Genesis, Start To Finish

[Odë:hgöd]

~
● Gen 19:29 . .Thus it was that, when God destroyed the cities of the Plain and
annihilated the cities where Lot dwelt, God was mindful of Abraham and removed
Lot from the midst of the upheaval.

Lot was very fortunate to have an uncle like Abraham. Funny though, I don't
remember Abraham praying specifically for Lot. In fact Abraham's intercession was
nondescript, targeting only the citizens of Sodom in general, rather than Lot in
particular.

Lady GaGa once sang that a boy she liked couldn't read her poker face. Well, God
looks on the heart instead of one's face. He saw through Abraham's silence,
detected the old man's real concerns, and commiserated with him. That's why
believers should always be candid with God in their prayers. He will find out what's
really on our minds no matter; so we might just as well get down to business and
spell it out to begin with. (cf. Heb 4:16)

● Gen 19:30a . . Lot went up from Zoar and settled in the hill country with his two
daughters

Apparently Zoar didn't turn out to be the Pleasantville that Lot hoped it might be.

The word for "hill country" basically means a mountain or range of hills. It's the
very same word used to describe the kind of terrain where Noah's ark came
to rest in Gen 8:4, except there it's plural.

Why Lot didn't move back on up to his uncle's ranch is uncertain. You know, that
kind of makes me wonder why Lot stayed in Sodom after his uncle rescued him
from the clutches of El Ched. Surely they must have talked about Lot returning to
the highlands with Abraham where he and his family would be safer.

Genesis doesn't specify just exactly which direction Lot went. Both the east and the
west from the Jordan valley are hilly. But it was most likely the eastern side, that
is: if a later mention of Lot's domain is an indication.

"When all the warriors among the people had died off, the Lord spoke to me,
saying: You are now passing through the territory of Moab, through Ar. You will
then be close to the Ammonites; do not harass them or start a fight with them. For
I will not give any part of the land of the Ammonites to you as a possession; I have
assigned it as a possession to the descendants of Lot." (Deut 2:16-19)

Moab was a district east of the Dead Sea, extending from a point some distance
north of it and down to its southern end and is today part of the Hashemite
Kingdom of Jordan. Its eastern boundary was indefinite, being the border of the
desert; which is irregular. The length of the territory was about 50 miles and the
average width about 30. It's a high tableland, averaging some 3,000 ft. above the
level of the Mediterranean and 4,300 ft. above that of the Dead Sea.

The aspect of the land, looking at it from the western side of the Dead Sea, is that
of a range of mountains whose western side plummets very abruptly down to the
Jordan valley. Deep chasms lead down from the tableland to the Dead Sea shore,
the principal one being the gorge of the river Arnon, right across from the kibbutz
at En Gedi.

Ruth was from Moab, and it was also where Naomi lost her husband. The Moabites
were Abraham's kin because they're the prosterity of not only his nephew Lot; but
also of his dad Terah (Gen 11:27). Unfortunately, there has been some bad blood
over the years between Lot's family and the people of Israel. The most notable
incident being when King Balak hired that wicked prophet for profit Balaam to curse
Israel as they traveled past his country prior to entering the promised land after
their exodus from Egypt. (Num 22-24)

● Gen 19:30b . . for he was afraid to dwell in Zoar;

Well I can believe that just from media reports about Haiti's earthquake. Large
scale disasters just seem to breed looting, theft, vandalism, and violence. That
entire region around Sodom was in utter chaos and the local farms and ranches
were destroyed so that fresh food was scarce. And if Zoar's morals were anything
like Sodom's then Lot probably figured it would be next on God's hit list.

Imagine the situation if all of a sudden supermarkets had nothing to sell you. No
meat, no produce, no milk, no cereal, no rice, no pasta, no yogurt, no eggs, no
bottled water, no batteries, no bathroom tissue, no soap, no nothing. Whatever
people have, they'll hoard. And the have-nots would then begin to take it away
from those who have. In Lot's day, there was no such thing as FEMA, the National
Guard, the Red Cross, nor any other kinds of relief organizations. When the
ancients were beset by droughts and famines; the poor often had no choice but to
migrate to new diggings, indenture themselves, or turn to robbery and theft.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
● Gen 19:30c . . and he and his two daughters lived in a cave.

It's really not too bad to start out in a cave-- kind of like being born in a barn --but
it's sad to end up in one at the end of your days with nothing to show for all of the
years of your life. My own dad was a case in point. He chased the brass ring all his
life, and ended up dying penniless on welfare. Lot and the girls became homeless
drifters.

● Gen 19:31 . . And the older one said to the younger: Our father is old, and there
is not a man on earth to consort with us in the way of all the world.

It's doubtful the girls meant the whole planet was void of men; probably just the
region where their cave was. It was isolated and lonely; and the nearest cities
where they might have met men were either now gone or simply unsuitable for
polite society. The girls became concerned that their dad would pass away with no
heir to carry on his name. I haven't a clue why they'd be concerned about that
because to be honest, there was certainly no advantage to being related to Lot
right then; he was flat broke with no estate to bequeath whatsoever.

Poor things. With no television, or radio, or newspapers, they had no way of
knowing what was going on elsewhere in the world or where to go for help.
Ironically; hardly fifty miles from there, right across the valley, was Abraham's
camp. He had at least four hundred men mature enough to go to war-- and
certainly many more than that who would just love to meet Lot's girls. But for some
reason the lasses didn't think of them.

Some people have assumed that Lots daughters were very young because Lot had
said back in Gen 19:8 that they had not known a man. Duh. Look where they lived.
Sodom. Those girls were at risk of becoming old maids in that city. Other of Lots
daughters were married, but apparently, there just wasn't enough men to go
around.

It's interesting that the girls seemed to think that oedipal relations weren't a bad
thing, which is no doubt because of their upbringing in a society that apparently
thought nothing of it.

● Gen 19:32 . . Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him,
that we may maintain life through our father.

It's certainly to Lot's credit that he would never approve of their plan while sober.
We might wonder what they were doing with wine. Of all the things to take with
them, why that? Well; it was part of their first-aid kit. In those days, wine was an
essential; and not just for boozing it up. (e.g. Luke 10:34, and 1Tim 5:23)

It's amazing that some people have actually accused recently-widowed Lot of
raping his own daughters. Webster's defines rape as: forceful sexual intercourse
with a woman by a man without her consent. The element of force is missing in this
event; and the girls were certainly consenting since the whole sordid affair was
their own idea. You know whose consent is missing? Lot's. This is clearly a case of
male rape if ever there was one.

Then there are others who attempt to invalidate the truthfulness of the narrative by
claiming a man Lot's age couldn't possibly breed two nights in a row. Maybe in our
own day that might be true for some men, but in Lot's day men were a lot more
virile than they are now. Jacob had to accommodate four women in his home, often
on consecutive nights; and he was well over seventy-five years old at the time.

● Gen 19:33 . .That night they made their father drink wine, and the older one
went in and lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she
rose.

Well now; there's something about the birds and bees that wasn't widely taught in
public school Health classes when I was a kid. It's actually possible for women to
rape men because the male reproductive system can be stimulated to function even
when men don't even think about it. Those parts of a man's body pretty much have
a mind of their own, so to speak, and it's not impossible for even men with no
feelings below the neck to father children. Apparently, the male reproductive
system has a back-up control center separate from the brain down low on the spine
somewhere. I recall reading about that in either Discover or Scientific American, but
can't remember the specifics.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
● Gen 19:34-38 . .The next day the older one said to the younger: See, I lay with
Father last night; let us make him drink wine tonight also, and you go and lie with
him, that we may maintain life through our father. That night also they made their
father drink wine, and the younger one went and lay with him; he did not know
when she lay down or when she rose.

. . .Thus the two daughters of Lot came to be with child by their father. The older
one bore a son and named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today. And
the younger also bore a son, and she called him Ben-ammi; he is the father of the
Ammonites of today.

The Ammonites' and the Moabites' land overlapped somewhat. Ammon's land was
more or less between the Arnon and the Jabbok rivers. The center of it would be
just about where the modern cities of Madaba and 'Amman exist today.

At this point, Lot's adventures disappear from the pages of Bible history. His death
and burial aren't recorded; nor any more of his exploits. The lives of Lot's
daughters disappear from the pages of Scripture too. Just think. They came from a
wealthy, privileged family and ended up foraging and surviving practically like
human wildlife all because their dad and mom just had to live in Sodom; a place
whose morals totally vexed Lot, yet he chose to raise his family there anyway.
(2Pet 2:6-8)

** Christ's grandmother Ruth was a Moabite woman; ergo: Christ was biologically
related to Abraham's nephew just as much as he was related to Abraham. However,
in the Bible, the fathers determine a male child's tribal identity rather than the
mothers so you won't find Lot in Christ's genealogies because the official line to
Jesus is through Abraham's son Isaac rather than his nephew Lot.

● Gen 20:1a . . Abraham journeyed from there to the region of the Negeb and
settled between Kadesh and Shur.

In Moses' day, Kadesh was a jumping off point just prior to crossing over Wadi
Araba into the region of Moab. (Num 20:14-16)

According to freytag & berndt's map of Israel/Sinai: Kadesh is located
approximately 46 miles southwest of Beer-sheva near El Quseima Egypt about 15
miles south of the town of Nizzana. Just northeast is the wilderness of Shur; a
region adjoining the Mediterranean to the north, and the Suez Canal to the west.
Shur extends somewhat south along the eastern shore of the Gulf of Suez.

The very first mention of Kadesh was during El Ched's punitive expedition in
Canaan. (Gen 14:7)

No doubt the En-mishpatite people returned to Kadesh and told everyone about the
heroic sheik who defeated the Babylonian contingent and set them free from El
Ched's grasp. So Abraham was a legend in that area and everyone greeting him
would very likely show him much respect.

Abraham didn't actually settle in Kedesh itself, but rather, nearby. He may've been
camped in the exact spot where Ms. Hagar met the angel of the Lord in chapter 16;
and at this point, she's still living at home with Abraham and Sarah.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
● Gen 20:1b . .While he was sojourning in Gerar,

Gerar hasn't been fully identified, but the site may be along one of the branches of
Wady Sheri'a, at a place called Um Jerrar, near the coast southwest of Gaza and 9
miles from it. Gerar was apparently a prosperous city situated along a major
caravan route; and Abraham was by this time a wealthy and powerful chieftain who
would quite naturally make periodic trips to Gerar's railhead to auction off some of
his livestock; and in turn, purchase much needed goods and hardware to supply his
ranch. Gerar's location along the Mediterranean seaboard also made it a lucrative
city in trade with foreign merchants.

Genesis indicates that Gerar belonged to the Philistines, and it leads us to assume
that Abimelech was their king, but experts are quite certain that Philistines didn't
occupy this region until after the time of Abraham; in fact only a short time before
the Exodus. It's likely, however, that the author of Genesis would quite naturally
refer to the region as it was known in his own day. The town certainly existed in the
Philistine period, because it's mentioned in connection with Asa, who defeated the
Ethiopian host under Zerar and pursued them in their flight unto Gerar (2Chrn
14:13). In addition to Um Jerrar, another place in the vicinity known as Jurf el
Jerrar has been thought by some to be the site of Gerar.

According to ERETZ Magazine, issue 64, Abimelech's land is an ample valley with
fertile land and numerous springs of water.

● Gen 20:2 . . Abraham said of Sarah his wife: She is my sister. So King Abimelech
of Gerar had Sarah brought to him.

Does this sound familiar? Abraham has lied about his relationship to Sarah more
than once. If he really believed God's promise to make of him a great nation, then
he wouldn't worry about anybody killing him because dead men don't become great
nations without children. Yes, he had Ishmael. But God said he and Sarah would
have a boy together named Isaac. That boy was yet to be born. So Abraham will
stay alive to engender Isaac.

We might ask: what in the world did Abimelech want with a woman Sarah's age
anyway. She was at least 89 years old by this time. But God had given Abraham's
wife renewed vitality to bring a child into the world. So I don't think Sarah looked
her age at all. I think she looked a whole lot younger; and with creamy, glowing
skin too. But it could also be that Abimelech was up in years himself so that a girl of
89 would look pretty good. At my own current age of 78, a woman in her 50's is a
chick to me.

● Gen 20:3 . . But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night and said to him: You
are to die because of the woman that you have taken, for she is a married woman.

This was an extremely dangerous situation for Sarah now that she was fertile.
Abraham's wife was destined to bear Isaac and there could be no question about
who the father was. It had to be Abraham. So if Abimelech were allowed to sleep
with her, it would never be conclusive that Abraham was the true biological father.

● Gen 20:4a . . Now Abimelech had not approached her.

It wasn't unusual in the ancient world for new additions to a harem to undergo a
period of beautification; like Esther did. But I think something else happened. God
may have tampered with Abimelech's ability to breed. In verse 17 it's revealed that
God fixed it so no one in Abimelech's house could have children, including him. Do I
have to spell it out? Hint: the problem can sometimes be remedied with Viagra;
which wasn't available in that day.

● Gen 20:4b . . He said: O Lord, will You slay people even though innocent?

There is an important principle in play here; and it's this: ignorance is no excuse.
Though Abimlech wasn't aware of that principle; God was and saved the man's life
by stopping him before he inadvertently crossed a line. Compare Num 15:27-29
where Israel's covenanted law stipulates that even when people sin inadvertently
they have to bring a sin offering to the Levites when the offender's conduct is
discovered to be a transgresson. (cf. Luke 12:47-48)

"Who can understand his errors? Cleanse me from secret faults." (Ps 19:12)

The "secret faults" about which the psalmist prayed weren't skeletons in his closet;
but rather, sins about which he was totally unaware.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
● Gen 20:5 . . He himself said to me: She is my sister; and she also said: He is my
brother. When I did this, my heart was blameless and my hands were clean.

I can just about guarantee that Abimelech was developing a very strong dislike for
the Abrahams right about now. He knew of Abraham's prosperity and about his skill
in war. But what he hadn't known till now was that Abraham could be a bit
dishonest at times. You can bet that really ticked Abimelech off. He just never
expected a man like Abraham to pull a stunt like that. And the wife was in on it too!
They were like grifters setting up a mark for a sting. That had to agitate the old boy
just a bit; don't you think?

● Gen 20:6 . . And God said to him in the dream: I knew that you did this with a
blameless heart, and so I kept you from sinning against Me. That was why I did not
let you touch her.

If Abimelech had touched Sarah, God would have taken it very personal. Those
kinds of sins are the very worst because it's one thing to appear in court for
stealing a car, but it's quite another to appear for stealing the judge's car. In other
words: a sin against God is a trespass rather than just an ordinary act of conduct
unbecoming.

● Gen 20:7 . .Therefore, restore the man's wife-- since he is a prophet, he will
intercede for you --to save your life. If you fail to restore her, know that you shall
die, you and all that are yours.

This is the Bible's very first appearance of a prophet; which in Hebrew basically
means an inspired man; viz: a man influenced, moved, and/or guided by a divine
connection. There's no record of Abraham ever foretelling future events like Isaiah
and Habakkuk. So then, just because someone is inspired doesn't necessarily mean
they're some sort of prognosticator.

But I don't think Abimelech was much impressed with Abraham's inspiration. The
man was now a proven liar; and lost whatever credibility he might have once had in
Gerar.

However, do you think Abimelech needed to be told twice? No way! He got on it
lickety split at first light. But not because he feared Abraham. No, because he
feared Abraham's deity. Maybe Abraham's word was no good; but Abimelech knew
from personal experience that the word of Abraham's deity is certainly good and
Abimelech really took it to heart.

● Gen 20:8a . . Early next morning, Abimelech called his servants and told them all
that had happened;

Under normal circumstances Abimelech probably wouldn't have bothered to tell
them what was going on. But since they were all in the same boat as he, and all
inflicted with the same reproductive malady, I think he felt they deserved an
explanation. I think he also wanted to set their minds at ease about their condition
so they would know it wasn't permanent if only they sent Sarah back to her
husband; a move which they would certainly question if he didn't give them a
reason why.

● Gen 20:8b . . and the men were greatly frightened.

They had good reason to be frightened. God gave them a token that He meant
business by tampering with their ability to breed. So they knew something serious
was afoot and that their king's nightmares weren't just bad dreams brought on by
cheap Russian vodka tainted with fallout from Chernobyl.

● Gen 20:9a . .Then Abimelech summoned Abraham and said to him: What have
you done to us? What wrong have I done that you should bring so great a guilt
upon me and my kingdom?

No doubt Gerar's top dawg was feeling a bit indignant about being taken as a victim
of entrapment.

● Gen 20:9b-10 . .You have done to me things that ought not to be done. What,
then-- Abimelech demanded of Abraham --was your purpose in doing this thing?

If Abimelech was suspecting a coup d'état, he certainly had good reason to.

** The ironic part of this is the scolding that Abimelech laid on the sacred couple.
Abraham was a prophet. Prophets are supposed to be not only inspired; but also
exemplary. But in this case, a pagan, was more righteous than a "holy" man.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
● Gen 20:11 . . I thought-- said Abraham --surely there is no fear of God in this
place, and they will kill me because of my wife.

Abimelech didn't dispute that point; so I think it's probably safe to assume
Abraham was correct in his estimation of Gerar's culture.

● Gen 20:12a . . And besides, she is in truth my sister,

His statement was in fact truth but not the whole truth: it was a half truth.
Although Abraham's facts technically weren't misinformation; they were missing
information and a deliberate deception, told with the intent to mislead.

● Gen 20:12b . . my father's daughter though not my mother's;

The covenant that Moses' people later agreed upon with God, forbids intimacy
between half-siblings.

"The nakedness of your sister-- your father's daughter or your mother's, whether
born into the household or outside --do not uncover their nakedness." (Lev 18:9)

That rule mandates excommunication for men who marry their half sister. And
within the terms and conditions of the covenant; there is neither forgiveness nor
atonement for it.

"If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, so that
he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace; they shall be
excommunicated in the sight of their kinsfolk. He has uncovered the nakedness of
his sister, he shall bear his guilt." (Lev 20:17)

However, Israel's covenanted law doesn't have ex post facto jurisdiction. Abraham
lived many years before it was enacted; so he was immune to its taboos and
punishments (Deut 5:2-4, Gal 3:15-18). That's an important Bible axiom; viz:
when something isn't illegal; then it doesn't go on one's record as a broken law.
(Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13)

● Gen 20:13 . . So when God made me wander from my father's house, I said to
her: Let this be the kindness that you shall do me-- whatever place we come to,
say there of me: He is my brother.

Right about here Abimelech probably began scratching his head and wondered what
kind of crazy religion Abraham practiced anyway. And he probably wondered what
in the world God ever saw in this man to go to such lengths to protect him. A liar is
not a good influence for God. It disgraces God, and makes His religion look stupid
to outsiders.

● Gen 20:14-15 . . Abimelech took sheep and oxen, and male and female slaves,
and gave them to Abraham; and he restored his wife Sarah to him. And Abimelech
said: Here, my land is before you; settle wherever you please.

In other words: I don't care where you go as long as it's a great ways off from me!

Abimelech didn't owe Abraham a single penny for anything. And God didn't order
him to make restitution. He isn't trying to gain Abraham's good will by these gifts.
With friends like Abraham; who needs enemies? But rather; he was showing God
his intentions to mean well by Abraham; in spite of Abraham's foul deed.

● Gen 20:16 . . And to Sarah he said: I herewith give your brother a thousand
pieces of silver; this will serve you as vindication before all who are with you, and
you are cleared before everyone.

Abimelech is really too kind. By the money, he told everyone that it was just a
misunderstanding. In paying a fine to Abraham, he is publicly apologizing for taking
the man's wife home with him; and Sarah's honor was protected because it is
saying that she wasn't promiscuous like some woman I could name who have an
itch to sleep with men in power.

● Gen 20:17-18 . . Abraham then prayed to God, and God healed Abimelech and
his wife and his slave girls, so that they bore children; for the Lord had closed fast
every womb of the household of Abimelech because of Sarah, the wife of Abraham.

Abraham's ultimate chagrin was having to pray for the very people whose lives he
almost ruined with his scheme.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
● Gen 21:1 . . God took note of Sarah as He had promised, and God did for Sarah
as He had spoken.

Because God's word is sometimes slow and long in coming to pass, people are often
inclined to scoff at what it says and lose confidence in His testimony. The Word told
Noah that a flood was coming. Well . . it was many years before it arrived and by
the time it came, only Noah and his family were prepared for it.

God also promised a Messiah. But so many years have gone by since, that many
now believe one will never come. God also promised He will personally round up the
people of Israel and lead many of them back to their own land, and restore their
covenanted boundaries, where they will become the center of world power and the
seat of religious instruction. Some, giving up on that possibility, have suggested
that today's troubled Israeli occupation is the fulfillment of that promise.

Abraham came into Canaan when he was seventy-five, and Sarah sixty-five. That
was twenty five years before this section. He is now one-hundred, and she ninety.
Women that age cannot produce children. So no one can ever give credit to those
two for engendering Isaac. Although Isaac was conceived and born in the natural
way, he was not a natural child. The credit must be given to a miracle. The people
of Israel exist today only because El Shaddai willed them into existence.

● Gen 21:2a . . Sarah conceived

That's not all that happened. The author said back in Gen 18:11 that Sarah's
periods had stopped. So sometime prior to Isaac's conception, her periods came
back. I wish I could have seen the look of shocked excitement and incredible joy in
their faces when she showed Abraham the blood. He may have been grossed out a
little, but I can guarantee you he was extremely thrilled because it meant Sarah's
plumbing was back up to speed and fully functioning.

● Gen 21:2b-3 . . and bore a son to Abraham in his old age, at the set time of
which God had spoken. Abraham gave his newborn son, whom Sarah had borne
him, the name of Isaac.

This is now the second son of Abraham for whom God chose the name. The first
was Ishmael. That's quite an honor. It may not set well for many parents though. I
think most of us would rather pick names for our own children ourselves; but
Abraham is pretty good at obedience for the most part. God said the boy's name
would be Isaac and that's what Abraham named him. Isaac, by the way, is the only
one of the three patriarchs whose name God does not change later in their life.

Naming a boy is very significant. The man who does the naming is legally declaring
the boy to be his own son even if he isn't the biological father. (cf. Matt 1:21 and
Matt 1:25)

● Gen 21:4 . . And when his son Isaac was eight days old, Abraham circumcised
him, as God had commanded him.

Circumcision wasn't Abraham's idea. It was his response to El Shaddai's earlier
mandate in Gen 17:10-14.

● Gen 21:5 . . Now Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born
to him.

Ishmael would have been fourteen (Gen 16:16) and Sarah ninety, since she and
her husband were ten years difference in age. (Gen 17:17)

● Gen 21:6 . . Sarah said: God has brought me cheer; everyone who hears will
laugh with me.

Sarah's words are a double entendre. Isaac's name in Hebrew means laughter; so
God not only gave her a bundle of joy, but cheer for her soul too.

● Gen 21:7 . . And she added: Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah would
suckle children! Yet I have borne a son in his old age.

Well nobody in their right mind would have. Sarah was just too old. And actually,
Abraham was too old too.

"And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he
was about an hundred years old" (Rom 4:19)

"And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as
numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore."
(Heb 11:11-12)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
● Gen 21:8 . .The child grew up and was weaned, and Abraham held a great feast
on the day that Isaac was weaned.

The age of weaning varied in ancient times; usually in the neighborhood of 2 to 5
years. Bible weaning implies a whole lot more than just putting a child on a bottle.
It means they can speak and understand a language, feed themselves, brush their
teeth, clothe themselves, and potty alone. In other words, you could pack them a
bag and send them off to live with your aunt. (e.g. 1Sam 1:22-2:11). Samuel was
at least three years old when his mom packed him off to live with the high priest.
(2Chr 31:16)

So Isaac was very likely around the same age as Samuel when Abraham and Sarah
threw a weaning party for him. It was a day of good celebration and they were very
proud of their little boy. He was past a major milestone and well along his way to
independent manhood.

Weaning isn't always a joyous occasion for some families. It can be a time passed
over in deep sorrow for the parents of handicapped kids. Abraham and Sarah were
very fortunate that their boy wasn't afflicted with Down's syndrome, Autism, or a
neurodegenerative disease like Tay-Sachs.

● Gen 21:9 . . Sarah saw the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham
playing.

At this point, Ishmael was around 17 or 18 years old. (cf. Gen 16:16, Gen 21:5,
Gen 21:8)

It's hard to tell what kind of sport Ishmael was involved in. Some feel that he, the
firstborn son, was picking on Isaac the younger sibling; and that's probably true
because Gal 4:29 suggests that Ishmael was a bit of a bully. Others feel he was
mocking the weaning party. But actually, nobody knows for sure. Maybe he was
just swinging on an old tire in the backyard, and while Sarah was absently mindedly
looking over there, a scheme spawned in her head.

Not only was Ishmael Abraham's son, but, by law, he was Sarah's boy too. (Gen
16:1-2). But Sarah rejected Ishmael and never was much of a mom to him. So Ms.
Hagar went through all that for nothing. On top of that, she was still a slave; and
had no husband. She was, in reality, a single mom saddled with a child that she
never really wanted in the first place.

All of this created a home life that had become intolerable for everyone involved.
Hagar gloated over Sarah's barrenness. Sarah, in turn, blamed Abraham for
Hagar's attitude, and Ishmael, according to Gal 4:29, harassed Isaac (no doubt out
of a spirit of sibling rivalry). Abraham loved Ishmael and was no doubt soft on
Hagar. Plus, to make matters even worse; there were some very serious legal
complications.

Ishmael's legal position was quite an advantage. As Abraham's firstborn son, he
had a right to a double portion of his father's estate. (cf. Gen 48:22)

NOTE: The reason Joseph inherited a double portion is because Jacob transferred
the right of the firstborn to him after Reuben messed around with one of his
father's servant-wives. (Gen 49:3-4, 1Chr 5:1)

● Gen 21:10-11 . . Sarah said to Abraham: Cast out that slave-woman and her son,
for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my son Isaac. The
matter distressed Abraham greatly, for it concerned a son of his own.

NOTE: By the customs of that day, Ishmael was Sarah's son too; though not by
blood. (Gen 16:2)

How does a good and decent man like Abraham disown his own flesh and blood? If
Ishmael were a gang-banger, a drug addict, an Islamic terrorist, or a career
criminal it would be different. But he was really a pretty good kid and Abraham
totally loved him. Being the lad's biological father, I'm sure Abraham felt very
responsible for Ishmael's welfare. He and Ishmael had been a team together for
seventeen or eighteen years. You just don't dissolve a bond like that as if giving
away old clothes to Good Will.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
● Gen 21:12 . . But God said to Abraham: Don't be distressed over the boy or your
slave; whatever Sarah tells you, do as she says, for it is through Isaac that
offspring shall be continued for you.

The lad would always and forever be one of Abraham's biological sons; that couldn't
be undone with any more ease than recalling the ring of a bell. However; in the
case of slave mothers; there was a way to break Ishmael's legal ties to Abraham;
and the way was actually quite to Hagar's advantage.

The common law of Abraham's day (e.g. the Code of Hammurabi and the laws of
Lipit-Ishtar) stipulated that if a slave-owner disowned his child's in-slavery
biological mother; then the mother and the child would lose any and all claims to a
paternal property settlement with the slave-owner.

The catch is: Abraham couldn't just send Hagar packing, nor sell her. In order for
the common law to take effect; Abraham had to emancipate her; which he did.

● Gen 21:13 . . As for the son of the slave-woman, I will make a nation of him, too,
for he is your seed.

Abraham certainly must have been worried what would become of Ishmael; so God
reassured him his eldest would be just fine.

I think it's significant that God didn't refer to either Hagar or to Ishmael by name,
probably because the emphasis here is upon Divine purpose instead of upon people.

● Gen 21:14a . . Early next morning Abraham took some bread and a skin of water,
and gave them to Hagar.

The Hebrew word for "bread" here includes all foods; for man or beast. So
Abraham didn't necessarily send the poor woman out on her own with a ration of
bread and water like a hardened criminal, but very likely provisioned Hagar and his
son Ishmael with enough camper-grade food stuffs to keep them going for a while.

NOTE: Bread back in those days was very nutritious. It was all made from heirloom,
organic grains; even leavened bread was organic. It was made with naturally
soured dough rather than cultured yeast.

But it's puzzling why Abraham didn't provide them with an escort; at least until
they reached the safety of a village or a town. That suggests to me that Abraham
fully believed God's promise to "make a nation of him" which implies that God
Himself would look out for them from here on in.

● Gen 21:14b . . He placed them over her shoulder, and together with the child,
sent her away.

NOTE: Ishmael was at least a teen-ager by this time seeing as he underwent
circumcision at thirteen when Abraham was ninety-nine. (Gen 13:24-26) Isaac was
born one year later when Abraham was a hundred. (Gen 21:5) And Hagar wasn't
emancipated till after Isaac was weaned. (Gen 21:8-10)

I would have hated to observe that scene. Abraham didn't dispatch a servant or a
butler to equip Hagar. He did it himself. And he didn't just bring the provisions out
to her and set it down at her feet. No. He put them up on her shoulder himself. You
have to stand close to someone to do that; close enough to look them right in the
eyes.

There's no record of ever any ill will between Hagar and Abraham, nor any between
him and his boy Ishmael either. Those three were truly family in every sense of the
word-- mom, dad, and child. There couldn't have been a dry eye nor a cheerful face
at any time during this excruciating farewell. If you've ever experienced something
so upsetting as to make you nauseous, lead-bellied, and lose your appetite; then
you know what I'm talking about. Anybody who can read this story without feeling
the slightest twinge of compassion for any one of those three; has got to be the
most insensitive clod on earth.

The phrase "sent her away" is from a Hebrew word that can be used of divorce as
well as for the emancipation of slaves. In other words: Hagar wasn't banished as is
commonly assumed; no, she was set free; and it's very important to nail that down
in our thinking because if Abraham had merely banished Hagar, then her son Ishmael
would have retained his legal status as Abraham's primary heir.

Ishmael retained his status as one of Abraham's biological sons (Gen 25:9) but in
legal matters relative to inheritance he's no son at all.

I believe it's important to emphasize that Hagar and Ishmael weren't cut loose
because they were no longer worthy to live in Abraham's camp any more. No. It
was only as a measure to expedite God's future plans for Isaac. Even if Sarah
hadn't proposed the idea of emancipating Hagar, I suspect that God would have
eventually required it so anyway.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
● Gen 21:14d . . And she wandered about in the wilderness of Beer-sheba.

The wilderness of Beer-sheba is about 50 miles south of Hebron.

The Hebrew word for "wandered about" basically means to vacillate; defined by
Webster's as: to waver in mind, will, or feeling; viz: to hesitate in choice of opinions
or courses. (cf. Jas 1:8)

As often as Hagar traveled up and down the land of Palestine with Abraham over
the years, she no doubt knew her way around; so she's not blundering through the
woods like a lost hiker.

At this point, Hagar is thoroughly rattled and doesn't really know what to do next or
even how she and Ishmael are going to survive in a land where no State and/or
Federal programs for unemployed single mothers existed. And to top it off; she's a
freed slave who now has to make all her own decisions and fend for her child and
for herself on her own rather than simply comply with the demands of a master
who provided for all her daily necessities.

Slavery has its pluses and minuses; and it's not always to a slave's benefit to give
them their walking papers. There's a provision in the covenant that Moses' people
agreed upon with God allowing for indentured slaves to remain so permanently if
they wish. (Ex 21:2-6, Lev 24:22)

Many of the slaves that were liberated after the American Civil War found
themselves in the throes of instant poverty: unable to either read or to write, with
no place to live, and zero prospects for gainful employment. I'm not saying slavery
is a good thing. I'm only saying that, all things considered, it might be the better
option for some people.

I met guys in the Army who re-enlisted for the security of a steady paycheck, free
meals, free health care, paid vacations, and rent-free/mortgage-free
accommodations. They had to relinquish a degree of their freedom for those
benefits, but in their minds, it wasn't a bad trade-off.

NOTE: The New Testament and the Old neither condemn nor condone slavery; the
Bible's focus is primarily upon the treatment of slaves rather than their
predicament. The Bible also has things to say about a slave's work ethic.

Activists and politicians decry slavery as immoral and/or evil. Well; they didn't get
that from the Bible; it's their own personal feelings about it; which reminds us that
men have been making up their own rules about right and wrong almost from the
very beginning. (Gen 3:22)

● Gen 21:15-16 . .When the water was gone from the skin, she left the child under
one of the bushes, and went and sat down at a distance, a bowshot away; for she
thought: Let me not look on as the child dies. And sitting thus afar, she burst into
tears.

The Hebrew word for "child" basically pertains to a male person of any age between
early boyhood and maturity; viz: boys and/or youths.

Ishmael was hardly what modern Americans might call a child. He was near to
eighteen years old at this time; if he was circumcised at fourteen and Isaac was
weaned at three. (cf. Gen 16:16, Gen 21:5, Gen 21:8)

One can only guess at the grief in Hagar's heart. Her life had come down to this: a
lonely, impoverished, homeless death out in the middle of nowhere. In her distress
Hagar had forgotten about her friend 'Ataah 'Eel R'iy the god who sees people and
knows their troubles. And she had forgotten all the predictions He made back in
Gen 16:10-12 concerning Ishmael's future. There is just no way her son can be
allowed to die at this time.

When God's people lose confidence in His statements, they usually always get
themselves into trouble. If only Hagar had trusted God, she wouldn't have
despaired regarding Ishmael's life. He was perfectly safe. Don't you see? He had to
live so God could keep His promise to multiply him; and so he could become a wild
burro of a man, and so he could live near the people of Israel like God predicted. So
even if Hagar had perished all alone in the wilderness, Ishmael would have gone on
to survive without his mother because his divine guardian would have seen to it.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
● Gen 21:17a . . God heard the cry of the boy,

I don't think Ishmael, at near eighteen, was bawling his eyes out like a little girl.
The Hebrew word is basically means a voice, a noise, or a sound. It's very first use
in the Bible is at Gen 3:8 where The Lord was heard moving about in the garden of
Eden.

Ishmael's "cry" was likely a plea for help; i.e. prayer; which wouldn't be surprising
seeing as how Abraham was highly recommended as his own family's rabbi. (Gen
18:21)

NOTE: God had promised Hagar and Abraham that He would multiply Ishmael
(Gen 16:10, Gen 17:20). So, prayer or no prayer, God cannot allow Ishmael to die
before generating a posterity.

● Gen 21:17b-18 . . and an angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to
her: What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not, for God has heeded the cry of the boy
where he is. Come, lift up the boy and hold him by the hand, for I will make a great
nation of him.

** An angel of God-- a.k.a. the angel of The Lord -- isn't always a celestial
creature. Any manifestation of God counts as His angel, e.g. fires, earthquakes,
winds voices, smoke, trumpets, and human forms; which helps explain this rather
curious encounter wherein the angel of God not only spoke for God, but also as
God.

Now we're back on personal terms; and the angel speaks to Hagar by name rather
than by her previous status as a slave; which would be inappropriate at this point
because she's been emancipated.

● Gen 21:19 . .Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. She went
and filled the skin with water, and let the boy drink.

I bet the water was right there all the time but Hagar was so exhausted and
distraught that she hadn't seen it. Everybody gets that way once in a while.
Sometimes the answer to our problem is right under our noses but oftentimes can't
see it because we're just too upset and/or distracted at the time.

● Gen 21:20a . . God was with the boy and he grew up;

I don't know why so many Christians and Jews have such a low opinion of Ishmael.
How many of his detractors are able to boast that God was with any of them as
they grew up?

● Gen 21:20b . . he dwelt in the wilderness and became a bowman.

Archery must have become a traditional skill in Ishmael's family. One of his male
progeny, Kedar, produced a clan of bowmen who used their skills not only in
hunting, but also in warfare. (Isa 21:16-17)

● Gen 21:21a . . He lived in the wilderness of Paran;

The Wilderness of Paran encompassed a pretty big area. It was south of the Negev,
on the Sinai peninsula, roughly between Elat on the east and the Suez canal on the
west.

To look at that region today you'd wonder what appealed to Mr. Ishmael; but
apparently it was a whole lot more pleasant in his day 3,900 years ago; which
wouldn't surprise me since the Sahara itself was at one time verdant, pluvial, and
inhabited.

● Gen 21:21b . . and his mother got a wife for him from the land of Egypt.

A girl from Egypt was apparently a better choice than the girls of Canaan; from
among whom Abraham would later not want a wife for his son Isaac (Gen 24:3-4).
But Egypt was Hagar's homeland (Gen 16:1) so she would likely relate to an
Egyptian daughter-in-law much better than most any other.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
● Gen 21:22a . . At that time

While Hagar and Ishmael were busy re-inventing their lives; a seemingly trivial
event occurred in Abraham's life. These kinds of events may seem superfluous, but
they're actually pretty handy for giving us some insight into Abraham the man; i.e.
his personality.

● Gen 21:22b . . Abimelech

It is very possible that Abimelech is a royal title rather than a personal name, sort
of like Pharaoh or Caesar, since in the title of Psalm 34 the name Abimelech is
applied to the king of Gath, who is elsewhere known by his personal name Achish.
(1Sam 27:2-3)

● Gen 21:22c . . and Phicol, chief of his troops,

Phicol's name sounds funny in Hebrew. It's i]piykol[/i] (pee-kole') which means: mouth
of all. His name, like Abimelech's, could also have been a title; especially since it
implies that he was a spokesman. I'm sure you've heard people say: "And I think I
speak for all when I say this; yada, yada, yada; etc, etc, etc." Maybe that's what
his name "mouth of all" implies. At any rate, he was Abimelech's chief of staff and
apparently his right hand man-- a military man, and trusted.

● Gen 21:22d . . said to Abraham: The gods are with you in everything that you do.

Abimelech knew first hand that Abraham could do no wrong. And even when he did,
his deity was right there to bail him out. That is an extremely envious position.
What if you knew that God would protect you no matter how dumb, stupid, and
clumsy you were in life-- that in spite of your bad investments, accidents, poor
judgment, bad decisions, worthless friends, failed romances, and overspending, you
still came out on top? Well . . that is just how it went for Abraham. He was bullet
proof; so to speak.

● Gen 21:23a . .Therefore swear

(chuckle) Ol' Abimelech is nobody's fool. He was burned once by Abraham and
wasn't about to be suckered again. From now on he will accept Abraham's word
only if he gives his oath on it first. You know; trust is an easy thing to lose, and
very difficult to regain.

● Gen 21:23b . . to me here by the gods

The Hebrew word for "gods" is a nondescript label for any number of celestial
beings; both real and imagined. But I kind of suspect the one Abimelech referred to
was the god who appeared to him in the dream; in other words; Abraham's god:
Yahweh.

● Gen 21:23c . . that you will not deal falsely with me or with my kith and kin, but
will deal with me and with the land in which you have sojourned as loyally as I have
dealt with you.

It's a non aggression pact. But why would Abimelech go to all the trouble? And why
would he, a king, travel to Abraham's camp rather than summon him to appear?
Did he fear that Abraham, a man befriended by a supreme being, might become so
powerful that he would attempt to conquer Abimelech's kingdom? I think so.
Abraham's medicine was strong. He had a connection in the spirit world to a god
with the power to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, and to strike people with serious
maladies. It would be perfectly human for Abraham to take advantage of his
supernatural affiliation and use it to advantage.

With a man like Abraham, Abimelech probably figured a preemptive strike would be
out of the question. It is better to strike a treaty while conditions permit. After all,
Abraham owed Abimelech one for letting him off after lying to him about Sarah.
Good time to call that in.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
● Gen 21:24 . . And Abraham said: I swear it.

NOTE: There are Christians who would soundly condemn Abraham for swearing
based upon their understanding of Matt 5:33-37.

I can almost hear Abimelech and Phicol start breathing again. I think both of those
men were more than just a little worried about their safety on Abraham's turf.

That settled, Abraham has a matter of his own to discuss; and now's a good time
for it, seeing as those men were being very humble; at least for the moment.

NOTE: There are well-meaning folk who feel it's always wrong for God's people to
be confrontational; and base their reasoning on Matt 5:3, Matt 5:5, Matt 5:9, and
Matt 5:39. But other than Isaac, I don't think you could find a more gracious man
in the Old Testament than Abraham. He didn't have a hair-trigger temper, a spirit
of vengeance, nor did he declare war over every little disagreement.

Abraham picked his battles with care, and conducted them intelligently-- same with
Moses, of whom the Old Testament says: was very meek, above all the men which
were upon the face of the earth (Num 12:3). Jesus was meek too (Matt 11:29 and
Matt 21:5) but could be very confrontational when the circumstances called for a
heavy hand. (Matt 23:13 36)

● Gen 21:25-26 . .Then Abraham reproached Abimelech for the well of water which
the servants of Abimelech had seized. But Abimelech said: I do not know who did
this; you did not tell me, nor have I heard of it until today.

Abraham may have previously reported the incident to a bureaucrat, who then
tossed the complaint in a file cabinet somewhere and soon forgot about it because
this is the very first time Mr. Abimelech has been made aware of the problem.
Sometimes you just have to cut through the red tape and go straight to the top.

● Gen 21:27-29 . . Abraham took sheep and oxen and gave them to Abimelech,
and the two of them made a pact. Abraham then set seven ewes of the flock by
themselves, and Abimelech said to Abraham: What mean these seven ewes which
you have set apart? He replied: You are to accept these seven ewes from me as
proof that I dug this well.

A reasonable assumption is that Abraham-- thoroughly disgusted with Gerar's
bureaucracy, and having no confidence in Abimelech's oath --shrewdly purchased a
water right so the government's thugs would have to step off and leave him be.

● Gen 21:31-32 . . Hence that place was called Beer-sheba [well of seven], for
there the two of them swore an oath. When they had concluded the pact at Beer
sheba, Abimelech and Phicol, chief of his troops, departed and returned to the land
of the Philistines.

Abraham swore to live peaceably with Abimelech. And he in turn swore to let
Abraham keep the well that he dug. Did Abimelech swear by a god or just give his
word? Genesis doesn't say. But only Abraham's god is named in this pact. Possibly
they both swore by that one.

● Gen 21:33 . . Abraham planted a tamarisk at Beer-sheba, and invoked there the
name of The Lord, the Everlasting God.

Actually, that verse is supposed to read like this: "and invoked there the name of
Yhvh, the everlasting god."

The Hebrew word for "tamarisk" can mean a tamarisk tree; and it can also mean a
grove of trees; of any kind. The grove was probably somewhat like a private garden
where Abraham could have some solitude in prayer. Groves were popular as places
of religious devotion and worship and for public meetings in both Canaan and
Israel.

● Gen 21:34 . . And Abraham resided in the land of the Philistines a long time.

It wasn't actually the Philistines' land in Abraham's day; but was theirs during the
times when one of the authors of Genesis edited this chapter.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
● Gen 22:1a . . Some time afterward, God put Abraham to the test.

This particular section of scripture deals with an incident known in sacred Jewish
literature as The Akedah (the binding of Isaac). The Akedah portrays the very first
human sacrifice ever performed in the Bible by someone who is extremely
important to Jacob's posterity.

The test coming up wasn't meant to measure Abraham's loyalty; rather, to
establish the quality of his trust in the promise that God made to him concerning
Isaac's future; to wit:

"Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac:
and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his
seed after him." (Gen 17:19)

● Gen 22:1b-2a . . He said to him: Abraham. And he answered: Here I am. And He
said: Take your son, your favored one, Isaac, whom you love,

The Hebrew word for "favored one" basically means sole. So then, Isaac wasn't just
Abraham's favored son; he was also Abraham's only son because when the old
gentleman emancipated Ishmael's mom Hagar, he relinquished legal kinship with
her children. Relative to nature; Ishmael is Abraham's son, but relative to the
covenant mentioned above; he's no son at all.

"Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac; and he who had received the
promises was offering up his only begotten son" (Heb 11:17)

The Greek word translated "only begotten" is monogenes (mon-og-en-ace') which
never refers to a special child, rather, always to an only child: specifically a
biological child rather than a step child and/or adopted. Examples are located at
Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, Luke 9:38, John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, and
1John 4:9.

Isaac was about three to five years old when Hagar and Ishmael moved out. Some
time has gone by; and in this chapter, Isaac is now old enough, and strong enough,
to shoulder a load of wood; and mature enough to understand the particulars of the
ritual that he and his dad were on their way to perform; so Isaac wasn't a little kid
in this incident.

Why did God say; whom you love? I think it's so we'd know how Abraham felt
about Isaac. There can be no doubt that he would sorely miss this boy if ever
something should happen to him.

When people truly love their kids, they will die protecting them. They'll quite
literally run into a burning building if need be and/or step in front of a bus. Normal
parents are very protective like that. People who love their kids don't drown them
to please lover, nor leave them unattended in the car and go inside a bar for a
drink; nor let them go off with strangers, and nor let them go to the mall or to the
playground all by themselves when they're small.

● Gen 22:2b . . and go to the land of Moriah,

There are only two places in the entire Old Testament where the word Moriah
appears. One is here in Genesis and the other in 2Chrn 3:1.

According to tradition, Genesis' land of Moriah is the same as the mount Moriah in
2nd Chronicles-- the site of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem . Some justification for
the tradition is found in verse 14, where Abraham named the location Jehovah-Jireh,
from which came the expression; "On the mount of the Lord there is vision".

However, in reality, the precise geographic location of the land of Moriah remains to
this day undiscovered.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
● Gen 22:2c . . and offer him there as a burnt offering

The Hebrew word for "burnt offering" is 'olah (o-law') which is a very different kind
of offering than those of Cain and Abel. Theirs were minchah (min-khaw') which are
usually gifts and/or tributes rather than atonements.

Some say that Abraham's offering shouldn't be translated "burnt" and others say it
should.

No doubt the best translator of 'olah within the context of the Akedah is the prophet
Abraham himself. The very fact that he hewed wood, took a source of fire with him
up the mountain, constructed an altar, put the wood on the altar, and then bound
and positioned Isaac upon the wood and the altar; tells me that Abraham fully
understood what his divine master expected of him.

The evidence that Isaac also fully understood that 'olah implied incineration is when
he asked his dad: Father; here are the wood and the fire: but where is the sheep?

There are some who insist that Abraham misunderstood God. They say he was only
supposed to take Isaac along with him up on the mountain and they together were
to offer a burnt offering. What's the appropriate response to that?

Well; as I stated: Abraham was a prophet (Gen 20:7). Also; Abraham had three
days to think about what he was asked to do. Had Abraham the prophet any
misgivings about human sacrifice-- any at all --he surely would have objected
and/or at the very least requested a clarification. I'm confident that's true because
of the example of his rather impudent behavior recorded in the latter part of the
18th chapter of Genesis.

God ordered Abraham to offer his son as a burnt offering. That means he will have
to slit Isaac's throat; and then cremate his remains. Why isn't Abraham recoiling
and getting in God's face about this with a vehement protest? The inference is quite
obvious. Abraham didn't believe human sacrifice wrong. In other words: for
Abraham, human sacrifice was a non-issue or he would have surely objected to it.

NOTE: A technical point often overlooked in the "human sacrifice" debated is that in
every instance banning the practice in the Old Testament, it is underage children
that are condemned as offerings-- innocent children; viz: babes; and in particular,
one's own. (e.g. Lev 18:21, Lev 20:2-5, Deut 12:31, Deut 18:10, cf. 2Kgs 16:3,
2Kgs 17:31, 2Kgs 23:10, 2Kgs 21:6, Ps 106:34, Ezek 20:31, Ezek 23:37, Jer 7:31,
Jer 19:4, and Jer 32:35). I have yet to encounter an instance where God expressed
abhorrence at sacrificing a consenting adult.

● Gen 22:2d . . on one of the heights that I will point out to you.

Precisely where the land of Moriah was, and the specific height God chose, is
impossible to tell for sure. Abraham knew where the land was but he wouldn't know
the exact spot until he got there.

It's just as well to keep it a secret or otherwise somebody would turn it into a
shrine; sort of like the so-called Garden Tomb, where people come from all over the
world and make fools of themselves kissing the ground. Some would even take
home souvenir jars of dirt too; so that by now, likely so much dirt would be gone
that the site of Moriah would look more like a quarry than a high place.

● Gen 22:3a . . So early next morning, Abraham saddled his burro and took with
him two of his servants and his son Isaac.

The Hebrew word for "saddled" is ambiguous. It doesn't necessarily indicate a
device meant for transporting personnel; more likely tackling for cargo.

Whether the servants were armed, Genesis doesn't say. And why only two I don't
know either. But that was enough to look after the burro while Abraham and Isaac
were gone. And it's not wise to leave one man all alone in the outdoors; especially
in the wild country of early day Palestine what with no phone service nor radios, nor
cars to flag down for help in that day.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
● Gen 22:3b . . He split the wood for the burnt offering,

It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that the servants did the actual wood
cutting with Abraham supervising.

● Gen 22:3c-4 . . and he set out for the place of which God had told him. On the
third day Abraham looked up and saw the place from afar.

Apparently everyone hiked on foot. The burro was just used as a pack animal to
haul food, water, tents, supplies, and the wood.

Though it's stated Abraham "looked up" it doesn't necessarily mean the site was
elevated above him. When Lot surveyed the Jordan valley, he was said to have
"lifted up" his eyes. But the valley was about three thousand feet down below his
vantage at the time. Lifting up one's eyes just simply means to look around, and
survey the scene.

Those three days gave Abraham plenty of time to think about what God expected
him to do. Abraham must surely have been giving Isaac's future some serious
thought. And he no doubt pondered the promises God made concerning the great
nation that was to issue from his boy. It was very likely at this time that Abraham's
faith in God's promises sustained his determination to obey and take Isaac's life.

"By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received
the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said "In Isaac your
seed shall be called" concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the
dead," (Heb 11:17-19)

In other words: Abraham was so confident that God was going to somehow make of
his son's posterity a great nation that he assumed, quite correctly, that though he
slay Isaac and cremate his remains, the lad wouldn't stay dead and gone for very
long.

● Gen 22:5 . .Then Abraham said to his servants: You stay here with the burro. The
lad and I will go up there. We will worship and we will return to you.

Worship can be defined as respect paid to a better-- like when Abraham ran and
bowed to the three men who came to his tent in chapter 18, and up ahead when he
will bow to the sons of Heth in chapter 23.

When we let a senior citizen go through a door ahead of us, we are saying we
regard that person as better than we are. And when we move aside for a
presidential motorcade, we say the same thing. That's a kind of worship. It's not an
attitude of equality nor one of parity. True worship is an attitude of humility,
inferiority, subordination, submission, and admiration.

** The God of the Bible is so superior, so dignified, and so holy that the seraphs in
His throne room cover their faces and dare not gaze upon God. True worship
recognizes God's supremacy and respects the sanctity of His person. Sinners are
never allowed to barge in like drunken sailors, to gape and swagger, unwashed and
uninvited. No, they crawl in, recognizing the depravity of Man and the extreme
dignity of God. The burnt offering shows that Man not only risks death and
incineration in God's presence: he fully deserves it.

There exists adequate proof that Abraham was capable of dishonesty, so it's
difficult to tell at this point if he was actually predicting their return, or misleading
everyone with a fib so nobody would become alarmed and throw a monkey wrench
into the works. It was Abraham's full intention to slay Isaac but I'm sure you can
understand why he wouldn't want anyone to know that.

However, Abraham was confident that Isaac wouldn't stay dead; that much is
known for certain so I vote to give Abraham the benefit of the doubt and say he
really did believe that he and Isaac would come back together.

● Gen 22:6a . . Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and put it on his son
Isaac.

Were Isaac not quite a bit grown up at this time I don't think Abraham would have
made him carry the wood.

But why not let the burro haul the wood to the site? Well; if you have never heard a
burro bray up close and personal, I guarantee you would not want one to do it
during a solemn church service. They are LOUD!
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
● Gen 22:6b-7 . . He himself took the firestone and the knife; and the two walked
off together. Then Isaac said to his father Abraham: Father! And he answered: Yes,
my son. And he said: Here are the firestone and the wood; but where is the sheep
for the burnt offering?

The Hebrew word translated "firestone" just simply means fire, with no stone
implied.

A convenient way to transport fire in those days was with a portable oven; viz: a
fire pot (cf. Gen 15:17). So rather than a stone, which implies striking sparks, they
most likely just brought along the camp stove, which held a receptacle for live
coals. Fire pots in those days were the equivalent of modern propane-fueled
camping equipment.

Since Abraham was the patriarch, it was his prerogative, and his responsibility,
to actually kill the burnt offering and cremate it; so he quite naturally took custody
of the weapon and the coals; as Isaac no doubt fully expected him to.

The word for "sheep" basically means: a member of a flock, which can be either a
sheep or a goat. Neither the age nor the gender mattered in this instance because
Scripture up to this point in time had not yet specified which critters are, and are
not, acceptable for a burnt offering. The only apparent requirement thus far was
that they be "clean" (Gen 8:20)

● Gen 22:8a . . And Abraham said: God will see to the sheep for His burnt offering,
my son.

That turned out to be true. However, before God provided a sheep of His own,
Abraham had to sacrifice Isaac first.

● Gen 22:8b . . And the two of them walked on together.

This is now the second time Genesis says they walked together. Neither one led,
nor brought up the rear, as in the case of so many husbands who leave their wives
dragging along behind at the malls. Incidentally, the dialogue that took place
between Isaac and his dad in verses 7 and 8 are the only recorded words they ever
spoke to each other in the whole Bible.

● Gen 22:9a . .They arrived at the place of which God had told him.

When did that happen . . God telling him? Genesis doesn't say. Jewish tradition
says the site had an aural glow which Abraham and Isaac were enabled to see from
a distance.

Anyway it was now time to tell Isaac the real purpose of their pilgrimage.

I can almost hear Isaac ask: Dad, if I'm dead, then how will God make of me a
great nation whose numbers exceed the stars of heaven? You told me He promised
you that. Yes; God did promise Abraham that in Gen 15:4-5, and Gen 17:18-21.

It is here where Isaac's great faith is revealed; but not so much his faith in God:
rather, faith in his dad. Abraham's influence upon Isaac was astonishing; so much
so that no doubt the lad believed right along with his dad that his death would only
be temporary. Isaac was convinced that God would surely raise him from the dead
in order to make good on His promises to Abraham. This entire episode was meant
to test Abraham but it simultaneously tested his son too.

● Gen 22:9b . . Abraham built an altar there; he laid out the wood;

This was a place where, apparently, Abraham had never worshipped before because
he had to build an altar.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
● Gen 22:9c . . he bound his son Isaac;

If Isaac was old enough, and strong enough, to shoulder a load of firewood (Gen
22:6) then he was old enough, and strong enough, to get away from Abraham,
who, at the time, was past 100 years old.

NOTE: If perchance Gen 23:1 took place immediately following the Akedah, then
Abraham would have been 137 at this point in the narrative seeing as how he and
Sarah were ten years apart in age. (Gen 17:17)

Had Isaac not consented to the ritual, then he could have easily escaped because
Abraham was alone; he had no one to assist him to restrain Isaac: the servants
having remained behind with the burro. Besides, Isaac had to agree or the whole
affair would disintegrate into a ritual murder.

Binding was for Isaac's own good. No doubt he was willing enough to die; but
nobody is comfortable with injury. When the knife would begin to make an incision
in Isaac's neck to sever his carotid artery, he might reach up and grab his father's
hand, the meanwhile twisting and thrashing in a natural response to pain and fear--
similar to what most anybody would do in a dentist's chair without Novocain.

The binding would help keep him still and avoid collateral damage; otherwise,
Abraham might accidentally cut off Isaac's nose or poke him in the eye and quite
possibly disfigure him horribly instead of succeeding in killing the lad in a humane
fashion.

● Gen 22:9d . . he laid him on the altar, on top of the wood.

That may seem impossible for a man of Abraham's age, but no specifications for
altars existed at that time. They could be two feet high, ten, or just a rudimentary
hearth of stones laid right on the ground like a campfire or in a shallow excavation
like a wood pit barbecue.

At that moment, even before Isaac was dead, and even before the tiniest spark of a
fire was kindled: Abraham's offering of his son was complete. In other words: had
God not wanted Abraham to sacrifice his son, He would've stopped the proceedings
before Abraham laid his son on the wood because once that happens the offerer
relinquishes ownership of his offering. The altar is a sacred transfer of property
rights. (I have yet to discover a passage in the Bible allowing dedicated items to be
taken back, i.e. reneged.)

From that point on; the offering belongs to God; and it becomes His prerogative to
do with it as He pleases-- to kill Isaac or not to kill him was God's executive right
and privilege. Bottom line is: it wasn't necessary for Isaac to be dead in order to
count as a sacrifice: he only had to be laid on the wood of the altar to count.

"By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received
the promises offered up his only begotten son (Heb 11:17-18)

"Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he
offered his son Isaac on the altar?" (Jas 2:21)

It's easily seen from those passages in James and Hebrews that not all human
sacrifice is evil. In point of fact, in certain cases; it's the right thing to do. But the
point is: James and Hebrews makes it clear that Isaac counted as an offering even
though he was not slain.

I just don't know why it is that people think that the 22nd chapter of Genesis
teaches God's supposed abhorrence for all manner of human sacrifice when it is so
obviously meant to convey the quality of Abraham's confidence in God's promise
made at Gen 15:2-6.

In other words: if Abraham was to go on to generate a posterity through his son
whose numbers would be too many to count; then God would have to restore Isaac
to life in order to make good on the promise; and according to Heb 11:17-19
Abraham was counting on that very thing. In other words: according to Jas 2:21
23, Abraham's willingness to kill his son validates Gen 15:2-6 where it's stated that
Abraham believed God.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
● Gen 22:10a . . And Abraham picked up the knife

Abraham didn't just pick the knife up and hold it in his hand in some sort of
symbolic gesture; no, he picked it up with premeditated deadly intent.

● Gen 22:10b . . to slay his son.

● Gen 22:12a . .Then an angel of God called to him from heaven: Abraham!
Abraham! And he answered: Here I am. And he said: Do not raise your hand
against the lad, or do anything to him.

There are some who feel that the angel stopped Abraham at this point because he
misunderstood the instructions God gave to him back in the second verse. But an
interpretation of that nature impugns the quality of Abraham's spiritual acumen as
a man whom God said in Gen 20:7 was a prophet. Abraham no doubt understood
his instructions perfectly and knew just what he was expected to do, plus; he had
three days to pray about it and request confirmation.

Abraham was supposed to kill Isaac, and that is exactly what he tried to do, and
would have done, had not the angel stopped him in the nick of time. And the angel
stopped him not because it was wrong. No. The angel stopped Abraham from killing
Isaac because He had seen enough.

● Gen 22:12b . . For now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld
your son, your favored one, from me.

Although the instructions originated with God, they didn't come to Abraham directly
from God, rather, via an angel of God; which are not always celestial beings, viz:
angels of God are sometimes apparitions, e.g. smoke, fire, earthquakes, voices,
horns, wind, and humans. (It is required that people respect those kinds of divine
appearances as if they are God himself in person.)

FAQ: Isn't God omniscient, and doesn't He have an ability to scan the future? Then
why did the voice say "now I know". Doesn't God always know everything there is
to know from first to last?

REPLY: Knowing things as a spectator is quite a bit different than knowing things by
omniscience. God sometimes favors seeing things for Himself in real time, as an
eyewitness.

Of course God knew in advance that Abraham would go thru with offering his son,
but that kind of knowing doesn't always satisfy God. No, sometimes He prefers to
be on-site and observe things unfold as current events.

So although God knew by His intellect that Abraham would comply with the angel's
instructions, now He also has a first-hand knowledge of Abraham's compliance by
personal experience, i.e. God, via the angel, was there in the bleachers, so to
speak, watching all the action from first to last.

NOTE: A parallel example is depicted by Rev 20:11-15 wherein John viewed the
scene as a future event but he didn't witness it as a current event. There's quite a
difference between those two kinds of observations.

● Gen 22:13 . .When Abraham looked up, his eye fell upon a ram, caught in the
thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a
burnt offering in place of his son.

This act of redemption became a requirement in the covenant that Moses' people
entered into with God per Ex 13:13, Ex 34:20, and Num 18:15.

● Gen 22:14 . . And Abraham named that site Jehovah-Jireh, whence the present
saying: On the mount of God there is vision.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
● Gen 22:15-18 . .The angel of God called to Abraham a second time from heaven,
and said: By Myself I swear, God declares; because you have done this and have
not withheld your son, your favored one, I will bestow My blessing upon you and
make your descendants as numerous as the stars of heaven and the sands on the
seashore; and your descendants shall seize the gates of their foes. All the nations
of the earth shall bless themselves by your seed, because you have obeyed My
command.

Abraham obtained God's oath because "you have obeyed My command". What
command was that? The command back at the beginning of the chapter to offer his
only son as a burnt offering. See? Abraham didn't make a mistake. He understood
God perfectly; and would have slit Isaac's throat and burned him to ashes had not
God pushed the stop button in the final moments.

Far from being scolded for offering a human sacrifice, Abraham is highly
commended for complying; and the promises God made in previous chapters are
now reaffirmed. He lost nothing; but the rather, gained a spiffy bonus: the
Almighty's oath.

Concerning those promises: the first time around, God merely gave His word
(which is normally good enough, and in and of itself quite immutable). Another time
He passed between the pieces; thus notarizing the promises (double whammy). But
this time, God anchored the promises with an oath (grand slam). That is extremely
notable.

Would Abraham have failed to obtain the promises had he refused to offer his only
son? No. He would still have obtained them because the original promises-- made
prior to the oath --are unconditional and guaranteed by the immutability of God's
integrity. What Abraham would have failed to obtain was the oath.

So then, God has gone to every possible length to assure Abraham's seed of the
certainty of those original promises with: 1) His testimony, 2) His passing between
the pieces, and 3) His oath. We don't find God taking oaths very often in the Bible.

● Gen 22:19 . . Abraham then returned to his servants, and they departed together
for Beer-sheba; and Abraham stayed in Beer-sheba.

Isaac isn't specifically named in either the return or the departure, except that the
words "departed together" are highly suggestive of the very same togetherness of
verses 6 and 8. And back in verse 5, Abraham told the servants that he and Isaac
would both return. If Isaac had not been with Abraham on the return trip, the
servants would have surely asked where he was.

The Targums have a pretty interesting postscript at this point.

T. And the angels on high took Izhak and brought him into the school (medresha)
of Shem the Great; and he was there three years. And in the same day Abraham
returned to his young men; and they arose and went together to the Well of the
Seven, and Abraham dwelt at Beira-desheva. And it was after these things, after
Abraham had bound Izhak, that Satana came and told unto Sarah that Abraham
had killed Izhak. And Sarah arose, and cried out, and was strangled, and died from
agony. (Targum Jonathan)

● Gen 22:20 . . Some time later, Abraham was informed: Milcah too has borne
children to your brother Nahor:

Just exactly how much time had passed after The Akedah until this announcement
is uncertain but it was likely at least three days because that's how long it took
Abraham's party to get back home. (Gen 22:4)

Nahor was one of Abraham's brothers and Milcah was Abraham's niece through
Haran, another brother: who was also Lot's dad. Milcah was Nahor's real wife. He
also had a concubine named Reumah.

● Gen 22:21-24 . . Uz the first-born, and Buz his brother, and Kemuel the father of
Aram; and Chesed, Hazo, Pildash, Jidlaph, and Bethuel”-- Bethuel being the father
of Rebecca. These eight Milcah bore to Nahor, Abraham's brother. And his
concubine, whose name was Reumah, also bore children: Tebah, Gaham, Tahash,
and Maacah.

Bethuel and Rebecca are the only two who really stand out in that list. However,
Genesis records everybody because God, apparently for reasons of His own, thinks
they're all important in some way; at least to Himself if not us.
_