23:22).

Thus we find Ruth gleaning in the field of Boaz (Ruth 2:2ff.). In our time, we are sometimes encouraged to harvest the grain for the poor, thresh and grind it, bake it and deliver it hot and buttered. The dignity of the destitute demands that they be allowed to work for what they get if at all possible. Love must be exercised in “real knowledge and discernment” (Philippians 1:9). Sentimentality may make us feel good at the expense of the poor. Wisdom seeks to help the poor in such a way as to maintain their personal dignity and encourage continued diligence on their part to be released from their economic dependence on others. Those widows in the New Testament who were totally cared for by the church were a very small and select group, while the rest were cared for short term or by their families (I Timothy 5:3-16). Deadbeats deserve only discipline (II Thessalonians 3).

(5) The accumulation of wealth is frequently the means of helping the poor. Lest we come down too hard on Joseph for his actions, let me remind you that if Joseph had not accumulated that large supply of grain, Egypt would have perished. Some Christians feel that it is altogether wrong to accumulate money for any reason. Personally, I do not agree. I understand our Lord to forbid the accumulation of wealth for the purpose of finding in it a false security or for lavishing upon ourselves the luxuries wealth will provide (Matthew 6:19ff.; James 4:3; 5:1-6).

Saving is not always condemned:

In the house of the wise are stores of choice food and oil, but a foolish man devours all he has (Proverbs 21:20, NIV).

Unfortunately, Acts 4:34-35 has frequently been misunderstood in this regard:

For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales, and lay them at the apostles’ feet; and they would be distributed to each, as any had need.

Some think that all of the houses and lands belonging to the believers in Jerusalem were sold at one time and that the proceeds were pooled in one pot to be distributed by the apostles. Such was not the case. For one thing, this would have caused the property values to plummet, reducing the effectiveness of these gifts. But the verb “would sell” is imperfect, implying that this was done from time to time or whenever serious needs arose. Thus, houses were owned privately until such time as needs arose that were so great someone was led to sell their property and give the proceeds to the apostles to meet these needs.

Don’t you see that it was the ownership of these houses and lands which made possible the charity of the New Testament church? Had these Christians concluded, as some do today, that it is wrong to accumulate wealth in any form, including homes or land, there would have been no means of helping others. This same matter of saving up in order to be able to meet needs is addressed by the apostle Paul:

Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. On the first day of every week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come (I Corinthians 16:1-2).

Especially for those who do not have great resources, saving up provides greater opportunity to minister to those in need.

(6) God’s provision for His people does not require times of national economic prosperity. Israel prospered in Egypt’s darkest hours. Israel was provided for in abundance while many others did without. There are and will always be prophets of doom who warn us of financial disaster ahead. (And, frankly, I am inclined to agree with them. I think financial hard times may be around the corner.) But let us not panic at the thought. If God could care for His people in times of famine, He can care for us in times of great disaster, too. God’s ability to provide for His own does not depend upon the Dow-Jones averages. We should prepare to minister to others by setting aside money. Let us be careful to avoid the one extreme of hoarding up and the other of using up everything that comes our way.

Now He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food, will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness; you will be enriched in everything for all liberality, which through us is producing thanksgiving to God (II Corinthians 9:10-11).

Jacob Prepares for His Death
(47:28-31)

Jacob, who seemed to be dying for years, lived longer than he expected. But as he approached his death, we can see that his prosperity in Egypt did not change his priorities:

And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years; so the length of Jacob’s life was one hundred and forty-seven years. When the time for Israel to die drew near, he called his son Joseph and said to him, “Please, if I have found favor in your sight, place now your hand under my thigh and deal with me in kindness and faithfulness. Please do not bury me in Egypt, but when I lie down with my fathers, you shall carry me out of Egypt and bury me in their burial place.” And he said, “I will do as you have said.” And he said, “Swear to me.” So he swore to him. Then Israel bowed in worship at the head of the bed (Genesis 47:28-31).

How easy it would have been for prosperity to rearrange Jacob’s priorities. After living in a land that was irrigated and relatively free from famine, who would wish to return to Canaan where God must supply rain, contingent upon the obedience of His people:

… for the land, into which you are entering to possess it, is not like the land of Egypt from which you came, where you used to sow your seed and water it with your foot like a vegetable garden. But the land into which you are about to cross to possess it, a land of hills and valleys, drinks water from the rain of heaven, a land for which the LORD your God cares; the eyes of the LORD your God are always on it, from the beginning even to the end of the year (Deuteronomy 11:10-12).

Knowing that the day of his departure drew near, Jacob purposed to make his death a testimony to his faith and a stimulus to the faith and obedience of his descendants. Jacob urged Joseph, his most trusted son, to swear a solemn oath promising that he would not bury his father in Egypt, but in Canaan in the cave of Machpelah with his forefathers. This would serve as a reminder to his descendants that Egypt was not home, but only a place to sojourn until God brought them back “home” to Canaan, the land of promise.

Having been assured of his request, Jacob bowed in worship on the head of his staff.¹⁰¹ It is this incident, coupled with the blessing of Joseph’s sons in chapter 49, which the writer to the Hebrews cites as evidence of the faith of Jacob:

By faith Jacob, as he was dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and worshipped, leaning on the top of his staff (Hebrews 11:21).

Little wonder, for this is surely the high point of Jacob’s spiritual life. For the first time, Jacob has ceased striving to do something for God and simply stopped to worship and adore Him. I believe that worship is the highest calling of the saint and one of God’s primary purposes for saving men:

But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit; and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth (John 4:23-24).

Conclusion

Two observations remain. First, we are obliged to protect the rights of the poor:

The righteous is concerned for the rights of the poor, The wicked does not understand such concern (Proverbs 29:7).

While neither freedom nor prosperity are the rights of the poor, life is the right of all. Recently the “Right to Life” movement has focused our attention on the rights of the unborn. While we need to seriously consider the rights of the unborn and the matter of abortion, we dare not neglect the right to life of those who are born and who are dying of starvation and neglect. The righteous cannot overlook the dire needs of those who are dying in our world since we as a nation have more than sufficient means to preserve life.

And if there is a right to physical life, how much more should we be concerned about the right to hear the good news of the offer of spiritual life. It is my conviction that some of the material wealth that is ours is given for the purpose of propagating the gospel of Jesus Christ to those who have not yet heard.

Second, I must remind you, as one of our congregation reminded me, that Joseph asked no more of the Egyptians than God has required of those who will be eternally saved. The Egyptians valued their physical salvation so much that they gave up their money, their material goods, and even themselves to Joseph. These are the terms which God has laid down for men to have eternal life: unconditional surrender. We must come to the point of realizing that our condition is terminal, that we are facing death. And we must place our entire future in the hands of Jesus Christ just as the Egyptians trusted in Joseph. We must surrender every element of self-sufficiency, everything of value, and rely solely upon Jesus Christ, who has died upon the cross of Calvary for our salvation. He offers to us all the riches of heaven if we only trust in Him completely. May God enable you to trust in Him for your salvation.

Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If any one wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake shall find it. For what will a man be profited, if he gains the whole world, and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matthew 16:24-26).

99 Harold G. Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 320.

100 Cf. Stigers, pp. 39, 291-292, 309-310, also Howard F. Vos, Genesis and Archaeology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1963), pp. 101-105 for further details on the Hyksos.

101 “The MT has bed (mitta), but the LXX (used in Heb. 11:21) interpreted the same Hebrew consonants to represent matteh, ‘staff.’ While both versions have ‘bed’ at 48:2, the present occasion tells of Jacob before his last illness (cf. 48:1), and ‘staff’ may well be the right meaning. It would be an appropriate object to mention, as the symbol of his pilgrimage (cf. his grateful words in 32:10), worthy of the prominence it receives in the New Testament passage.” Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), p. 212.

Français

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_47_32k.mp3

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

48. The View From the Graveyard (Genesis 48:1-22)

Introduction

Several years ago I saw a film that made a deep impression on me. As I recall it, Malcolm Muggeridge was standing in the family cemetery pointing out the tombstones of his ancestors. The movie began with the statement by Muggeridge that he would soon be joining his predecessors in death and that his tombstone would also be found there in the cemetery. The entire film was oriented around Muggeridge’s life as he now looked back at it from that cemetery, knowing that the time of his death was not far away.

The thing that stuck in my memory about Muggeridge was his evaluation of what things were really significant in his lifetime. He said that those things which he had most desired in his youth he now perceived to be of little value when viewed from the graveyard. The things which he had most dreaded in his youth he now deeply valued because they had so enriched his life. One such item would be suffering. He once sought to avoid it at all cost but had since come to accept it as a good thing from the hand of God.

After studying Genesis 48 I have come to appreciate the wisdom of Muggeridge’s words even more in the light of the testimony of Jacob in these verses. Only 17 years earlier Jacob had described his life in the most negative terms:

The years of my sojourning are one hundred and thirty; few and unpleasant … (Genesis 47:9).

That was Jacob’s perspective from the palace of the Pharaoh. But now, standing in the proverbial graveyard of his ancestors and facing imminent death, Jacob’s testimony is one of deep faith and joyful gratitude for God’s faithfulness and care through all the days of his life (cf. 48:15-16).

How do we explain this change in Jacob’s attitude? His perspective has radically changed, for he now looks back upon his life, like Muggeridge, from the family plot, viewing life from the end of the path. We need not be at death’s door to view life as Jacob did here. What we must do is grasp the reasons for his changed outlook and apply them to our lives now rather than when we think we are at death’s door. Let us then look very carefully at the final events of Jacob’s life as recorded by Moses in Genesis 48.

The Adoption of Manasseh and Ephraim
(48:1-7)

The last days of Jacob’s earthly sojourn drew to a close. Sensing this, Joseph was summoned to his father’s side where Jacob pronounced a unique blessing upon him. The death of which Jacob had so frequently spoken and, at one time, desired was now soon to visit him. Joseph took his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, along with him to see their grandfather one final time and to bid him farewell. Gathering up his strength, Jacob sat up in bed in order to speak words of vital significance to Joseph. While Jacob’s words were reminiscent of the past, this was no muddled musing as one might expect of an aged man nearing his final hour. Instead, Jacob focused Joseph’s attention upon the two most important events of his life as an explanation for what he was about to do.

Now it came about after these things that Joseph was told, “Behold, your father is sick.” So he took his two sons Manasseh and Ephraim with him. When it was told to Jacob, “Behold, your son Joseph has come to you,” Israel collected his strength and sat up in the bed. Then Jacob said to Joseph, “God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan and blessed me, and He said to me, ‘Behold, I will make you fruitful and numerous, and I will make you a company of peoples, and will give this land to your descendants after you for an everlasting possession.’ And now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, as Reuben and Simeon are. But your offspring that have been born after them shall be yours; they shall be called by the names of their brothers in their inheritance” (Genesis 48:1-6).

Twice God had appeared to Jacob at Luz (Bethel, 28:10-17; 35:9-12), and in both appearances God had blessed him, promising him that he would become a great nation and that he would possess the land of Canaan. While it was nowhere recorded that God specifically promised Jacob that the land would be an “everlasting possession” (verse 4), it was told Abram in 17:7. This was probably orally passed on through Isaac.

Joseph’s sons, Manasseh and Ephraim,¹⁰² were born in the land of Egypt. As sons of Joseph their future in Egypt may have seemed very bright. Perhaps they might fill the shoes of their father, taking places of power and influence in Pharaoh’s administration. But their greatest hope lay in a land they had not yet seen, for they were destined to be a part of the “company of peoples” (verse 4) that God had promised Jacob.

Reuben, due to his sin of laying with Bilhah, Jacob’s concubine (35:22), would be stripped of his birthright (cf. 49:4). This privilege was conveyed upon Joseph, but in an unusual way. No doubt the normal course would have been to give the birthright to the next son, Simeon, or to the next after him, Levi, but both of these sons were guilty of the mass murder of the Shechemites (34:25ff.). It was Joseph instead who was to receive the rights of the firstborn:

Jacob achieved his purpose by adopting both of Joseph’s sons as his own, on a par with Reuben and Simeon (verse 5). Now each of them would receive one portion, but in so doing Joseph received a double portion:

And I give you one portion more than your brothers, which I took from the hand of the Amorite with my sword and my bow (Genesis 48:22).

The effect, as noted by the chronicler, was to give the birthright to Joseph. Any other sons which might be born to Joseph (but don’t seem to have been) would receive their inheritance as though they were the sons of either Ephraim or Manasseh (verse 6).

The twin appearances of God to Jacob at Bethel (once before he departed from Canaan to seek a wife in Haran (28:10-17) and once after he returned to Canaan from Paddan-aram (35:9-15)) were even more significant in the light of the partial fulfillment of God’s promises to him in these appearances. God had promised Jacob that he would be with him to guide, protect, and provide, and that He would bring him safely back to Canaan. This God had done, in spite of the dangers he had faced and the obstacles that were in his path. Since God’s word had been fulfilled in the short-term promises, surely His more distant promises were assured also.

The primary focus of Jacob in his report to Joseph was the promise of the land of Canaan and the assurance that Jacob would become a numerous people, a company of peoples (verse 4). If God had assured Jacob of becoming a great and numerous people, then surely he was justified in adopting two more sons who would contribute to this proliferation of people.

If the justification for Jacob’s adoption of Joseph’s sons is found in the promise God had made at Bethel, the reason seems to be reported in verse 7:

Now as for me, when I came from Paddan, Rachel died, to my sorrow, in the land of Canaan on the Journey, when there was still some distance to go to Ephrath; and I buried her there on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem) (Genesis 48:7).

Joseph was the son of Rachel, Jacob’s chosen wife. His partiality to Joseph significantly contributed to Joseph’s rejection by his brothers and his journey to Egypt (cf. 37:4). A major factor in his preference for Joseph was the fact that he was the first-born of Rachel, his bride by choice. (Leah was his wife “by chance,” Bilhah and Zilpah “by competition.”)

While Rachel was the younger of his wives, she died prematurely on the way to Ephrath (Bethlehem). By inference, had she not died so early in life she would have presented Jacob with many other sons. The adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh provided Jacob with two more sons, technically “through Rachel.” The promise of God at Bethel in combination with the preference of Jacob for Rachel provides the backdrop for the adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh. In addition to this must be mentioned the faithfulness of Joseph to the God of his fathers, even while in a foreign land and in adverse circumstances. He, as the savior of his people, surely was worthy of the favor his father bestowed upon him.

The Blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh
(48:8-22)

Joseph’s sons had not yet been noticed by Jacob. The adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh was primarily a privilege granted to Joseph rather than an act of partiality toward his sons. Now, whether they are just noticed or they have been brought in after Joseph’s private interview with his father, Jacob seized the opportunity to pronounce a blessing upon Joseph through his two sons:

When Israel saw Joseph’s sons, he said, “Who are these?” And Joseph said to his father, “They are my sons, whom God has given me here.” So he said, “Bring them to me, please, that I may bless them.” Now the eyes of Israel were so dim from age that he could not see. Then Joseph brought them close to him, and he kissed them and embraced them. And Israel said to Joseph, “I never expected to see your face, and behold, God has let me see your children as well.” Then Joseph took them from his knees, and bowed with his face to the ground. And Joseph took them both, Ephraim with his right hand toward Israel’s left, and Manasseh with his left hand toward Israel’s right, and brought them close to him. But Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on the head of Ephraim, who was the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh’s head, crossing his hands, although Manasseh was the first-born (Genesis 48:8-14).

Just as his father Isaac had suffered the infirmity of poor eyesight in his later years (27:1), Jacob’s vision was dim with years. Of course he had seen these sons before, but they had grown up, changing greatly as all our children do. Jacob could make them out, but he was unable to specifically identify them. Joseph now presented them to Jacob, who must have drawn them between his knees as he embraced them and kissed them. Jacob, who had concluded that he would never again behold the face of his favorite son, now looks upon his grandsons. God’s goodness to him is not overlooked in this event (verse 11).

Joseph, knowing that his father was about to bless them (verse 9), drew the boys, now near the age of twenty,¹⁰³ from his father in order to arrange them properly for the blessing. Manasseh, the eldest, he had at his left hand (Jacob’s right), and Ephraim was at Joseph’s right hand (Jacob’s left). This was intended so that Jacob’s right hand would rest upon Manasseh, the oldest. Israel surprised Joseph by crossing his hands and pronouncing this blessing:

And he blessed Joseph, and said, “The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, The God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, The angel who has redeemed me from all evil, Bless the lads; And may my name live on in them, And the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; And may they grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth” (Genesis 48:15-16).

We must not forget that Jacob’s pronouncement of the blessing on Joseph’s two sons was primarily a blessing upon Joseph, as Moses reminds us in verse 15. The blessing contains the testimony of Jacob, one that is in stark contrast to his words spoken before Pharaoh:

The years of my sojourning are one hundred and thirty; few and unpleasant have been the years of my life, nor have they attained the years that my fathers lived during the days of their sojourning (Genesis 47:9).

First, Jacob’s God is the God of his fathers, Abraham and Isaac, the God who had made His covenant with them and kept them all the days of their lives. Second, Jacob, the shepherd (cf. 30:27ff.), recognized that God had cared for him as his Shepherd. Jacob, in effect, testified, “The Lord is my shepherd …” Third, Jacob’s God was the “Angel” (cf. 32:22-32) who had redeemed him from all evil.

How could there be such a contrast between this testimony to Joseph and that given to Pharaoh? How could Jacob say this with sincerity? Jacob’s life had been one long sequence of sorrows. He had antagonized his brother and deceived his father. He had to leave home, never again to see his mother alive. He was forced to live with an uncle who was nearly as deceptive as he and to take four wives rather than just Rachel, the one of his choice. His wives fought with each other over him, and his children hated one another. His daughter was raped; his oldest son had slept with his concubine, and Judah had slept with what appeared to be a prostitute. He was deprived of his wife and her first son; and Benjamin, the only remaining descendant of Rachel, was in serious jeopardy. Finally, a famine forced him to leave the land of promise. His life had been full of sorrow.

When Jacob testified that the Lord had been his shepherd all along, he did not deny his sufferings. But now he has come to see them in a different light. Just as Joseph had known in the midst of his sufferings that God had been with him, Jacob was assured of God’s presence in all of his sorrows. While our Shepherd “makes us lie down in green pastures” (Psalm 23:2), He also is with us as we “walk through the valley of the shadow of death” (Psalm 23:4). Jacob has come to see that every event in his life was a part of the will of God for him and that God was guiding him and shaping him through adversity.

And God, the Angel (whom I take to be the pre-incarnate Christ), had redeemed him from all evil. Jacob has not claimed that the Angel kept him from all trouble, for that was not the case. Trouble and evil are synonymous terms, as Jacob has finally come to understand. No saint has ever been promised the absence of trouble. Evil, however, is not facing painful circumstances, but falling short from God’s purposes. God used trials and tribulation to bring Jacob to Egypt and to bring about the salvation which Joseph was sent ahead to provide. All of Jacob’s troubles were a “God-send” in order to bring about God’s purposes, even when Jacob was unaware of them and inclined to resist if he did know.

The immature Christian prays that God will withhold pain and suffering, seeing these things as evil. The mark of a mature Christian is that he can look back on his life and see that God can take the pains and pressures of life and cause them to work together for good in his life and ultimately draw one near to Himself through them. The immature shun suffering. While the mature do not seek it, they come to savor it in the light of how beautifully God uses it to bring us into intimacy with himself. When knowing God is the ultimate good, suffering is not too high a price to pay to obtain it:

… that I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; … (Philippians 3:10).

This God, this Shepherd, this Angel, will bless the sons of Joseph in a special way. In them, Jacob’s name (Israel) will live on. The work which God began in Abraham and Isaac and faithfully continued in Jacob, He will carry on in these men. They will grow into a great multitude in fulfillment of God’s promise.

When Joseph saw his father crossing his hands and giving the preeminence to Ephraim, he assumed it was a mistake and attempted to correct it, but he learned from his father that his action was intentional.

When Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand on Ephraim’s head, it displeased him; and he grasped his father’s hand to remove it from Ephraim’s head to Manasseh’s head. And Joseph said to his father, “Not so, my father, for this one is the first-born. Place your right hand on his head.” But his father refused and said, “I know, my son, I know; he also shall become a people and he also shall be great. However, his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his descendants shall become a multitude of nations.” And he blessed them that day, saying, “By you Israel shall pronounce blessing, saying, ‘May God make you like Ephraim and Manasseh!’” Thus he put Ephraim before Manasseh (Genesis 48:17-20).

Jacob, after all, was an old man. He tended to dwell upon the past in his conversation. His eyes were unable to make out the identity of his grandsons. Surely, Joseph reasoned, it was an accident that Jacob crossed his hands so as to give preeminence to the younger son. Perhaps he thought that Manasseh was to his left and therefore crossed his hands so as to place his right hand upon him. With a bit of impatience, then, Joseph may have tried to correct his father. It was not out of ignorance or oversight that Jacob acted. He purposed to establish the younger over the older.

The book of Genesis is full of instances in which the younger was chosen over the older. Seth was chosen over Cain; Shem over Japheth; Isaac over Ishmael; Jacob over Esau; and now, Ephraim over Manasseh. Of course, it was not always to be so. Jacob had endeavored to choose Rachel over Leah, but Laban was not about to let this happen. In the providence of God, neither was He, for Leah was the first wife of Jacob, the mother of Judah, the head of the messianic line, and Levi, the head of the priestly line. Leah, not Rachel, was given the honor of being buried with Jacob in the cave of Machpelah (49:31).

Jacob had been wrong in choosing Rachel over Leah because he made his decision on the basis of her outward appearance, not her character. Also, his actions in that choice were not illustrative of the principle of divine election because there was a selfish motive in choosing Rachel over Leah. God’s election is without regard to the outcome so that His choice may be free:

And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac, for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God’s purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger” (Romans 9:10-12).

In the choice of Ephraim above Manasseh the principle of election is clearly illustrated, for Jacob’s choice is not conditioned by selfish motives. Why, then, does Jacob set Ephraim over Manasseh? Personally, I believe that this is Jacob’s method of demonstrating his belated comprehension of and submission to the doctrine of divine selection. Jacob seemed to feel that “God helps those who help themselves,” and he had been helping himself from a very early age. He felt that God’s blessing was based upon his ability to outwit and outmaneuver others, such as his brother and Laban. He must have believed that God chose him over Esau because he could do more for God than his brother could. Now, at last, Jacob has realized that (as Paul wrote in Romans 9) God chose him over Esau simply because He purposed to work through him, not Esau. There was no earthly reason why Ephraim should be placed above Manasseh, but this is why Jacob’s actions had great meaning. While society may have concluded, for practical reasons, to assign privileges according to the order of birth, God is not bound to such conventions. God is not obliged to act “traditionally” or according to our expectations. That is the prerogative of a God who is sovereign. Jacob, at last, has come to see this and has symbolically given testimony to his grasp of the principle of divine selection.

Having given priority to Ephraim, the younger, Jacob now turns again to Joseph to give him yet another blessing before the other sons are called to his bedside:

Then Israel said to Joseph, “Behold, I am about to die, but God will be with you, and bring you back to the land of your fathers. And I give you one portion more than your brothers, which I took from the hand of the Amorite with my sword and my bow” (Genesis 48:21-22).

Jacob’s death is imminent, and he will not live to see the return to Canaan. Perhaps, he suggests, Joseph will (verse 20). We know that neither Joseph nor Jacob will return to the land of promise before death overtakes them. Only in a resurrected state will they experience the promises of God. As a special blessing, Joseph is given possession of a particular portion of land, that “which Jacob took with his sword and bow” (verse 22). But what piece of land is this?

The term “portion” is literally Shechem (cf. margin, NASV). Does Jacob give Shechem to Joseph? Joseph’s bones were brought up from Egypt and buried at Shechem:

Now they buried the bones of Joseph, which the sons of Israel brought up from Egypt, at Shechem, in the piece of ground which Jacob had bought from the sons of Hamar the father of Shechem for one hundred pieces of money; and they became the inheritance of Joseph’s sons (Joshua 24:32).

But here, while Joseph is buried at Shechem, it is referred to as the land “which Jacob had bought,” not the land for which he had fought. Some commentators conclude that Jacob could never have claimed to have taken this land by force when he condemned his sons for their actions in killing the men of the city:

Then Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, “You have brought trouble on me, by making me odious among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites; and my men being few in number, against me and attack me and I shall be destroyed, I and my household” (Genesis 34:30).

Simeon and Levi are brothers; Their swords are implements of violence. Let my soul not enter into their council; let not my glory be united with their assembly; Because in their anger they slew men, And in their self-will they lamed oxen. Cursed be their anger, for it is fierce; And their wrath, for it is cruel. I will disperse them in Jacob, And scatter them in Israel (Genesis 49:5-7).

It must be said that Simeon and Levi were wrong in what they did. They sought revenge, not righteousness; they were motivated more by pride than purity. They acted deceitfully, giving the impression that they would accept the offer of Shechem and his father; but they used circumcision as a trick to physically get the advantage of the men of the city. Jacob, too, was wrong. He was wrong for moving to Shechem in the first place and for courting the Canaanites and compromising with them. He seems to be wrong for not dealing decisively with the sin that was committed.

Jacob may now look back upon this incident as being prophetic of the future possession of Canaan by Israel. That land will not be purchased, but it will be taken by force. The Canaanites are to be driven out and annihilated because of their great wickedness and immorality:

Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you, in order that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the LORD your God (Deuteronomy 20:16-18).

The right thing may have occurred at Shechem, but for the wrong reasons. Jacob might thus look upon the incident now in an entirely different light, for now purity was more important to him then a peace which is obtained at the price of iniquity. The next time the nation comes to Shechem, it will be taken by force, and so the first sacking of Shechem is a type of the last.

Conclusion

Life for Jacob looked considerably different from the perspective of the graveyard. Now, having been able to trace the hand of God in his life, he can see that life was not one long sequence of sorrows, but a chain of events in the sovereign plan of God to accomplish His purposes.

Sorrow and suffering were seen to be friends, not foes, as Jacob had once concluded. Previously, Jacob sought peace and prosperity as his highest goal. With such goals, acquiescence is preferable to adversity. Jacob had preferred to do nothing when his daughter was forcibly taken rather than run the risk of losing his comfort and security. Holiness was not nearly so dear to Jacob as happiness. Men will never be noted for their character when pleasure is of higher priority than purity.

But now, from the graveside, Jacob has come to realize that it was his suffering and trials which were the instruments of God to draw him to the point of submission to the will of God, to Egypt, to worship, and to spiritual intimacy.

Jacob, too, has come to appreciate the doctrine of election. He discerned at last that God had not chosen him because of what he would accomplish for Him. God did not select him because he had more potential than Esau. Jacob’s accomplishments had all been for naught. He never enjoyed the fruits of his manipulations in getting the birthright from Esau or the blessing from Isaac. He never owned the sheep of his father (so far as I can tell). He left the land of Canaan penniless and had to labor in order to pay the dowry for a wife (cf. 32:10). His prosperity came from his sojourn in Paddan-aram, and not from the peeling of poles, but from the promise of God (cf. 31:11-13). Only when Jacob was powerless and forced to leave the land of promise did he cast himself fully upon the goodness of God and not rest in his own devices. The doctrine of election, now comprehended, brought Jacob to humility and worship.

I would like to suggest that our lives will be much happier if we will come to the conclusions Jacob did, but sooner than he. If we can, like Joseph, see the hand of God in our suffering, then we can rejoice in our tribulations, knowing that God is at work maturing us and teaching us endurance (James 1:2-4). And if we can see that God has not chosen us because of our potential but to demonstrate His power, we will not engage in the fruitless efforts of Jacob:

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ should not be made void.

For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are, that no man should boast before God (I Corinthians 1:17,26-29).

Isn’t it interesting that God chose Jacob to be Israel, the patriarch. Joseph, who by far, is the most pious of the group is passed over in that no tribe is named after him. He is not the forefather of Messiah, but Judah, who had failed with his sons and who was intending to have an illicit relationship with a Canaanite prostitute, is. Neither was Joseph to be the one through whom the priesthood would be named, but Levi, the brother who had deceived the men of Shechem and slaughtered the men of that city. That, my friend, is election. And that is precisely why we should be encouraged. For God may take material as unlikely and unpromising as you and I and do great and wonderful things through us.

May our view of life, be that of Jacob in his dying moments, the view from the grave:

So teach us to number our days, That we may present to Thee a heart of wisdom (Psalm 90:12).

102 In verse 5 Jacob referred to Joseph’s sons in reverse order: Ephraim and Manasseh. This foreshadows the reversal of tradition in giving the birthright to Ephraim, the younger, which will follow later. Already it is in Jacob’s mind to do so.

103 Manasseh and Ephraim were born in the seven years of plenty, before the first year of the famine (41:50). Jacob went down to Egypt somewhere around the end of the second year of the famine (45:6) and lived 17 years after he arrived (47:28). Since Jacob is near death, the sons of Joseph must be about 20 years old. They are certainly not toddlers.

Français

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_48_32k.mp3

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

49. The Purpose of Prophecy (Genesis 49:1-28)

Introduction

As a student in my senior year of seminary, I was required to write a thesis. I chose to write on the themes of the Exodus as they were employed in Isaiah 40-55. During my Christmas break I was trying to put all the pieces together and complete the thesis. At one point I became totally lost in the project and, in the midst of all the particulars, lost sight of the purpose of my paper. Only after consulting with Dr. Waltke, the department chairman, did I regain my perspective and complete the thesis.

I find biblical prophecy to be much the same for many Christians. There is a plethora of particulars, a mountain of minutia, which can overwhelm us and cause us to lose sight of the purpose of prophecy. Some Christians immerse themselves in the details of those “things to come” which comprise prophecy. They carefully chart out the future in even the most obscure and sketchy matters (so far as biblical revelation is concerned). And yet, while prophecy is a worthy matter for serious study and investigation, the details become an obsession while the weightier matters of godly living are brushed aside. In effect some Christians strain out eschatological gnats, while swallowing biblical camels.

Few would suppose that Genesis chapter 49 has much to say to the Christian of the 20th century. The prophecies contained in this text are related to the destiny of the descendants of Jacob. There are, of course, messianic prophecies here, and that we find of interest. But in addition to these we are given insight into the purpose of all prophecy as we consider the purpose which these prophecies had for the sons of Jacob and their descendants.

Jacob’s sons, who were the recipients of these prophecies, would die in Egypt. Like their forefathers, they would not live to see the fulfillment of God’s promises in their lifetime. Why, then, did God predict events which were beyond their lifetime? We may be able to grant that these prophecies had meaning to those who first read them from the pen of Moses. After all, these were the descendants of Jacob, who would begin to realize the prophecies of their forefather. But of what value were the words of Jacob to Rueben, Simeon, Levi, and the rest? I would like to suggest that they were of profit to them in precisely the same way that prophecy (yet unfulfilled) is important to us. Let us first learn from the sons of Jacob, and then consider the implications for ourselves.

Questions Which Provide the Key to this Passage

You may not agree with the answers which I find in this text, but I am convinced that none of us will understand the passage without answering a few key questions.

(1) Did every detail of Jacob’s prophecy come to pass? If not, why not?

(2) What purpose does this prophecy serve for the sons of Jacob, since none of them will live to see the fulfillment of them in Canaan?

(3) What reasons did Moses have for recording this conversation between Jacob and his sons?

(4) Why did Reuben, Simeon, and Levi receive a rebuke from their father for their sinful actions, when Judah, just as great a sinner (chapter 38), received the greatest blessing of all the sons, as he would be the forefather of the Messiah?

(5) What can we learn from these prophecies?

Observations Concerning the
Prophecy of Jacob Regarding His Offspring

Before we give our attention to some of the details of the prophecies of this passage, it would benefit us to look at the passage as a whole. Several characteristics can be identified.

First of all, these are the last words of Jacob. The prophecy is literally the final word of Jacob, spoken with his dying breath.

When Jacob finished charging his sons, he drew his feet into the bed and breathed his last, and was gathered to his people (Genesis 49:33).

The dying words of any man should not be taken lightly, much less those spoken by a patriarch and recorded under the superintendence of the Spirit of God.

Second, this is poetry. We might tend to think that a man’s last words, spoken with great effort, should be disorganized and difficult to follow. A look at this passage in the NASV reveals that we are dealing with Hebrew poetry, for the form is noticeably different from the preceding pages. There are numerous indications that these final words of Jacob were thought out carefully in advance. Jacob’s words are ones that have been carefully planned and probably rehearsed.

Third, this is more than poetry, it is prophecy. While the form is poetry, the substance is prophecy. Jacob’s words reveal “things to come” for his descendants. As a rule,¹⁰⁴ the prophecy is general. It is not intended to spell out the future for Jacob’s sons as individuals, but as tribal leaders. The future which is foretold is the future of the nation as manifested in the twelve tribes (cf. verse 28). Normally the prophecy will not speak of a particular place,¹⁰⁵ nor of a certain person,¹⁰⁶ nor of a specific point in time,¹⁰⁷ but of the character and disposition of the various tribes throughout their history. This forewarns us that we must be careful to look for fulfillment which is too specific.

Fourth, the words spoken by Jacob are a blessing:

All these are the twelve tribes of Israel, and this is what their father said to them when he blessed them. He blessed them, every one with the blessing appropriate to him (Genesis 49:28).

All the sons of Jacob were blessed in that they were to be a part of the nation Israel. All would enter into the land of Canaan and have an inheritance there.

Some would certainly receive a greater blessing than others. Even those who were rebuked by Jacob and whose future was portrayed as dismal were blessed, as we shall point out later.

Fifth, the future which is foretold is not independent of the past, but an extension of it. Moses told us that every one of the sons was given “the blessing appropriate to him” (verse 28). As we think our way through these blessings of Jacob we find that each of them was related to the past. The blessings of Reuben, Simeon, and Levi, were based upon the sins which they had committed in the past. Joseph, on the other hand, had been bitterly attacked, but had remained faithful (verses 23-24). Others found their blessings related to the name they had been given at their birth. Judah, derived from the Hebrew root, ‘to praise’ (cf. 29:35), is now prophesied to be praised by his brothers (49:8). Dan whose name seems to be the participle meaning ‘to judge’ (cf. 30:6), is foretold that he will “judge his People” (49:16). Prophecy, then, is not detached from history, but an extension of it into the future.

Reuben
(49:3-4)

Reuben, by virtue of his position as the first-born of Jacob, should have had pre-eminence over his brothers and the double portion of the inheritance (which was given to Joseph (cf. 48:5,6,22; I Chronicles 5:1-2). But these were taken from Reuben because of his instability:

Reuben, you are my first-born; My might and the beginning of my strength, Preeminent in dignity and preeminent in power. Uncontrolled as water, you shall not have preeminence, Because you went up to your father’s bed; Then you defiled it—he went up to my couch (Genesis 49:3-4).

As suggested earlier, I do not think Reuben’s lust was sexual as much as it was political—it was a lust for power. Reuben, like Satan, was not content with his exalted position and wanted more power, more pre-eminence (cf. Isaiah 14:12ff.; Ezekiel 28:12ff.). He therefore took Bilhah, his father’s concubine, not because of her sexual desirability, but because she was symbolic of the right to rule over the family. To possess the harem of the ruler was to usurp the authority of the ruler (cf. I Kings 2:13f.). Since “the last shall be first” (Mark 10:31) and those who serve shall rule in the kingdom of God (Mark 9:35), Reuben had to be rejected from his position of power and pre-eminence. He who would rule must surely first rule himself.

Simeon and Levi
(49:5-7)

Like Reuben, Simeon and Levi had demonstrated character that was not befitting to godliness:

Simeon and Levi are brothers; Their swords are implements of violence. Let my soul not enter into their council; Let not my glory be united with their assembly; Because in their anger they slew men, And in their self-will they lamed oxen. Cursed be their anger, for it is fierce; And their wrath, for it is cruel. I will disperse them in Jacob, And scatter them in Israel (Genesis 49:5-7).

These two brothers of Dinah were greatly angered by the violation of her purity at the hand of Shechem, but it was not righteous indignation. By their submitting to circumcision they had deceived the men of Shechem, letting them believe that a treaty was being ratified. And in their anger they slew the men of the city. The hamstringing of the oxen was a further evidence of their uncontrolled anger, a detail not mentioned in the account of Genesis 34:25-30. Horses were hamstrung because of their military use, pulling chariots (cf. Joshua 11:6), but oxen were used for peaceful purposes. The hamstringing of these oxen evidenced wanton violence and senseless destruction. The alliance of Simeon and Levi was an unholy one, and thus, like those at Babel who joined together in disobedience (Genesis ll:lff.), they would be dispersed.

Judah
(49:8-12)

After learning of Judah’s folly in Genesis 38 we would not expect him to prosper spiritually, but Jacob’s words speak of a bright future for his descendants:

Judah, your brothers shall praise you; Your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; Your father’s sons shall bow down to you. Judah is a lion’s whelp; From the prey, my son, you have gone up. He couches, he lies down as a lion, And as a lion, who dares rouse him up? The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes, And to him shall be the obedience of the peoples. He ties his foal to the vine, And his donkey’s colt to the choice vine; He washes his garments in wine, And his robes in the blood of grapes. His eyes are dull from wine. And his teeth white from milk (Genesis 49:8-12).

The pre-eminence which was taken from Reuben is clearly transferred to his younger brother, Judah (cf. also I Chronicles 5:2). He would not only rule over his brothers in the days to come,¹⁰⁸ but he would also prevail over his enemies (verse 8). His military might is compared to the strength of a lion (verse 9). Verse 10 has long been held to be a messianic prophecy by both Jews and Christians, but the precise meaning of “Shiloh” is uncertain. It is either a reference to a place, as it is elsewhere in the Old Testament (e.g. Joshua 18:1,8,9; 19;51; I Samuel 1:13, etc.), or it may refer to the person of the Messiah.¹⁰⁹

The prosperity of the tribe of Judah is depicted in verses 11 and 12. He will be so blessed in the vineyard that his vines will be strong enough to hold fast a young donkey, and the produce of the vine will be so abundant that he could, so to speak, wash his garments in its wine. In other words, wine will be as abundant as water. The quantity would be sufficient to more than meet a man’s capacity to consume it, thus the reddening of the eyes (verse 12). The cattle will prosper such that milk will also be readily available (verse 12).

The first six sons referred to are the offspring of Jacob and Leah. The next four are the sons of the concubines of Rachel and Leah. The last two sons are the children of Jacob and Rachel, the wife of his preference.

Zebulun and Issachar
(49:13-15)

The prophecy concerning Zebulun is disturbing, for it has not yet come to pass:

Zebulun shall dwell at the seashore; And he shall be a haven for ships, And his flank shall be toward Sidon (Genesis 49:13).

Kidner comments:

Zebulun’s allotted land in Joshua 19:l0-l6 did not reach the coast, unlike the neighboring Asher’s (cf. Jdg. 5:l7), nor did it closely approach Sidon. But it was near enough to both to be enriched by seaborne trade (to ‘suck the abundance of the seas’, Dt. 33:l9), and the prepositions in the verse could mean ‘towards.’¹¹⁰

In contrast to Judah, who subdued his enemies like a lion, Issachar failed to do so, and as a result, instead submitted to the service of the Canaanites. That which we do not master often tends to become our master.

Dan
(49:16-18)

Our hopes are raised initially, for it seems that the prospects for this tribe are bright, but they are suddenly dashed upon the rocks of reality:

Dan shall judge his people, As one of the tribes of Israel. Dan shall be a serpent in the way, A horned snake in the path, That bites the horse’s heels, So that his rider falls backward (Genesis 49:16-17).

Dan was the first child of Rachel, through Bilhah her handmaid (Genesis 30:1-6). Rachel felt that she would be vindicated through this son, and thus his name suggested that God had heard her cries and had judged in her favor. Dan would judge his people, as one of the sons of Israel, but he would eventually serve more destructive purposes. The incident in Judges 18 serves to reflect the bent which this tribe took. In the listing of the tribes of Israel in Revelation 7:5-8, Dan is omitted.

Verse 18 is an unusual outburst of hope and expectation, but it is difficult to relate to its context: “For thy salvation I wait, O Lord (Genesis 49:18).

I understand it to be a reflection of the faith and hope of Israel, in the light of the prophecies spoken. The prognosis for the tribes of Israel thus far has not been particularly good, with the exception of the tribe of Judah. Through David much of the prophecies will be fulfilled, but the ultimate fulfillment is in the Messiah, who is the son of David. Having finished his prophecy concerning Dan, and thus being halfway through his descendants, Jacob bursts out with these words in verse 18. An expression that the hope of the nation does not lie in the sons he has borne, but in the God who has borne him along throughout his sojourn. Salvation surely will not come from his sons, but from God. Salvation will not come from within, but from without. That, I believe, is the substance of Jacob’s words here.

Gad and Asher
(49:19-20)

As for Gad, raiders shall raid him, But he shall raid at their heels. As for Asher, his food shall be rich, And he shall yield royal dainties (Genesis 49:19-20).

Gad would be continually plagued by his neighbors, but would not be overcome.¹¹¹ Asher,

With a fertile plain and trade routes to the sea, … would ‘dip his foot in oil’ (Duet. 33:24) and produce a notable annual quota for the palace (cf. I Ki. 4:7).¹¹²

Naphtali
(49:21)

Naphtali is a doe let loose, He gives beautiful words (Genesis 49:21).

The portrait of Naphtali’s future is one of unhindered freedom and increase. While the NASV translates verse 21 to read “words” in the second line, it seems preferable to render it more naturally, “fawns,” as in the King James Version. Under Barak, Israel was led to break their bonds (Judges 4-5).

Joseph
(49:22-26)

Joseph, we would all have to agree, was most worthy of any blessing which Jacob might pronounce. While he is greatly blessed by God, he does not have the privilege of being the forefather of Messiah, as does Judah.

Joseph is a fruitful bough, A fruitful bough by a spring; Its branches run over a wall. The archers bitterly attacked him, And shot at him and harassed him; But his bow remained firm, And his arms were agile, From the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob. (From there is the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel), From the God of your father who helps you, And by the Almighty who blesses you With blessings of heaven above, Blessings of the deep that lies beneath, Blessings of the breasts and of the womb. The blessings of your father Have surpassed the blessings of my ancestors Up to the utmost bound of the everlasting hills; May they be on the head of Joseph, And on the crown of the head of the one distinguished among his brothers (Genesis 49:22-26).

Joseph’s future is described as one of fruitfulness and abundance. He had been bitterly attacked, yet remained steadfast (verses 23-24). I believe the primary reference here to be to the rejection and persecution he experienced at the hand of his brethren. Joseph remained firm and the God of Jacob sustained him. His blessings are largely material. He will be pre-eminent among his brothers, but not in the same way as Judah. Because of Ephraim’s pride (Judges 8:1; 12:1) and apostasy (Hosea 4:17; 5:3f.), enjoyment of these blessings was not what it could have been.

Benjamin
(49:27)

Jacob described Benjamin as one who would be fierce and aggressive:

Benjamin is a ravenous wolf; In the morning he devours the prey, And in the evening he divides the spoil (Genesis 49:27).

This side of Benjamin can be seen in Judges 19-21. Moses, in a later pronouncement of blessing, has a more gentle word about Benjamin:

Of Benjamin he said, “May the beloved of the Lord dwell in security by Him, Who shields him all the day, And he dwells between His shoulders” (Deuteronomy 33:12).

Conclusion

Having given a very brief explanation of the prophecies of Jacob concerning each of his sons, we must return to our original questions if we are to gain a grasp of the purposes of prophecy.

(1) Did every detail of Jacob’s prophecy come to pass, as he predicted? I believe we can say with a fair degree of confidence that the answer is no. For example, Zebulun did not dwell at the seashore (verse 13). Also, we must remember that while Levi is rather harshly rebuked by his father here, and he is said to be dispersed among his brethren (verse 7), he is to become the head of the priestly tribe. In this position there is great blessing.

What explanation can we give for the fact that some prophecies are not precisely fulfilled, as we have come to expect? First, let me remind you that God’s purposes for Israel are not yet complete:

For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own estimation, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and thus all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, “THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB.” “AND THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS” (Romans 11:25-27).

The promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were never fully realized in Israel’s history, and thus they are still viewed to be future. How can we be surprised, then, that some prophecies are not yet fulfilled?

Secondly (and this will sound like a great heresy) God never intended to fulfill every prophecy. Before you turn me off and tear up this page, let me explain what I am saying. While most prophecies are specific and certain of their fulfillment, not all are so. Some prophecies are God’s warning of what would come to pass if men did not repent and change their attitudes and actions. This is why Jonah had no intention of prophesying impending judgment to the Ninevites:

When God saw their deeds and that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it. But it greatly displeased Jonah, and he became angry. And he prayed to the Lord and said, “Please Lord, was not this what I said while I was still in my own country? Therefore, in order to forestall this I fled to Tarshish, for I knew that Thou art a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, and one who relents concerning calamity” (Jonah 3:10-4:2).

Some years later, the truth which Jonah knew was clearly stated by the prophet Jeremiah:

At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it, if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it, if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it (Jeremiah 18:7-10).

(2) What purpose does this prophecy serve the sons of Israel, since they will all die before God causes the nation to return to Canaan? For the twelve sons of Jacob, the primary lesson I see is that their character not only affects their own destiny, but also the conduct of future generations and the consequences which that conduct conceives. In other words, the sons of Jacob are reminded of the lesson which Jacob had himself recently learned, that present actions have future results and repercussions. Jacob’s deceptiveness could be seen in his two sons, Simeon and Levi. The prophecies of Jacob remind his sons that what they are tends to shape what the nation will be in years to come. If they live godly lives, this will be a blessing to coming generations. If they are godless, the nation will likewise reap the consequences:

“You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, … Oh that they had such a heart in them, that they would fear Me, and keep all My commandments always, that it may be well with them and with their sons forever! Go, say to them, ‘Return to your tents.’ But as for you, stand here by Me, that I may speak to you all the commandments and the statutes and the judgments which you shall teach them, that they may observe them in the land which I give them to possess.” So you shall observe to do just as the Lord your God has commanded you; you shall not turn aside to the right or to the left. You shall walk in all the way which the Lord your God has commanded you, that you may live, and that it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days in the land which you shall possess (Deuteronomy 5:9, 29-33).

(3) Why did Moses record the words of Jacob? What did the ancient Israelites learn from them? The lesson for those Israelites was precisely that which Jacob sought to teach his sons, that present actions tend to shape the future. The early chapters of Deuteronomy (such as Deut. 5:9, 29-33, quoted above) record Moses’ attempt to underscore the importance of trusting and obeying God, for present and future blessing.

(4) Why did Reuben, Simeon and Levi receive rebuke from their father for their past sins while Judah is greatly blessed? Genesis 38 surely teaches us that Judah, like his brothers, was guilty of misconduct. But there is a significant difference between Judah and Reuben (for example). We are never told that Reuben repented of his evil, or that he changed his conduct significantly. Judah, when faced with his sin, confessed it and forsook it:

And Judah recognized them, and said, “She is more righteous than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah.” And he did not have relations with her again (Genesis 38:26).

Furthermore, Reuben’s response to their distress in Egypt was to “pass the buck” by telling his brothers, in effect, “I told you so” (42:22). Judah, on the other hand, took full responsibility for the safety of Benjamin (43:8-10) and offered himself as a hostage in place of his youngest brother (48:18ff.).

These observations bring us to the purpose of Jacob’s prophecy, and thus the purpose of all prophecy. Here, we can find the meaning of the many prophecies which are yet to be fulfilled, whether in our day or not.

The Purpose of Prophecy

(1) Prophecy focuses our attention upon future things. Our tendency is to live our lives as though there were no future. Israel’s hope, like ours, was a future hope. The ultimate reality is not in things seen, but in things unseen. Faith focuses upon the future rather than the present:

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1).

While at the moment Jacob and his sons lived comfortably in Egypt, there was a grave danger in placing their hope and trust in what Egypt offered them. Israel’s hope and the fulfillment of God’s promises lay in Canaan, not Egypt. The sons of Jacob must look ahead.

We, too, must not fix our hopes on earthly things, in the momentary, temporal pleasures of this life, but in those things which God has yet in store for us:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time (I Peter 1:3-5).

(2) Prophecy focuses not only on the future, however, but on living in the present in the light of the future. The promises of God to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were to prompt purity in the lives of Israel’s sons, not passivity or complacency. The future blessings (and judgments) which are in store for us are intended to encourage Christians to live in peace and purity:

So it was that Moses was prompted to forego passing pleasures for eternal glory:

Prophecy, then, is given not to satisfy our curiosity, but to prompt us to purity. Many Christians have an obsession with prophecy, seeking to fill in their charts and laying out God’s program for the future in minutest detail, as though it were some kind of puzzle to be solved. I fear that it is possible for us to strain eschatological (prophetic) gnats while we swallow biblical camels. While prophecy has future promises, it also contains present implications which are intended to prompt us to purity and piety.

I must make a momentary aside for yet another reason why we must exercise caution in attempting to too precisely plot out all of God’s prophetic program.

We know that while all of the prophecies of our Lord’s first coming were literally and exactly fulfilled, no one, before the fact, could have predicted how it would happen. While the particulars of prophecy were known, the program was not. Dare we suppose that we will see the plan for our Lord’s second coming any more precisely than did those saints of olden days see the first? Let us be careful about a fixation on particulars when the purpose of prophecy is purity.

(3) While we may be certain that specific prophecy (such as the second coming of Christ) will be fulfilled as specifically and literally as were those prophecies of Christ’s first coming, more general prophecies may be given to warn men of the possibility of future things which can be avoided. Judgment did fall upon Ninevah, but it was delayed (from a human point of view) by repentance (Jonah 3:5ff.). And while judgment may fall on others, we may escape through the acceptance of divine grace.

In general we must say that all of the prophecy of Jacob either was fulfilled or will be in the future outworking of God’s plan for Israel. To the descendants of the twelve sons of Jacob, the prophecy was a warning of the potential for following in the footsteps of their father. As sons of their father, they had the predisposition to sin just as their forefathers. These words of warning were also words of hope for, through the grace which God provided, they need not follow in the steps of their fathers. The warning of sin and its consequences was designed to turn men from their sin to the Messiah, through whom deliverance would come. The sons of Jacob, like Jacob himself, must wait for God’s salvation: “For Thy salvation I wait, O Lord” (verse 18).

We should also add that none of the blessings which Jacob pronounced upon his descendants were realized apart from divine grace. No one could inherit grace from their forefathers, they must accept it personally. This was the error of those in Jesus’ day:

They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s offspring, and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, ‘You shall become free’?” Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is the slave of sin. And the slave does not remain forever. If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed” (John 8:33-36).

Nationally, the prophecies of Jacob were certainties; they were sure to be fulfilled sooner or later in that tribe. But individually one could be the exception to the rule of the consequences of sin, or the participant in the divine promises of blessing, by trusting the Messiah who was to come.

The Scriptures abound in passages which speak of days ahead of suffering and eternal torment, of judgment and condemnation:

And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. And death and Hades were thrown in to the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:12-15).

While some will surely face this judgment, you need not. Prophecy such as this is written so that you might turn from sin and judgment to Jesus Christ and the salvation He offers to all who will believe:

By acknowledging your sin and the judgment you deserve, by personally trusting in Jesus Christ as Messiah and Savior, you may avoid the judgment to come and may live in purity and expectation of the promise of God of the blessed hope:

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold the tabernacle of God is among men, and He shall dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be among them, and He shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away” (Revelation 21:1-4).

For the unbeliever, the purpose of prophecy is to warn him of the wages of sin. For the Christian, the purpose of prophecy is to motivate him to live in this life in purity and hope, assured that God has even greater blessings in store for those who will trust and obey.

104 “To such an attempt it is important to premise the following remarks: (1) That these blessings or announcements have respect mainly to posterity not to the persons of the twelve sons of Jacob. (2) That, consequently, the materials of a just interpretation are to be sought for in the subsequent history of these tribes. It is only from the documents furnished in the sacred record, that the leading characteristic traits, and the most important events related of each tribe, can be determined, and the appropriateness of the predictions clearly made out. (3) That the fulfillment of these blessings is to be traced not in any one event, or in any single period of time, but in a continuous and progressive series of accomplishments, reaching down to the latest era of the Jewish polity” George Bush, Notes on Genesis (Minneapolis: James Family Christian Publishers, ((Reprint)) 1979), II, p. 385.

105 In the case of Zebulun, he did not and has not, as yet, possess land on the coast.

106 Blessings were prophesied through Messiah in verse 10, but this is still not very specific.

107 Reuben’s loss of the rights of the first-born was immediate, but the pre-eminence of Judah did not occur immediately. It was partially realized under David, and will be fully so under Messiah, when He comes.

108 It was Joseph who had pre-eminence over his brothers for the remainder of his life, not Judah. Only later would Judah rise to the position of preeminence.

109 “On the precise meaning of this clause it is still unsafe to dogmatize. Shiloh (AV, RV) is not elsewhere a biblical title of the Messiah, nor has it any clear meaning as a word. The alternative construction, ‘until he comes to Shiloh,’ corresponds to no Messianic event. But an early variant, revocalizing a shortened spelling of the consonants as selloh, yields either ‘till what is his comes’ (i.e. ‘till Judah’s full heritage appears’; cf. LXX) or ‘until he comes, to whom [it belongs]’ (cf. RSV). The latter, elliptical though it is, seems to be taken up and interpreted by Ezekiel 2l:26f. (MT. 31 f.) in words addressed to the last king of Judah: ‘Remove the mitre, and take off the crown . . . until he comes whose right it is: and I will give it to him.’ Here is the best support for the Messianic content which Jewish and Christian exegesis has found in the saying from earliest times²” Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), p. 218.

110 Ibid, p. 219.

111 “Four of the six Hebrew words of this verse consist of God’s name and of word-plays on it. This may indicate that AV was right to translate it ‘a troop’ in 30:11; but puns can go by sound as well as sense (cf. the Hebrew of Is. 10:30: ‘poor Anathoth’).” Ibid, p. 220.

112 Ibid.

Français

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_49_32k.mp3

Biblical Topics:

Prophecy/Revelation

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

50. The End of An Era (Genesis 49:29-50:26)

Introduction

In a day when perhaps 80 percent of Americans die in institutions rather than at home, it is difficult to identify with the scene which took place around the deathbed of Jacob centuries ago. Perhaps these brief paragraphs by Joe Bayly will help us to better appreciate the difference in the way death is dealt with (or perhaps not dealt with) in our culture.

One of my early memories is of being led into my grandmother’s room in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, to give her a final kiss. She was dying, I had been told, “so be quiet and behave.”

That scene impresses me today with its Old Testament quality. Grandma, an imposing person, was conscious, slightly raised on a bolster, her white hair braided and carefully arranged on the quilt she had made as a young woman. The bed, a four-poster, was the one in which she had slept for fifty years, in which her four children had been conceived and born.

The wide-boarded floor creaked its familiar creak, the kerosene lamp flickered on the massive bureau, a bouquet of sweet peas from Grandma’s garden made the room faintly fragrant.

The old lady was surrounded by her children and grandchildren. In a few hours she died.

Forty years later my children were with their grandfather when he had his last heart attack. We gave him oxygen, called the doctor, and then the ambulance came. The men put Grandpa on a stretcher, carried him out of the house, and that was the last his grandchildren saw of him. Children are excluded from most hospitals.

In the intensive care unit of the hospital, my wife and I were with him until the visiting hours were over. The mechanics of survival—tubes, needles, oxygen system, electronic pacemaker—were in him and on him and around him.

Grandpa died alone, at night, after visiting hours. His grandsons had no chance to give him a final kiss, to feel the pressure of his hand on their heads.¹¹³

Men and women are granted little dignity in death in our cultural and technological age. There are hospital rooms with personnel continuously coming and going, tubes, tests, monitors and life sustaining (or death-prolonging) machines which make it difficult to even tell when one is really gone.

Jacob died in bed, at home, surrounded by those he most loved, and by those who most loved him. While most of us would prefer to die like Jacob, most may not have that choice. The need for very specialized treatment may force us to die in a hospital. And unexpected death may snatch us from those we love without any warning or opportunity to say farewell.

While the circumstances under which death comes may be beyond our control, our attitude toward death is something which we can determine, even now. I would like to suggest that few decisions are as important as our response to death. And no one chapter in the Old Testament has more to say on the subject of death than the final chapter of the book of Genesis.

One of the most dramatic changes in Jacob’s thinking was his attitude toward death. In the autumn years of his life, he was preoccupied with death. It probably began with the death of his beloved Rachel (Genesis 35:16ff.). The only woman he ever loved was gone. And later her oldest son Joseph appeared to be dead as well. Jacob saw little reason to live. The grave was not an appealing escape from pain, but it was the only one Jacob saw:

When Simeon was detained in Egypt and Benjamin was demanded as part of the integrity of Jacob’s sons, once again Jacob became preoccupied with death:

… My son shall not go down with you; for his brother is dead, and he alone is left. If harm should befall him on the journey you are taking, then you will bring my gray hair down to Sheol in sorrow (Genesis 42:38).

Judah, at least, believed his father (cf. 44:22). When Jacob learned that Joseph was alive and was reunited with him, he felt that now, at last, he was ready to die:

Then Israel said to Joseph, “Now let me die, since I have seen your face, that you are still alive” (Genesis 46:30).

While Jacob felt he was ready to die, God did not. It was to be after 17 years of communion with God and with Joseph in Egypt that Jacob was really ready to die. When we see the detail with which Moses recorded the death of Jacob, we begin to appreciate the importance of his death. And when we recognize that the final chapter of Genesis contains the record of two deaths, we cannot ignore the fact that death is the central theme of the passage. Let us, then, turn our attention to this final chapter in Genesis to learn how Jacob’s attitude toward death has changed. And let us seek to gain a godly view of death and dying.

Jacob Chooses His Cemetery Site
(49:29-33)

So far as I can tell, Jacob’s last words were not the blessing he gave his sons (49:1-28), but his very careful instruction about his burial.

Then he charged them and said to them, “I am about to be gathered to my people; bury me with my fathers in the cave that is in the field of Ephron the Hittite, in the cave that is in the field of Machpelah, which is before Mamre, in the land of Canaan, which Abraham bought along with the field from Ephron the Hittite for a burial site. There they buried Abraham and his wife Sarah, there they buried Isaac and his wife Rebekah, and there I buried Leah—the field and the cave that is in it, purchased from the sons of Heth.” When Jacob finished charging his sons, he drew his feet into the bed and breathed his last, and was gathered to his people (Genesis 49:29-33).

There is no deception about Jacob’s death (verse 29), but its imminence underscores the import of his words. Clear orders are given, but not for the first time (cf. 47:29-31), concerning his burial in Canaan. He was to be taken up to Canaan to the field of Machpelah, and buried in the cave along with his grandfather Abraham, and his father Isaac, and their wives. Leah, too, was buried there, and it would seem that at that time he had hewn out a place in the cave for his own burial (cf. 50:5). A very precise description of the cave, the field, and its location was given so that no mistakes would be made. In that day, contracts were most often (if not always) verbal (cf. 23:3-20), and so this “deed” must be passed on from one generation to the next.

Knowing that he had fulfilled all of his obligations, Jacob drew up his feet into the bed and shortly, if not immediately, died (verse 33). It would seem that death could not claim him until all of his final responsibilities were completed.

The Grief of Joseph and the Egyptians
(50:1-3)

Moses chose, at this point, to draw our attention to the grief of Joseph and the Egyptians, but without a word concerning his brothers. Their response would be specifically described in later verses (15-21).

Then Joseph fell on his father’s face, and wept over him and kissed him. And Joseph commanded his servants the physicians to embalm his father. So the physicians embalmed Israel. Now forty days were required for it, for such is the period required for embalming. And the Egyptians wept for him seventy days (Genesis 50:1-3).

Joseph was probably closer to Jacob than any of his brothers. He wept over his father and kissed him. Then those whose duty it was to care for Joseph’s medical needs¹¹⁴ were commissioned to embalm Jacob (verse 2). This was a lengthy process of 40 days duration (verse 3):

The process of embalming among the ancient Egyptians is thus described by Herodotus, b. ii., c. 86—8, “The body was given to the embalmers, who first took out the brains and entrails and washed them in palm wine impregnated with strong astringent drugs; after which they began to anoint the body with the oil of cedar, myrrh, cinnamon, and cassia; and this lasted thirty days. They next put it into a solution of nitre (saltpetre) for forty days longer, so that they allowed seventy days to complete the embalming; after which they bound it up in swathes of linen besmeared with gum. Being then able to resist putrefaction, it was delivered to the relatives, inclosed in a wooden or paper case somewhat resembling a coffin, and laid in the catacomb or grave belonging to the family, where it was placed in an upright posture against the wall.”¹¹⁵

As a gesture of respect, love, and sympathy, the Egyptians joined Joseph in mourning Jacob’s death a total of 70 days before the burial plan was put into action.¹¹⁶

The Burial of Jacob
(50:4-14)

Embalming was the customary Egyptian preparation of dignitaries for burial. For Jacob’s burial this was especially helpful for it was a long way back to Canaan to the cave where Jacob was to be laid to rest. Perhaps it was due to the same logistical problem (without the availability of embalmers) that forced Jacob to bury Rachel along the way rather than to transport her body to the cave of Machpelah (cf. Genesis 35:16-20).

Joseph’s next task was to secure the permission of Pharaoh to leave Egypt, along with all the adult members of the Israelite nation.

And when the days of mourning for him were past, Joseph spoke to the household of Pharaoh, saying, “If now I have found favor in your sight, please speak to Pharaoh, saying, ‘My father made me swear, saying, “Behold, I am about to die; in my grave which I dug for myself in the land of Canaan, there you shall bury me.”’ Now therefore, please let me go up and bury my father; then I will return.” And Pharaoh said, “Go up and bury your father, as he made you swear” (Genesis 50:4-6).

Joseph is said to have asked other Egyptian officials to petition Pharaoh to leave the land temporarily. This may be due to some kind of ceremonial defilement that would make Joseph’s personal appearance and appeal offensive to Pharaoh. A report of Jacob’s instructions that were sworn as an oath was included in the petition. Joseph reminded Pharaoh that this was Jacob’s strong desire and that he was sworn to carry through with it. This was to assure that Pharaoh would not take offense to Jacob’s burial in Canaan rather than Egypt. Without reservation, Joseph’s request was granted.

Few funeral processions have been so long or so large:

So Joseph went up to bury his father, and with him went up all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his household and all the elders of the land of Egypt, and all the household of Joseph and his brothers and his father’s household; they left only their little ones and their flocks and their herds in the land of Goshen. There also went up with him both chariots and horsemen; and it was a very great company (Genesis 50:7-9).

Joseph was accompanied by a large delegation of high-ranking Egyptian officials, many, if not all of whom, were subordinate to Joseph (cf. 40:40-44). Verse seven seems to indicate that men of various rank and offices went with Joseph to bury Jacob. In addition, all of Jacob’s adult family went along (verse 8). Attached to this large procession was a large company of horsemen and charioteers. Providing transportation and security seems to have been their assignment (cf. verse 9).

Upon reaching Canaan, the ceremony was so awesome it made a profound impression on the inhabitants of the land.

When they came to the threshing floor of Atad, which is beyond the Jordan, they lamented there with a very great and sorrowful lamentation; and he observed seven days mourning for his father. Now when the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, saw the mourning at the threshing floor of Atad, they said, “This is a grievous mourning for the Egyptians.” Therefore it was named Abel-mizraim, which is beyond the Jordan (Genesis 50:10-11).

For an unknown reason, the procession made its way from Egypt to Canaan by means of an unusual route. Rather than traveling to the north and approaching Canaan from the west, they proceeded northeasterly and entered Canaan from the east, from the other side of the Jordan (cf. verse 10).¹¹⁷ Perhaps it is not coincidental that this route would more closely parallel the entrance of Israel into Canaan after the Exodus.

Shortly after crossing the Jordan into Canaan, the procession halted at a place identified as “the threshing floor of Atad” (verse 10). Here a seven day period of mourning was observed which especially attracted the attention of the Canaanites who lived near (verse 11).

The seven day mourning period may have been primarily for the Egyptians, allowing them one final opportunity to grieve with Joseph and his family. From here it would seem that Jacob’s family proceeded on with the body to the cave of Machpelah where Jacob was buried. This would then have been a more private family matter neither participated in by the Egyptians nor viewed with curiosity by the Canaanites.

Moses reminds us that in so doing the charge of Jacob to his sons was exactingly carried out.

And thus his sons did for him as he had charged them; for his sons carried him to the land of Canaan, and buried him in the cave of the field of Machpelah before Mamre, which Abraham had bought along with the field for a burial site from Ephron the Hittite. And after he had buried his father Joseph returned to Egypt, he and his brothers and all who had gone up with him to bury his father (Genesis 50:12-14).

Having completed their mission, this large entourage, the Israelites, would then have returned to the threshing floor of Atad, rejoined their retinue of Egyptians, and returned en masse to Egypt.

Not Grief, But Guilt
(50:15-21)

It is at verse 15 that we see why Moses has described only the grief of Joseph and the Egyptians (cf. 50:1,3). While the death of Jacob undoubtedly occasioned grief on the part of Joseph’s brothers, another emotion seems to have prevailed—guilt.

When Joseph’s brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, “What if Joseph should bear a grudge against us and pay us back in full for all the wrong which we did to him!” (Genesis 50:15).

We cannot fully appreciate the feelings of Joseph’s brothers without recalling the past. For a long time feelings of jealousy and hatred had been growing like a cancer in the souls of Jacob’s “other” sons (cf. 37:2-4). More than once they must have considered a plan to eliminate Joseph, but one thing always prevented it—Jacob. Sometime, somehow, an occasion would arise when Jacob would not be present and then they could get rid of Joseph. The golden opportunity came when Jacob sent Joseph to them, many miles from home, far from the protection he had afforded to his favorite son (cf. 37:12ff.)

Now, years later, they were still plagued with guilt about their treatment of Joseph (cf. 42:21-22). They had not yet fathomed Joseph’s forgiveness, even though 17 years had evidenced nothing but grace. But, they reasoned, that was a time when Jacob still lived. Would Joseph not hesitate to retaliate with his father present even as they had waited for an opportune moment away from their father to eliminate Joseph? Now Jacob was gone for good. Joseph was free to do with them as he pleased. That thought consumed them, even more than the loss of their father. This fear prompted a plan which they hoped would soften Joseph’s anger.

So they sent a message to Joseph, saying, “Your father charged before he died, saying, ‘Thus you shall say to Joseph, “Please forgive, I beg you, the transgression of your brothers and their sin, for they did you wrong.”’ And now, please forgive the transgression of the servants of the God of your father.” And Joseph wept when they spoke to him (Genesis 50:16-18).

A message was conveyed to Joseph, perhaps through Benjamin. Joseph was told that Jacob had yet another charge not yet made known, to which Joseph was urged to submit. Before his death Jacob had requested that Joseph forgive his other sons for their sins. Having sent this message ahead, perhaps by Benjamin, the brothers appeared before Joseph. Humbly they fell before Joseph pledging their obedience and submission (verse 18). They now volunteered to do the very thing which Joseph had predicted (37:5-9) and which they had sought to avoid (37:19-20).

Joseph’s response is a model for all who would respond in a godly way to ungodly persecution:

But Joseph said to them, “Do not be afraid, for am I in God’s place? And as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive. So therefore, do not be afraid; I will provide for you and your little ones.” So he comforted them and spoke kindly to them (Genesis 50:19-21).

Vengeance belongs to God, not man. Joseph would not consider usurping a prerogative which belonged only to God (cf. Romans 12:19; I Thessalonians 5:15; I Peter 4:19). Furthermore, while their attitudes and actions were evil, the result was intended by God for the good of all (verse 20; cf. 45:5-8; Acts 2:23). How could Joseph be angry when good had come of their sin through God’s providence? Instead, Joseph returned kindness for cruelty (cf. Proverbs 25:21-22; Romans 12:20,21). The kindness Joseph had shown while his father was alive would continue he reassured them.

The Death and Burial of Joseph
(50:22-26)

More than 50 years elapsed between verses 21 and 22.¹¹⁸ Moses was intent upon placing the deaths of Jacob and Joseph side by side. Irrelevant details are therefore set aside to take us directly to the death bed of Joseph, and thus to parallel the death of Jacob.

Now Joseph stayed in Egypt, he and his father’s household, and Joseph lived one hundred and ten years. And Joseph saw the third generation of Ephraim’s sons; also the sons of Machir, the son of Manasseh, were born on Joseph’s knees. And Joseph said to his brothers, “I am about to die, but God will surely take care of you, and bring you up from this land to the land which He promised on oath to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob.” Then Joseph made the sons of Israel swear, saying, “God will surely take care of you, and you shall carry my bones up from here.” So Joseph died at the age of one hundred and ten years; and he was embalmed and placed in a coffin in Egypt (Genesis 50:22-26).

Joseph’s life was full at the age of 110 (verse 22). He lived long enough to hold his great-great-grandsons on his knee (verse 23). Knowing that the day of his death drew near, Joseph like Jacob, charged his brothers concerning his burial. He did not wish his body to be carried back to Canaan, as Jacob had insisted.

While the burial of Jacob and Joseph are quite different, they are both reflective of the same faith and hope.¹¹⁹ Both believed that Israel’s blessings in the future would be realized in the land of promise. Both were embalmed—Jacob so that his body could be carried on the long journey to Canaan by his sons, Joseph so that his body could wait for the exodus at which time his bones would be returned to Canaan, borne by the Israelites:

And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him, for he had made the sons of Israel solemnly swear, saying, “God shall surely take care of you; and you shall carry my bones from here with you” (Exodus 13:19).

Jacob’s death occasioned a journey to Canaan where the Israelites once again beheld the land of promise to which they (in their offspring) would return at the exodus. The burial of Jacob reminded his descendants of their final home, and that Egypt was only a place of sojourn.

Joseph, on the other hand, was a continual reminder that some day the exodus would occur. Day after day in Egypt, that coffin spoke of Israel’s future and Joseph’s faith. And day after weary day, the Israelites trudged through the wilderness carrying the casket of Joseph. Both men, Jacob and Joseph, determined that their death and burial would be a testimony to their faith and a stimulus to the faith of their offspring.

Conclusion

And so we come to the end of an era and to the end of a magnificent book. But two funerals do not seem to be a very bright ending for a book. Man’s origin began in the garden of perfection and beauty in paradise. It ends in two coffins, one in Canaan, the other in Egypt. What a dismal conclusion. Moses could never make it as a writer in our times.

But wait a moment; that is just the point. Genesis chapter 50 is not the end of the story; it is only the end of the book of Genesis. Moses has yet four books to write, and God has ordained another 61 before the final chapter is written. And in the final chapters of the book of the Revelation we once again return to paradise.

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He shall dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be among them, and He shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away” (Revelation 21:1-4).

Death, Moses would have us learn, is not the end. That was what Jacob had foolishly believed for many years. That is why he was so eager for it to come. He looked forward to death as the end of his earthly woes. So do all who choose the way of suicide to cease from suffering. But the tragedy of such death is that it is not the end at all. It is really only a beginning of an irreversible eternity.

Some years ago I was given the task of taking a young man to the hospital who had unsuccessfully attempted to take his life. On the way I asked him what he believed happened after death. He told me that he believed in reincarnation. I shared with him the verse which says, “… it is appointed unto men to die once, and after this comes judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).

He had to admit that if this verse were true, suicide thrust its victim into irreversible judgment. Reincarnation is a tempting thought, for it encourages us to end one life with the hope that a better one may follow.

During those years spent in Egypt, Jacob came to a very different view of death. No longer did he consider death the end of everything. Even if a man were to lose his cherished son, as God had commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, God could raise him again. There was life after death:

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac; and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; it was he to whom it was said, “IN ISAAC YOUR SEED SHALL BE CALLED.” He considered that God is able to raise men even from the dead; from which he also received him back as a type (Hebrews 11:17-19).

Jacob had come to see that even if God did not resurrect the dead (in the way Abraham expected Him to raise Isaac), there was still life after death.

And Abraham breathed his last and died in a ripe old age, an old man and satisfied with life; and he was gathered to his people (Genesis 25:8).

And Isaac breathed his last and died, and was gathered to his people, an old man of ripe age; and his sons Esau and Jacob buried him (Genesis 35:29).

When Jacob finished charging his sons, he drew his feet into the bed and breathed his lost, and was gathered to his people (Genesis 49:33).

The expression, “to be gathered to his people” was no mere euphemism for death; it was an ancient expression of the patriarchs hope of life after death. These men found little comfort in having their bones in close proximity to those of other relatives. They viewed their death as the occasion to be rejoined with those whose death had separated the living from the dead.

When our Lord quoted the statement of God the Father, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Matthew 22:32), He did so to prove there is life after death. For, otherwise, He would have said “I was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”!

May I suggest to you that the way you view death makes all the difference in the world. If it is the end of everything, then there is not any need to seek heaven or to shun hell. Suicide is a tempting option whenever life doesn’t seem to be going our way. If there is no life after death, the world is right when it says that we should “… eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.”

But if we view death as a beginning rather than the end, then what lies after death must surely compel us to face eternity squarely, before death. And, once we are rightly related to God by faith in His Son, we need not fear death. We need not avoid talking about it. And, in one sense, we can welcome it, for it promises us a time when we shall be intimately and eternally with God and with those in the faith who have been separated from us by death.

Let not your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. In my Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you, for I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also (John 14:1-3).

Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord—for we walk by faith, not by sight—we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord (II Corinthians 5:6-8).

But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better (Philippians 1:23).

But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve, as do the rest who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words (I Thessalonians 4:13-18).

Do you notice how candidly both Jacob and Joseph spoke of their death? That is not so with unbelievers. They avoid the subject with a passion. All kinds of euphemisms are employed so that death’s realities need not be faced. We do not speak of the dead, but of the departed; they are not buried, but interred. People do not die; they pass away. We do not bury the dead in graveyards, but in memorial parks.

Both Jacob and Joseph called their relatives to them, where they unhesitatingly spoke of their death and gave clear instructions regarding their burial. Today we do everything possible to conceal the truth from the dying. When the father of one of my best friends was dying of cancer, he would persistently ask his son, “Are they telling me everything?”

A number of years ago I was asked to visit a woman in the hospital. No one told me she was dying. I just knew it. She and I never avoided the subject of death, and it was obvious to me that she wished to talk about it. When she died, I was asked to conduct her funeral. I shall never forget my surprise at hearing the husband repeat to his wife’s friends and family, “She never knew she was dying.” I never knew she shouldn’t know. Her husband found comfort in concealing the truth from her.

The tragedy with this effort to deny death is that those last few days or hours are spent in deception. Rather than say our farewells and use our dying breath to speak words of lasting import, we dwell on trivia, which seems “safe” and remote from such unpleasant matters as death. And rather than facing the eternity which lies only a breath away, we carefully avoid it.

Most believers should not fall into the trap of denying death or avoiding a frank discussion of it. But there is a way in which we can also lose the joy of those last moments. There are some Christians who would say that sickness and death need not be endured if we would only have the faith to be healed.

Now I want to be quick to say that God can and does heal, and I am grateful for it. But there is no promise of healing or deliverance from suffering for all. I am inclined to believe that such instances are clearly the exception, rather than the rule.

But there are those who would walk into a hospital room and assure the dying that, if they have sufficient faith, God will raise them up and restore them, free from suffering, sickness, and death. Often, the ailing grasp at any hope of deliverance, not out of faith, but out of fear. Often, there is a bold pronouncement of faith and assurance of healing. There may be a period of remission. But often, the disease continues to consume the life of the terminally ill. Now, in the light of the almost certain approach of death, there can be only one conclusion. If one can be healed if he or she has sufficient faith, and they are not being healed, that person must not have sufficient faith.

Now, rather than face death with honesty and acceptance, the ill can only question his faith. And if his faith was inadequate to heal, can it be sufficient to save? The last days are spent in doubt and despair. There is no testimony, no joy, no worship—only despair.

Let us look at death as Jacob and Joseph. Let us see it not as the end, but the beginning. Let us, by faith, look forward to being reunited with those we love (I Thessalonians 4:13-18) and dwelling with our Savior (John 14:1-3), forever in His presence and experiencing the things he has prepared for us.

Finally, Joseph’s brothers, like Jacob (until his final days), felt that death was the end. They believed that God would care for them only so long as Jacob lived. They came to learn that God’s care was certain when neither Jacob nor Joseph were around. God’s program will never be contingent upon the presence of any one man, of any one church or organization. God’s plan and program is as certain as He is sovereign, as enduring as He is eternal.

Is it possible that you are uncomfortable with the subject of this scripture? Is death a matter you would prefer to put off? I felt the same way before I came to know Him who is not only the Way and the Truth, but the Life (John 14:6). I can remember, as a child, passing by a cemetery on the way to my grandparents. I always tried to concentrate on something on the other side of the road, hoping I would not have to be reminded of death. The fear of death is evidence of our uncertainty as to what lies beyond the grave. That fear can be denied, suppressed, or camouflaged. But it cannot be avoided indefinitely. The fear of death is overcome only by the faith of men like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who trusted in the one Who would eventually overcome it.

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?” (John 11:25-26).

For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death (I Corinthians 15:25-26).

“O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?” The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord (I Corinthians 15:55-58).

And death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14-15).

113 Joe Bayly, The Last Thing We Talk About (Elgin, Illinois: David C. Cook Publishing Co., 1973), pp. 29-30. This book, formerly titled, The View From A Hearse, is one of the finest books on death and dying on a non-technical level.

114 “Since embalmers and physicians were members of distinct professions, Joseph’s use of the latter has seemed anomalous to some writers. J. Vergote, however, points out that physicians were more than competent to perform the task, and that Joseph might well have wished to avoid the magico-religious rites of the professional embalmers.” Derek Kidner, Genesis An Introduction and Commentary (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967).

115 George Bush, Notes on Genesis (Minneapolis: James Family Christian Publishers, 1979 (Reprint), II, p. 419.

116 “The mourning period for Jacob, as Von Rad observes, was, significantly, very little short of the seventy-two days observed for a Pharaoh.” Kidner, Genesis, p. 223.

117 “This site is unknown, but its position implies a detour round the Dead Sea to approach Hebron from the north-east instead of the south-west. Presumably there was political unrest at some point, which the cavalcade’s arrival would have been in danger of aggravating. At the Exodus the direct route would again be impracticable (Ex. 13:17). Ibid.

118 “This last paragraph of Genesis refers to events fifty-four years after the preceding verse.” W, H. Griffith Thomas, Genesis: A Devotional Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946), p. 486.

119 The similarity between Jacob and Joseph is that both gave specific instructions concerning their burial arrangements. There is an interesting difference too. Jacob commanded his sons concerning his death (49:29,33), but Joseph charged his brothers (50:24). Thus we see that Joseph was outlived by his older brothers. God wanted to teach these men that He would care for them without Jacob or Joseph.

Français

https://feeds.bible.org/deffinbaugh/genesis/deff_gen_50_32k.mp3

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras: