"Let
us make man" (Gen. 1:26), "Behold, the man has become like one of
us" (Gen. 3:22) and "Come, let us go down" (Gen. 11:7) are
examples from early Genesis. Franz Delitzsch analyzes the Hebrew
constructions here at great length, concluding that these verses
manifest a
"communicative plural", implying God conferring with His council.
Gen. 1:26
"God said, Let us make man in our image". Here we have the Angels
making a joint decision, as they did at Babel: "The LORD came down to
see
the city and the tower which the children of men builded (again, the
language
of limitation, as if God had to make closer inspection- the 'LORD' must
therefore be the Angels). . Go to, let us go down, and there confound
their language"
(Gen. 11:5,7). And in Gen. 18 we have an example of Angels discussing
their
policy with regard to one of their charges in the physical presence of
the
saint: . . "and Abraham went with them (the Angels) to bring them on
their
way (they were therefore in his presence). And the LORD said, Shall I
hide from
Abraham that thing which I do? For I know him, that he will command his
children and his household after him. . " (v. 17-19). This conversation
was presumably inaudible to Abraham. Who knows what conversations
go on
between our guardians as we sit with Bibles in our hands, obedient to
God, and
our Angels decide how much to reveal to us in accord with how they know
we will
behave in the future? The cherubim and living creatures are
representative of the
Angels. See on Ez. 3:13
Gen. 2:2
When Elohim rested on the seventh day, the implication is that they
were tired-
language impossible to apply to God Himself. The Hebrew for "rested"
does not only mean that He ceased, but that He ceased for a reason. Ex.
31:17
is even clearer- " In six days the LORD made Heaven and earth, and on
the
seventh day He rested, and was refreshed"- the word used to describe
refreshment after physical exhaustion, e. g. regarding David and his
men at
Bahurim when fleeing from Jerusalem (2 Sam. 16:14). Notice in passing
that the
Angels who gave the Law of Moses are often mentioned specifically as
instituting the sabbath (e. g. Ex. 31:3; Ez. 20:12,13,16,20)- because
it is
"the sabbath (the rest) of the Lord" (Lev. 23:3)- i. e. of the Angels
who rested on that day back in Genesis. The fact man was to physically
rest on
the sabbath as a replica of how the Angels "rested" on that day
implies that they too physically rested. The ‘language of
limitation’ in
Scripture may well often refer to the Angels rather than God personally.
3:8
presence- see on Is. 63:9
3:15
There's something of a wager here. Either the man kills the snake by
hitting it
on the head, or the snake will bite the man’s heel. He has to
kill it outright,
first time. See article "David and Goliath" in 1 Sam. 17.
3:22- see
on 1:7,8
The visions
of the cherubim and living creatures all seem to have Angelic
associations. One
of the clearest is that the cherubim were to keep "the way" to the
tree of life (Gen. 3:24), whereas the keeping of the way is later said
to be in
the control of Angels- e. g. in Gen. 18:19 the Angels decide Abraham
will keep
"the way of the Lord", implying they were the ones guarding it; and
in Ex. 32:8 the Angel talking with Moses on Sinai comments "They have
turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them" (see too
Dt.
9:10,12).
5:29 Shall
comfort us- did Noah's parents expect Noah to be the child who would do
all the
hard menial work for them, so that they would suffer less from the
curse placed
upon the ground in Eden? This might explain why Noah had children when
he was
500, far older than others of his time (Gen. 5:32- Noah's father had
had his
first children at 182, Gen. 5:28; Seth had his first child at 105, Gen.
5:6;
Enos at 95, Gen. 5:9; Cainan at 70, Gen. 5:12; Mahaleel at 65, Gen.
5:15; Jared
at 162, Gen. 5:18; Enoch at 65, Gen. 5:21; Methuselah at 187, Gen.
5:25); Gen.
6:18 implies that Noah only had three sons, whereas for people with
such long
life spans we'd have expected him to have had far more than that. He
only had
three children- for he prepared the ark to save "his house" (Heb.
11:7) and Gen. 7:1 is quite clear: ""Go into the ark, you and all
your household"- his whole household was his wife, three sons and their
wives. Period . Perhaps we get the picture of a man who was the
underdog, the
farm worker, the sidekick of the family, whose own family life was
delayed and
limited by this background. Perhaps he turned to alcohol for comfort
(hence
Gen. 9:21). But it was he whom God chose to save, he alone who was
righteous in
that generation which perished. It was the quiet, broken man who was
saved. The
Hebrew word for "Comfort" occurs later, when we read how God
"repented" that He had made man (Gen. 6:6,7). Lamech's desire for
'comfort' was fulfilled but not as he imagined; not through his son
being his
personal slave, but rather in God changing His mind about humanity and
making a
new start. We get what we desire, in essence; and so we need to desire
the
right things. Another alternative is that we are to understand
'comfort' in
5:29 as a bad translation; the idea could be that Lamech hoped that his
son
Noah would be the one who would bring about repentance / changing in
God
regarding the curse upon the earth. In this case, we see Lamech hoping
that
this son of his would be the promised "seed of the woman" of Gen.
3:15, a Messiah figure. However, the Lamech of 5:28 may well be the
Lamech of
Gen. 4:18-22; both Lamechs are described as having Methuselah as their
father.
As often in early Genesis, this would be a case of one history being
recorded
in one chapter and then another one in the next- as with the two
creation
accounts in Genesis 1 and 2. In this case, if Lamech is the same
Lamech, then
Noah had very gifted and high flying siblings. His brother Jabal was
the leader
of the cattle owners (4:20); his brother Jubal was the leading musician
of the
age (4:21); Tubalcain his other brother was the leader of all the
metalworkers.
Lamech was the first polygamist, who killed a young man for a slight
insult and
boasted about it; and whose wife Adah means 'decorated / adorned'.
These were
people of the world. And Noah was the sidekick brother who was to do
all the
menial farm work so the rest of them could pursue their careers and
social
lives. Against this of course it can be argued that there are
differences in
the genealogies of chapters 4 and 5. However, in the context, Gen.
6:1-4
describes how the lines of Seth and Cain intermarried [the sons of God
married
the daughters of men] and it could be argued that the genealogies we
have
aren't complete, generations are skipped, and 'having a son' could be
understood in a wider sense than referring to a son directly fathered
by the
person concerned. 'Lamech' in Hebrew is comprised of the three central
letters
of the Hebrew alphabet and it could be argued that this reflects his
'joining'
function [as it does in other Semitic literature], in joining the
Sethite and
Cainite lines together. The resemblances between the six names in Gen.
4:17,18
with six in chapter 5 is striking, and they both culminate in Lamech,
as if he
was the one in whom the lines mixed. Interestingly, Lamech in Gen. 4:24
speaks
of 77 fold vengeance coming upon him; and the Lamech of Gen. 5:30 [the
same
Lamech?] dies at 777 years old. It also needs to be carried in mind
that
Semitic 'genealogies' aren't always chronological; they are constructed
in
order to make various points or develop themes, as in the genealogies
of the
Lord in Matthew and Luke.
5:29 Noah-
same root word found in 2 Chron. 6:41, where the ark of God 'rested' or
'Noah-ed' in the tabernacle. When the ark 'rested' on Ararat ['holy
hill'] the
same word is used (Gen. 8:4). A case can be made that Ararat was in
fact Mount
Zion, where the ark was later to 'rest' in the temple. The 'resting' of
the ark
was therefore the fulfilment of God's intention in Noah- God's
salvation is
described as a "promised rest" (Heb. 4:10,11), and it was prefigured
in the final resting of the ark. Thus the final salvation of God is to
be understood
in terms of God 'resting' with us, in us, within His ark. He labours
and
struggles too... for us. And those struggles will only be at rest when
we are
saved in the last day; a Father's eternal struggle for His children.
The 'rest'
spoken of in Noah's name was thus a rest for God. Noah's going out of
the ark
into a cleansed, pristine world was therefore symbolic of our going
forth into
the Kingdom at Christ's return.
It's significant that the
various Mesopotamian legends about a flood all speak of there being
conflict
between the divinities before the decision to flood the earth was
taken; and
then quarrels and recriminations between them after it. The Biblical
record has
none of this- the one true God brought the flood upon the earth by His
sovereign will, and He lifted the flood. In the legends, the hero of
the flood
[cp. Noah] is exalted to Divine status, whereas in the Biblical record
Noah not
only remains human, but is described as going off and getting drunk.
Throughout
pagan legends, the Divine-human boundary is often blurred- gods get
cast down
to earth and become men, whilst men get exalted to 'Heaven' and
godhood. This
gave rise to the idea of 'angels that sinned' and were cast down to
earth. But
in the Biblical record, the Divine-human boundary is set very clearly-
the one
God of Israel is so far exalted above humanity, His ways are
not ours
etc. (Is. 55:8), that there can be no possibility of this happening.
The
exception of course was in the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ- but
even He
was born as a genuine human upon earth, and [contrary to Trinitarian
theology]
He was no Divine comet who landed upon earth for 33 years. The whole
idea of
the Divinity and personal pre-existence of Jesus Christ is simply not
Biblical.
The Mesopotamian legends speak of the flood being sent to stop man
destroying
Enlil's "rest" by his noise. The Mesopotamian gods sought for a
"ceasing from toil", "rest from labour"- identical ideas to
the Hebrew concept of shabbat. This was why, it was claimed,
the gods
first created man and put him to work in their garden- so that they
could
"rest". This background is alluded to in the way that Genesis speaks
of man being cast out of tending the garden of Eden as a
punishment-
scarcely something the gods would wish if man was there to save them
working
there. God speaks of Him giving man a shabbat as a
rest for
man from his labour. And the flood, although it was Divine judgment,
ultimately
worked out as a blessing of 'rest' for man in that the 'world' was
cleansed
from sin. Thus 'Noah' was given that name, meaning 'rest', "because
this
child will bring us relief from all our hard work" (Gen. 5:29 G.N.B.).
Adam's work in Eden wasn't onerous; his work when cast out of the
garden was
hard. The wrong ideas are clearly alluded to and often reversed- in
order to
show that a loving God created the world for humanity, for our benefit
and
blessing- and not to toil for the gods in order to save them the
effort. The
'rest' so sought by the Mesopotamian gods was actually intended by the
one true
God as His gift to humanity.
5:32 500
years old- see on 5:29. The flood came when Noah was 600 (Gen. 7:11),
yet he
spent 120 years preparing it (Gen. 6:3). So it's possible that he
wasn't
married when the call came to build the ark; he'd have explained his
life
mission to his wife, and she'd have been his first convert.
Alternatively, if
he were already married at 480, they had many years of barrenness in
their
marriage. Given the long lifespans in those days, this would've been
very very
hard to take. Yet he didn't take another wife. He was "moved with
fear", 'reverently apprehensive' at what God told him, and prepared the
ark in order to save his family (Heb. 11:7). Yet he began doing this
before he
had any children, and perhaps before he was married. He had faith that
he would
one day have a family, in accordance with God's invitation to make an
ark in
which to save his family.
6:3 120 years- Knowing the
destruction that would come on all except Noah, God waited in the hope
that
more would be saved. He as it were hoped against His own foreknowledge
that
more would saved (1 Pet. 3:20). Likewise God told Ezekiel that Israel
would not
hear his preaching (Ez. 3:7); and yet Ezekiel repeatedly prefaced his
preaching
addresses with an appeal to please hear God’s word
(6:3; 13:2; 18:25;
20:47; 34:7; 36:1,4). He was hoping against hope; his preaching work
was asking
him to attempt the impossible. To make a nation hear who would not
hear.
Jeremiah likewise was told that Israel wouldn’t hear him (7:27),
but still he
pleaded with them to hear (9:20; 10:1; 11:6; 16:12; 17:24; 38:15);
God’s hope
was that perhaps they would hearken (26:3) although He had foretold
they
wouldn’t. Jeremiah was told not to pray for Israel (Jer. 7:16;
11:14; 14:11)
and yet he did (Jer. 14:20; 42:2,4). It was the spiritually minded
lifestyle of
Noah in those 120 years which was his witness to the world of his day.
Peter
says in 1 Pet. 3:19 that Christ through His Spirit preached to the
people of
Noah’s day. In 2 Pet. 2:5 he says that Noah was a preacher of, or
[Gk.] ‘by’
righteousness to the people around him. Yet in 1 Pet. 3:19 Peter says
that
Christ preached to those same people through His Spirit. The resolution
surely
is that although Noah had never met the Lord Jesus, he lived according
to the
same Godly spirit as did Jesus; and this was his witness to his world.
In this
sense the spirit or disposition of Christ was found in all the Old
Testament
prophets (1 Pet. 1:11). There is ultimately only one Spirit (Eph. 4:4).
The
same spirit of holiness which was in Jesus was likewise thus in Noah.
“The
Spirit”, the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ are all
equated in Rom.
8:9. The ark 'was' Noah for those 120 years. When
the
ark 'rested' on Ararat ['holy hill'] the same word, 'Noah', is used
(Gen. 8:4).
Likewise the things of the Lord Jesus and the salvation which is
in Him,
both for ourselves and others, should be likewise identified with us.
The withdrawal of a man’s
Spirit by God, as with the withdrawal of the Spirit gifts, is to be
seen as
God’s judgment of man. Gen. 6:3 LXX and RVmg. implies this.
|
THE FLOOD AS A TYPE OF THE LAST DAYS It is a commonly stressed theme throughout Scripture that the days of Noah are a type of the last days of AD70. The clearest is in Mt. 24:37: " As the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the son of man be" . It is generally understood among us that the events of AD70 and the " coming" of the Lord then, point forward to that in the last days. Thus it is not surprising that a number of passages describe the AD70 judgments of Israel in terms of the flood; which suggests that they also have reference to the last days: - 2 Peter 3 is a clear example, describing the destruction of the Jewish system in AD70 as being by fire as opposed to water used in Noah's time. Yet the chapter also has reference, e.g. through it's links with the new Heavens and earth of Is. 65, with the destruction of the present age at the Lord's return. - Nahum 1 describes the coming judgements on Israel in terms of mountains and hills splitting, and there being a great flood; all Genesis flood language. - Dan. 9:26 describes the Romans in AD70 destroying " the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood" , the LXX implying with a sudden flood, as in Noah's time. - Is. 54:9 describes the judgments on Israel being " as the waters of Noah" . The end of the flood, the end of Israel's judgments, therefore typifies the second coming. - In the light of this the Lord's parable about the man building on sand whose house was destroyed when the heavy rain came (Mt. 7:25,27) must have primary reference (as so many of the parables do) to the judgement on the Jewish house in AD70. Those who built on sand as a result of not hearing Christ's words were the Jews- also described as shoddy builders in Mt. 21:42; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7; Mic. 3:10; Jer. 22:13. - The flood waters were upon the earth for 5 months. The siege of Jerusalem in AD70 lasted for the same period, coming after 3 years of the Roman campaign against Israel which started in AD67. The three and a half year suffering of Israel which culminated in AD70 may well point forward to a similar period in the last days; in which case the flood would typify the final months of that period, during which the judgments will be poured out most intensely. The five month tribulation of Rev. 9:10 may also have some relevance here. Thus the state of Israel in AD70 was typified by the world of Noah's time, which therefore looks forward also to the last days, in the light of the evident connections between that period and our last days which are made in 2 Pet. 3 and the Olivet prophecy. All things relevant We can therefore look at the Genesis record of the lead up to the flood and be confident that every detail has some relevance to our time; and therefore grasp the reality of the fact that we should feel the same tenseness and intensity as Noah did as he waited for the rain. Note how Jesus' return is described as the rain in 2 Sam. 23:4; Hos. 6:3; Joel 2:23. - Our present population explosion has only been parallelled in Noah's time. The longer life-spans could have resulted in each woman bearing up to 200 children; bearing in mind the lack of present constraining factors such as adverse climate, space, physical degeneration of the human stock over 6,000 years etc. which we now face, it is likely that in the 10 generations from Adam to Noah up to 2,000 million people were produced. - These longer life-spans would have resulted in a great accumulation of knowledge and skills in the arts and sciences. Gen. 4:22 describes Tubal-Cain (contemporary with Noah) as " an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron" , hinting at technical education and industrialization. Similarly Jubal was " father of all such as handle the harp and organ" (Gen. 4:21); a growth in so-called culture (i.e. sophisticated pleasure- educated Christians please note). Note the emphasis on education- " an instructor..father..father" . - God saw that " the imagination of man's heart" was evil from his youth (Gen. 8:21); not from his birth, showing that God is referring to the specific attitude of those times rather than to man's innate sinfulness. The implication is that God was especially saddened at the evil thinking of a reprobate, corrupted youth. And how much more today? - Cain's first big city (Gen. 4:17) no doubt spawned others. Complex, selfish city life would have been apparent at Noah's time- as it is supremely throughout our modern world. - " Lamech shall be avenged seventy and seven fold" (Gen. 4:24) he boasted. Does this hint at the war preparations and a spirit of personal vengeance and pressing for one's 'rights' which fills the earth today? - There is an emphasis on there being a " father" of all the cattle keepers, all the musicians, and an instructor of every metal worker (Gen. 4:20-22); implying the kind of commercial cartels and unionism which we have today? - The earth being filled with violence (Gen. 6:11) needs little comment. Note how this verse is quoted in Ez. 8:17 about the land (same word as " earth" ) of Israel being filled with violence. Similarly Gen. 6:13 is alluded to in Ez. 7:2,3,6. This opens up an understanding of Ezekiel along the lines that it is describing the events of AD70 as well as other periods. The flood being such a clear type of AD70, passages which allude to it must also have an AD70 context. - The " giants" of Gen.6:4 comes from a Hebrew root meaning 'hackers or assailants'- implying arrogant gangs strutting round assailing people at will. Job. 22:15-17 R.V. gives the same impression. Compare this with the gang warfare and intimidation of the Americas and many countries. - The world was characterized by hamas- "unrighteousness" (Gen. 6:11). 'Hamas' can mean "lawlessness perpetrated by force" (1). Perhaps we have here a suggestion that the 'land' promised to Abraham- the arena of the Biblical flood- is to be dominated by 'Hamas' or a like terrorist organization. - Job 22:15-18 comments on the people living just before the flood that they cast off all commitment to God and yet God " filled their houses with good things" ; i.e. material wealth despite a viciously God-forsaking attitude. Exactly the scene today. - One of the few women mentioned as being contemporary with Noah was Adah- meaning 'to decorate, ornament'. And of such women the sons of God took wives of all that they chose (Gen. 6:2). Dolled up women picked up at will by sex-mad men could not be a more telling parallel with our age. Note too how the three periods picked out in Scripture as having major similarities with the last days- Sodom, Noah's time, Israel in AD70- all have the common feature of sexual misbehaviour. There can be no doubt that this is a major indication that we are in the last days. - Signs within the ecclesia seem to herald the Lord's coming even clearer than those without. As a prelude to the flood, the Sons of God married the daughters of men (Gen. 6:2)- the true believers married unbelievers. However, the " sons of God" often refers to Israel (Is. 43:6,7; 63:8; Jer. 31:20; Ez. 16:20; Mal. 1:16; 3:7), hinting that there will be a big Jewish inter-marriage problem in the last days too. There is ample evidence of this. - Given this apostacy of the sons of God and the unwillingness of the world to listen to Noah's preaching (2 Pet. 2:5) the size of the ecclesia must have declined, until it was only 9 strong. 'Methuselah' means 'When he dies, it shall come'- suggesting that he died a few days or weeks before the flood came. We can imagine the ecclesia falling away one by one until it was just that old brother, the middle aged Noah, and his three faithful sons (no doubt he had other sons and daughters who he failed to influence). The small, declining size of our ecclesias and the total apathy to our preaching should not discourage us- as with all negative things, a positive message can be read into them in the light of Scripture. And the message here is that such things clearly indicate that we are in the last days. The only people to survive the temptations of these 'last days' before the flood were one family unit. As these events are so pregnant with latter day relevance, it may be that we are to perceive here a faint hint that strongly led family units are the way to survive the last days. Noah is described as " the eighth" (2 Pet. 2:5), perhaps alluding to the fact that of the eight people saved in the ark, he was " the eighth" ; he put the others first. The three who escaped the judgments on Sodom, another type of the last days, were all members of the same family; possibly implying the same thing. It must surely be significant that our strongest members are often from families with other strong members. However, the general spiritual apathy grieved God at His heart, we are told. This reminds us of the often overlooked fact that God is an emotional being- the world today grieves Him, and it is to be expected therefore that He is all the more intently watching us, to see whether we are going to keep ourselves separate from the spirit of this desperate age. Waiting for the rain It is worth pausing to make a powerful devotional point. A careful reading of Gen. 7:7,10,13,16 reveals that Noah entered the ark twice- once before the seven days, and then finally at the end, perhaps when he had finished loading the animals. At the second entry he was shut in. Peter reasons in 1 Pet. 3 that the ark represents two things- being in Christ by baptism, and being saved from the tribulations to come on the world of the last days. These are typified respectively by the first and second entries of Noah into the ark. If our baptism is like that first entering in, then Noah's tense, earnest waiting for the rain in the next 7 days should typify our feelings towards the second coming (cp. the rain). We should live our whole lives after baptism as if we know for certain that the second coming is but a week away. For Noah and his family the reality of these things would have ebbed and flowed during that week- some days and hours more than others. But it would have remained with them in the back of their minds as an ever-present reality. Methuselah's death by the time they entered the ark would have heightened their awareness of the shortness of the time ('Methuselah' = 'when he dies, it shall come'). By being in the ark with them, that same intensity of feeling ought to be ours. Never before would they have felt so estranged from the world around them which they knew had such limited time left to satisfy its pleasures. And what scant interest they would have paid to their own possessions, homes, farms and all the other material things around them which they knew would so shortly be ended. In all this lies a powerful lesson to us. Instead their minds would have been obsessed with the ark, the symbol of their faith down through the past years. 'We need this for the ark...we must do that for it' would have been their way of thinking down through those years, as Noah in faith prepared the ark for the saving of himself (Heb. 11). And this lays the pattern for our dedication and consumption with the things of the truth, the ark, Christ our Lord and His ecclesia. A refuge from the storm The animals were gathered from all over the world. They cannot represent the saints- Noah's family represents them. They must therefore look forward to the people from all over the world who will survive the judgements on the world due to their association with us. Thus many of those to whom we witness but they do not respond may well survive the holocaust to come upon the world to live in the new age of peace, like that which followed the flood. This concept should give the ultimate fillip to our enthusiasm for preaching- no longer obsessed with numbers of baptisms but with the number of people being witnessed to. Far more clean animals than unclean were taken into the ark. Peter in Acts 10 saw a vision in which clean animals represented Jews and unclean were Gentiles. Does this indicate that more Jews will survive the judgements to come on the world than Gentiles? Given the many Jews that we know will die in the last day judgements, it follows that if this line of interpretation is correct very few Gentiles will survive at all. This throws interesting light on the likely population in the Millennium. If each saint rules over some mortals, as Rev. 5:10 and the parable of ten and five cities indicates, then the population of the cities cannot be that great. For all the world to come and worship at Jerusalem to keep the feast of tabernacles (Zech. 14) could suggest small numbers relative to the present world population. Everything apart from what was in the ark was destroyed by the flood; the carnage was beyond description. Thus in the last days, which will be an even fuller cataclysm than anything yet seen on the earth, such wholesale destruction is to be expected, in which only a handful survive. " Every living substance was destroyed...man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven (by the heavy downpour of rain?)" (Gen. 7:23). As only a remnant of the human and natural creation survived, so only a remnant of the world around us will come through the future judgments on the earth. The fact an olive tree survived indicates that there was not total destruction. This kind of mass destruction is typical of that which will come upon Israel in the last days: " I will utterly consume all things from off the face of the land...I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven...and I will cut off man from off the land...that day is a day...of clouds and thick darkness...and I will bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men" (Zeph. 1). This is clearly flood language; the description of blind men may connect with Zech. 14:12 prophesying the loss of eyesight for the latter day invaders of the land (cp. how the men of Sodom were smitten with blindness in another type of the last days). Is. 54:9,10 promises that although God will judge Israel with the 'flood' of the second coming judgments, yet He will never totally reject them on account of the remnant: " As I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke (reject) thee. For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee" . This is surely saying that the same order of physical catastrophe as came upon the earth at the flood will again come upon Israel in the last days; but we must not see this as God breaking His covenant of faithfulness to His true people. Heb. 11:1,7 stresses how much Noah really believed God's prophecy about the nature of the flood; he was " moved with fear" by these predictions. The physical world around us is going to be changed beyond recognition; this ought to make it easier for us to come to terms with the fact that all aspects of our surrounding world will likewise pass away. Noah's response was to prepare " an ark to the saving of his house...and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith" (Heb. 11:7). We know that the ark represents Christ. Noah's response was not to smugly reflect how that soon he would be vindicated for his separation from the world, i.e. for his own personal righteousness. Instead he took seriously God's warning that sinners were to soon be destroyed. Noah was, of course, a sinner as we all are. He therefore must have cried out to God in faith, asking for God to count him as if he were righteous, so that he would be saved from the coming judgments against sin. This is how he had righteousness imputed to him. He showed his faith that God really had justified him by doing something physical- his faith led to the 'works' of building the ark; as our faith likewise leads us to baptism into Christ. Through Christ, God " scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts" (Lk. 1:51). This is quoting from Gen. 6:5 LXX concerning the wicked imagination of man's heart at the flood. This is even more evidence that we can read the events of the flood as typical of two things; our salvation from the judgment upon sin, and also of the events of the last days, when that salvation will be physically manifested. We are in Noah's position; we can see clearly the judgments which must come upon sin. By our nature, we are part and parcel of that sin which has to be judged. Our response cannot be to trust in our own righteousness, which we may feel we have as a result of our physical separation from the world. We must instead be motivated by imagining the reality of Christ's coming, to make sure that we are covered in the righteousness of Christ, so that the impending destruction of sin will not take us away with it. Perhaps at no time before has the body of Christ so needed to learn the lesson of Noah; to cease from our own works, " and become heir of the righteousness which is by faith" . God “remembered Noah” (Gen. 8:1) whilst he was in the ark. Moses uses the same figure in Gen. 30:22 to describe how God ‘remembered’ Rachel in responding to her prayer. Likewise God ‘remembered’ the righteous in Sodom in response to Abraham’s prayer (Gen. 19:29). Could this not imply that whilst Noah was spared from the world’s judgment, he was earnestly praying for the days to be shortened, and to be allowed to emerge from the ark into the new world? This would point forward to the urgent prayer of the faithful in the last days- a theme which we will often have cause to underline in these studies. Notes (1) Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary On The Book Of Genesis (Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1998) Vol. 2 p. 52. |
6:6 Grieved- see on 8:10; Is. 63:10. Prov. 3:20 RV says that " By his
knowledge the depths were broken up, and the skies dropped down the
rain"
. The flood was brought about by God's wisdom, not because a deity lost
his
patience and temper with mankind. God destroyed mankind because of His grief
(Gen. 6:6)- and He did so because He planned on saving the world
through water
(1 Pet. 3:20). Noah and the faithful were saved from corruption and the
faith
being lost by the world that threatened to destroy them (spiritually)
being
itself destroyed. There are many allusions to the flood in Job, notably
in the
descriptions of the waters being stored up by God, released by Him as
He
wishes, and having had bounds now placed upon them after the flood (Job
38:9-11,22,33; 26:8; there’s specific mention of the flood in Job
22:16). The
flood would’ve been relatively recent history in Job’s
time. It’s therefore
instructive to read in Job 37:11-13 that God sends His waters upon the
earth
partly for correction, partly in judgment, and also partly “for
mercy”. The
flood was in a sense a Divine mercy, in ending the existence of
impenitent
sinners.
Gen. 6:6
says that "It repented The LORD that He had made man on the earth, and
it
grieved Him at His heart". To repent means to change around. It was the
Angels who actually made man on earth, in the image of themselves, and
we have
shown that it was the Angels who actually brought the flood on the
earth. So it
was they who repented and therefore decided to bring the flood. Thus
only Noah
"found grace in the eyes of the LORD" (v. 8). The eyes of the LORD
are the Angels- it was they who surveyed the earth and saw that it was
wicked,
except for Noah. The phrase in v. 13 "the end of all flesh is come
before
Me" implies that it was brought to God's attention- another example of
language of limitation, which must refer to the Angels. Thus it was the
Angels
who repented, or changed their mind, about creation.
6:7 man,
beast, creeping things, birds- a reversal of the creation order in Gen.
1:20-27.
6:7,8 I will destroy man...
but Noah- Could imply that God’s initial intention was to totally
destroy
humanity, but because Noah found grace [the idiom could imply God heard
his
prayer], God made a way of escape for Noah and intended to found a new
humanity
from him. I’ve elsewhere commented that much in the early
Pentateuch is
connectable with Israel’s later history; Moses’ account in
Genesis was in order
to explain to Israel in the wilderness the background to their
situation. The
situation here in 6:7,8 recalls how God wanted to destroy all Israel
and make
of Moses a new nation (Ex. 32:10); but Moses, like Noah, found grace in
God’s
eyes (Ex. 33:13; 34:9). Moses describes himself as one who had found
grace in
God’s eyes at the very time that God speaks of making a new
nation from him- he
saw the connection.
6:8 found
grace- see on 9:21. Noah was saved by grace and was likely not without
his
weaknesses. Finding grace may suggest that He sought it- that he
recognized his
weakness [alcoholism?] and asked for God's grace; and found it. 2 Pet.
2:5
speaks of how "the old world" was not "spared", but Noah
was, in that he was saved. His salvation was by grace, it was a 'being
spared'
rather than a reward for his righteousness.
6:9 The
generations of Noah- a Hebraism for 'an account of the life' of Noah.
Yet the
Hebrew for "generations" means just that. We expect to now encounter
a list of children, grandchildren etc. Instead we read a summary of
Noah's
character. His children, his offspring, his memorial in this earth, was
not his
children, but rather his character. This is comfort for the childless.
Our
characters are our generation. This is what shall remain beyond the
grave; for
our spirit, the personality we develop, abides with God after our death
and
shall live eternally as 'us' at the Lord's return to earth. So often,
individual character development becomes subsumed beneath the pressures
of
childrearing. But our ultimate "generation" is us, our personality
and character.
6:9
Perfect- complete. All parts of his life were devoted to God, the
lesson of the
whole burnt offerings.
6:9 Just- We must note the
tension between God showing grace, undeserved favour, to Noah- and him
being
described here as a just or righteous man. Heb. 11:7 states that
Noah’s
righteousness was that which comes from justification by faith.
He was
the forerunner of Abraham. Noah was counted righteous, because he
believed- he
believed God’s words about the flood coming, he gave 120 years of
his life to
building an ark, and by his example witnessed to the world and pleaded
with
them to also believe. It wasn’t that God as it were rewarded Noah
for his good
deeds by counting righteousness to him. Otherwise there’d be no
meaning to the
statement that Noah found grace from God (6:8). So we can see how it
worked
out- Noah’s reasoning must’ve been something like:
‘We’re all sinners and quite
rightly done for by this flood that will come, me as well as the rest
of my
world. But... wait up... God has given me a way out of this,
by
building an ark and being saved from it. But... I’m a
sinner and deserve
to die in this judgment that’s coming. So how can it be, that I,
with
all my weakness and dysfunction, can survive this judgment? It must be
that
although I am worthy of destruction in the flood, God’s willing
to count me as
if I’m righteous and therefore not destroy me with the world of
the ungodly.
Wow. He counts me as if I am righteous... and I believe
that. So
I will go on building the ark and seek to persuade as many others to
believe
God is willing to count them as righteous and if they believe that,
they’ll
jump on board the ark with me’.
6:9 Walked
with God- moment by moment in the day, we are to be "with" God, on a
journey with Him. All life is movement, a journey. It's not a case of
being on
a journey whilst others are static, but moving with God.
6:12 God
looked- He does all the time (Ps. 14:2; 53:2,3). ‘Looking
upon’ is an idiom for
answered prayer or God's response to human request (Gen. 6:12; 29:32;
Ex. 2:25;
Dt. 26:7; Jud. 6:14; Lk. 1:48). Perhaps [as often in early Genesis] we
have the
same events recorded in different words; in 6:8 we learn that Noah
found grace
in God's eyes; and perhaps in response to Noah's prayers for salvation
from his
evil world, God looked upon the earth and decided to destroy it in
response to
Noah's prayers. Not that necessarily Noah prayed for earth's
destruction; but
this was the method God used to answer whatever Noah was asking for.
6:12 Corrupt... corrupted –
The same word is translated ‘destroy’ when we read of
God’s resolve to
‘destroy’ humanity with the flood (Gen. 6:13,17). Humanity
had destroyed
themselves; Divine condemnation and judgment is only really a working
out of
what people have done to themselves. The same word occurs in Ex. 32:7,
where we
read that Israel had corrupted / destroyed themselves. This is an
example of
how within the Pentateuch, events in early Genesis set the scene for
the later
story of Israel.
6:13 Both
Moses and Peter stress that God brought the flood upon "the world of
the
ungodly", i.e. the wicked people.
The Jewish writings claimed that the purpose of the flood was to
destroy sinful
Angels, and that mankind suffered from the result of their destruction.
Thus
the Testament
of Naphtali
3.5: "Likewise the Watchers departed from the order of nature; the Lord
cursed them at the Flood". The Jewish writings repeatedly change the
Biblical emphasis upon wicked people (especially Jews), claiming that
the
various Divine judgments were upon wicked Angels. Quite why people on
earth
should have to suffer the result of this remains a begged question.
6:14 rooms-
Heb. nests. There is a unique place for each of us prepared in God's
eternal
house- Jn. 14:1-3
6:14 pitch
it- cp. our being sealed in Christ with the Spirit (Eph. 1:13; 4:30).
The same
idea is to be found in the Lord shutting in Noah (Gen. 7:16). The
Hebrew for
'pitch' is related to the word for 'covering', as in the atonement
covering for
sin.
6:15 The
ark was not designed for sailing, it had no means of self propulsion,
nor
self-steering. The ark represents Christ, entering Him by baptism (1
Pet.
3:19-21). Once there, we're in God's hands. 300 x 50 x 30 is the same
proportion as the human body- significant in that the ark is understood
by
Peter as being a type of the body of Christ, into which the believer
enters by
baptism.
6:16 Window- Heb. a light
(as RV, ASV), a glistering thing; the word comes from the word for
pressed oil.
The Rabbis suggest it was a precious stone. If so, it would look
forward to the
Lord Jesus as the light of our world as we live within the ark. This
isn’t the
same Hebrew word as in Gen. 8:6, where Noah opened a window in the ark.
6:17 The condemned world of Noah’s time [the flood was a clear
type of the
final judgment] were to ‘pine away / languish’ (Gen. 6:17;
7:21- AV “die”). The
wicked will melt away from the Lord's presence (Ps. 68:2). Rejected
Israel are
described as being "ashamed away" (Joel 1:12)- the same idea. This is
the idea behind Heb. 12:15 RVmg: "…man that falleth back from
the grace of
God". What they did in this life in slinking away from the reality of
pure
grace will be what is worked out in their condemnation experience. 1
Jn. 2:28
speaks of them as being "ashamed from before him at his coming", the
Greek suggesting the idea of slinking away in shame.
6:18 wife-
Noah had only one wife, even though it seems she wasn't very fruitful.
Polygamy
was likely popular amongst the wealthy- indicating Noah's faithfulness
to his
wife as well as possibly his poverty
6:18 Establish- the
covenant wasn’t established until Noah left the ark, Gen. 9:11.
Noah lived by
faith in this promise of a promise- which is what this was.
6:18 With
thee- you singular. God established His covenant with Noah personally,
but Noah
was able to save his family as well on account of his covenant
relationship
with God. Ez. 14:14,20 state that in Ezekiel's time, Israel were so
wicked that
Noah would've saved only himself and not his family. Yet Heb. 11:7 says
that
Noah saved his family by preparing the ark. The implication could be
that
Noah's spirituality 'covered' his weaker family, because they were not
as
unspiritual as the people of Ezekiel's time, although still in need of
saving
by another. This suggests that to some extent, we can affect the
salvation of
third parties, especially family members, by our own finding of grace
before
God. Noah is strangely described as "the eighth person" of the eight
who were saved (2 Pet. 2:5). Perhaps this means that he put the
salvation of
the others first, and entered last of all into the ark. The covenant
was with
him, relating to his personal salvation; but he wasn't spiritually
selfish, but
rather worked to incorporate others within his own salvation. And God
remembered this, calling him "the eighth" (RV "Noah with seven
others").
6:19 shall you bring...
shall come unto you (6:20). Noah's ark is a well known type of the
salvation
which humanity can find in Christ; and yet close analysis of the
Genesis record
reveals that there were some animals whom Noah had to bring into the
ark and
take them with him (Gen. 6:19; 7:2); and others who came to Noah and
entered
into the ark of their own volition (Gen. 6:20; 7:9,15,16). The same
Hebrew is
found in Gen. 8:9, about how the dove came to Noah of its own volition,
and
Noah welcomed her and took her into the ark. Putting all this together,
we are
to compel men to come in (Lk. 14:23); and yet we are also to be there
to
welcome in the seekers who seek of their own volition. It's easier to
do the
latter; to put up a website, waiting there for some eager seeker to
come and
find. But we are also to compel people in, and to also bear in mind
that there
are some who will be attracted to the Gospel from selfish reasons, as
the man
who buys the field thinking that he can exploit it for his own benefit.
These
too we are to take on board and not turn away. Whilst people, with all
their
wonderful uniqueness, should never be pigeon-holed nor
over-categorized... all
the same, we need to consider the type of person we're dealing with as
we plan
out our approach. For if we seek them, we will consider who they are,
and how
appropriately we can engage them.
6:19 of
every sort- all kinds of people preserved in Christ. If Noah hadn't
brought
them in, much to the mockery of the surrounding world, they wouldn't
have been
saved. Few, i.e. 8 people, were saved in the ark (1 Pet. 3:20). The
animals
therefore don't represent the 'saved'. The point may simply be that
through our
salvation, there is also the salvation of the animal world; or perhaps
the
animals were representative of those who will be given the chance of
redemption
after the Lord has returned and established the Kingdom, both good and
bad,
clean and unclean. Note the use of clean and unclean animals to
symbolize
people hearing the Gospel in Acts 10:9-16.
6:20 Come
unto thee [Noah]- cp. Jn. 6:37 "All that the Father gives me shall come
to
me". Noah was a type of Christ, saving His household. As "Come unto
me" (Mt. 10:28).
6:21
food... for them. This would've involved Noah observing the animals
carefully
in order to understand what food they required. If his gathering of the
animals
represents our gathering of people for the Kingdom, we can learn from
this- to
understand those whom we seek to bring in to Christ and care for in
Him. Seeing
they were in the ark for a year and 10 days (7:11 600th year, 2nd
month, 17th
day of the month to 601st year, 2nd month, 27th day, 8:13,14), this
involved a
huge amount and variety of food; and also observing the animals to see
what
they each ate. People really would've thought Noah was crazy.
6:22 During
the preparation period, Noah was a "preacher of righteousness" (2
Pet. 2:5). But there's no hint in the Genesis record that he preached
in any
formal sense. 1 Pet. 1:11; 3:19-21 suggest that he made his witness
through
"the spirit of Christ". His very preparation for the coming of the day
of the Lord was his witness. Noah must be one of the greatest examples
of
witness through silent example (cp. 1 Pet. 3:1), openly structuring his
life
around his faith in God's promised future rather than living just for
today. 1
Pet. 3:20 says that God's patient grace "waited" whilst the ark was
being prepared. But the Greek really means to "await", with the idea
of expectation, looking for something. So as Noah preached, God's grace
eagerly
looked for and awaited a result. The result may appear tiny- 'just' his
wife,
three sons and three young women whom they then married. But God's
grace was
eagerly awaiting and anticipating the success of his witness. And it's
just the
same with our witness and appeal for baptism into the Christ ark in
these last
days, which were typified by that period of Noah's life.
7:1 Come
thou [singular]... for thee [you singular] have I seen righteous- the
focus is
always upon God's individual relationship with Noah, as a result of
which his
family are saved. God saw Noah as righteous- but not his family? Noah
and the
seven had to leave behind their homes, land and families. They were
promised
just the bare necessities of life in the ark- just as we are assured of
in
Christ. God 'saw' Noah as righteous- not that he was in himself, but
God
imputed righteousness to him, for Noah was saved by grace not his own
righteousness, Gen. 6:8.
7:1 Come thou- definitely
alluded to in Is. 26:20,21. There seems a principle that God somehow
removes or
safeguards His people whilst He judges the earth (Gen. 19:22; Ex. 8:22;
9:26;
Rev. 7:3).
7:1 all thy
house- his entire family consisted of his three sons. He therefore had
no
daughters and it would seem that his sons had no children. This tiny
family
size must be significant- for in those long lived ages, most women
would have
likely had over 50 children. Again, it was the small, broken and
despised who
were chosen of God. It seems that Noah's daughters in law only started
bearing
after the flood.
7:2 By sevens- three pairs
and one for sacrifice? Or, seven pairs.
7:3 Face of
all the earth / land- the earth / land is often described as having
this
"face", or 'presence', as if it is somehow consciously alive and is
"the presence" of God to us. Hence any defacement of the planet is an
act done upon the face or presence of God.
7:4 cp. 10-
seven days of waiting for the rain whilst "shut in" cp. Is. 26:20.
However, an alternative reading is possible. 7:4 "For yet seven days"
could imply that Noah was asked to come into the ark seven days before
the rain
started coming. But Gen. 7:13 [along with Mt. 24:38; Lk. 17:27- quite
an
emphasis] says he entered only on the day that the rain came. Why did
he hang
around outside for those seven days? Surely because he was still
desperately
appealing for people to enter the ark. This points forward to the
intensity of
our appeal to the world which there should be in the very last days,
going into
the byways and hedges and compelling [or trying to compel] people to
"come
in" (Lk. 14:23). If we think we're in the last days, our appeal should
have this intensity. These seven days could be read as a delay by God
in
bringing the judgment of the flood, and may be alluded to in 2 Pet.
3:9, where
we read that God's patience waited in the days of Noah because He so
urgently
awaited / hoped for repentance and response.
7:4 Cause
it to rain- God sending His rain upon the just [Noah and the other
seven
'just', 6:9] and unjust [the unrighteous world] may be an allusion to
this (Mt.
5:45). The universe isn't just ticking away by clockwork with God
somehow
distant and uninvolved. He is actively involved with us, and in that
sense is
not far from any one of us. Mt. 5:45 certainly sounds like a reference
to the
flood- and yet the context is of God's love towards both sinners and
righteous
alike. The destruction of "the old world" was therefore an act of
love- although that's very hard for our human minds to accept. To
curtail the
lives of the wicked who refuse to repentant after extensive appeal to
them, is,
in fact, Divine grace.
7:5 Noah did all that was
commanded him- “Did all that was commanded by the Lord” is
a phrase which in
Hebrew occurs around 100 times in the Old Testament. The first
occurrence of a
phrase in the Bible is often instructive. In Gen. 6:22 and 7:5 we
have
the first occurrence of this, concerning Noah. He is therefore set up
as a
paradigm of faithful obedience to God which inspired many of later
generations.
7:6 600
years old- The Biblical account of the flood gives details which are
imaginable, earthly realities; there is nothing of the grossly
exaggerated and
other-worldly which there is in the pagan flood legends. Thus the
Biblical
dimensions for the ark are realistic, whereas the boat mentioned in the
Babylonian legend recorded by Berossus was supposedly about one
kilometre long
and half a kilometre wide. Noah was 600 years old according to the
Biblical
record, whereas Ziusudra, the Mesopotamian equivalent of Noah, was
supposedly
36,000 years old at the time of the flood.
7:7 His
son's wives- The sons were born to Noah when he was around 500, so by
the time
of the flood they were around 100 years old, as the flood came when he
was 600
(7:6). Lamech, Noah's father, had children at 182; most men of that
epoch seem
to have begun families by that age. Seeing there are no mention of
Noah's sons
having any children, it could be surmised that they took wives
immediately
prior to entering the ark, so as to "keep seed alive upon the face of
all
the earth" (Gen. 7:3). Those women in their turn must have been
motivated
by faith to go into the ark; surely they'd have faced huge opposition
and
rejection from their families for marrying into that strange 'Ark'
family.
Their motive could only have been faith in Noah's preaching, backed up
as it
were by the spirit of Christ which was seen in him (1 Pet. 1:11;
3:18-20; 2
Pet. 2:5). Indeed, 1 Pet. 3:18-20 speaks of some people at Noah's time
who
"once were disobedient" but who were converted by his preaching in
the spirit of Christ. Who were those converts, if they weren't those
three
girls who then married his sons?
7:7 Because of- Heb. ‘in
the face of’. We have noted the Biblical emphasis upon the fact
that Noah
entered the ark on the very day the flood came; but this phrase seems
to imply
that he waited until the very last minute. It seems this was not due to
any
lack of faith, but rather because of the urgency and desperation he
felt in
appealing to others to come into the ark with him. He truly was a
remarkable
“preacher of righteousness”. Our knowledge of this
world’s future means that as
we walk the streets and mix with men and women, our heart should cry
out for
them, no matter how they behave towards us, and there should be a deep
seated
desire for at least some of them to come to repentance and thereby
avoid the
judgments to come.
7:7 Because
of the waters- they'd not seen the waters, but faith sees those things
which
are not as though they are, following God's principle of thinking
likewise
(Rom. 4:17; Heb. 11:3). Noah was "moved with fear" because of what he
believed would come (Heb. 11:7- just as we should be, for the same
phrase is
used in Hebrews about us at Heb. 4:1).
7:9 Unto
Noah- again the emphasis is upon Noah personally as the agent of
salvation.
7:15 They
went in unto Noah- he gathered them, but they came unto him, as in our
witness
to the world. Animals are shy; did Noah work for many years to
understand
animals so that they came to him [cp. our understanding of the audience
we
preach to]? Or was it that animals only came to fear humans after the
flood
(Gen. 9:2) and therefore they came more naturally to Noah without their
present
shyness and nervousness of human beings?
7:16 Shut
him in- see on 6:14. Note again the emphasis upon Noah- the animals
came to him
personally, he
was shut in, and thereby his family and the animals were shut in too.
As 7:23.
7:16 Shut
him in- the same Hebrew word occurs in Is. 26:20,21: "Come my people,
enter into your chambers [cp. the rooms / nests in the ark] and shut
your doors
about you; hide yourself as for a little moment, until the indignation
be
overpast. For behold, the LORD is coming out from his place to punish
the
inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity, and the earth will
disclose the
blood shed on it, and will no more cover its slain". This passage in
Isaiah seems to be applying the language of the flood to the
preservation of
God's people in the last days. The mention of the blood shed upon earth
recalls
Gen. 9:6.
7:19 high
hills- perhaps a reference to the "high places" where idols were
worshipped.
7:22 dry
land- Heb. implies a parched or waste land. This could suggest that the
flood
was local, of a waste land / wilderness forming a basin hemmed in by
mountains.
Or it could suggest that the busy, prosperous world of Noah was
spiritually a
waste land, a desert.
7:23 Noah
only remained alive, and they that were with him- Yet again, Noah is
the focus
of salvation, but in him and with him his family were saved.
7:24 150
days- 5 months, a pattern of the last days, Rev. 9:5,10.
Gen. 8:1
"God remembered" Noah in the ark, implying He has the capacity to
forget or be oblivious; this ‘language of limitation’ may
refer to the Angels
rather than God personally. It would be worth speculating whether every
time
God is said to 'remember' something, this language of limitation refers
to
Angels, who have the capacity to have their memories limited, and to
need to
remember things. After God remembers, He often does an action which
necessitates other Angelic action, as if one Angel- the one which
'remembers'-
commands other Angels. One wonders whether this is
the case
when God "remembered" Noah in the ark and sent a "wind" to
drive back the waters. The Angel "Who maketh His Angels Spirits
(winds)" was therefore sending an Angel in control of a wind to execute
His work. The idea of the Angels being in control of the winds and all
elements
of the natural world is a common one , seen
most
clearly in the book of Job. Or it could be that from Noah's
perspective- and
Genesis is at times written from the standpoint of human beings on
earth, e.g.
the creation record- God had forgotten him, but now God remembered him.
In this
case we would have another indication of Noah's imperfect faith.
8:1 Remembered- The
language of angelic limitation? This is an elohim statement,
rather
than of Yahweh Himself. The Hebrew for ‘remembered’ is
elsewhere used in the
sense of making mention of (Gen. 40:14; Ex. 23:13 etc.). Did the
Angels
make mention of Noah before the Council of Heaven, and God responded by
sending
out an Angel / wind to pass over the earth and drive back the waters?
God makes
His Angels spirits / winds (Ps. 104:4). Or it could be simply
presenting things
from the perspective of Noah, who [like us] would’ve been tempted
to think that
God had ‘forgotten’ him?
God “remembered Noah” (Gen. 8:1) whilst he was in the ark.
Moses uses the same
figure in Gen. 30:22 to describe how God ‘remembered’
Rachel in responding to
her prayer. Likewise God ‘remembered’ the righteous in
Sodom in response to
Abraham’s prayer (Gen. 19:29). Could this not imply that whilst
Noah was spared
from the world’s judgment, he was earnestly praying for the days
to be
shortened, and to be allowed to emerge from the ark into the new world?
This
would point forward to the urgent prayer of the faithful in the last
days.
8:1 “made a
wind”. The flood makes a good case study of Angelic control of
the natural
world. Jude 14 quotes Enoch's prophecy of the flood as saying that it
would be
associated with the Lord coming with "ten thousands of His saints"
(Angels- cp. Dan. 7). The fact that Angels were used to cause the flood
is found
written between the lines of the Genesis account. The "windows of
Heaven" being opened must refer to Angelic activity, as Job describes
God
calling for the wind and lightening to obey Him, and they come to Him
and obey.
This language must be about animate beings- i. e. the Angels
responsible for
these elements of nature. Gen. 8:1 says God remembered Noah- the
language of
limitation, as God Himself cannot forget or need to bring things to
memory. We
have suggested that this language of limitation be always applied
to the
Angels; thus it would seem they were in charge of the flood. "God (the
Angel co-ordinating the flood?) made a wind (an Angel- "Who maketh His
Angels spirits"- 'spirit' is the same word as 'winds') to pass over the
earth. . and the waters returned from off the earth, in going and
returning (A.
V. mg. )". This last phrase is used elsewhere about the Angels as God's
eyes roaming around the earth on His missions, and also there is the
connection
with the ideas already discussed of the Angels constantly going to and
fro
between God and the earth and around the earth.
Gen. 8:2
states clearly that it was God who caused the flood rains to cease and
the
waters to subside- whereas the pagan myths claim that it was the sun
god who
appeared and caused the waters to evaporate. The Biblical record says
nothing
about the waters disappearing by solar evaporation, but claims they
subsided as
a result of the work of Israel's God.
8:3
Continually- Heb. 'in going and returning'. This is the language of the
surges
of huge tidal waves, caused by the underwater eruptions of the
"fountains
of the deep" being broken up (Gen. 7:11; 8:2). Being in the ark must've
been a very rocky ride; the boat would've been tossed and thrown most
of the
time. And so it is with our ride in Christ.
8:4 rested-
see on 5:29
8:4
seventeenth day of the seventh month- Israel left Egypt on the 14th day
of
Abib, the seventh month which became the first month in their new
calendar;
they likely crossed the Red Sea on the 17th day of that month. So
perhaps it
was on the very same day that the ark rested. Israel's passage through
the Red
Sea typified baptism (1 Cor. 10:1,2), just as Noah's passing through
the floopd
waters did (1 Pet. 3:19-21). Note that this was the same day that the
Lord
Jesus was resurrected- He died at Passover, 14th Abib, and resurrected
three
days later, 17th Abib.
8:6 The window which he had
made- This is not the same Hebrew word which some versions translate
‘window’
in Gen. 6:16 [see note there]. There had been no command to make this
window.
Does this suggest a lack of faith within Noah, wanting to see what was
going on
outside, when God had designed the ark as a structure which
didn’t give those
within it the opportunity to see where they were going? The humanity
and
weakness of Noah is what makes him accessible to us as an example. It
could be
argued that the sending forth of the raven and dove were in themselves
a lack
of faith- for he had been commanded to preserve the animals, and
letting one go
like that was hardly responsible. But God conceded to Noah’s
humanity and
worked with him in this. The window was more of a spy hole- 8:9 speaks
of Noah
putting his hand out of it and pulling in the dove. It’s worth
reflecting
whether obsessions with prophecy are some kind of building a futile spy
hole,
when we are to trust our ultimate salvation to the Lord, in His good
time. We
have remarked elsewhere that events in early Genesis are to be
connected with
similar things later in the Pentateuch. The sending out of the two
animals to know
the state of the land perhaps connects with Moses’ sending out of
the spies to
know the state of the land- and this too wasn’t an act of great
faith, for
Moses surely should’ve believed the Divine / Angelic information
about the
state of the land rather than having to rely upon human investigation.
8:9 Found no rest- no Noah.
It was Israel who were to later find no rest for the sole of their feet
as they
tramped the Gentile world [same Hebrew words in Lam. 1:3]. Their
returning to
the Lord was prefigured by the dove’s return to Noah.
8:9 She returned- There’s a definite allusion to this in Ps.
116:6,7 [the
surrounding verses there have several allusions to Noah and the flood]:
“The LORD
preserves the simple; when I was brought low, he saved me.
Return, O my
soul, to your rest [Heb. Noakh- Noah]; for the LORD has dealt
bountifully with you”. The Psalmist felt himself as that simple
dove, flying
over this shattered world looking for a place to land, and finding
none, only
to return to the Lord- symbolized by Noah. Note how in Ps. 55:6 the
Psalmist
also wishes to be as a dove. This is surely the way to read and use
Scripture-
to take an image and see the relevance to ourselves. This is why the
Bible
writers make such allusions which may appear out of context when
analyzed in
literary, philological terms of exposition. But the Hebrew way of
interpreting
Scripture isn’t always like this; the emphasis upon
“context” can be taken too
far, and it’s more of a Western than an Eastern way of using
literature.
8:9 Put forth his hand and pulled her- These are the very same Hebrew
words as
in Gen. 19:10, where the Angels put forth their hand and pull Lot into
the
house and shut the door, just as Noah had been Angelically ‘shut
in’ the ark.
The connection of thought may simply be to show that Noah rescued /
saved the
dove from endlessly flying over the wastage of the Gentile world, which
connects with our thoughts above about how the dove represents
God’s wayward
people returning to Him.
8:10 The Hebrew word translated "grieved" in 6:6 occurs here about
Noah in Gen. 8:10: "And he stayed [s.w. to be grieved, hurt] yet other
seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark". This word
is
found translated in other places like this: "Be in anguish" (Dt.
2:25); "wounded" (1 Sam. 31:3); "exceedingly grieved" (Es.
4:4); " travaileth" (Job 15:20); "wounded" (1 Chron. 10:3);
"sore pained within me" (Ps. 55:4); " I am pained at my
heart" (Jer. 4:19); it is several times used of a woman "in
pain" , "travailing" in expectancy of the birth (Is. 26:17,18;
54:1; 66:7; Mic. 4:10). Why was Noah grieved and distressed, as he
waited seven
days before sending the dove out again? Surely for the plight of his
world. He
was hoping the dove would return with some sign of civilization, some
hint of
human survival. His grief was for the corpses floating, for the animals
lost…for the world that once was. He had preached to them for
120 years, and
they hadn’t listened. Yet he didn’t think Well that’s
their problem, they
didn’t want to hear when they could, it serves them right. And
neither does it
seem he was looking out of the ark window thinking My, I’m sure
glad we were
obedient. As the rain came down, it seems to me that the practical
reality of
the tragedy would have dawned upon Noah; as the waters rose, he would
have
pictured the folk he knew running to ever higher hills he would have
seen the
faces of local children, maybe those of the guys he bought wood from,
faces of
the women his wife had bartered with, memories of his own brothers and
sisters,
perhaps his other children. It seems to me that he spent all that time
in the
ark grieving, grieving, grieving for the tragedy of it all. He surely
wasn’t
smugly thinking Ha, serves them right, and praise God, I’m saved,
and there’s a
great future Kingdom for me in store!. I also muse- and no more than
this- that
perhaps he went on a bender on coming out of the ark because he just
couldn’t
handle the tragedy of it all. Walking around an empty earth knowing he
was
saved and the others hadn’t made it… And this all has
vital, biting relevance
to us. For Peter takes Noah in the ark as a symbol of us all in Christ.
Yes, he
was there thanking God for His gracious salvation, looking forward to
the new
world to come, but distraught at the tragedy of those masses who
hadn’t
responded, and who had died the slow, desperate, struggling death of
drowning.
He sent out the dove to see if the waters were " abated" - but the
Hebrew word is usually translated " curse" ; he wanted to know if the
curse was still evident; if the waters were cursed in the presence of
the
ground / earth. The same word is found in Gen. 8:21 " I will not again curse
the ground" . If our concern for this world is genuine, if our
preaching
is not just seeking to gain members, or prove ourselves right and
others wrong,
then we will grieve for this world; even though the exclusion of some
from Gods
salvation is in some way their fault. Those who reject our message we
will
grieve and bleed for; not just shrug our shoulders over. Lack of
response
should concern us, worry us, drive us to think of how we
could be the
more persuasive of men.
8:11 Olive.
Noah was a "herald of righteousness" (2 Pet. 2:5 Gk.). In the ancient
world, heralds were associated with an olive branch or wand, e.g.
Mercury the
herald-god had an olive branch in his hand. Noah may therefore have
understood
from this that now he was indeed the herald of the new age of
righteousness.
But a herald worked to take messages between opposing parties and to
reconcile
them- the olive branch was thought to have power over warring snakes.
Perhaps
Noah was being reminded that his work wasn't over- it was for him to go
forth
from the ark and reconcile people to God. Instead he got drunk...
8:11 Olive- Israel being
the land of olives (Dt. 8:8), this would be another indication that the
flood
was a local affair over the ‘land’ promised to Abraham. As
olive trees don’t
grow near the present Ararat in Armenia, this lends support to the
Jewish
tradition that the olive came from the mount of Olives, and the
‘ararat’ /
‘holy mount’ upon which the ark landed was Mount Zion.
8:11 Leaf- s.w. branch. A broken off olive branch is exactly the figure
Paul
uses to describe Israel in Rom. 11:17-24. The whole story is a very
detailed
prefigurement of Israel’s return from Gentile dispersion and
Divine judgment,
not simply to God, but into the Christ ark. Is. 54:9 encourages us to
see
things this way too, for the waters of the flood are there interpreted
as God’s
wrath with Israel, and their cessation speaks of His eternal acceptance
of them
at their return to Him.
8:12 He stayed- s.w. to be patient, wait, trust. It’s a different
Hebrew word
from that in Gen. 8:10, although there many versions also read
“stayed”. There
in 8:10 the Hebrew means to writhe, wriggle, twist in pain- rather
indicating
Noah’s impatience and dented faith. But now his patient waiting
returns. This
patient waiting for Christ’s Kingdom is of the essence (2 Thess.
3:5). Saul
also tarried [s.w. Gen. 8:12] seven days, but he offered his sacrifice
then
rather than wait longer as Noah did to offer sacrifice (1 Sam. 13:8).
Potentially encouragement had been set up for Saul, but he failed to
take it.
He was supposed to perceive the similarity in position between himself
and
Noah; but he failed to see it nor think himself into the situation.
8:13 dry- s.w. waste, destroyed, desolate. It was this which maybe made
Noah
depressed and turn to alcohol- for he loved people and so cared for
them, and
had sought their salvation in vain for 120 years.
8:17 Bring forth with thee [you singular]- Again, Noah is seen as the
Saviour,
with all the others saved due to being with him. We can in a sense save
others
by our witness, even though the Lord is their Saviour in the ultimate
sense.
8:19 The
order in which the animals are listed is different from that in 6:20;
7:21.
Perhaps because in the ark they mixed together; our experience in the
Christ
ark should lead to unity.
8:20 Built an altar- This
was on Noah’s initiative. There had been no altars stipulated
previously. God
had asked Noah to build an ark, and now Noah of his own volition builds
an
altar. As we mature in Christ, we no longer simply follow commands but
take our
own initiative in God’s service. Noah’s first reaction may
have been to build a
house for himself and his family; but he put God first and built an
altar.
Again and
again, Moses sought to refocus his people on the practical, the
literal, the
concrete, and away from the myths which surrounded them. And yet he
does this
by alluding to those myths, so as to alert Israel to the fact that the
new,
inspired record which he was writing was fully aware of the myths God's
people
were being assailed with. This would explain the similarity of
expressions
between some of the myths and the Genesis record- e.g. "The Lord
smelled
the pleasing odour" (Gen. 8:21) is very similar to the Gilgamesh Epic,
9.159-160: "The gods smelled the odour, the sweet odour".
8:21 Sweet
savour - 'sweet' translates nychoah,
related to the word 'Noah'. Noah was his sacrifice. Our lives are
sacrifices
being offered up. Just as the Lord Jesus was an offering of a
sweet-smelling
savour (Eph. 5:2). Noah was his sacrifice, as we are ours. We each have
our
unique smell to God.
8:21 Said in His heart- We
may never know in this life God’s feelings in response to our
sacrifices. We
can touch the heart of God, we tiny mortals on earth…
8:21 Not again curse- alluded to in Rev. 21:1, there will be no more
curse in
God’s Kingdom. It seems Noah had the potential to enable the
Kingdom there and
then, as did so many- Solomon, the Jews returning from exile, Israel in
the
first century. Every time, human weakness and shortsightedness stopped
it.
8:21 For the imagination… - God as it were reduced His
expectations, cut us yet
more slack, made even bigger concessions to humanity.
8:22 Harvest…Winter- The reference to the seasons, planting etc.
suggest this
is relevant to the earth / land of Israel and not world-wide [there is
no Summer
and Winter on the equator]. God has emotion and it’s hard to read
this any
other way than that He regretted how far He had punished humanity. This
tension
within God, between being immutable and yet being emotional, is
impossible to
ultimately explain.
9:1 Be fruitful- Remember
that Noah had only produced three children in 600 years, and his sons
had not
had any children.
9:1 Replenish- s.w. Gen. 6:11,13 “filled” with violence. Is
the implication
that Noah’s family were to fill the world with righteousness in
place of the
evil that had filled it? In this case, the subsequent failure of the
family
with sexuality and alcohol is a sad response to such a fine calling.
9:1 Note
the similarities with Adam in Eden- replenish the earth (9:1 = Gen.
1:28); have
dominion over animals (9:2 = Gen. 1:28); commanded what to eat (9:3 =
Gen.
1:29); prohibition of some things which they were not to eat (9:4 =
Gen.
2:16,17). Adam's sin, resulting in cursing, is matched by Noah's sin
and the
pronouncing of cursings. Yet again, the great potential for the Kingdom
of God
was spoilt by human weakness.
9:2 Fear… dread. This part
of the promise seems only made to Noah and his sons in the context of
the
animals with whom they had contact in their work of replenishing the
land / earth
area which had been flooded. There are animals which don’t fear
people, and God
brings this to our attention in the later chapters of Job. Thus the
ostrich is
“without fear… she scorns the horse and his rider”
(Job 39:16,18); the horse
“goes on to meet the armed men. He mocks at fear, neither is
affrighted (Job
39:21-24); behemoth and leviathan [the hippopotamus and crocodile?] are
portrayed as fearless of men, indeed it is men who fear them (Job
40,41). The
“fear and dread” of humans which fell on the animals after
the flood is clearly
linkable with the “fear and dread” which was to come upon
the inhabitants of
Canaan due to the Israelites (Gen. 9:2 = Dt. 1:21; 3:8; 11:25).
9:3 Every moving thing…
shall be meat for you. There was no distinction between clean and
unclean
animals, which could be eaten and which couldn’t. There are
therefore no
animals unclean of themselves; the Mosaic laws concerning them were
therefore
only to teach an object lesson, rather than being a reflection upon any
intrinsic uncleanness of any specific animals.
9:5 Will I
require- God's judgment is ongoing, He has not as it were switched off
and will
only open the books at the last day. Ps. 9:10-12 says that when God
makes
“inquisition [s.w. ‘require’] for blood, He remembers
those who “seek” [s.w.
‘require’] for Him. He seeks and searches us out, holding
us accountable for
actions; and yet we are to seek after Him. And thus we meet… The
verse means
that God requires life from us- the Lord Jesus alludes here when He
spoke of how
the soul of a man would be "required" at the day of his death (Lk.
12:20), and woe to us if we have only 'bigger barns', petty
materialistic
acquisition, to show for it. If we take another's life, that life will
be
required of us- because of the general principle, that God 'requires'
human
life from us. So the principle is that we should not merely avoid
taking the
life of another; we should give our lives back to God, knowing that
life is
required of us.
9:6 For in
the image of God- As James 3:9; the fact humans are made in God's image
means
we should perceive the value and meaning of persons, from not killing
to
holding the door open for people... Defacing God’s image earns
death. In what
ways can we destroy the image of God in others apart from by killing
them? Any
form of dehumanizing surely does the same. Because we are made in God's
image,
we should therefore not kill
other humans (Gen. 9:6). James says the same, in essence, in teaching
that
because we are in God's image, we shouldn't
curse others. To curse a man is to kill him. That's the
point of
James' allusion to Genesis and to God as creator. Quite simply, respect
for the
person of others is inculcated by sustained reflection on the way that
they too
are created in God's image.
9:9 My covenant- Covenants
were two way agreements, with conditions for both parties and a token
of the
covenant. All the elements of a covenant are present- apart from the
conditions
for the other party, i.e. Noah. God's covenant is of grace- He binds
Himself to
certain things, without any corresponding demands upon Noah.
9:9 With you – Repeated in 9:11. The covenant wasn’t with
humanity generally
but to the children of Noah.
9:10 Every beast- God is in covenant relationship with the animals.
9:11 "Neither shall
there any more be a flood to destroy the earth" (Gen. 9:11) sounds as
if
destruction of the earth by flooding had happened several times before.
It's
almost as if the God of all grace is showing Himself progressively
gracious to
earth's inhabitants: 'I've done it before several times, but now I
promise you
humans, you new race of inhabitants upon whom my special love is to be
shown
through My Son, that I'll never do it again'.
The
Babylonian Epic Of Creation (6.82) claims that after Marduk's victory,
he set
his bow in the sky and it became a constellation. He also supposedly
used his
bow to shoot arrows at the clouds which caused the deluge. "So, too,
the
pagan Arabs related of one of their gods that after discharging arrows
from his
bow, he set his bow in the cloud". These myths are alluded to and
corrected by the statement that God's bow is simply the rainbow (Gen.
9:13), a
purely natural phenomenon which is merely an optical feature and
certainly not
a literal bow of any god. Yahweh's bow, the rainbow, is a symbol of His
grace
and love towards His creatures. The later Old Testament repeatedly uses
the
idea of the true God shooting His arrows as a figure of His judgment of
His
enemies and salvation of His people (Hab. 3:9,11; Zech. 9:14; Ps. 38:2;
64:8;
77:17; 144:6; Job 6:4; Lam. 2:4; 3:12). The whole mythical, pagan idea
of a god
having a literal bow and arrows is thereby deconstructed. The question
arises,
however, as to why Moses is alluding to Babylonian myths which were
current
only centuries after his time. My response is threefold. Firstly, God
could
have inspired Moses to speak in terms which would later take on
relevance to
the myths which God foresaw would arise. Secondly, the Babylonian myths
may
well have developed from myths which were current in Moses' time. A
third
possibility is that the Pentateuch was re-written under Divine
inspiration
whilst Judah were in captivity in Babylon, and the historical accounts
presented in such a way as to have relevance to the Marduk worship and
other
Babylonian mythology which surrounded God's people in Babylonian
captivity. I
have given further evidence for this possibility elsewhere.
9:14 When I
bring a cloud- some foreshadowing of the bringing of a cloud at the
crucifixion?
The idea of
the rainbow being a ‘reminder’ to God not to destroy the
earth again with a
flood is rather hard to understand when applied to God. But if this is
a
reminder to the Angels, who brought the flood in the first place, this
makes
more sense (Gen. 9:16).
The
Gilgamesh Epic specifically records that Utnapistim gave the workmen
wine to
drink whilst they built the ark (Tablet 9, lines 72-73). The Biblical
account
appears to consciously contradict this by stating that Noah was the
first to
make wine- and he did this after
the flood (Gen. 9:20).
9:21 Drunk-
See on 8:10. There's a juxtaposition here between God's wonderful
covenant
being followed by Noah getting drunk in response to it. He gets blind
drunk
right after being given a wonderful, one sided covenant of Divine
grace. We too
find it hard to cope with the huge import of God’s grace.
It’s not something we
merely accept with a smile, thinking “Oh how sweet”. The
enormity of it is
riveting and very demanding. And Noah couldn’t handle it. Surely
Noah knew all
about alcohol, for his generation were partying right up until the
flood came.
If they had developed iron smelting technology by Gen. 5, they surely
knew
about alcohol. Noah maybe had weaknesses which aren't recorded in the
record of
his earlier life. Peter reasons that God saved Noah by the flood (1
Pet.
3:20,21); God saved Lot by destroying Sodom and Noah by destroying his
surrounding world, because He knows how to deliver the godly from
temptations
(2 Pet. 2:5-9). It could be that had God not done this, they too
would've been
caught up in the evil around them, so powerful was it. Hence Is. 54:9
speaks of
the flood as "the waters of Noah". It was Noah's flood, the flood
required for him, as well as to judge the world. HE was saved by grace
rather than
his good works (Gen. 6:8). The Mesopotamian myths speak of how the hero
of the
flood (cp. Noah in the Biblical account) was raised to divine, immortal
status.
Gen. 9:29 comments simply upon Noah: "And he died". In the myth of
Utnapishtim, the one who survives the flood is turned into a hero
and
becomes a god. But of course Moses’ inspired record is different.
The flood
story ends with Noah dying- not becoming a god. And Noah not only
remains
human, but he remains very
human- because he goes out and gets blind drunk after he comes out of
the ark.
Moses’ point is surely to show that real human lives really do
intersect with
Almighty God’s work, words and actions.
9:23 Covered- a related
word to the ‘covering’ of the ark (Gen. 8:13). As they had
been covered by God
and thus saved, so they sought to cover the sin of another. Our
experience of
covering in Christ should be similar, not gossiping of others’
sin but seeking
to cover it (s.w. Prov. 17:9; 10:12; 11:13). There is a direct allusion
to this
incident in Prov. 12:16: “A prudent man covers [s.w.]
shame”. What they did to
Noah is what we should do in response to our covering / atonement in
Christ.
Covering others’ sin isn’t the same as turning a blind eye
to it; it involves
conscious forgiveness, but then the covering of it in the sense that
God also
covers sin and doesn’t mention it against us ever again.
9:23 their faces were
backward- s.w. Ex. 33:23, where God hides His face from Moses and only
His
"back" is seen. The verbal similarities between the two incidents are
pointed. Perhaps Moses in recording this incident is suggesting that he
felt
like drunken Noah, and God showed the same grace to him as Noah's sons
showed
to their drunken father by not looking upon his sin and nakedness.
9:25 Canaan- Noah thrice
rails against Canaan (:26,27). Why, seeing that the shame had been done
to him
by Ham, Canaan's father? This seems a classic example of transference-
people
often focus their anger not against the one who has hurt them, but
against that
person's relative, family or cause. We should deal with persons
directly,
perceiving the value and meaning of the human person; and not deflect
the
relationship onto others as Noah appears to have done. The curses
placed by
Noah have no fulfilment [contrary to many racist and misguided attempts
to
force such a fulfilment]. The story ends with a huge spiritual
anticlimax,
although later reference to Noah shows that he was judged faithful
overall.
Gen. 10-
the 70 nations, see on Ex. 24:9-11
Moses'
words in Genesis deconstruct later Babylonian myths. Perhaps the
clearest case
of this is in the record of Babel. The Babylonian myths boasted of the
building
of the city of Babylon and its tower / ziggurat. The tower of Babel was
built
in a plain (Gen. 11:2); and both Strabo and Herodotus mention that
Babylon was
built in a wide plain. The record of the tower being built with bricks
is so
similar to the Babylonian Epic
Of Creation, Tablet 6, lines 58-61, which held that "For a
year [the gods] made bricks" to build the ziggurat of Babylon. Their
myths
claimed that after the deluge, humanity came to Babylon and the
Anunnaki
deities, who had supported Marduk in his battle, built the city. But
Gen. 11:5
labours that it was "the sons of men" who built Babel. Cassuto
describes
the Genesis record as "a kind of satire on what appeared to be a thing
of
beauty and glory in the eyes of the Babylonians". The phrase "city
and tower" is so often found in Babylonian writings with reference to
Babylon; but the phrase is used of Babel in Gen. 11:4. The temple of
Marduk in
Babylon had a sanctuary, the Esagila- "the house whose head is in
heaven" and a tower called Etemenanki, "the house of the foundation
of heaven and earth". Marduk supposedly lived on the seventh storey.
The
Babylonian inscriptions speak of the ziggurat tower as having its top
in
Heaven. The Genesis record deconstructs all this. The tower of Babel
was built
by sinful men
and not gods; the one true God came down
to view the tower- its top did not
reach to Heaven, and there is a powerful word play on the word Babylon,
meaning
'the gate of Heaven' in their language, and yet 'Babel', the equivalent
Hebrew
word, means 'confusion'. What the Babylonians thought was so great was
in God's
eyes and those of His people the Hebrews simply confusion and failure.
The
Genesis record goes on to show how that it was Abraham who had a great
name
made for himself (Gen. 12:2), whereas the Babel builders failed in
their desire
to make a permanent name for themselves. God's intention that mankind
should
spread out and fill the earth after the flood did eventually triumph
over the
builders of Babel-Babylon who tried to thwart it. Zeph. 3:9-11 allude
to the
Babel record- at the time of Judah's restoration from Babylon, it was
God's
intention to undo the effects of Babel and "change the speech of the
peoples to a pure [united] speech, that all of them may call on the
name of the
Lord and serve Him with one accord. From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia
my
suppliants, the daughter of my dispersed ones, shall bring my
offering".
Those dispersed would then gather as one, i.e. Babel would be reversed.
Gen. 11:5
"The Lord came down to see the city and the tower" (of Babel),
as if He had to search and come to have a closer look; this
‘language of
limitation’ may refer to the Angels rather than God personally.
"The Lord
came down to see the city and the tower which the children of men
builded"
– surely this language of limitation must be concerning the
Angels, seeing that
God is aware of all things. The Angelic response was "Go to, let us go
down, and there confound their language" (Gen. 11:5,7). This
recalls
the Angels' words of Gen. 1:26 "Let us make man in our image"- see
notes there.
The
genealogies of Genesis 11 reveal how some human lives repeat according
to the
same outline schema. Thus both Arphachsad and Shelad each lived 403
years after
the births of the eldest sons; Shelah, Peleg and Serug were each 30
when their
first sons were born. Abraham and Shem both had sons at 100 years old
(Gen.
11:10). And it is the very nature of Christian fellowship that God has
arranged
that our human lives likewise have elements of amazing similarity of
pattern.
The fact
has to be faced that Abram was called to leave his country and kindred
(his fellow
countrymen), but when he left Ur his countrymen came with him. And
additionally, " Terah took Abram...to go into the land of
Canaan" (Gen.11:31). Abram did not respond immediately and completely
to God's command. The call of Abram is an essay in partial response.
Yet we
know he had faith. Terah was an idolater (Josh.24:2); the command to
leave was
given to Abram, not Terah. Because God was going to promise Abram a
massive new
family stemming from him, he therefore had to come out from his
own
natural family. He was going to be promised many descendants- therefore
he had
to separate himself from his " father's house" or posterity. He was
to be promised a land for eternal inheritance- therefore he had to
leave his
own native land. And in this life, Abram's seed must separate
themselves from
their present, worldly inheritance if they are to receive the promised
blessings. It was therefore imperative that to receive the promises,
Abram must
separate from his natural family and land inheritance. There seems
little
doubt, in the light of this, that it was God's intention for Abram to
leave Ur and
his natural family, just taking his wife and their children with them.
Yet
Abram did not do this. And yet he had faith!
There are
marked similarities between the record of the exodus from Ur, and that
of the
call of Abram to leave Haran:
|
Gen.11:31 |
Gen.12:5 |
|
Terah took |
Abram took |
|
Sarai...Abram's wife |
Sarai his wife |
|
Lot the son of Haran |
Lot his brother's son |
|
They went forth from Ur |
They went forth (from Haran) |
|
To go into the land of Canaan |
To go into the land of Canaan |
|
They came unto Haran |
Into the land of Canaan they came. |
These
similarities may mean that the same processes occurred in each move- a
word of
promise made, Abram struggling to show his abundant faith in that
promise and
call, and the providence of God acting to make his expression of faith
possible. There may also be the hint that when Abram left Haran, he
still had
the same fundamental problem as when leaving Ur- he had still not fully
left
his kindred and father's house. It has been pointed out that
around the
time Terah and Abraham left Ur, the city was threatened by and then
destroyed
by the Elamites. It's a very strange 'co-incidence' (if that's indeed
what it is) that Noah, Peleg and Nahor all died in the same year- when
Abraham was about 50 years old, living in Ur. Whilst we have no
evidence that these men were all living together, it's not impossible
that they were. Perhaps they died in some calamity in Ur. So it could
well be that the motive for leaving Ur in the first place was therefore
mixed- it was fleeing from a material threat more than plain obedience
to a Divine command. It could well be that the motive for leaving Ur in
the first
place was therefore mixed- it was fleeing from a material threat more
than
plain obedience to a Divine command. This would explain why the family
settled
in relatively nearby Haran, and remained there for so long. Abraham's
weak attitude to leaving Ur is reflected much later too, when he tells
Abimelech that "the gods caused me to wander from my father's house"
(Gen. 20:13). The Hebrew ta'ah ("wander") has the idea of
wandering aimlessly (Gen. 21:14; 37:15) and even sinning (Is. 53:6). It
wasn't a very nice term to use about God's providence. Perhaps God
recognized Abraham's failure by instructing His people to confess every
year that "An Aramaean gone astray was my father" (Dt. 26:5). Abram
evidently found it so hard to sever the family ties, and move straight
on from Haran. The call of Abram required breaking with family. Perhaps
Terah was too old and ill to move on further (he died at 205, a great
age by post-flood standards), and Abram found it hard to leave his old
and ill father in a strange city. It is stressed in the record that "
Lot went with him" out of Haran (Gen.12:4), and that in Abram's
subsequent passing through the land of Canaan, " Lot...went with Abram"
(Gen.13:5; 13:1). God worked through the fallout between their herdmen
to make Abram finally quit his family, represented by Lot. " Separate
thyself, I pray thee, from me" , Abram invited Lot, knowing that now it
was very easy and attractive for Lot to agree (Gen.13:9). " And they
separated themselves the one from the other" (Gen.13:11). Later in
life, he used his own experience of how God had opened a way for the
expression of his faith, to inspire his servant to have faith that God
would somehow find a suitable wife for Isaac. It must be significant
that Abraham told Eliezer to take Isaac a wife from " my country...my
kindred...thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of
the Canaanites, among whom I dwell" (Gen.24:3,4). It follows that there
were none of Abraham's country or kindred, which he had been commanded
to leave, living anywhere near him. He had truly and fully obeyed the
command to separate from them! As with many Christian youngsters living
in isolation in the mission fields, the avoidance of marrying those in
the surrounding world just seemed too much to ask. But Abraham knew
that a way would be made: " The Lord God of Heaven, which took
me from my father's house, and from the land of my kindred...he shall
send his angel before thee, and thou shalt take a wife unto
my son" (Gen.24:7). As God had taken Abram from Ur and Haran
and Lot, so God would take a woman from there, suitable for
Isaac. The comment "So Abram departed [Heb. 'went'- s.w. Gen. 11:31;
12:1], as the Lord had spoken unto him" (Gen. 12:4) is surely the
beginning of the wonderful theme of righteousness being imputed to
Abraham! Heb. 11:8 records things from a positive perspective too, as
if there was instant obedience from Abraham: "By faith Abraham when he
was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an
inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went". See
on 20:13.
Terah and
his family departed "to go into the land of Canaan" (Gen. 11:31).
These are the same Hebrew words as in the command to Abram: "Get thee
out
of thy country" (Gen. 12:1). We can therefore conclude that Abram
received
this call to quit his country, but didn't obey it, until some
unrecorded
situation led his father to announce the family's emigration to Canaan.
Abram
was therefore very slow to obey the call. Note too that the command to
Abram
had been to leave his land and also his "kindred and... father's
house".
This he didn't do- for he left Ur with his father and brothers, i.e.
his
kindred. His brother Haran died, and his father then died in Haran,
where they
temporarily lived on the way to Canaan. We see here how God seeks to
almost
make us obedient. And Gen. 15:7 records that it was God who brought
Abram out
of Ur- even though Abraham failed to rise up and be obedient in his own
strength, God manipulated family circumstances to make him obedient to
the
call; and in essence He does this for us too.
Immediately
Terah died, Abram may have felt he had truly left his " kindred" and
eagerly moved on towards the promised land of Canaan (so Gen.11:32-12:4
implies). It is likely that many of Abram's " kindred" would have
come along with Terah, responding themselves to the call of Abram.
Presumably
they settled in Haran after Terah's death. It is even possible that the
family
were from this city originally, seeing that Abraham's brother was
called Haran.
We saw earlier that just before leaving Haran, Abram was further told
to separate
from his " father's house" too, i.e. all of his father's
household. This must have included Lot. Abram could understand
separation
from his idolatrous father and the rest of the family retinue; yet Lot
was
" a righteous man" ; Abram evidently rated Lot's spirituality
(Gen.18:23,32). Again, Abram was in a quandary. He had left all but one
of his
father's house in Haran. Was he really intended to separate from his
father's
house to the extent of leaving Lot too? It is likely that Abram
often
agonized about Lot. There he was in Canaan, knowing that his seed would
inherit
this land, which was then full of Canaanites (the record twice
emphasizes, in
12:6 and 13:7). But Lot, part of his kindred and father's house, was
still with
him. We saw that the Hebrew for " kindred" implies one born in ones
own country. A closely related word is found in Gen.11:28, describing
how
Haran, Lot's father, " died in the land of his nativity, in
Ur" . If Lot's father lived and died in Ur, it is fair to assume that
Lot
was born in Ur. So Abram knew he must separate from Lot, his "
kindred" - but how? What reason could he give Lot? Yet he had faith in
what God had told him; therefore he wanted to leave Lot, but
just found
it hard to do. And so God made a way.
Abraham was
told “Get thee out...” of Ur; and obediently “they went
forth to go into
the land of Canaan: and into the land of Canaan they
came” (Gen.
12:1,5). Holiness means a separation from and also unto.
This
must be the pattern of our lives, until finally at the Lord’s
return we
are again called to go out to meet the bridegroom; and we will go
in
with Him to the marriage (Mt. 25:6,10). The New Testament preachers
urged men
to turn “from darkness to light, and from
the power of
satan to God” (Acts 26:18); from wickedness to
God, to
the Lord (Acts 3:26; 15:19; 26:20; 9:35; 11:21).
The first
promise to Abraham was actually conditional- if he did these things,
then
"I will make of thee a great nation" (Gen. 12:2). If he left his
natural kindred, then God would give him a huge new family. But he
hardly
fulfilled those conditions, and yet still the promises were ultimately
fulfilled to him. And he is set up as the "father of the faithful".
We all know that really our faith is pathetically weak, and this
recognition can
cause some to stumble altogether.
Gen. 12:3
states that through Abraham, all the offspring of the earth / adamah
were to be blessed. This is an evident allusion back to the cursing of
the adamah
/ earth in Eden (Gen. 3:17). The implication was that the promised seed
of the
woman, who was to be the way of escape from that curse, was to somehow
be
"in Abraham". Although there's no mention yet of a specific son or
seed, it seems to me that God was setting Abraham up to meditate upon
the
promise of the earth being blessed "in him", and figure out that this
must mean that he was to have a descendant or son who would be the
Saviour.
Perhaps the subsequent specific promises about this were as it were
God's
reward for Abraham following through with where God was leading him.
Gen. 28:14
makes explicit that the blessing of the adamah was to be "in
thy
seed". I firmly believe, indeed have experienced, the way in which God
prompts our minds to think of something, to work something through, and
then
reveals this specifically, or confirms our understanding, directly from
His
word. In our day and context, it would seem that daily reading of God's
word is
what's required in order to 'allow' as it were this process to happen.
This,
surely, is how God seeks to work out the same process with us as He did
with
Abraham. Even if at the time of reading we feel we 'get nothing out of
that
chapter', there will be prompts to thought and later reflection which
are all
in God's longer term educational purpose with us. Heb. 11:33 says that
the likes
of Abraham obtained promises by their faith. Yet the Old Testament
record
clearly enough states that the promises were just given to them by God;
they
weren't requested by the patriarchs. Indeed, David was surprised at the
promises God chose to make to him. Conclusion? God read their unspoken,
unprayed for desires for Messiah and His Kingdom as requests for the
promises-
and responded.
The comment
"So Abram departed [Heb. 'went'- s.w. Gen. 11:31; 12:1], as the Lord
had
spoken unto him" (Gen. 12:4) is surely the beginning of the wonderful
theme of righteousness being imputed to Abraham! Heb. 11:8 records
things from
a positive perspective too, as if there was instant obedience from
Abraham:
"By faith Abraham when he was called to go out into a place which he
should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not
knowing
whither he went". Truly, the Biblical record imputes righteousness to
Abraham, and thus sets a pattern for all of us, the equally faltering
and
stumbling children of Abraham.
Grammatically,
Gen. 12:3 can be read as passive ("be blessed", as AV, RV) or
reflexive "bless themselves" (as RSV), i.e. implying those blessed
have to do something to appropriate the blessing. In this we see how
God will
play His part, but we must play our part. And yet the covenant in Gen.
15 was
one way, unconditional, from God to us. It's as if His part in
our
salvation is so much greater than our response. Yet there is still an
obvious
element of choice which we have to make. The way Gen. 12:1-3 is
structured
implies that Abraham receives an unconditional blessing, yet he
therefore is to
go forth and "be a blessing". And it's the same for us- and note how
the "blessing" is interpreted as forgiveness in Acts 3:27-29. We are
to forgive and generally bless others, in all forms of gracious
generosity, as
God has blessed us.
God
promises to bless them (plural) who bless Abraham, and curse him
(singular) who curse Abraham (Gen. 12:3). In other words, the blessings
are to
come specifically and individually to many people; whereas those who
curse
Abraham and his seed are just treated as one homogenous mass.
All that
said, Abram's leaving of Haran was still a great act of faith- he had
"gathered" much in the years of staying in Haran (Gen. 12:5).
According to Jewish tradition, Abraham stayed 23 years in Haran. All he
had to
go on was a word from the Lord which he'd received some years ago
whilst living
in Ur. There's no reason to think that Angels regularly appeared to him
and
kept urging him to leave, or that he could read the Lord's word in
written form
as we can. Presumably that one word which he received worked in his
conscience,
until he said to the family "Right, we're quitting this nice life for a
wilderness journey to some place I don't know". We can underestimate
the
power of "just" one word from the Lord. We're so familiar with
possessing His entire word in written form that we can forget the need
to be
obedient to just one of those words, to the extent of losing all we
once held
dear... In this I find Abraham a wonderful example. He must,
presumably, have
wondered whether he really had heard right, whether the whole thing
wasn't just
a weird dream- just as we may wonder whether really we are
supposed to
take God's word as it is and allow it to radically upset our settled,
mediocre
lives.
We read of
all the substance that Abram had gathered in Haran
(12:5); the
Hebrew for " gathered" implies an element of hoarding and
materialism. It only occurs in passages concerning the patriarchs, as
if to
show that this was one of their characteristics. Gen.31:18 comments on
Jacob
using his own wit and cunning to accumulate material wealth: " he
carried
away all his cattle, and all his goods which he had gotten
, the
cattle of his getting, which he had gotten " . The
humanness
of all this is strongly hinted at in 30:43: " The man
increased exceedingly, and had much cattle, and maidservants, and
menservants,
and camels and asses" . This list is identical to that in 24:35
concerning
Abraham. Jacob and Sons left Canaan with " their cattle, and their
goods,
which they had gotten " (46:6). Esau too piled up his
possessions; 36:6 speaks of his sons, daughters, servants, cattle,
beasts,
" and all his substance which he had got in the land of
Canaan" . The way this Hebrew word for materialistic accumulation is
used
only about the Abraham family ought to be seen by us as a flashing
light,
pointing us to a definite characteristic in all of them. Against this
background we can better appreciate Abraham's faith that he did now
possess the
land.
God's
promise to Abraham was made more specifically at "the oak of Moreh"
(Gen. 12:6)- evidently a Canaanite shrine; and it's emphasized that
"the
Canaanite was then in the land". It's as if God's invitation to Abraham
to
have a unique relationship with Him was made amidst the calls and
presence of
many other gods, and in the thick of the Gentile world.
Progressive
appreciation of the Lord Jesus can be seen in the lives of Paul, Peter
and many
others. But it has been pointed out by David Levin that Abraham’s
appreciation
of the promises relating to the Christ-seed also grew over time. When
the
promise was first given, he seems to have assumed it referred to his
adopted
son, Lot. Thus Abraham offered Lot the land which had been promised to
Abraham’s seed (Gen. 12:7 cp. chapter 13). But after Lot returned
to Sodom,
Abraham looked to his servant Eliezer as his heir / seed (Gen. 15:2,3).
Thus
God corrected him, in pointing out that the seed would be from
Abraham’s own
body (15:4). And so Abraham thought of Ishmael, who was a son from his
own body
(although Yahweh didn’t specify who the mother would be). When
Abraham’s body
became dead, i.e. impotent, he must have surely concluded that Ishmael
was the
son promised. But again, Abraham was told that no, Ishmael was not to
be the
seed; and finally God told Abraham that Sarah would have a child. Their
faith
was encouraged by the incidents in Egypt which occurred straight after
this,
whereby Abraham prayed for Abimelech’s wives and slaves so that
they might have
children- and he was heard. Finally, Isaac was born. It was clear that
this was
to be the seed. But that wasn’t all. Abraham in his final and
finest spiritual
maturity came to the understanding that the seed was ultimately the
Lord Jesus
Christ. He died in wondrous appreciation of the Saviour seed and the
way of
forgiveness enabled through Him. Note the huge paradox in the promises-
a
paradox of grace which comes true in some form for all those who
receive them.
Perhaps
it's worth suggesting that there may be an intended contrast between
Abraham building
an altar in recognition of the promises, at the same time as he pitched
his tent (Gen. 12:7,8)- as if to highlight the temporal nature of our
present
material situation in contrast to the permanence of the things we stand
related
to in God's promises.
God's grace
shines through again and again. Abraham went down into Egypt because of
how
"grievous" or 'heavy' the famine was; and comes up out of Egypt,
thanks to betraying his wife, "heavy" [same Hebrew word] with riches
(Gen. 12:10; 13:2). Everything he did was blessed, despite his weakness.
Throughout
the records of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his children there is
continual repetition
in the manner in which the record is written. This repetition is of
both
experiences (e.g. lying concerning their wives: 12:13; 20:3,13; 26:7)
and of
the language used to describe those experiences.
Straight
after receiving the promises, Abraham goes down to Egypt [an act with
spiritually negative overtones], and lies about his wife. Not only does
he show
a strange lack of protection for her, but his actions reflect a
weakened faith
in God's promises to him. For if Abraham was to have died at the hands
of
jealous Egyptians at that stage, how would the promises to him be
fulfilled? In
urging Sarah to deny she was his wife, Abraham comments to her in Gen.
12:13:
"my soul shall live because of thee". Ps. 33:18,19 appears to comment
upon this: "Behold, the eye of Jehovah (Angelic language- and Abraham
dealt with Angels] is upon them that fear him, Upon them that hope in
his
lovingkindness; to deliver their soul from death, And to keep them
alive in
famine (Abraham told the lie he did about Sarah because he trusted in
Egypt to
keep him alive in famine). Our soul hath waited for Jehovah: He is our
help and
our shield"- and it is God, not Sarah, who is described as Abraham's
shield (same Hebrew word) in Gen. 15:1.
12:16- see
on 14:22
The
reference to Abram pitching his tent between Bethel [‘the house
of God’] and
Hai [‘the house of ruin’] could imply that he was caught
between the two- his
faith was not firmly decided (Gen. 13:3).
"Strife
between the herdmen of Abram's cattle, and the herdmen of Lot's cattle"
(Gen.13:7).
Because the promises were to be made to Abram and not Lot, this
separation was
indeed necessary (although nothing should be inferred from this
regarding Lot's
spirituality or standing with God). It is stressed in the record that
"Lot
went with him" out of Haran (Gen.12:4), and that in Abram's subsequent
passing through the land of Canaan, " Lot...went with Abram"
(Gen.13:5; 13:1). Having been through so much together (they were
together in
the Egypt crisis, Gen.13:1), it is unlikely that they would suffer from
a
personality clash. Yet the great wealth of them both resulted in
"strife
between the herdmen of Abram's cattle, and the herdmen of Lot's cattle"
(Gen.13:7). Abram reasoned that it would be a shame to let this
incident
between their employees drive a wedge between them personally; " for we
be
brethren" (note Abram's intense awareness that they were of the same
household), and close spiritual friends too, it may be inferred
(Gen.19:8).
Abram's subsequent concern for Lot indicates that they did not fall out
personally over the problem.
Abram would
have noticed Lot's desire to settle down in the cities of the plain.
Now he saw
that providence was giving him the means he needed to separate from his
father's house completely. He knew that if Lot chose, of his own
volition, to
separate from him, then there would no longer be the emotional agony of
him
separating from Lot. " Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me" ,
Abram invited Lot, knowing that now it was very easy and attractive for
Lot to
agree (Gen.13:9). " And they separated themselves the one from the
other" (Gen.13:11). Yet a third time the record emphasizes their
separation, and implies that as soon as this occurred, the full
Abrahamic land
covenant was made, featuring Abram's eternal inheritance of the land: "
The Lord said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him...all
the land
which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy
seed for
ever" (Gen.13:14,15). Again we see God's patience in the development of
Abram's faith.
In Gen.
13:9, Abraham gives Lot the choice as to what land he would like to
live in.
Lot was the orphaned nephew of Abraham- such magnanimity would've been
unheard
of in those societies, for the elder to give the junior dependent such
a
choice. The elder in the relationship would've chosen the best for
himself, and
that was that. It seems to me that Abraham's unusual attitude in this
matter
was a direct outcome of his faith in the promise that the whole land
really
would one day be given to him. If we have the faith of
Abraham... we
won't fight for our corner in this world. It'll be so much
easier to
'let go' as Abraham did, and take an attitude to material wealth and
possessions which is radically counter-cultural in our
societies. The
way that Lot lifted up his eyes and looked around the land is matched
by the
way in which God then bids Abraham to likewise lift up his eyes and
view the
very same territory which Lot had just chosen (Gen. 13:10,14)- and was
told
that the land which Lot had chosen, along with all other land, would be
Abraham's eternally. When God told Abraham at this point "All the land
that you see, I will give it to you and your seed for ever"
(Gen.
13:15), He was alluding to what He had initially told Abram back in Ur:
"Get thee out... unto a land that I will shew (s.w. "see"
in 13:15) you" (Gen. 12:1). It was as if God was saying: 'Well Abraham,
this is it. This is the land I told you about'- and yet the best of it
has now
been given to Lot! The whole thing could have seemed some kind of
cruel, just
as many of our life experiences do. Abraham had given up all, made a
long and
dangerous journey, to receive a land from God- and when he arrives
there, the
best of it is given to his younger relative. But God's purpose was to
focus
Abraham's faith upon the fact that he would eternally inherit
this land.
And so it is with many of the twists and turns of our lives which can
appear
nothing but cruel fate to the unbelieving observer.
The Hebrew phrase "to lift up
the eyes" is used very extensively about the Abraham family. Most Bible
characters have the term used at most once or twice about them; but the
Genesis
record emphasizes this characteristic of this family. It's as if we're
being
bidden to really visualize them as a family, and to enable this we're
even
given an insight into their body language. Consider the emphasis on the
way
this family had of lifting up their eyes:
Lot lifted up his eyes (Gen. 13:10)
Abraham lifted up his eyes (Gen.
13:14)
Abraham lifted up his eyes and
noticed the Angels (Gen. 18:2)
Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw
the place of sacrifice (Gen. 22:4)
Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw
the ram caught (Gen. 22:13)
Isaac lifted up his eyes and saw
camels coming on which Rebekah was riding (Gen. 24:63)
Rebekah, as part of a marriage made
in Heaven, lifted up her eyes and saw Isaac at the same moment
(Gen.
24:64)
Jacob lifted up his eyes and saw the
vision of the speckled cattle (twice recorded- Gen. 31:10,12)
Jacob lifted up his eyes and saw
Esau coming (Gen. 33:1)
Esau lifted up his eyes and saw
Jacob's family (Gen. 33:5)
Jacob's sons lifted up their eyes
and saw the traders coming (Gen. 37:25)
Joseph lifted up his eyes and saw
Benjamin (Gen. 43:29)
Of course the classic epitome of
this feature is when Abraham lifts up his eyes to Heaven and is asked
to count
the stars, and there and then believes God's word of promise that "so
shall thy seed be". Yet we , as Abraham's family, his children
by
faith, are likewise asked [with the same Hebrew words] to lift up our
eyes to Heaven and consider the stars, and take strength from the fact
that
their creator is our God (Is. 40:26; 51:6; 60:4).
God never
let go of Abraham, even when Abraham didn't readily obey what God
required of
him. He was told to "walk through the land in the length of it and in
the
breadth of it; for [because] I will give it unto you" (Gen. 13:17). But
Abraham didn't willingly do this- because perhaps he doubted that he
would be
given it. It's like saying to a child: 'Come and look at this! I am
going to
give it to you!', and the child doesn't even want to look. In this
context we
read of how Abraham "dwelt
in the plain of Mamre"- that's stressed twice (Gen. 13:18;
14:13). Instead of travelling around in his land to see it, he tried to
settle
down. But God brought circumstances into his life which made him travel
around
the length and breadth of Canaan- thus Abraham had to pursue Lot's
captors
"unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus" before he
recovered Lot (Gen. 14:15). Hobah is in the far north east of Canaan-
Abraham
had to go all the way there from Mamre in the centre of Canaan. For
unknown
reasons, Abraham also lived in Beersheba for a while (Gen. 22:19); he
had a
meeting with the local rulers at Shaveh, near Jerusalem (Gen. 14:17);
and at
the time of Gen. 16:14 Abraham was near Kadesh Barnea, in the very
South of
Canaan on the Egyptian border. One wonders whether the attraction of
Egypt had
led him there once more- in which case it was his own weakness which
was used
by God to ensure that he travelled to the very south of Canaan. Maybe
the
record includes all these geographical markers in order to demonstrate
how
Abraham did indeed travel around Canaan through providentially arranged
circumstances,
although not it seems as an act of direct obedience to the Divine
command to do
so.
Abraham's
belief in God's blessing of him is reflected in the way he is
insistent
to the King of Sodom that he will not take any of the spoil, lest
anyone should
think that man rather than God had blessed Abraham (Gen. 14:22). It
could be
pointed out that this rather contrasts with his not returning to
Pharaoh the
things he gave him in return for Sarah becoming his wife (Gen. 12:16).
Perhaps
Abraham later reflected upon his failure in this incident, realizing
he'd not
displayed faith in God's blessing of him... and learnt his
lesson when
the same temptation occurred in Gen. 14 to be made rich by the men of
this
world. Our stumbling response to the same Abrahamic promises often
develops in
the same way.
Abraham's
focus on material issues can be discerned from the double description
of how he
pursued after his captured nephew Lot, "and he brought back all the
goods,
and his brother Lot, and his goods" (Gen. 14:16). Abraham's concern
about
the "goods" is perhaps significant. And yet given this mindset, it is
to Abraham's credit that he utterly refuses to take even a "shoe
latchet" of the spoil lest it be said that any man had made him rich-
he
knew that it was God who had made him rich (Gen. 14:23), and
Abraham
wanted the world to know that. I also note the way that Abraham speaks
of how
he is the servant of the God who is the purchaser of Heaven and
earth,
i.e. the land which God had potentially given Abraham (Gen. 14:22- the
Hebrew
translated "possessor" in the AV is usually translated 'buyer'
elsewhere). Ps. 74:2 and Ps. 78:54 use the same word to describe how
the land
God gave Israel had been "purchased" by Him. Perhaps there is here a
recognition by Abraham that God's gifts to us cost Him something. He
had
meditated upon the promise of the land, and concluded that God was
giving him
something which had cost Him. Perhaps this may even indicate that
Abraham had
reflected that the promise of the land was on account of God's
willingness to
purchase it through the death of the "seed of the woman" promised in
Genesis 3... At the very least, we need to ask ourselves how much we
have meditated upon the implications of the same Abrahamic promises
which have
been made to us. And we likewise must avoid the assumption that because
God
owns all things, therefore it's painless for Him to give them to us.
Poor
people often assume that it's painless and effortless for a rich person
to give
them something- but actually it isn't. And we need to perceive the same
about
our wonderfully generous Father in Heaven. We are slaves now, owning
nothing,
but then we will be gloriously free (Rom. 8:21). So this idea of owning
nothing, not even ourselves, is only true of this life; the day of
release from
slavery will dawn, we will receive that true freedom and that true
concept of
personal possession- if now we resign it. Abraham really
grasped this
idea that we now can own nothing. He swore to Yahweh as " the possessor
of
heaven and earth, that I will not take from a thread even to a
shoelatchet, and
that I will not take anything that is thine..." (Gen. 14:22,23). He
knew
that Yahweh is the owner of all, and therefore he was not going
to yield
to the temptation to increase what appeared to be 'his' possessions.
The
promises to Abraham were extended in Genesis 15, with more specifics
added
about the "seed". But the context of the giving of those promises is
again Abraham's weakness. After the conflict with the surrounding kings
recorded in Genesis 14, Abraham is comforted: "Fear not, Abram: I am
thy
shield" (Gen. 15:1)- as if Abram was starting to doubt in God's
continued
ability to protect him. God's assurances continued: "I am thy exceeding
great reward" (Gen. 15:1). The Hebrew mind would've understood
"reward" in this context to refer to children- Ps. 127:3 is explicit:
"Children are the inheritance given by the Lord, and the fruit of the
womb
is his reward" (s.w.). The "reward" is paralleled with the
inheritance of children given by God. Jer. 31:16 likewise speaks of a
woman
bereft of her children being "rewarded" with more children. Yet
Abraham doesn't just accept that on faith. He speaks as if he somehow
didn't
believe that those promises meant that he personally would have a
child; for
his response is to say: "Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go
childless... Behold, to me thou hast given no seed, and lo, one born in
my
house is mine heir" (Gen. 15:3,4). It's as if Abram were saying 'OK, I
hear You, but whatever these promises of Yours mean, reality is, I am
old and
childless... can't You find a way to give me children?'. "Since I continue
[Heb.] childless" indicates his frustration. God had already promised
to
"give" the land to Abraham and his seed (Gen. 12:7; 13:15); and now
Abraham complains that God hasn't 'given' [s.w.] him a seed. One can
possibly
detect an anger with God, at best a frustration, when he comments that
all he
has is his steward Eliezer ("this Eliezer of Damascus") as "the
son of my house / family" (Gen. 15:2, Heb. ben bayith, son of
my
family)- as if to say 'All this You've promised me- is to go to him,
is this
guy to be this wonderful promised seed, and I for now get nothing? Was
that the
whole purpose of calling me out of Ur?'.
One of the
strongest of the Abraham family’s characteristics was fear,
almost to the
extent of psychiatric paranoia. Abraham (15:1; 20:11), Hagar (21:17),
Lot
(19:30), Sarah (18:15), Isaac (26:7,24; 31:42, 53, Jacob (32:7,11;
46:3; 28:17;
31:31), his sons (42:35; 43:18,23; 50:21), Joseph (42:18). This
is really
some emphasis. Fear and lack of faith are often associated (Dt.20:8;
Jud.7:3;
Mt. 25:25; Mk.4:40; Lk.12:32; Rom.8:15; Heb.13:6; 1 Jn.4:18; 2 Tim.1:7;
Rev.21:8). Again, this list is impressive. Yet despite their fear,
their lack
of total certainty at times that God would keep His
promises , the
patriarchs are held up as examples of faith. If their fear had not been
recorded, would the record of their faith mean much to us? Unlikely.
They had
so much which militated against a life of faith: by way of hereditary
characteristic, surroundings, past experience of life etc. Both Isaac
and Jacob
feared they would die well before they did (47:9; 27:2); they feared
death in
that their future was ever on their mind. Yet evidently their fear was
mixed
with faith.
15:2 In my
opinion, Abraham's comment "this Eliezer of Damascus..." (15:2) is
another indicator of weakness in this undoubtedly great man. Eliezer is
presented as a man of faith, of extreme loyalty to Abraham, with a
wonderful
humility in seeking the good of Isaac, the man who displaced him as
heir of so
much. His comment that God "led me- even me- straight to the house"
further indicates a commendable humility. Indeed, the way Eliezer
refuses
the greetings of polite custom in order to get on with God's work (Gen.
24:33)
appears to be used by the Lord as a model for His preachers (Lk. 10:4).
A
window into Eliezer's faithfulness is provided by considering how Laban
calls
him "O blessed of the Lord", but Eliezer replies that in fact "the
Lord has greatly blessed my master" (Gen. 24:31,35). His focus
was
not at all upon himself but rather upon Abraham his master. Yet Abraham
appears
to almost despise Eliezer, his bitterness at not having a seed by Sarah
got the
better of him at that moment- so it seems to me. There seems a designed
contrast between Eliezer and Jacob. Eliezer with utter integrity says
that God
has given him "success" (Gen. 24:12) in seeking a wife for Isaac;
whereas Jacob uses the same word in lying to his blind father about why
he had
so quickly brought venison: "Because God granted me success" (Gen.
27:20).
So Abraham
was hardly at his spiritual best when God gave him the promises of
Genesis 15.
The first use of a word in the Bible is often significant- and the
first time
we meet the Hebrew word nathan, to give, is in Gen. 1:17, where
we learn
that God 'gave' the stars to humanity on earth. It's as if God is now
testing
whether Abraham will make the connection or not- for He takes Abraham
out to
see the stars, shining up there in the sky as proof that God really can
give
stars, has already done so and continues to do so... and challenges
Abraham as
to whether or not he can believe that truly, his seed will be
given to
him likewise, as many as those stars (Gen. 15:5). And Abraham made it
through
the hoop. His awareness of the word of Gen. 1:17, that God really had
given us
the stars, his faith in the word, worked within him to bring forth the
yet
greater leap of faith- that really, so would his seed be. And God was
thrilled.
That man, standing there in the Middle Eastern night and beholding the
stars,
touched the heart of God by his internal attitudes... the sense within
his
heart that yes, OK, yes, somehow, yes, so will my seed be, somehow I will
have
my own child... And it was counted to him for righteousness. The same
desperate
struggle for faith was seen in the Lord in His final moments upon the
cross-
for He there reflected, according to Ps. 22:30, that a seed would
indeed serve
God, and it shall be accounted [s.w. "numbered" as in 'a seed which
cannot be numbered'] for a generation. The childless Lord Jesus, with
all
against Him, facing His death with His lifework apparently a failure,
His
spiritual children [the disciples] having fled... was in the position
of
Abraham. And Abraham's faith surely inspired Him. And so it will each
of us,
when it seems that really life has failed, our efforts have got
nowhere, family
has broken up, children hate us, our best aspirations just never worked
out...
in those moments, in whatever form they come, we are to be inspired by
Abraham.
And we too can go out and view the stars which God has given, and keeps
on
giving, and believe again that ultimately He will give us the land, and
in some
form our seed will eternally endure.
The Lord
"brought (Abraham) forth abroad and said, Look now toward Heaven, and
tell
the stars. . . (after a silent pause) So shall thy seed be. . . I am
the Lord
that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land"
(Gen.
15:5-7). It must have been an Angel that led Abraham out of his tent to
a
suitable spot and made those promises.
According
to Jewish midrash, Abram and his father Terah were leading diviners of
the
stars in Ur. 'Terah' can mean 'brother of the moon', and Ur and Haran
were
noted centres of moon worship. In this case, the invitation to Abram to
count
the stars (15:5) and discern there his future seed was a calling to
reject his
entire former world-view, to admit his helpless in counting the stars,
to throw
himself upon God's grace rather than the strength of his own former
education,
wisdom, and inherited ability to discern the stars.
It was
radical for Abraham to be told that God would impute righteousness to
him
(15:6). For in those times, righteousness was a concept associated with
a
person remaining within their existing communal relationships. Von Rad
quotes
contemporary documentation to this effect: "A man is called righteous
who
conducts himself properly with reference to an existing communal
relationship... just [justified] is the man who stands with his
community". The whole message to Abraham of justification by faith and
imputed righteousness must be seen against this backdrop. The same
radical call
to break away from our surrounding society and its worldviews and
concepts of
righteousness is required by all who have received the same promises
made to
Abraham.
When we
read that Abraham "put his trust" in God (Gen. 15:6) we are to
understand that he 'said amen' to God's promises. "Amen" comes from
the same Hebrew root as he'min, to believe, or, more strictly,
"to
affirm, recognize as valid". He got to a specific point where he said
"Amen" to God's word; and I wonder whether he said "Amen"
out loud, as the crowning pinnacle of the belief in God which was going
on within
him. For this reason I suggest we say "Amen" at the end of a prayer,
out loud. Yet this peak of faith in Abraham is found between evidence
of his
weakness of faith. We've seen this in the early verses of Gen. 15. And
now,
having risen up to this peak of faith, we find him doubting again: "How
shall I know that I shall inherit [the land]?" (Gen. 15:8). And again,
this makes Abraham yet the more real to us, who likewise find it so
hard to
maintain peaks of faith. God condescends to Abraham by cutting a
covenant with
him. It's perhaps significant that Abraham laid out the required
animals, and
drove away the birds that kept trying to feed on the carcasses- but
then,
Abraham falls asleep, and can't do this any more. And the birds are
warded off
instead by the burning torch- the same Hebrew words are used about the
cherubim
(Ez. 1:13; Ex. 20:18), and the idea of a burning torch is used to
describe the
Lord Jesus on the cross (Jn. 3:14-19 Gk.). It's as if again Abraham had
to be
taught that all these promises and the covenant ensuring them were all
of grace
and not his own strength. For he would lay down in the sleep of death,
the
horror of great darkness, and it will be the grace and glory of God
which
fulfils the covenant and preserves Abraham's seed from the birds of
prey- and
not Abraham's own efforts.
Abraham had
been promised a son in Genesis 15; and yet there was no specific
mention that
this would be by Sarah. God had promised that "one born of your own
bowels" would be his son (Gen. 15:7). Yet according to Rom. 4:19,
Abraham
at that time did not consider the "deadness of Sarah's womb" (Rom.
4:19) to be a barrier. That indicates to me that he considered Sarah as
his
"own bowels". Note how in Semitic thought, Paul used the same idea
when he asked Philemon to receive Onesiphorus as "mine own bowels"
(Philemon 12). Another person could be considered "mine own bowels"
if they were that close. When God promised Abraham that "of [his] own
bowels" he would have a son, Abraham didn't selfishly think that this
just
meant that he would have a child. He considered his wife Sarah
as his
"own bowels", and so he assumed this meant that she would bear the
child. In this we see a commendable unity of Abraham and Sarah; he
thought of
her as he thought of himself. In an age of polygamy and concubines,
this was
unusually wonderful. He could so easily have just gone off and slept
with a
woman to test out God's promise and have a child. And yet, as often in
Abraham's life, he didn't maintain that level of spirituality. For he
gave in
to Sarah's badgering him to sleep with her slave girl Hagar, and the
whole
incident has been recorded with allusion to Adam wrongly hearkening to
his
wife. It has been pointed out that in case of a wife being infertile,
the man
usually took another wife and didn't just sleep with his slave girl.
The 300 or
so Nuzi tablets record history, legal codes and case history of
situations
contemporary with Abraham; and the comment has been made that deciding
to sleep
with your wife's slave girl was almost unheard of. So it seems to me
that Abraham
again gave in, in a moment of weakness; but didn't take another wife,
because
he really clung on to his faith that he would have a child by Sarah.
The whole
incident with Abraham and Hagar seems to me to reflect weakness in both
Abraham
and Sarah. Neither of them ever refer to her by her name, but rather by
her
title, "handmaid", as if she were just an object. Yet God and the
inspired narrator refer to her by her name, Hagar, as if recognizing
the value
of her person in a way that Abraham and Sarah didn't. It seems to me
that
Israel's later experience re-lived that of Hagar- flight into the
wilderness of
Sinai, miraculously provided with water, found and preserved by an
Angel. God
heard the cry of Israel's affliction at the hands of the Egyptians,
just as He
heard the cry of the mother and child whom Sarah had afflicted. This
deliberate
coincidence was perhaps to make Israel realize on a national scale how
wrongly
their forefather had treated Hagar- and it has some relevance to modern
Israel's treatment of the Arabs. For Israel suffer and will yet suffer
what
they have put Hagar's descendants through.
15:10
pieces. The idea of the dead animals in the ceremony of Gen. 15 was to
teach
that 'So may I be dismembered and die if I fail to keep my promise'.
Jer. 34:18
speaks of how Israelites must die, because they passed between the
pieces of
the dead animal sacrifices in making a covenant. But here in Gen. 15,
it is
none less than the God who cannot die who is offering to do this,
subjecting
Himself to this potential curse! And He showed Himself for real in the
death of
His Son. That was His way of confirming the utter certainty of the
promises to
Abraham which are the basis of the new covenant which He has cut with
us (Rom.
15:8; Gal. 3:17). The "blood of the covenant" doesn't mean that the
blood of Jesus is or was the covenant; the covenant is a set of
promises
to us, namely the promises to Abraham and his seed. The blood of Jesus
is the
token of that covenant, the sign that this is all so utterly and
totally true
for each one of us. The Lord died, in the way that He did, to get
through to us
how true this all is- that God Almighty cut a sober, unilateral
covenant with
us personally, to give us the Kingdom. It's as challenging for us to
believe as
it was for Abraham and his earlier seed: "This divine-human bond gave
to
Israel its most distinctive religious belief, and provided the basis of
its
unique social interest and concern. Outside the Old Testament we have
no clear
evidence of a treaty between a god and his people" (4). What the
theologian calls a unique basis for "social interest and concern" we
can re-phrase more bluntly: We simply can't be passive to such grace,
we have
no option but to reach out with grace to others in care and concern-
and we
have a unique motivation in doing this, which this unbelieving world
can never
equal. Yet if unbelievers can show the huge care and self-sacrifice
which they
do- we ought to be doing far more, seeing we have an
infinitely stronger
motivation.
The way God
confirmed the covenant in Genesis 15:17 was another example of this
grace. The
covenant God made with Abraham was similar in style to covenants made
between
men at that time; and yet there was a glaring difference. Abraham was
not
required to do anything or take upon himself any obligations- only God
passed
between the pieces, not Abraham. Circumcision [cp. baptism] was to
remember
that this covenant of grace had been made. It isn’t part of the
covenant [thus
we are under this same new, Abrahamic covenant, but don’t require
circumcision]. The promises to Abraham are pure, pure grace.Yahweh
alone passed
between the pieces of the animals, represented by the flaming torch-
presumably
in the form of an Angel as a pillar of fire. There's no record of
Abraham being
asked to pass through them as was usual custom. The promise of God was
therefore unilateral- pure grace. And yet by its very nature, such
unilateral
grace from God cannot be received passively. Although there was no
specifiied
response from Abraham, clearly enough he simply had to respond
to such
grace. It's been pointed out that Abraham was blessed by God, and yet
the
Hebrew form of the promise implies that he was commanded to therefore
go forth
and "be a blessing"- and his intercession for Lot and Sodom, his rescue
of Lot in Gen. 14, were providentially arranged for him to practice
that. A
similar construction (an imperative verb string hyh + a noun)
occurs in
Gen. 17:1, "be blameless / perfect".
A recurrent
weakness of the patriarchs is their attempts to as it were force
God's
hand when it came to which of their children should continue with the
covenant
blessings. As Abraham used his handmaid to try to produce the promised
seed
(Gen. 16:2), so Jacob, Rachel and Leah did. God had told Abraham
clearly that
the covenant would continue through Isaac rather than Ishmael, and that
circumcision was the sign of that covenant; and yet Abraham
remonstrates with
God: "Oh that Ishmael might live before thee!" (Gen. 17:18),
employing the idea of 'living before God' in a covenantal sense. When
God again
repeats His purpose with Isaac, Abraham goes and circumcises Ishmael,
as if he
was to still participate in the covenant God wished to continue through
Isaac
(Gen. 17:23). The fact that Abraham's circumcision of Ishmael is
specifically
recorded highlights his insistence on trying to make God's promises
fulfil as he
would like them to. Isaac did the same, insistent upon giving the
covenant
blessing to Esau rather than Jacob; Jacob likewise did something
similar when
he tried to reverse the blessing upon Ephraim and Manasseh (Gen. 48:18).
"Through
faith even Sarah herself received strength to conceive seed" (Heb.
11:11
RV). "Even Sarah herself" is clearly making a point, holding up a
flashing light over this particular example. There is every reason to
think,
from the Genesis record, that Sarah not only lacked faith in the
promises, but
also had a bitter, unspiritual mind. The account alludes back to Eve's
beguiling of Adam when it records how "Abram hearkened to the voice of
Sarai"
(Gen. 16:2) in acquiescing to her plan to give her a seed through Abram
marrying his slave girl. The whole thing between Sarah and Abraham
seems wrong
on at least two counts: firstly it reflects a lack of faith in the
promise; and
secondly it flouts God's ideal standards of marriage. Sarai seems to
have
recognized the error when she bitterly comments to Abram: "My wrong be
upon thee" (16:5). Her comment that "the Lord hath restrained me from
bearing" (16:2) would suggest that she thought she hadn't been chosen
to
bear the promised seed. Yet because of her faith, says Heb. 11:11, she
received
strength to bear that seed. Hagar was so persecuted by Sarah that she
"fled from her face" (16:6). God's attitude to Hagar seems to reflect
a certain amount of sympathy for the harsh way in which Sarah had dealt
with
her. These years of bitterness and lack of faith came to the surface
when Sarah
overheard the Angel assuring Abraham that Sarah really would have a
son. She
mockingly laughed at the promise, deep within herself (18:15). Yet
according to
Heb. 11:11, she rallied her faith and believed. But as soon as Isaac
was born,
her bitterness flew to the surface again when she was Ishmael mocking.
In what
can only be described as unrestrained anger, she ordered Hagar and
Ishmael out
into the scorching desert, to a certain death (humanly speaking).
Again, one
can sense the sympathy of God for Hagar at this time. And so wedged in
between
incidents which belied a deep bitterness, lack of faith and pride
(after Isaac
was born), the Spirit in Heb. 11:11 discerns her faith; on account of
which,
Heb. 11:12 implies ("therefore"), the whole purpose of God in Christ
could go forward.
The theme
of Abraham's weakness continues over into chapter 16- where Sarah asks
Abraham
to sleep with her servant girl in order to have a child. Why did Sarah
ask
Abraham to do this, at this stage in their lives? Why not earlier?
Surely the
promise of a seed had restimulated her pain regarding her barren state.
Yet
Abraham had previously worked through with the Lord the possibility of
Eliezer,
one born in his household, being the promised seed. And God had
clarified that
no, Abraham's own child would be the heir. It's as if Sarah could
believe that
Abraham's impotence could be cured, but not her barrenness. "And
Abraham
hearkened to the voice of Sarai" (Gen. 16:2) is of course framed in the
language of Adam hearkening to Eve's voice. I can only take this
incident- and
the less than honourable treatment of Hagar afterwards- to be another
trough in
Abraham's faith graph. It's been pointed out that all historical and
cultural
evidence from the time points to Abraham's action as being most
unusual. In the
case of a barren wife, the man chose himself a second wife. It's almost
unheard
of in contemporary records for a man to have his wife chose him a woman
to have
a child by- let alone for it to be one of her slavegirls. This
historical
background provides a window into Abraham's faithful commitment to
Sarah- for
it's significant that he's not recorded as taking another wife.
Instead, his
fine faith and character slips up in a moment of weakness by giving in
to Sarah
for a moment.
Gen. 16:7
"And the angel of the LORD (called 'God' in v. 13) found her (Hagar) by
a
fountain", as if He was not sure where she was and had to search; this
‘language of limitation’ may refer to the Angels rather
than God personally.
The Hebrew
word 'shaddai' (Almighty) is often linked in the Pentatuch with the
idea of
fruitfulness and provision of good things (Gen. 17:1; 28:3; 35:11;
43:14; 49:25).
The Hebrew root 'shad' is the word for 'breast'. The references in
Genesis
speak of the Almighty making the promises; elsewhere we see that
the
promises were made by the Angels. Thus the Angels were perceived as
providers
of all good things, which would explain why the book of Job so
frequently uses
'shaddai' as the word for God; and why one of the purposes of the book
is to
correct the wrong idea of shaddai as a giver of only good things,
perhaps
through the desire to contrast the true God with other contemporary
fertility
gods who were thought to provide all good things.
The command
"Be perfect" can be translated "Be perfected" (Gen. 17:1).
There's some support for this when we consider the inspired commentary
upon the
promises to Abraham in Heb. 11:39,40: "[He] received not the promise:
God
having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should
not be
perfected". "The promise" and being "perfected" are
thus paralleled. In this we may have in Gen. 17:1 another promise to
Abraham-
to 'be perfected', and this could only come true through God's perfect
righteousness being imputed to him. The New Testament informs us quite
simply
that Abraham believed the promise of being in the Kingdom, and he was
therefore
'justified', or counted righteous (Gen. 15:6). But God led him in
appreciating
what those promises really implied. If he was going to live eternally
in God's
Kingdom, then he would only be there because God counted him righteous.
And so
it seems to me that God developed Abraham's mind further by promising
him in
Gen. 17:1 that he would indeed "be perfected", which could only have
come about through God imputing righteousness to him. It could be that
when
Abraham "believed" the promise of the Kingdom in Gen. 15:6, he didn't
realize that in Heaven, God was so thrilled with his faith that He
counted
Abraham as righteous, in order to fulfill the promise of giving him
eternal
life. And then in Gen. 17:1, God communicated this to Abraham in the
promise
that He would 'perfect' him. And God patiently works with us likewise,
as we
struggle to really, really believe that we will live eternally in His
Kingdom;
and as we progressively realize throughout life that this can only be
possible
by the Lord's perfection being counted to us.
God
appeared again to Abraham, and made a conditional promise: "Walk before
me, and be thou perfect... and I will make my covenant between me and
thee, and
will multiply thee exceedingly" (Gen. 17:1,2). The Hebrew certainly
reads
as if Abraham had to be "perfect" and walk before God, and then, God
would make a covenant with him and multiply him. Abraham falls to his
face; and
then God announces that actually, He will make the covenant anyway, and
the
promises which are part of that covenant, Abraham should consider as
having
been fulfilled already, they were so certain of fulfilment. Consider
the
wording: "Behold, my covenant is [present tense- right now,
i.e.
Abraham didn't have to prove himself "perfect"] with thee, and you
shall be [future] a father of many nations... your name shall be
Abraham, for a
father of many nations have I made thee" (Gen. 17:4,5). The
Abrahamic promises, which we too have received, are a reflection of
unconditional love and grace on God's part. At the end of all the
Divine
announcements, we read that Abraham again falls on his face and laughs
for joy
(Gen. 17:17). Perhaps by Angelic invitation (as with Daniel), Abraham
had stood
up from the floor to hear God's promises from the mouth of the Angel-
and now
he collapses again. The sheer wonder of God's grace in these
promises is
simply so great. What is conditional upon our walking
'perfectly' has
been given to us anyway, by grace- for righteousness has been imputed
to us as
it was to Abraham. As a side comment, it seems to me that surprised
laughter
occurs when we encounter a difference between the expected, and an
unexpected
reality that takes us pleasantly by surprise. That observation would
indicate
Abraham's seeing by faith the reality of what God had promised; and yet
it
would also suggest that prior to this, Abraham was not really expecting
God to
completely fulfil the implication of the promises.
17:3 The
Hebrew translated "fell on his face" is exactly the same as that
translated "his countenance fell" in Gen. 4:5,6 (see too Job 29:24).
Another reading of this incident could therefore be that Abraham's face
fell on
hearing that the covenant would be conditional upon his walking
perfectly- but
then God made the covenant anyway with him, and therefore in verse 17
he falls
on his face and laughs with joy. This, perhaps, is the more likely,
realistic
reading; and it also avoids the problem of Abraham falling to his face
twice
with no record of him standing up again.
Abram means
'high / exalted father', and can mean "he is of exalted i.e. good
ancestry". Yet Abram's name was changed (17:5). He was to be the father
of
a new family, as 'Abraham' implied, and to sever all connection with
his human
ancestry and family. The way ‘Abram’ was
changed to
‘AbraHAm’ and ‘Sarah’ to ‘SarAH’
shows how God wishes to mix syllables of His
Name with that of men. Jacob was changed to Isra-el, mixing God’s
name with
that of his father. This is indeed mutuality between God and man- and
it
demands so much.
17:5-11.
Blessings of many children, a specific seed / son who would bring glory
and
blessing, and a name change... are all frequently found in records of
wedding
blessings. In making those promises to Abraham, in mixing the letters
of His
Name with that of Abram... Yahweh was entering a marriage covenant with
Abraham
the impotent, the childless, the humanly hopeless. And He does the very
same
for each of us who are baptized into that same Name and become
recipients of
the very same promises. What was weird and so
counter-instinctive in
this wedding- was the token of the marriage covenant. Abraham was to
mutilate
his male generative organ as a sign that God would generate him a great
seed
and family. Academics are divided as to whether such circumcision was
in fact a
common practice at the time [in which case it would fail to be a very
unique
token], or whether this was actually a radical and unusually intimate
and
shocking requirement from God. The unique nature of God's covenant with
Abraham, that he alone had God known of all families of the
earth,
suggests to me that the latter view is likely to be correct. And
remember time
and again, that these same promises, this same covenant, is made to us
in
Christ (Gal. 3:27-29). Our response to what God has promised us
requires us to
likewise respond in a counter-cultural and counter-instinctive way . To
give up
this world in order to gain it, to lose now in order to win ultimately
and
eternally.
The
Abrahamic covenant is made personally with every member of the seed "
in
their generations" (Gen. 17:7). The records of the renewing of the
covenant to Isaac and Jacob are but indicators that this is the
experience of
each one of the seed. This means that the covenant love of God and the
promise
of personal inheritance of the land is made personally, and confirmed
by the shedding
of Christ's blood, to each of us. God promised Abraham that through
Christ, His
seed, blessing would come on people from all nations, with the result
that God
would be the God of Abraham's multitudinous seed: " To be a God
unto...thy seed...I will be their God" (Gen. 17:7,8). The
seed
is Christ, and the " God" is Yahweh. Let's not confuse
them. Now in Revelation 21:3 this fundamental promise is
alluded
to; God Himself will be our God then; we will see Him and
have a
personal relationship with Him. This would mean that this
idea of
personally being with God is a fundamental part of the Gospel preached
to
Abraham
It seems
that great stress is placed in Scripture on the Angels physically
moving
through space, both on the earth and between Heaven and earth, in order
to
fulfil their tasks, rather than being static in Heaven or earth and
bringing
things about by just willing them to happen. Gen. 18:10 describes the
Angel saying
to Abraham "I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of
life; and,lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son". On that first visit,
the
Angel must have enabled Sarah to conceive, and then He physically
returned nine months later. See on Gen. 24:40; 28:12,13-15; Ex. 3:8;
9:14; Mt.
2:13; 2 Kings 13:23; 1 Chron. 14:15; Mt. 22:30; Dt. 4:7; Ps. 57:3;
78:49;
144:7; Lk. 4:11; Dan. 3:28; 9:21; 10:13; Acts 10:5; Rev. 9:1; 1 Sam.
2:21; Is.
31:4; 1 Cor. 11:10
Sarah
murmured that it was impossible for her to have "pleasure" in
childbearing (Gen. 18:12). She uses the word ednah, related to
the word Eden.
Yet in the events of Gen. 19, she sees how the land around Sodom that
was once
"like the garden of Eden" (Gen. 13:10) is made barren and sowed with
salt so that nothing could grow there (Gen. 19:25; Dt. 29:23). She was
being
taught that God can give and take away fertility on a huge scale.
At present
it is the Angel-cherubim's job to "keep the way of the tree of life".
They have been given this charge, and yet they chose men to fulfil it
who will
keep the way pure- thus the Angels decided concerning Abraham, "I know
him, that he will command his children. . and they shall keep the way
of the
Lord" (Gen. 18:19). It will be our duty to take over as the way keepers
from the Angels, although we should have had good practice in this
life. Thus
we will say to the mortal population "This is the way, walk ye in it"
(Is. 30:21).
The lack of
ultimate Angelic knowledge results in the Angels taking time to think
things out
and discuss their action with each other, which may result in an
apparent
delay to we humans. Thus in Gen. 18:17 "The LORD (an Angel) said, Shall
I
hide from Abraham that thing which I do?". However, this same incident
shows that there are varying degrees of knowledge amongst Angels or in
the same
Angel over time. The Angel who destroyed Sodom reasoned: "I know him
(Abraham), that he will command his children and his household after
him"
(Gen. 18:19). Yet perhaps the same Angel, or the mighty Angel of Israel
which
made the promises to the patriarchs said to Abraham a few months later
after
his offering up of Isaac: "Now I know that thou fearest God" (Gen.
22:12), implying that he did not know whether Abraham's faith was
genuine
before that incident, and that the knowledge of Gen. 18:19 was merely
that
Abraham would 'teach his children the truth' and did not reflect any
knowledge
of Abraham's personal faith. In this case, Sodom might have been
preserved by
reason of Abraham's known willingness to teach others 'the truth'
rather than
because of any personal faith in God he may have had. Thus the
lesson comes home that a man's zeal
or
success in preaching can be unrelated to his personal faith or
spirituality.
The elohim "found" Abraham's heart to be faithful (Neh. 9:8). This
was by a process of research and drawing of conclusions. And our Angels
are in
the process of doing the same with us this very day.
God's way
of using the Angels to punish Sodom gives insight into the relationship
between
them and God. God Himself knew exactly what He would do because
of the
wickedness He knew was in the city. The Angel who debated whether to
reveal to
Abraham His purpose with Sodom (Gen. 18:17) says "Because the cry of
Sodom
and Gomorrah is great. . I will go down now and see whether they have
done
altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto Me".
The
Angels responsible for Sodom had brought the "cry" or news of
Sodom's sins to the attention of this senior Angel, who then
investigates it
further to see whether or not their news was correct. "And if not, I
will
know"- the emphasis being on the "I"- i. e. 'whether their
news was correct or incorrect, I will know because I am blessed with
greater
powers than they'. This senior Angel seems to manifest God to a very
great
degree, as Gen. 19:13 describes the other two "men" (Angels) saying
to Lot "we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen
great
before the face of the Lord (the third "man"- the senior Angel); and
the Lord (senior Angel) hath sent us to destroy it". These two Angels
sent
to execute the judgements were under specific guidelines- v. 22 "I
cannot
do anything till thou be come thither". Thus these Angels were given
power
conditional on certain things happening. Perhaps this was part of the
work of
Palmoni, the "wonderful numberer" of Daniel, who is the Angel
responsible for all timing; maybe He decreed
that they
could only have power once the condition of Lot leaving the city was
fulfilled.
Maybe this Angel co-ordinates all the huge number of timings which go
to make
up God's purpose? This would explain the passages which imply that a
set time
is allowed to some human beings to bring about repentance and response
to God’s
offers. Thus Pharaoh was condemned because he “let the appointed
time pass by”
(Jer. 46:17).
See on Gen.
1:26
The command
to preach to "all nations" would ring bells in Jewish minds with the
promises to Abraham, concerning the blessing of forgiveness to come
upon "
all nations" through Messiah (Gen. 18:18; 22:18; 26:4). Therefore God's
people are to preach the Gospel of forgiveness in Christ to " all
nations" . The offer of sharing in that blessing did not close at the
end
of the first century. Putting the " all nations" of the Abrahamic
promises
together with Christ's preaching commission leads to a simple
conclusion: The
Hope of Israel now applies to all nations; so go and tell this good
news to all
nations. Perhaps this is why there appears to be an intended
grammatical
ambiguity in the 'promise' that Abraham and his seed would be a
blessing for
all nations. It's unclear, as we've commented elsewhere, whether "be a
blessing" is purely a prophetic prediction or a command. The commentary
upon the promises to David in Ps. 72:17 is similar: "May his name
resound
for ever... may men bless themselves by him, may all nations pronounce
him
blessed". It is for us to go forth and be a blessing, and to make His
Name
great to the ends of the earth.
A close
study of the record of Sodom's destruction will reveal that the 'Lord'
spoken
of there was one of the Angels who arranged the judgements on Sodom.
"The
Lord said, Because the cry (NIV 'Outcry') of Sodom. . is great. . I
will go
down now" (Gen. 18:20,21). Perhaps this outcry of Sodom was from the
Angels who were shocked at its sinfulness, whose concern prompted the
senior
Angel into 'coming down' in judgement.
The Angel
of Gen. 18:21 seems to recognize His own limited perceptions: “I
will therefore
go down and see, if they completely correspond with the cry which comes
to me,
and if not, that I may know” (LXX). And we shall be made like the
Angels (Lk.
20:35,36).
18:23.
Circumstances were overruled by God to teach Abraham that he really
would be a
blessing to others, as He had promised. Twice he intercedes for
blessing upon Sodom
(Gen. 14:14; 18:23-33); just as e.g. we may be called to care for a
sick
person, in order to teach us about how we really are to be a blessing
to
others. Perhaps the most telling example of the limitation of God's
potential
by men is in Abraham's request that God would spare Sodom for the sake
of fifty
righteous men there. He then lowers the number to 40, and then finally
to ten,
assuming that surely Lot's family were righteous and would comprise ten
righteous. If Abraham had left off praying at, say, forty...then this
would
have been the limit God set. If there were ten righteous there, the
city
wouldn't have been saved. But Abraham went on to set the limit at ten.
But we
wonder, what would have happened if he had gone further and asked God
to save Sodom
for the sake of one righteous man, i.e. Lot? My sense is that the
Father would
have agreed. But the city wasn't saved for the sake of the one man Lot,
because
Abraham limited God's desire to save by the smallness of his vision.
This
principle can possibly be extended even wider. David asks: " Let thy
mercy, O Lord, be upon us, according as we hope in thee" (Ps. 33:22).
And
whoever prayed Ps. 132:10 asked to be heard " for thy servant David's
sake" - he or she believed that God would remember David and for his
sake
respond favourably [and how much more powerful is prayer uttered for
the sake
of the Son of God!].
The Angels
who visited Lot in Sodom wanted initially to lodge in the street, but
they were
persuaded by Lot to change their plans (Gen. 19:3). And who is to say
that to
some extent this isn’t possible today, too?
19:9 God’s
sight- see on Is. 6:7
20:1 Here we see Abraham taking decisions of geography- in this case, to move towards and then into Egypt- on the basis of material needs. And it leads him into sin. This is precisely what Lot did so disastrously in his geographical choices made in chapter 13; and there, Abraham stands out as having made the right choices, choosing the spiritual over the material. But as in our lives, the choice, the test, is repeated- and this time he fails it. Previous right decision making is no guarantee that we will get it right the next time the issue comes up.
20:6 I withheld you from sinning- It is clearly in God's power to spiritually "keep us from falling"; this is part of the work of His Spirit in the hearts of men. In this early Biblical history we are being shown how God has the power to do this, and has exercised it even in the lives of unbelievers. The same Hebrew word is used by David when he reflects that God 'kept him back from evil' in that Abigail's meeting with David stopped him from murdering Nabal (1 Sam. 25:39). The word is again found on David's lips in Ps. 19:13: "Keep back Your servant from sins of presumption". God can hold us back from sinning, over and above our own weak will. And this is the help which we need more than anything else. The same word is used about our own holding of ourselves back from sin, e.g. holding back our tongue (Prov. 10:19; 17:27). But God is able to psychologically take over the heart which is open to Him and empower us to do this; and He can even do it in the mind and psyche of an unbeliever like Abimelech.
20:7 He shall pray for you- Very reminiscent of how Job prays for his friends, perhaps suggesting Job and Abraham were roughly contemporary. The fact is, prayers of a third party can affect another's standing with God and salvation. The impression continues from :6 [see on "withheld you from sinning"] that there are other factors apart from total human freewill which play a part in the final algorithm of salvation.
20:13 Caused me to wander- Abraham's
weak attitude to leaving Ur is reflected much later too, when he tells
Abimelech that "the gods caused me to wander from my father's house"
(Gen. 20:13). The Hebrew ta'ah ("wander") has the idea of
wandering aimlessly (Gen. 21:14; 37:15) and even sinning (Is. 53:6). It
wasn't
a very nice term to use about God's providence. That seems to me to be
a
believer in a moment of weakness speaking about his faith in very
worldly
terms, as one pagan to another. He doesn't see his leaving of his
father's
house as obedience to Divine command and promise; but rather he
portrays that
response as his being somehow manipulated by the gods, picked up and
taken out
of the situation. See on 11:31. Abraham's comment that God caused him
to go
astray / "wander" from his father's house would likely have been
understood
by those who first heard it as a negative reference to God- for the
word
"gone astray" is used of a lost sheep (Jer. 50:6; Ez. 34:4,16; a donkey going astray, 23:4; Ps.
119:176), and the word is mainly used in the Bible regarding moral failure; and it was understood that "A bad shepherd causes a sheep to
go
astray from the flock because he is careless". Abraham appears to be indirectly blaming God for his failure. Perhaps God recognized
Abraham's failure by instructing His people to confess every year that
"An
Aramaean gone astray was my father" (Dt. 26:5). I take this to be a
reference to Abraham and not Jacob; for it seems that the people of
Aram
migrated to Ur, and that Abraham having settled in Padan Aram, Abraham
could
also for that reason be called an Aramaean. So Israel were asked to
remember
that their forefather Abraham had gone astray both literally and
spiritually;
and thus Abraham's God was a God of grace, and was thereby their God
too.
20:16 Sarah was
“reproved” by King Abimelech for going along with
Abraham’s lie about her not
being his wife (Gen. 20:16). And yet Kings were reproved for her sake,
and were
not allowed to do anything harmful to her (Ps. 105:14)! And Abraham
reproves
Abimelech later- for something Abimelech claimed he had not done (Gen.
21:25).
The repeat of the word “reprove” is surely meant to
indicate that here is an
example of Abraham and Sarah being counted righteous because of their
faith-
when clearly they were not wholly righteous. Abraham, the man who had
to be
reproved, was used by God to reprove the man who had reproved
him… it would have
sounded very hypocritical to Abraham’s neighbours. Yet the point
was, that God
saw him as being righteous. See on 26:11
20:17 Abraham's weakness leads Abimelech's wives to become barren; yet
through
the faith and prayer of an undoubtedly spiritually weak Abraham, their
fertility is restored. Again, God was teaching Abraham through
circumstances.
It could also be reasoned from Gen. 20:6 that God weakened Abimelech's
body so
that he had no sexual desire for Sarah- and again, this was to teach
Abraham
the impotent old man that virility is a gift which God can give and
take at
ease. The wonderful thing is that all these lessons were taught to
Abraham
through the incident of lying about and betraying his wife, which shows
the
weakness of his faith in God's promises. The way God works with and
through
human weakness is awesome.
21:10 Sarah's
screaming indignation can be well imagined. Consider which words were
probably
stressed most by her: "Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son
of
this bondwoman shall not be heir (just hear her voice!) with my son,
even with
Isaac" (Gen. 21:10). This is in harmony with her previous bitterness
and
aggression to Hagar and Abraham. Her attitude in implying that Ishmael
was not
the seed is gently rebuked by God in his subsequent words to Abraham
concerning
Ishmael: "He is thy seed" (Gen. 21:13). And yet Sarah's words are
quoted in Gal. 4:30 as inspired Scripture! Here we see the wonder of
the God
with whom we deal, in the way in which He patiently bore with Sarah and
Abraham. He saw through her anger, her jealousy, the pent up bitterness
of a
lifetime, and he saw her faith. And he worked through that screaming,
angry
woman to be His prophet. According to Gal. 4:30, God Himself spoke
through her
in those words, outlining a principle which has been true over the
generations;
that the son of the slave must be cast out, and that there must always
be
conflict between him and the true seed. Sarah in her time of
child-birth is
likened to us all as we enter the Kingdom, full of joy (Is. 54:1-4);
and yet at
that time she was eaten up with pride and joy that she could now
triumph over
her rival. And yet Sarah at that time is seen from a righteous
perspective, in
that she is a type of us as we enter the Kingdom. God's mercy to Sarah
and
Abraham is repeated to us daily.
21:17 The fact we
read a phrase like "the Angel of elohim" in Gen. 21:17 confirms that
individual angels can be messengers of other Angel-elohim, and that
there is a
degree of hierarchy in the Heavenly organization.
21:19- see
on Ps. 119:18
21:25-32 One senses
a growing humility within Abraham. Despite being a great man, called a
"mighty prince" by local people, with a large household and private
army, he personally runs to entertain the strangers who later turned
out to be
Angels. He so believed in the promised land being ultimately his that
he could
offer to his younger relative Lot the choice of the best land to live
in- when
in their culture, the leader of the community, the elder, naturally had
the
best of everything. Progressive faith in the promises led Abraham to
greater
integrity and openness. In Gen. 21:25-32 we see Abraham as a secretive,
furtive
character, secretly digging wells in Abimelech's territory without
telling him.
By Gen. 23:1-20 we see Abraham buying land from the Hittites in a very
public
manner, sealed by witnesses- the record emphasizes the integrity and
openness
of the whole transaction. And this purchase of land is quoted in the
New
Testament as an example of Abraham's faith that he would inherit the
land
ultimately. The same effects will be seen in the lives of all those who
truly
believe in those same promises. Seeing it was traditional to bury
people with
their ancestors, the purchase of a family "burying place" was also a
statement that Abraham had finally separated from his father's house
back in Ur
and Haran. From now on, he saw Canaan as truly his land. Abraham had
struggled
with this commanded separation from his father's house.
21:27. One
can't help but notice that God stressed to the later children of
Abraham that
since they had a covenant with Him, they were not to make covenants
with the
people who lived around them in the land- time and again God references
His
covenant with His people, and in that context tells them not to make
covenants
with the peoples of the land (Ex. 34:10-12,15,27; Dt. 7:29; Jud.
2:1,2,20). Yet
Abraham made covenants with those very people (Gen. 14:13; 21:27,32)-
perhaps
indicating his lack of appreciation of his covenant relationship with
Yahweh?.
22. The
offering of Isaac was without doubt an act of faith by Abraham. His
trust in
the invisible God, His reflection upon a series of promises which
amount to no
more than about 200 words in Hebrew, was balanced against his natural
hope for
his family, human affection, common sense, love of his beloved son,
lifelong
ambition... and he was willing to ditch all those things for his faith
in God's
promises. You can speak 200 words in a minute. The total sum of God's
recorded
communication with Abraham was only a minute's worth of speaking.
Abraham had
so much faith in so few words; and perhaps the number of words was so
few so
that Abraham would memorize and continually reflect upon them. Yet the
total
number of words God or an Angel spoke to Abraham about anything was
pretty
small- the total [including the words of the promises] comes to only
583 Hebrew
words- which can be spoken in less than three minutes [Gen.12:1-3 = 28
words;
12:7 = 4 words; 13:14-16 = 44 words; Gen. 15 = 117 words; Gen. 17 = 195
words;
Gen. 18 = 87 words; Gen. 21 = 26 words; Gen. 22 = 82 words]. And
remember that
all these words, these snatches of brief conversation, were spoken to
Abraham
over a period of 100 years or so. His faith in God's word, His
mediation upon
it and following its implications, really does make him a spiritual
"father of us all".
‘Arise and
go’ (22:3). There are examples of Abraham being progressively set
up by God so
that his spiritual growth would be an upward spiral. Initially, he was
told to
walk / go to a land which God would shew him (Gen. 12:1); when he got
there, he
was told to "arise", and "walk" through that land of Canaan
(Gen. 13:17). And Abraham, albeit in a faltering kind of way, did just
this.
But this was to prepare him for the test of Gen. 22:3 in the command to
offer
Isaac. His obedience this time isn't at all faltering. He "arises"
and 'goes' [s.w. "walk"] "unto the place of which God had told
him" to offer Isaac (Gen. 22:3). This is exactly what he had been
called
to do right back in Ur- to arise and walk / go to a land / place which
God
would show him (Gen. 12:1). And so our obedience in one challenge of
God leads
us to obedience in others. I've elsewhere pointed out how circumstances
tend to
repeat both within and between the lives of God's faithful. One
experience is
designed to lead us to another. Nothing- absolutely nothing- in our
lives is
senseless chance. All- and this takes some believing- is part of a
higher plan
for our spiritual good, in our latter end.
Because the
Angels are of limited knowledge, it seems that they bring some trials
upon us
in order to find out more about us- e. g. the Angel said to Abraham
when He saw
he was prepared to offer Isaac "Now I know that thou fearest God"
(Gen. 22:12). This is language of limitation- God Himself knows all
things, but
the Angel wanted to test Abraham. Indeed, the apocryphal Book Of
Jubilees
claims in so many words that it was an Angel called Mastema who was
responsible
for the idea of testing Abraham in order to determine his level of
obedience.
22:14 - see
on Job 42:1
Abraham
walked around in his promised land with the attitude of a stranger just
passing
through, although he was probably the most powerful man in it. The
record of
his purchase of Machpelah seems to exemplify this. Not only is the
presence of
the children of Heth highlighted (23:3,5,7,10,11,12,13,16,18),
but the
record of Abraham's words demonstrates his appreciation that he was
only
passing through: " Intreat for me to Ephron...that he
may
give me the cave of Machpelah, which he hath... for full
money he
shall give it me for a possession...amongst you
...and Abraham bowed down himself before the people of the land...and
the
field...in all the borders round about (was) made sure" (23:9-17
AVmg.).
The mention of the borders really rubs it in. Not only was the land
promised to
Abraham, but he was politically more powerful than the children of
Heth; he
could have annexed it for himself at ease. The children of Heth were
willing to
giver it to him for free anyway (23:11). Yet the realization by Abraham
of his
present position, the humility created by faith, shines through the
narrative.
Zacchaeus is called a son of Abraham in that he too repented of his
self-centred materialism (Lk. 19:9).
It must be
significant that Abraham told Eliezer to take Isaac a wife from " my
country...my kindred...thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the
daughters
of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell" (Gen.24:3,4). It follows that
there
were none of Abraham's country or kindred, which he had been commanded
to
leave, living anywhere near him. He had truly and fully obeyed the
command to
separate from them! As with many Christian youngsters today, the
avoidance of
marrying those in the surrounding world just seemed too much to ask.
But
Abraham knew that a way would be made: " The Lord God of Heaven, which
took me from my father's house, and from the land of my
kindred...he shall
send his angel before thee, and thou shalt take a wife unto my
son"
(Gen.24:7). As God had taken Abram from Ur and Haran and Lot,
so God
would take a woman from there, suitable for Isaac.
24:7- see
on 1 Pet. 1:10
24:27- see
on 25:23
There was a
definite trait of energy and industrious activity amongst the Abraham
family,
indicated by the record of Rebekah running to respond to the call of
Eleazer to
marry Isaac (Gen.24:18,20,28,58). Laban too was spritely
(Gen.24:29). And
Abraham as an old boy ran to meet the Angels, he hastened
into the tent, and personally ran unto the herd rather than
wave his
wand at the servants (or the wife) to do it (Gen.18:2,6,7). The way in
which it
is stressed that he got up early in the morning gives the same
impression
(19:27; 20:8; 21:14; 22:3; the same is said of Jacob, 28:18 and Laban,
31:55).
The mixture of zeal and business acumen is reflected in the way both
Abraham
and Lot greeted the Angels in a similar, outgoing, gentlemanly manner
(19:1-3
cp. 18:1-6). Note how Rebekah immediately says "I will go" (Heb. elek)-
just as Abraham had been called to "go" from Ur (lek, Gen.
12:1); "and he went" (wayyelek, Gen. 12:4). This would seem to
suggest an undesigned similarity of character between the family
members.
Because our
Angel has been so zealous in acting for us, we too should be zealous in
return-
thus Abraham's servant, knowing that God had sent an Angel before him
to
prepare the way for his mission of finding a wife for Isaac (Gen.
24:40), was
eager to be as zealous as possible to do his part in the work- "Hinder
me
not, seeing the Lord (the Angel) hath prospered my way" (v. 56). There
are
many other examples of this. Because the Angel is with us, we must
joyfully and
enthusiastically do our part. See on Hag. 2:4.
Gen.
24:40 "The LORD before whom I walk shall send
His
Angel with thee and prosper thy way" (Abraham to Eliezer as he
journeyed
to find a wife for Isaac). Here clearly the Angel was physically sent.
It seems
that great stress is placed in Scripture on the Angels physically
moving
through space, both on the earth and between Heaven and earth, in order
to
fulfil their tasks, rather than being static in Heaven or earth and
bringing
things about by just willing them to happen. See on Gen. 18:10.
Abraham’s
servant said that he walked ‘before the Lord’ (Gen. 24:40),
reflecting how he
too saw that he was following an Angel. He therefore urges Bethuel:
“Hinder me
not, seeing the Lord hath prospered my way” (Gen. 24:56). He felt
he was on a
roll, being led onwards by the Angel- and he didn’t want anything
to interrupt
that. The sensitive believer will perceive similar situations, time and
again,
as we seek to follow the leading of the Angel / cherubim before whom we
walk.
If we walk in step with the Angel, success is assured.
It would
seem that Abraham at the time of the promises, Abraham had other
children by
Keturah, another "concubine" , as she is described in 1 Chron. 1:32.
This term is only really applicable to other women taken during the
lifetime of
the wife or wives. Although the children of Keturah and Abraham are
only
recorded in Gen. 25:1-4, it seems to me that this isn't chronological;
it seems
to me that this a notice inserted at this point as a genealogical note,
rather
than implying that Abraham only took Keturah after the marriage of
Isaac in
Gen. 24. Remember that at the time of the promise in Gen. 15, Abraham
was
impotent- hence his bitterness at not having any child, and Rom. 4:19
describes
his having faith that he would overcome this problem. Having recovered
his
virility, it could be that he eagerly had children by Keturah to as it
were
prove himself. Yet one wonders therefore how long he maintained the
intensity
of his faith that specifically by Sarah he would have a child. Yet that
faith
of Abraham at the time of the promise in Gen. 15 was reckoned to
Abraham for
righteousness, is held up as our example and glorified throughout the
New
Testament- when it would seem that in fact Abraham didn't always
maintain the
intensity of the faith he had at that time. And God Himself had to
reassure
him: "Know of a surety" (Gen. 15:13), as if God recognized the
element of doubt within the faith of Abraham- although God elsewhere
holds up
that faith to us as such a wonderful example.
God had
promised his mother Rebekah that the elder (Esau) would serve the
younger
(Jacob); and yet her concern to trick her husband into blessing Jacob
rather
than Esau was studied rejection of that promise (25:23). And Jacob
followed her
in her faithlessness- in this area. He perceived the promises of God
through
her eyes, rather than his own. Likewise Isaac saw the promises as "
mercy
and truth" (24:27); and so did Jacob (32:10).
By grace,
righteousness has to be imputed to us. The spiritual blindnesses and
deficiencies of our brethren can be so agonizing to behold; and yet we
too have
ours, as Jacob had his, and the fact we have them does not mean that we
(or
they, or Jacob) will not be saved in the end. Perhaps you won't agree
with all
the following; but the general picture is clear: he didn't quite make
it to the
spiritually perfect / mature status with which he is credited right at
the
beginning (25:27 Heb.). Job is an identical case; he is labelled "
perfect" at the beginning, but at the end of his spiritual growth, he
didn't quite get to perfection. The weakness of Jacob meant
likewise.
Thus the record is written in such a way as to make Jacob out to be the
righteous one; he is described as " perfect" at a time when he had
not even accepted Yahweh as his God. Thus what he eventually was is
said of him
at the beginning, but with no hint that this is the case; the
impression is
given that he was always " perfect" from the start (25:27). Jacob is
there described as living in tents with his righteous father and
grandfather;
whereas there is ample evidence that he was quite used to the tough
outdoor
life, and was an accomplished shepherd. Heb. 11:9 implies that he had
faith in
the promises and was indeed an heir of them at this time; even though
he did
not see them as personally applying to him then (28:20), and was more
involved
in idolatry than he should have been.
Jacob was
77 when he fled from Esau. As far as we know, he had lived all that
time "
dwelling in tents" (25:27); and Heb. 11:9 adds the information that at
this time, faithful Abraham lived together with Isaac and Jacob in the
same
tents. Jacob grew up with Abraham and Isaac. He would have known the
promises
backwards. He lived, as far as we know, a single life, staying at home
with his
mother, who evidently doted on him, openly preferring him to Esau. Yet
at this
time, Jacob did not accept the Abrahamic promises as really relevant to
him,
nor did he worship Yahweh as his God (28:20). Familiarity bred
contempt: "
Thou hast not called upon me, O Jacob; thou hast been weary of me, O
Israel...thy first father (i.e. natural Jacob" hath sinned" (in this
way) (Is. 43:22,27).
" By
faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come" (Heb.
11:20). Yet the record of this in Gen. 27 doesn't paint Isaac in a very
positive light. " Isaac loved Esau, because he did eat of his venison:
but Rebekah loved Jacob" (Gen. 25:28). The AVmg. seems to bring
out
Isaac's superficiality: " Isaac loved Esau, because venison was in his
mouth" . This seems to connect with the way Esau threw away his
birthright
for the sake of food in his mouth. Esau was evidently of the flesh,
whilst
Jacob had at least some potential spirituality. Yet Isaac preferred
Esau. He
chose to live in Gerar (Gen. 26:6), right on the border of Egypt- as
close as
he could get to the world, without crossing the line. And he thought
nothing of
denying his marriage to Rebekah, just to save his own skin (Gen. 26:7).
So it
seems Isaac had some marriage problems; the record speaks of " Esau his
son" and " Jacob (Rebekah's) son" (Gen. 27:5,6). The way Jacob
gave Isaac wine " and he drank" just before giving the blessings is
another hint at some unspirituality (Gen. 27:25). Isaac seems not to
have
accepted the Divine prophecy concerning his sons: " the elder shall
serve
the younger" (Gen. 25:23), seeing that it was his intention to give
Esau
the blessings of the firstborn, and thinking that he was speaking to
Esau, he
gave him the blessing of his younger brothers (i.e. Jacob) serving him
(Gen.
27:29 cp. 15). And yet, and this is my point, Isaac's blessing
of the
two boys is described as an act of faith; even though it was only one
of his
passing moments of faith and was done with an element of disbelief in
God's
word of prophecy concerning the elder serving the younger, and perhaps
under
the influence of alcohol. Yet according to Heb. 11:20, this blessing
was done
with faith; at that very point in time, Isaac had faith.
So God's
piercing eye saw through the haze of alcohol, through Isaac's liking
for the
good life, through Isaac's unspiritual liking for Esau, through his
marriage
problem, through his lack of faith that the elder must serve the
younger, and
discerned that there was some faith in that man Isaac; and then holds
this up
as a stimulant for our faith, centuries later! Not only should we be
exhorted
to see the good side in our present brethren; but we can take comfort
that this
God is our God.
Jacob’s
perception of the promises as only for his personal, physical benefit
was
clearly evidenced in the way in which he was so bent on obtaining the
birthright from Esau (25:31). This was no sign of spirituality, but
rather of
his obsession with material acquisition. We can be sure he arranged to
be
boiling that broth just at the right moment. It was hardly an
off-the-cuff
decision to ask Esau for the birthright. He not only disbelieved the
promise
that the elder would serve the younger, but he misunderstood it,
thinking that
God's promises were dependent upon human works and wit to be fulfilled.
He
spoke of how he would bring upon himself the blessing God had promised
him (27:12).
Later, he reveals the same attitude when he describes his children as
the
fulfillment of the promises of present fruitfulness (32:10), but also
the
children he had obtained by his own service (30:26); he thought that
his own
effort and labour had fulfilled God's promises. He reasoned that Laban
had been
rebuked by God because God had seen how hard he had worked (31:42). He
explicitly says that if God further increases his flocks, it would be a
sign
that he was righteous (30:33). Like Job, he had to learn that God's
blessings
are not primarily physical,
and that we do not receive them in proportion to our present
righteousness. And
yet during this learning process, God patiently went along with him to
some
extent.
26:6 Gerar-
see on 25:28
26:7- see on
25:28
The
Abimelech kings appear far more gracious and honourable than the
Abraham family
who wandered in and out of their territory; the way Abimelech threatens
his own
people with death if they touch Isaac or his wife, after they had been
deceitful to him, is an example (Gen. 26:11). Yet it was not the nice
people of
the world, but this wandering, spiritually struggling family whom God
loved and
worked with. See on 20:16
The Abraham
family's considerable wealth is a theme in the records. " Isaac sowed
in
that land, and received in the same year an hundredfold: and the Lord
blessed
him. And the man waxed great, and went forward, and grew until he
became very
great" (26:12,13) is quite some emphasis of the same point. Eleazer
commented on Abraham's material wealth: " The Lord hath blessed my
master
greatly; and he is become great (note the repetition)" ; he then goes
on
to enumerate a long list of possessions: flocks, herds, silver,
gold,
menservants, maidservants, camels, asses. Truly " The Lord had blessed
Abraham in all things" (24:1). This suggests that the patriarchs'
material
prosperity was a primary fulfillment of the Abrahamic blessing in their
lifetime. Peter interprets the blessing as the forgiveness of sins
(Acts
3:25,26). The stress on their material blessings therefore points
forward to
our spiritual riches of blessing in Christ. Even earlier in Abraham's
life,
" Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver and in gold" (13:1).
Other references to Abraham's wealth occur in 13:6; 14:23. Jacob too
was
blessed with material wealth (31:16; 33:11 AVmg.). His parting with
Esau
because they were both so wealthy (36:7) echoes the division between
Abraham
and Lot and Abraham and Abimelech for the same reason (13:6). The
similarities between these incidents serves to emphasize the wealth of
the
family. The prosperity of Lot in Sodom is also highlighted (14:12
Heb.). Each
of them seems to have accumulated wealth in their own right in addition
to
inheriting it.
There is a
theme of envy in the accounts of Isaac and Jacob. The Philistines
envied Isaac
(Gen.26:14); as (we can assume) Laban did Jacob; Rachel envied Leah
(30:1);
Joseph's brothers envied him (37:11; Acts 7:9). Family friction
certainly
stalked the generations. Jacob against Esau, Isaac against Jacob,
Ishmael
against Isaac, Sarah against Hagar, Joseph's brothers amongst
themselves
(Gen.45:24). Envy of Israel by the world and friction within Israel has
been a
continued characteristic (what similarities with spiritual Israel?).
Yet there
was also a soft streak there; Esau and Jacob evidently had a certain
affection
for each other and willingness to truly forgive (Esau more so than
Jacob!);
Abraham truly cared for lot's fate in Sodom on at least two occasions;
and the
brothers genuinely cared for Benjamin and the grief of their father.
27:5,6.
" By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come"
(Heb. 11:20). Yet the record of this in Gen. 27 doesn't paint Isaac in
a very
positive light. " Isaac loved Esau, because he did eat of his venison:
but Rebekah loved Jacob" (Gen. 25:28). The AVmg. seems to bring
out
Isaac's superficiality: " Isaac loved Esau, because venison was in his
mouth" . This seems to connect with the way Esau threw away his
birthright
for the sake of food in his mouth. Esau was evidently of the flesh,
whilst
Jacob had at least some potential spirituality. Yet Isaac preferred
Esau. He
chose to live in Gerar (Gen. 26:6), right on the border of Egypt- as
close as
he could get to the world, without crossing the line. And he thought
nothing of
denying his marriage to Rebekah, just to save his own skin (Gen. 26:7).
So it
seems Isaac had some marriage problems; the record speaks of " Esau his
son" and " Jacob (Rebekah's) son" (Gen. 27:5,6). The way Jacob
gave Isaac wine " and he drank" just before giving the blessings is
another hint at some unspirituality (Gen. 27:25). Isaac seems not to
have
accepted the Divine prophecy concerning his sons: " the elder shall
serve
the younger" (Gen. 25:23), seeing that it was his intention to give
Esau
the blessings of the firstborn, and thinking that he was speaking to
Esau, he
gave him the blessing of his younger brothers (i.e. Jacob) serving him
(Gen.
27:29 cp. 15). And yet, and this is my point, Isaac's blessing
of the
two boys is described as an act of faith; even though it was only one
of his
passing moments of faith and was done with an element of disbelief in
God's
word of prophecy concerning the elder serving the younger, and perhaps
under
the influence of alcohol. Yet according to Heb. 11:20, this blessing
was done
with faith; at that very point in time, Isaac had faith.
So God's
piercing eye saw through the haze of alcohol, through Isaac's liking
for the
good life, through Isaac's unspiritual liking for Esau, through his
marriage
problem, through his lack of faith that the elder must serve the
younger, and
discerned that there was some faith in that man Isaac; and then holds
this up
as a stimulant for our faith, centuries later! Not only should we be
exhorted
to see the good side in our present brethren; but we can take comfort
that this
God is our God.
The way
Jacob is described at the time as " smooth" (27:11), without a
covering of hair, may be a hint that he needed a covering of atonement.
27:12 See
on 25:31
His proud
claim to his father that " I have done according as thou badest me"
(27:19) when he had effectively done nothing of the sort was the basis
for the
character of the elder brother in the Lord's parable (Lk. 15:29). Time
and
again, Jacob emphasizes his works: " I have done
according as thou badest me
(27:19)...my days (of service) are fulfilled (therefore) give me my
wife...did
not I serve with thee for Rachel? (notice Jacob's legalism;
29:21,25)...give me
my wives and my children, for whom I have served thee...thou knowest my
service...how
I have served thee (30:25-33)...with all my power I have served your
father
(31:6). This trust in his own works was what prevented Jacob from a
full faith
in the promises. It was only the night of wrestling and his subsequent
handicap
that drove it from him.
27:20 your
God- This is almost cynical; the sort of thing an unbaptized child of a
believer might say to their parents.
27:28 There
are many examples of where God worked through Jacob's weakness, and
blessed him
in spite of it, imputing righteousness to Jacob. Thus Jacob's use of
red stew
to wrest the birthright from his red brother was used by God to give
him the
birthright (the words for " stew" and " Esau" are related),
even though Paul evidently disapproved of Jacob's attitude (Rom. 12:20
surely
alludes here); his evil deception of his father was used by God to
grant him
the physical blessing (27:28 is confirmed by God in Dt. 33:28), even
though at
the time he was dressed like a goat (27:16), connecting himself with
fallen
Adam and the rejected at the day of judgment; “Deceiving and
being deceived”
certainly rings bells with Jacob (2 Tim. 3:13)
The record
of Isaac's blessing of Jacob (27:29) is framed to portray Jacob as a
type of
Christ: " Let people serve thee" = Zech. 8:23; Is. 60:12 " nations
bow down to thee" = Ps. 72:11; " Be Lord over thy brethren" =
Phil. 2:11; " Let they mother's sons bow down to thee" = 1 Cor. 15:7.
Jacob's
basic dishonesty is seen by the way in which Esau begged Jacob for the
"red pottage", which he thought was a kind of blood soup [a strange
thing for Yahweh's people to be eating at the time!]- and yet Jacob
actually
only gave him a dish of lentils. This would explain why Esau later
claimed he
had been twice deceived by Jacob (Gen. 27:36). The mere sale of the
birthright
was hardly deception; but if the bitterness of it all was that even in
that
hard bargain, Jacob didn't really give Esau the food he craved... then
we can
understand Esau feeling Jacob had twice deceived him.
At the time of Jacob's
deception, Esau lifted up his voice and wept (27:38); and this is
picked up in
Heb. 12:17 as a warning to all those who would fritter away their
spirituality
for sensuality. The faithlessness of Jacob is disregarded, and the
emphasis is
placed upon Esau.
Jacob
self-admittedly didn't believe as he slept that night at Bethel. But
just
days before that, as Jacob sheepishly stood before his sorrowful,
betrayed father; right there, right then, God promised Jacob that he
would
become " a multitude (LXX ekklesia)
of people" (28:3), words which could only become true through their
application to Christ.
Jacob's sleeping with a
stone as his pillow is hardly a natural thing to do- but it was done in
order
to induce dreams and revelations from the gods (28:11). And the one
true God responded
to Jacob, by showing him Angels ascending from him to God, and Angels
descending from God to Jacob in response. It wasn't the other way
around-
because surely the idea was to show Jacob that his prayers really were
being
heard, Angels were in touch with God about them, and God was zealously
responding even then through Angelic providence. Yet all this was done
by God
when Jacob was so far from Him. Just as a patient and loving father
bears with
his child, so God bore with Jacob; and He does with us too, and we are
to
reflect this in our dealings with our brethren.
28:12 The
idea of a stairway leading into Heaven of course has obvious
connections with
the ziggurats of those times. But note that those stairways had a
temple on the
ground immediately where the stairway started, and led up to a temple
at the
summit. On a human level, Jacob's subconscious was thinking of pagan
temple
systems. But God turned all this around. For the man Jacob lying there
that
night, in all his weakness, was a temple, connected by the Angels to
Yahweh's
Heavenly temple. And we too in all our weaknesses are the temples of
God on
this earth. Thus his idolatrous dream of a Ziggurat was turned into an
assurance of Divine care for him, the shrine which topped Mesopotamian
ziggurats being turned by God in the vision into the throne of Yahweh.
Indeed,
‘Babylon’ meant “gate of God”, and in thinking
that he was at heaven’s gates,
Jacob was confusing Babylon and the true city of God. But still God
worked
through all this.
It seems
that great stress is placed in Scripture on the Angels physically
moving
through space, both on the earth and between Heaven and earth, in order
to
fulfil their tasks, rather than being static in Heaven or earth and
bringing
things about by just willing them to happen. The vision of Jacob's
ladder
showed the Angels coming and going, sometimes physically present with
us,
sometimes not. We read that the Angels are "sent forth" to gather us
to judgement; thus Jesus will come at a time when the Angel is not
physically
next to us; we know it will be at a time when we are not particularly
prepared
for His coming- at a mundane moment like when working in the field or
sleeping,
so that to some extent all the virgins are slumbering, as in the
parable; i. e.
we will not be in a moment of crisis when we have the Angel physically
next to
us. Gen. 28:13-15 are the words of the Angel to Jacob: "I am with thee,
and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring
thee again
into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which
I have
spoken to thee of". God manifested through Jacob's specific guardian
Angel
then goes on to say, v. 15, "I am with thee, and will keep thee in all
places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land;
for I will
not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken of unto
thee".
At the end of his life, as we showed earlier, Jacob mentions the
presence
of the Angel which he had sensed all through his life. But that one
Angel
controlled the multitude of Angels which he saw that night in vision
ministering to him. See on Gen. 18:10
28:14- see
on 12:3
28:17
dreadful- Jacob feared God with the fear of one who has no real
relationship
with Him
28:18- see on
Jn. 1:50
28:20- see
on 48:20; Jer. 10:16
As Jacob
set out to relatives in a distant land, hoping to find a wife, he was
fully
aware that he was in principle replicating his father's experience.
When he
spoke of God keeping him " in this way that I go" and bringing him
again " to my father's house" (28:20,21), his mind was on the story
he had so often heard of how God lead Abraham's servant in " the right
way" and leading back home with a wonderful wife for Isaac
(24:27,40,42,48,56). When at this stage in life (he was 77, remember)
things
suddenly took a different turn, his great hope was that God would bring
him
back safely " again to my father's house in peace" (28:21); he wanted
to go back to the stay-at-home life. What God put him through in the
rest of
his life was the exact opposite of this. He says that if God does this,
he will
" surely give the tenth unto thee" (28:22 cp. 14:20)- exactly as
granddad Abraham had done (14:20), who had doubtless told Jacob this
many a
time as they 'dwelled together in tents' (Heb. 11:9).
28:20
“bread…raiment”.
" If God will be with me...and will give me bread to eat, and
raiment to put on...then shall Yahweh be my God" (28:20) is
simply incredible; 'if God will really look after me, which
includes
giving me food and clothes, if He's as good as His word, then
I'll
accept Him as my God'. And yet Paul speaks of how we should serve our
Master
well, especially if he is our brother (alluding to Jacob and Laban),
and "
having food and raiment be content" (1 Tim. 6:2,8), as if the fact
Jacob
only expected food and clothing from God was a sign of his
unmaterialism. And
yet at the very time Jacob said those words, he only half believed, and
the
next 20 years of his life were devoted to accumulating far more than
just food
and clothing. And yet his words regarding food and raiment, sandwiched
as they
are between much that is wrong, are treated as a reflection of his
spirituality.
Having
heard the promises concerning his future seed and the present
protection God
would grant him, Jacob immediately seized on the latter: " If God will
be
with me...then shall Yahweh be my God" (28:20,21). He brushed past the
implications of Messiah, although later he came to see that these were
the most
fundamental things God had promised. The way he raised up (cp.
resurrection)
the pillar and anointed it at this time may have shown a faint
conception of
Messiah, but this took years to seriously develop.
28:20-22
“If God… then…”. The implication was
that
Jacob didn't consider Yahweh to be his God at that time. He was not
totally
committed to Yahweh as his God (28:20). The fact he promises to give a
tenth to
God in the
future
suggests that he did not then consider God to be his King, for the idea
of
tithing seems to have been established before the Law of Moses was
given (as
were many other elements of that Law; 14:20). Jacob's words sound as if
he
believed in 'God' as a kind of force or spirit, but did not have Yahweh
as his
personal God. And yet God had promised Abraham that He would be the God
of his
seed (17:7,8); Jacob was aware of these promises, and yet he is showing
that he
did not accept their personal relevance to him at this time. The fact
at the
end he does call God his God reveals that he then accepted the
Abrahamic
promises as relevant to him personally. His offer to give a tithe to
God if God
delivered him would have been understood in those days as saying that
Yahweh
would then be his king (cp. 1 Sam. 8:15,17); and yet he
evidently felt
that Yahweh wasn't then his King. There is no record that Jacob
ever did
build a temple or tithe; but at the end of his life he realizes that
God had
kept His side of the deal, in that He had been with him and fed
him all
his life long. The fact he hadn’t kept his side of the deal made
Jacob realize
the huge grace of God…
The
covenant God made with Abraham was similar in style to covenants
made
between men at that time; and yet there was a glaring difference.
Abraham was
not required to do anything or take upon himself any obligations.
Circumcision
[cp. baptism] was to remember that this covenant of grace had been
made. It
isn’t part of the covenant [thus we are under this same new,
Abrahamic
covenant, but don’t require circumcision]. Perhaps this was why
Yahweh but not
Abraham passed between the pieces, whereas usually both parties would
do so.
The promises to Abraham are pure, pure grace. Sadly Jacob didn’t
perceive the
wonder of this kind of covenant- his own covenant with God was typical
of a
human covenant, when he says that if God will give him some
benefits,
then he will give God some (Gen. 28:20). Although he knew the covenant
with
Abraham, the one way, gracious nature of it still wasn’t
perceived by him.
Because of
the great importance of Angels or a specific Angel in our lives, many
of God's
people seem to have conceived of God in terms of an Angel. Jacob (Gen.
48:15)
and the patriarchs are clear examples. The extent of this is shown by
Jacob
vowing to his Angel at Bethel that "if God (the Angel) be with me, and
will keep me in this way that I go. . . so that I come again to my
father's
house in peace; then shall the Lord (Yahweh) be my God" (Gen.
28:20,21).
That the 'God' was definitely the Angel is shown by Gen. 31:11,13: "The
Angel of God spake unto (Jacob). . . I am the God of Bethel, where thou
anointedst the pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me". So was
Jacob
promising his Angel that if He protected him, "then shall Yahweh be my
Elohim (Angel)"- i. e. 'then I will recognize Yahweh is behind you, and
I
will relate to Him as I do to you'?
|
Gen. 28:20,21 re. Jacob |
Psalm 23 re. David |
|
He is with me |
For You art with me (i.e. just as You were with Jacob) |
|
He will keep me |
He makes me lie down, he leads me, he restores my life |
|
He will give me bread to eat |
He prepares a table before me in the presence of my enemies |
|
I come again to my father's house in peace |
I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever |
David was a
man who saw the height of Jacob, perceiving Jacob as our example, and
the deep
significance of his spiritual growth as our pattern. His almost fanatic
devotion to " the Law" would have included the record of Jacob-
around a fifth of " the Law" which he studied all the day (and deep
into the night watches).
The
repeating similarities between our lives and those of others also
reveal to us
that God at times arranges for us to suffer from our alter ego-
persons
who behave similarly to us, and who through those similarities cause us
suffering. In this way we are taught the error of our ways, both past
and
present. It seems that Jacob the deceiver suffered in this way from
Laban the
deceiver- in order to teach him and cause his spiritual growth. For
example, as
Jacob deceived his blind father relating to an important family matter,
so
Laban deceived Jacob in the darkness of the wedding night. And Jacob
learnt
from this- whereas Laban [so it seems] just didn't "get it". Indeed,
so many themes repeated in Jacob's life in order to teach him. For
example,
when he first meets Rachel, there are three other flocks of sheep
waiting to be
watered (Gen. 29:2); but the implication of Gen. 29:10 is that Jacob
rolled
away the stone from the well and watered them and ignored the other
three
flocks. But did not this stone return upon his own head when God rolled
away
the reproach of the other three women in Jacob's life (Leah and the two
servant
girls) but not that of Rachel, who initially remained barren?
The
repeating similarities between our lives and those of others also
reveal to us
that God at times arranges for us to suffer from our alter ego-
persons
who behave similarly to us, and who through those similarities cause us
suffering. In this way we are taught the error of our ways, both past
and
present. It seems that Jacob the deceiver suffered in this way from
Laban the
deceiver- in order to teach him and cause his spiritual growth. For
example, as
Jacob deceived his blind father relating to an important family matter,
so
Laban deceived Jacob in the darkness of the wedding night. And Jacob
learnt
from this- whereas Laban [so it seems] just didn't "get it". Indeed,
so many themes repeated in Jacob's life in order to teach him. For
example,
when he first meets Rachel, there are three other flocks of sheep
waiting to be
watered (Gen. 29:2); but the implication of Gen. 29:10 is that Jacob
rolled
away the stone from the well and watered them and ignored the other
three
flocks. But did not this stone return upon his own head when God rolled
away
the reproach of the other three women in Jacob's life (Leah and the two
servant
girls) but not that of Rachel, who initially remained barren?
“Rebekah’s
son” (29:12) - not Jacob ben-Isaac- note the emphasis on
Jacob’s psychological
domination by his mother- Laban, “his mother’s
brother” 3 x (29:10). Rebekah
rejected the promise of 25:23 in ch.27; as Jacob in 33:3-5. There is
sustained
emphasis on Jacob's obedience to his parents, especially to his mother
(27:8,13,43; 28:7). The whole story is a foretaste of the issues
involved with Christians
and parental expectation in our day. It might not be going too far to
say that
he grew up far too much under her thumb; he meekly obeyed her faithless
suggestion that he deceive his father into granting him the blessing,
content
with her assurance that it would be mum's sin, not his (and I imagine
her
pecking him on the cheek as she gave him the tray with Isaac's food
on). No
wonder he fell madly in love at first sight, when he first saw the girl
he knew
his mother wanted him to marry. Jacob introduces himself as " Rebekah's
son" (29:12), although it would have been more normal to describe
himself
as Jacob ben-Isaac. 29:10 labours the point three times that Laban was
"
his mother's brother"
. The fact Deborah, his mother's nurse, was taken under the wing by
Jacob,
further suggests his very close bond with his mother; he buried Deborah
under
Allon-Bachuth- 'the oak of his (Jacob's) weeping' (35:8). Jacob
struggled to accept his father's God as his God. And yet he in so many
ways is
portrayed as deeply influenced by Rebekah his mother.
29:18 Jacob
had been promised that he was to “let people serve you”
(27:29) and yet he
effectively said he didn’t want that promise, by serving Laban
for a wife
(29:18,25,27); at the end he was brought through life’s
experiences to see that
the promises are the basis of life, and that we must let God fulfill
them to
us.
29:30 Jacob
was under the one man: one woman ideal of Genesis; and yet he evidently
didn't
take this too seriously. His mad infatuation with Rachel meant that he
thought
nothing of polygamy. The idea of accepting one's married circumstances
for the
sake of principle (a common 21st century believers' cross) was
obviously
foreign to our Jacob. Many aspects of the Mosaic Law were already in
place
before it was pronounced to Moses; the prohibition on marrying a second
wife
who was the sister of the first wife could well have been known among
God's
people in Jacob's time, seeing that it was a precept based on the
principles of
Eden (Lev. 18:17,18). " It is wickedness" was God's comment to Moses,
and there is no reason to think that His essential moral judgment on
this kind
of thing has ever changed much. Yet Jacob thought nothing of breaching
this
command, and committing this " wickedness" . Leah's reaction to
Jacob's evident favouritism for Rachel was to become obsessed with
having
children. When she failed to conceive, she panicked that she was
barren, and
therefore asked Jacob to have intercourse with her servant Zilpah in
order to
produce children. During the first seven years of her marriage, she
produced 6
sons and 1 daughter. This indicated not only an incredible fertility,
but also
a high womanly status in those times, seeing that she produced so many
more
sons than daughters. The fact none of her children died in babyhood was
also
remarkable for the times. Her fertility became proverbial in later
Israel (Ruth
4:11). And yet despite this evident fecundity, whenever she thought she
had
failed to conceive, she asked Jacob to have intercourse with Zilpah.
Despite
knowing her fertility, Jacob did so. It seems he sacrificed basic
principles in
order to placate a neurotic wife who, it would seem, he didn't care too
much
for anyway, seeing he made it plain he had never wanted to marry her in
the
first place (29:25,31). The whole sense that we get is that his
relationship
with Zilpah was unnecessary, and he was far too casual in his attitude
to it.
The way
Leah comments about Jacob to Rachel “Now will my husband love
me…now this time
will my husband be joined unto me” (Gen. 29:32-34) all imply that
Jacob’s
marriage was in a mess. Jacob, Rachel and Leah were indeed a tangled
web. God
joins together a married couple; yet Jacob, apparently, neither loved
his wife
Leah / Rachel, nor had allowed God to join him unto her in emotional
bonding.
And there he was, having kids by his domestic servants as well, his
boss’s
cast-offs. And God loved this man, and worked with him so
patiently, to build the house of Israel His people. There’s
comfort enough for
every man and woman, reading this record. The way Jacob is simply
described as
the one whom God loved in Ps. 47:4 is majestic in its brevity. God
loved Jacob.
He really did. Simple as that. When Jacob is the one presented as
having
struggled with God more than any other.
The
evidence seems to be that until he left home, Jacob was influenced by
the
idolatrous thinking of the surrounding world. For the next 20 years, he
more
tacitly went along with these things being practiced in his family. The
mandrakes used by Leah were not just aphrodisiacs, but were believed to
have
the magical ability to induce fertility (30:14). This pagan nonsense
was
believed by Leah and Reuben, and tacitly gone along with by Jacob-
although God
worked through these wrong ideas, apparently uncorrected, in order to
bring
about His purpose. And yet from these mixed up women God built the
house of
Israel.
“Now will
my husband dwell with me” (Gen. 30:20) surely implies that Jacob
and Leah had
effectively split up.
When
Jacob asks Laban to allow him to leave, he
uses very similar words to those used by Eliezer when he asked Laban's
family
to let Rebekah leave to go marry Isaac:
|
Eliezer in Gen. 24 |
Jacob in Gen. 30 |
|
"Send me back" (shallehuni)
24:54 |
"Send me away" (shalleheni)
30:25 |
|
"Let me go (shallehuni)
that I may go (w'eleka)
to my master" 24:56 |
"that I may go (w'eleka)...
let me go (w'eleka)"
30:26 |
|
Laban's blessing of Rebekah 24:60 |
Laban's blessing of his grandchildren and daughters 31:55 |
|
The servant "went his way (wayyelak)"
24:61 |
"Jacob went on his way" (32:1) |
Intentional
or not, the inspired record strives
to bring out the similarities. The lesson is that culturally, Jacob was
very
much his mother's son- just as those raised Christian today may be
culturally
Christian, and yet not truly accept their parents' God as theirs until
they
pass through the valley of the shadows, the school of hard knocks.
30:26 See
on 25:31
30:30
blessed- Jacob saw God as the one who gave physical blessing; he saw
the
promises of Divine blessing as primarily re. material blessing. He
missed their
basic import, which was of forgiveness and the Kingdom (Acts 3:26,27)
Jacob
thought that God had blessed Laban in fulfillment of the Abrahamic
promises,
simply because Laban's flocks had greatly increased; he saw the "
blessing" as physical prosperity (30:30). He was sharing the
over-physical
view of the promises which his father Isaac held, who mentioned the
promised
blessing as essentially concerning material blessings in this life
(28:3,4). As
with David and Solomon, the weakness of the parents was repeated in the
child.
This perception of the promises as only for his personal, physical
benefit was
clearly evidenced in the way in which he was so bent on obtaining the
birthright from Esau.
"Now when shall I
provide for mine own house also?" (30:30) Jacob slyly asked Laban, and
on
this pretext spent then next six years using some pagan myth about
cattle
breeding to take Laban's cattle from him and amass them for himself.
What he
came to think of as " his flock" (31:4) was a reflection of his mad
materialism; he used all his (considerable) human strength to achieve
it, and
then turned round and said he had only been serving Laban with it
(31:6). Yet
these very words are alluded to in 1 Tim. 5:8 as an example for
faithful men to
copy; indeed, Paul says, if you don't do as Jacob did, you're worse
than a
pagan! And yet the Spirit through Paul also recognized the weak side of
Jacob;
" evil men...deceiving and being deceived" (2 Tim. 3:13) is a sure
reference
to Jacob.
30:33 See
on 25:31
This
attitude that he
could bring about the fulfillment of God's promises through his own
efforts was
the outcome of Jacob's self-righteousness. This is clearly shown when
he says that
his righteousness had caused his cattle to increase (30:33), although
he
believed that this increase of cattle was due to his receipt of the
promised
Divine blessing (32:10).
Jacob’s
superstitious use of mandrakes and poplar rods was used by God to
fulfill the
physical aspect of the promised blessing; he used " white" rods to
take power from Laban, the " white" one, and to give him white
animals- and God worked through it (30:37).
The flocks
conceiving in front of the rods / poles (Gen. 30:39) surely has
reference to
the concept of the pagan asherah poles, before which
worshippers had
sex. Jacob was clearly influenced by this wrong idea- and yet God
patiently
worked with him through it. Jacob appears to have had the idea that
what a
female thinks about or has before her eyes at the time of labour or
conception,
will affect the child. And so he peeled stripes off the rods so they
appeared
'ringstraked', or striped- in the belief that if the female cattle gave
birth
or conceived looking at them, then the offspring would be striped too,
like the
striped rods. However, the connection with the asherah poles suggests
that
Jacob's beliefs were associated with pagan fertility myths, rather than
faith
in Yahweh the God of his fathers. Mic. 1:5 explicitly links Jacob's sin
with
idolatry. Jacob's superstitious ideas about the cattle mating were used
by God
to teach Jacob that He would bless him physically, as a prelude to the
more
important spiritual blessings which Jacob was later to value. There is
no
biological truth at all in what he did. Jacob wasn't specifically
corrected for
his paganism; later he must have realized the depth of God's grace in
still
working through him at this time, still giving him blessing.
31:5 my
father- not ‘my God’.
There is
something almost childishly proud about the way Jacob sets off his father
against the
deceitful father of his wives (31:5-7). Laban mocks this almost
immature
homesickness: " thou wouldest needs be gone, because thou sore longest
after thy father's house" (31:30).
Lift up now thine eyes, and
see, all the rams...” (31:12) is a promise couched in the
language with which
God invited Abraham to lift up his eyes and behold the land which He
would give
him (13:14,15). Even whilst Jacob was trying to fulfill God’s
promises for Him,
still half worshipping idols, God gently went along with him to teach
him
firstly that He would keep promises, and then to show
Jacob the
more spiritual essence of it all.
Jacob And Jesus In Gen. 31,32
Jacob as he approached Esau was
weak; he prayed for deliverance, but divided up his family as if he
doubted
whether God would hear him. The Angel met him, representing Esau
(33:10), and
would have killed him (cp. Moses) had not Jacob wrestled with him in
prayer and
begged for the blessing of forgiveness (Hos. 12:4-6). And yet the
record of
Jacob meeting Esau is shot through with reference to Christ in
Gethsemane; the
Son of God at one of his finest moments:
Jacob
|
Jesus
|
|
|
|
31:14 |
Night time breaking of bread and killing of animals |
32:8 |
Zech. 13:7 |
|
32:1 LXX Jacob went on his way and saw the camp of God; an
Ezekiel 1 type vision of Angels |
As Christ in Gethsemane |
32:13 |
Cp. Kedron |
|
32:6; 33:4 |
Cp. Judas, Mk. 14:45; Jn. 18:3 |
32:17 |
Jn. 16:5 |
|
32:3 |
Lk. 10:1; 22:8 |
Made a prince afterwards |
Acts 3:15; 5:31; Rev. 1:5 |
|
Jacob referred to the promises (32:9,10) |
As Christ's mind was full of the promises at the end (Ps.
69:13; 89:49; 77:8; 44:4,24; Is. 63:16) |
||
An example of following the
negative spiritual traits of our forbears is seen in Jacob's penchant
for
materialism. This was a weakness of the whole Abraham family; a
specific word
is used about how they " gathered" material wealth. Abraham did it
(12:5), and so did Jacob (31:18). The list of what they " gathered"
is almost identical (24:35 cp. 30:43). Faithless fear (cp. Dt. 20:8;
Mt. 25;25;
Rev. 21:8) was another characteristic; in Abraham (15:1; 20:11); Isaac
(26:7,24; 31:42,53); and followed by Jacob (28:17; 31:31; 32:7,11;
41:3).
31:29 God
of your father- That Jacob worshipped the God of his father rather than
his own
God was well known. " Your (plural) father" (cp. "
thee" in the previous and following verses) may suggest that Jacob was
confident enough of his father's God to have introduced it to his
family,
although he himself still had not reached the point where he had made
this God
completely his own.
When Laban
sets out to attack Jacob, it was clearly in his power to kill him. But
the
incident of him accusing Jacob of stealing his idols, him publicly
searching
the whole camp, feeling (31:34 Heb.) absolutely everything, and not
finding
them, probably led to a loss of face which meant he couldn't do what he
planned
to Jacob. Jacob then bursts out in proud, arrogant denunciation of
Laban- not
realizing that his beloved, idolatrous Rachel couldn't bear to be
without those
idols, and had stolen them. Despite Rachel's deceit and idolatry, and
Jacob's
arrogance, God worked through all this to save them. The way God works
with us
in our weakness, leading us on, hoping we will later reflect back and
marvel at
His grace and patience... all this God works oftentimes with man. Not
only
should we be deeply humbled as a result of our self-examination. We
ought to
reflect this kind of patience and going along with weakness in the hope
of
later change in our attitude to our brethren.
Jacob was
afflicted with legalism, and struggled all his life to understand and
accept
grace. The legalistic attitude of Jacob and his family is brought out
by the
behaviour of his wives as well as himself when they are caught up with
by Laban
as recorded in Gen. 31. The society in which they lived had codified
legal
practices, as has been established by archaeological research into
contemporary
towns in the area. For example, part of the bride price had to be kept
by the
wife personally; and thus Rachel and Leah accuse their father of taking
away
from them that which was rightfully theirs. Likewise, according to the
Nuzi
documents, daughters and sons-in-law had legal title to part of the
father's
estate, and this was proven by their possession of the household idols.
Hence
Jacob and his wives stole those idols. E.A. Speiser quotes par. 266 of
the Code
of Hammurabi, which states: "If there occurs in the fold an act of god,
or
a lion takes a life, the shepherd [cp. Jacob] shall clear himself
before the
deity; the owner of the fold [cp. Laban] must then accept the loss
incurred". It was surely with allusion to this that Jacob complained
that
he as the shephered had had to bear the loss of Laban's lost cattle
(Gen.
31:39).
31:42
Again, not my God. And he saw God as the supplier of physical
blessing;
he understood the promise to Abraham that " I will be with thee" as
referring to blessing of cattle more than anything more spiritual. See
on 25:31
Gen.
31:42,53 “the fear” see on Ex. 23:27
31:53 This
seems to be emphasizing that Laban swore by his fathers' gods, because
he knew
no better, and Jacob did likewise. A Baptist is a Baptist because his
father
is, and at the beginning of spiritual life, a Christian can be one for
no
better reason than his parents are. Jacob was still at this stage in
middle
age. And so so many of us must pass through that inevitable growth
curve of
Jacob.
That
Abraham did finally break with his family is hinted at by the way that
Laban
speaks of "the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor- may they judge
between
us (Gen. 31:53 Heb.). Laban recognized that Nahor and Abraham
worshipped
different gods- whereas we know that initially, they worshipped the
same gods.
Jacob unashamedly swore
" by the fear of his father Isaac" (31:54); the picture of his father
trembling in fear of God when he realized his superficiality stayed
with Jacob
(27:33). It seems he spoke publicly of God as the God of his father,
for this
is the term Laban used to him (31:29). The influence of his father and
grandfather lasted a lifetime; even in old age, he feared to go down to
Egypt
because of the precedents set by the bad experience of Isaac and
Abraham there;
it seems that he delayed to obey Joseph's invitation to visit Egypt
because of
this, and was possibly rebuked by Yahweh for this: " Jacob, Jacob (such
repetition is often a rebuke), Fear not to go down into Egypt"
(46:3). Likewise Christians live out parental expectation
very
often, without much personal faith.
32:3 messengers. Through
the whole incident with the wrestling Angel, Jacob was led to
understand
something of the meaning of the Gen. 28 vision of a ladder with Angels (mal'akim)
ascending from him to Heaven and returning to him. He sends
messengers
(mal'akim) to Esau (Gen. 32:3)- and they return to him as it
were as a
mighty host of an angry army. Hence he named the place Mahanaim, two
camps /
hosts- for he perceived that Esau's host was indeed the host of God in
His
Angels. And thus he comments that he saw the face of the Angel / God as
if it
were the face of Esau (Gen. 33:10). And so God can masterfully arrange
incidents in our lives too, which are somehow the summation of all our
previous
encounters and interactions with people... to teach us His way. This is
why
there is sometimes a sense of deja vu in our lives.
Jacob evidently forgot the
promise that the elder would serve the younger when he sent messengers
to Esau,
describing himself as Esau's servant, and Esau as his Lord (32:4); yet
just a
few hours later he was pleading in almost unparalleled intensity to
receive the
promised blessings of forgiveness. Such oscillating faith and
perception of the
promises is tragically a characteristic of Israel after the Spirit
too.
32:4 wrestled. Through
this, Jacob learnt the real import of the promises. He realized that
all his
life, he had been wrestling with God, his Angel, and he now came to beg
his God
for the blessing of forgiveness, implying he had repented. The Hebrew
for
" wrestle" can mean both to wrestle and also simply to cling on to.
It seems he started wrestling, and ended up clinging on to the Angel,
desperately begging for salvation and forgiveness. His great physical
strength
(remember how he moved the huge stone from the well, 29:2) was
redirected into
a spiritual clinging on to the promises of forgiveness and salvation.
And this
will be our pattern of growth too. It seems Jacob was familiar with the
idea of
wrestling with God as being related to prayer. Rachel speaks of how "
with
wrestlings of God have I wrestled...and I have prevailed" in obtaining
a
child (30:8; AV " great" = Heb. 'elohim'). We know from Hos. 12 that
Jacob became aware that he was wrestling with an Angel, not just a man.
His
wrestling is therefore to be understood as prayer and pleading,
although
doubtless it started as a physical struggle with an unknown stranger,
who he
later recognized as an Angel, and then perceived as God Himself.
The
Angel came to Jacob with the desire to kill him,
as Esau (whom the Angel represented) approached him in the same spirit.
It was
by Jacob's desperate clinging on to God, his pleading, his intense
prayer (Hos.
12:4) that he changed God's intention, after the pattern of Moses in
later
years. The sentence of death we received in Adam perhaps doesn't mean
as much
to us as it should. Our reversal of it will involve quite some
struggle.
Wrestling as prayer: Jacob
wrestled / struggled in prayer with the Angel. Consider the Biblical
emphasis
on the idea of struggle, quite apart from the fact that Jacob's night
of
wrestling is a cameo of the experience of all who would be counted
among the
Israel of God. Job felt that his prayers were a striving with God
(33:13). Christ's
prayers in Gethsemane are described as a " striving" (Heb. 12:4);
Paul asks the Romans to strive in prayer, so that he may be delivered
from unbelievers (cp. Esau), and return to them with a blessing
(Rom. 15:30). This is all allusion to Jacob. Likewise Epaphras
'strove'
for the Colossians in his prayers (Col. 4:12 AVmg.). Our prayers are to
give
the Father no " rest" (Is. 62:7), no cessation from violent warfare
(Strong).
32:5 God’s
sight- see on Is. 6:7
"
Jacob was greatly afraid and distressed" (32:7) is the basis of " the
time of Jacob's trouble" (Jer. 30:7), the " time of trouble"
from which Israel will be Angelically " delivered" (Dan. 12:1) after
the pattern of Jacob. Yet this " time of trouble" is picked up by the
Lord in Mt. 24:21 and applied to the time of great tribulation " such
as
was not" which will encompass all God's people, natural and
spiritual. What this means is that the Jacob experience must be gone
through by
all of us, natural and spiritual Israel; and this will entail a
desperate
praying to God and an earnest repentance, recognizing that we have
lived out
our parental expectations for too long; and above all, a realization
that
" this God is our God" , a personalizing of God, a grasping of
the wondrous reality of those things which we have previously seen as
only so
much correct theology and logical theory.
32:9 He
came to see that 'God' was Yahweh (cp. notes on 28:20); he saw that
there was
only one 'God', and that the vague sense of 'God' which he had was in
fact
'Yahweh'. But still he speaks of this Yahweh-God as someone else's God.
" With
this staff...I became (many)" (32:10). Strong comments that the word
for
" staff" here suggests a magical, pagan stick associated with
fertility, coming from a root meaning 'to germinate'. The same word
occurs when
we read that Jacob put the animals before the " rods" ; it seems this
is an intensive plural for 'the great rod', i.e. his staff. Yet,
fascinatingly
enough, at the very point when Jacob leaves home to start his
wilderness
journey with only (in his eyes) his pagan staff to bring him good luck,
God as
it were takes a snapshot of him, and asks Israel to leave Egypt with a
staff in
their hands- a strange request, surely, unless it was intended to drive
their
minds back to Jacob, asking them to emulate his example. Jacob
and
idolatry go together.
32:10 See
on 25:31
Jacob saw
material prosperity as an indicator of the fulfillment of the promises
to him.
Because he was physically
blessed in his life, he came to feel that the promises had been
fulfilled, and
therefore he almost lost sight of the future aspect of our relationship
with
God. There are powerful lessons for us here. He saw the promises ("
mercies...truth" ) as having been fulfilled to him already (32:10), and
therefore he needed the night of wrestling to bring him to the
realization that
the blessing of forgiveness
(Mic. 7:20), with its eternal, future implications, was
what the
promises are really all about.
Because Jacob saw, for much
of his life, that the fulfillment of God's promises depended on his
effort, he
so often doubted them; because, of course, men can never make enough
effort.
Thus he asks God to deliver him from Esau, because if Esau killed him,
the
covenant would not be fulfilled. " I fear him, lest he come and smite me
(first!) and the mother with the children" (32:11). Whether he died or
not
that night would not have nullified God's promise that his seed would
become a
multitude (32:12). But first and foremost, Jacob saw the promises as
offering
him personal, temporal blessing, rather than having a firm faith in
their
future implications. His wrestling with the Angel was a cameo of this
whole
attitude; he thought that the promised blessing of God could be
achieved
through his wrestling and struggling. This is why, in the
course of
that night, he stopped wrestling with the Angel and clung on to him
with tears,
begging that through pure grace he might receive the blessing (Hos.
12:2-4).
Before the wrestling began, Jacob evidently felt that basically, the
promises
to him had been fulfilled in the material prosperity which he had: " I
am
not worthy of the least of all the mercies, and all the truth (" mercy
and
truth" is a common idiom for the promises) which thou hast shewed unto
thy
servant; for with my staff I passed over this Jordan; and now I am
become two
bands" (32:10).
There can be no doubt that
the wrestling experience of our lives will result in our rejection of
materialism, and wholehearted devotion to the more spiritual blessings
in
heavenly places in Christ Jesus. Jacob began that night by pleading: " Deliver
me from Esau" (32:11), and he concludes by marveling that his life is
" preserved (s.w. " deliver" ) from God's wrath
(32:30); his concern with physical problems and human
relationships
became dwarfed by his awareness of his need for reconciliation with God.
In essence, this is Paul's teaching concerning peace in the NT; if we
have
peace with God, the wonder of this will result in us having
peace in
any situation. This is easy to write, so easy. And yet it is still
true. If we
see the seriousness of sin, and the wonder of being in free fellowship
with the
Father and Son, we will have peace. The wholehearted repentance and
clinging on
to God of Jacob that night is used in Hosea 12 as an appeal to all
Israel to
repent as our father Jacob did, and rise to his level of
maturity.
The promise
to make Abraham's seed as the sand of the sea, he saw as implying that
his
children would not be physically harmed (32:12); yet the New Testament
teaches
that this promise fundamentally refers to Messiah, and those of all
nations who
would become " in him" . At the end of his life, it seems that Jacob
learnt this.
32:25
thigh- The sign of circumcision was given as the confirmation that the
promise
regarding a son would be fulfilled. Abraham had to figuratively cut off
part of
his vital organ in order to be assured that God would provide a
son for
him. Accepting God's promises means that we too must give up our human
strength
and attempts to fulfil them. Likewise when Jacob was given the repeated
covenant acceptance, he was wounded in his "thigh" and thereafter
walked with a limp. "It is not impossible that the damage to the
"thigh" means Jacob was assaulted in his vital organs. Thus, the
"limp" refers to the mark left on his very manhood and future" .
There is reason to think
that the Angel also reminded Jacob of his father Isaac. The way Jacob
begs the
Angel to bless him recalls how he so earnestly wanted to obtain his
father's
blessing. Jacob's pleading for blessing with the Angel would have
reminded him
of Esau's desperate pleading for the blessing from Isaac. All these
things were
restimulated in Jacob's mind by the wrestling. The Angel asks him what
his name
is (32:27), in exactly the same way as Isaac had asked him 20 years
before. At
that time he had lied. But now he truthfully answers the Angel: "
Jacob" , the deceiver. And then he begs for the blessing of
forgiveness.
He had struggled with men, with Isaac and Isaac's influence of Jacob's
spirituality, with his brother Esau, with Laban, and with himself. And
the
Angel said that in all these struggles with men, Jacob had ultimately
won in
that he had confessed he was a deceiver, he had accepted the perversity
of his
nature.
32:29 Jacob
knew the Yahweh Name, he knew the name El Shaddai (Ex. 6:3); surely he
was
asking for a deeper exposition of the Name. He realized his need to
draw closer
to God. But the Angel grants him the blessing of forgiveness, and says
that
Jacob doesn't need such an exposition, because he now knows the
character of
God: he has received such grace and forgiveness and future assurance.
This is
the Name / character of God revealed. Thus Jacob realized that he knew
the
theory of God, but not the practice. Latter day Jacob, natural and
spiritual,
are little better. In so many ways, so often, we know but don't
believe; and it
has been commonly observed that the problem with us is that we are
right in
doctrine but very weak in practice. This shouldn't surprise us. It was
exactly
the characteristic of our father Jacob. But the God of Bethel is our
God too,
and will bring us through to a deeper maturity. That night, Jacob
reached
" manhood" , spiritual maturity (Hos. 12:3 RV).
Jacob's
comment at the end of the wrestling experience was that " my life is
preserved" (32:30); and that Hebrew phrase is so often used by David
(Ps.
7:2; 22:20; 25:20; 33:19; 56:13; 86:13; 97:10; 120:2). Likewise Jacob
commented
that the experience had shown him that God had been gracious unto him
(33:11);
and that Hebrew phrase too is a catch phrase of David's (Ps.
4:1; 6:2;
9:13; 25:16; 26:11; 27:11; 30:8; 31:9 and many others). We too can make
Jacob
our hero, as David did.
Jacob's new
appreciation of the blessing of forgiveness is reflected by the way in
which he
effectively tells Esau that he is handing back to him the birthright,
the
physical blessings. The way he bows down seven times to Esau (33:3) is
rejecting the blessing he had obtained by deceit from Isaac: " Be
master over
your brethren, and let your mother's sons bow down to you" (27:29). His
experience of the blessing of God's grace was sufficient for him, and
he
rejected all else.
Jacob called Esau his
master (33:5), in evident rejection of the Divine promise they both
knew: that
Esau would serve Jacob (25:23). And yet at this very point, Jacob
speaks of
" the children which God hath graciously given thy (Esau's) servant"
; and this scene is cited in Is. 8:18 as a type of Christ and his
spiritual
children of promise. In similar vein, Is. 49:21 uses this scene as a
picture of
the faithful remnant among Jacob in the last days.
33:10 God’s
sight- see on Is. 6:7
The approach of Esau in
angry judgment reflected God's attitude to Jacob (33:10). Jacob
realized that
he must " appease" (Heb. kaphar, normally translated 'to
make atonement') Esau with gifts of animals. This is surely a
confession of sin
on his part (32:20). But when he offers them to Esau, Esau kindly
responds that
he “has all”. But all the same Jacob wants to make the
sacrifice, to give up
the material things...and in all this, too, we see an accurate
reflection of
God’s position with Jacob (and indeed all of us).
The Angel commented that
Jacob had struggled with both God and men, and had prevailed. Which
men? Jacob
recognized that the Angel represented Esau (33:10), his brother with
whom he
had emotionally struggled all his life. The struggle in the womb had
been lived
out all their lives to this point. Perhaps the Angel's face appeared
like that
of Esau? Jacob saw the face of the Angel as it were the face of Esau-
implying
that the Angel he wrestled with was Esau's guardian Angel. He was being
more
obliquely shown the truth which New Testament passages like 1 Jn.
4:12,20,21
state plainly: that our relationship with our brother is our
relationship with
God. And Jacob was thus repenting of how badly he'd treated his
brother.
33:11
supplication- see on Hos. 12:4
33:11
graciously- Jacob saw God as the one who graciously gave physical
blessings,
and also as the God who gives spiritual grace / mercy to undeserving
sinners
like himself. Thus a growing appreciation of grace was a facet of
Jacob's
perception of God and spiritual growth.
It's a shame that the
English translation conceals Jacob's rejection of the physical blessing
in
33:11: " Take (51 times translated " take away" ), I pray thee,
my blessing...because God hath dealt graciously with me, and I have
enough
(lit. 'all things')" .The only ultimately important thing is grace and
right standing with God. The Hebrew words translated " take (away)"
and " blessing" are exactly the same as in 27:35,36: " (Jacob)
came with subtlety, and hath taken away thy blessing...Is
not
he rightly named Jacob? he took away my birthright, and now
he hath taken
away my blessing" . Yet now Jacob is saying: 'I have
experienced the true grace of God, I stand forgiven before Him, I see
His face
in His representative Angel (cp. Christ), I therefore have all things,
so I
don't want that physical, material, temporal blessing I swindled you
out of'.
This is why Jacob pointedly calls Esau his “Lord” in the
record. He was
accepting Esau as the firstborn. And Paul, in his spiritual maturity,
came to
the same conclusion; he counted all the materialism of this world as
dung, that
he might win Christ and be found in him, clothed with his gracious
righteousness. Because God had dealt graciously with him, he felt that
he had
“all” (Gen. 33:11 RVmg.). All he needed was God’s
grace, and he had that. Rev.
21:7 appears to allude to Jacob by saying that he who overcomes [by
wrestling?]
shall inherit “all things”. We are all to pass through
Jacob’s lesson; that
material advantage is nothing, and God’s grace is everything.
Truly could Jacob
later say, after another gracious salvation, that there God had
appeared to Him,
had been revealed to him [RV] in the experience of grace (Gen. 35:7).
Jacob, Esau
And The Prodigal
The parable of the prodigal contains multiple allusions to the record
of Jacob
and Esau, their estrangement, and the anger of the older brother [Esau]
against
the younger brother. There is a younger and an elder son, who both
break their
relationships with their father, and have an argument over the
inheritance
issue. Jacob like the prodigal son insults his father in order to get
his
inheritance. As Jacob joined himself to Laban in the far country,
leaving his
older brother Esau living at home, so the prodigal glued himself to a
Gentile
and worked for him by minding his flocks, whilst his older brother
remained at
home with the father. The fear of the prodigal as he returned home
matches that
of Jacob as he finally prepares to meet the angry Esau. Jacob's
unexpected
meeting with the Angel and clinging to him physically is matched by the
prodigal being embraced and hugged by his father. Notice how Gen. 33:10
records
how Jacob felt he saw the face of Esau as the face of an Angel. By
being given
the ring, the prodigal "has in effect now supplanted his older
brother"; just as Jacob did. As Esau was "in the field" (Gen.
27:5), so was the older brother.
What was the Lord Jesus getting at by framing His story
in terms of
Jacob and Esau? The Jews saw Jacob as an unblemished hero, and Esau /
Edom as
the epitome of wickedness and all that was anti-Jewish and anti-God.
The Book
of Jubilees has much to say about all this, as does the Genesis Rabbah.
The
Lord is radically and bravely re-interpeting all this. Jacob is the
younger
son, who went seriously wrong during his time with Laban. We have shown
elsewhere how weak Jacob was at that time. Jacob was saved by grace,
the grace
shown in the end by the Angel with whom he wrestled, and yet who
finally
blessed him. As Hos. 12:4 had made clear, Jacob weeping in the Angel's
arms and
receiving the blessing of gracious forgiveness is all God speaking to
us. The
older brother who refused to eat with his sinful brother clearly
represented,
in the context of the parable, the Jewish religious leaders. They were
equated
with Esau- the very epitome of all that was anti-Jewish. And in any
case,
according to the parable, the hero of the story is the younger son,
Jacob, who
is extremely abusive and unspiritual towards his loving father, and is
saved by
sheer grace alone. This too was a radical challenge to the Jewish
perception of
their ancestral father Jacob.
The parable demonstrates that both the sons despised
their father and
their inheritance in the same way. They both wish him dead, treat him
as if he
isn't their father, abuse his gracious love, shame him to the world.
Both
finally come to their father from working in the fields. Jacob, the
younger
son, told Laban that "All these years I have served you... and you have
not treated me justly" (Gen. 31:36-42). But these are exactly the words
of
the older son in the parable! The confusion is surely to demonstrate
that both
younger and elder son essentially held the same wrong attitudes. And
the
Father, clearly representing God, and God as He was manifested in
Christ,
sought so earnestly to reconcile both the younger and elder sons. The
Lord
Jesus so wished the hypocritical Scribes and Pharisees to fellowship
with the
repenting sinners that He wept over Jerusalem; He didn't shrug them off
as
self-righteous bigots, as we tend to do with such people. He wept for
them, as
the Father so passionately pours out His love to them. And perhaps on
another
level we see in all this the desperate desire of the Father and Son for
Jewish-Arab unity in Christ. For the promises to Ishmael show that
although
Messiah's line was to come through Isaac, God still has an especial
interest in
and love for all the children of Abraham- and that includes the Arabs.
Only a
joint recognition of the Father's grace will bring about Jewish-Arab
unity. But
in the end, it will happen- for there will be a highway from Assyria to
Judah
to Egypt in the Millennium. The anger of the elder brother was because
the
younger son had been reconciled to the Father without compensating for
what he
had done wrong. It's the same anger at God's grace which is shown by
the
workers who objected to those who had worked less receiving the same
pay. And
it's the same anger which is shown every time a believer storms out of
an
ecclesia because some sinner has been accepted back...
33:15 God’s
sight- see on Is. 6:7
33:20 Elohe-Israel: This seems to have been a flash of spiritual insight, a peak of faith which was not afterwards sustained; not only did Jacob accept the new name God had given him (although he needed reminding of this again in 35:9), he saw that 'God' was his God, the God behind the powerful ones (Angels) who looked after Jacob / Israel. Still he saw God as pre-eminently physically powerful, and manifested in many Angels. And still he had not fulfilled his promise to make Yahweh his God. Jacob hid behind the idea of God manifestation too long. This is not to say that there is no such thing; but we can take it to such a point where we lose sight of the glorious reality of the one true, real God, who is our God, and who is ultimately there, at the back of all the things and ways in which He may be manifested. Jacob saw God manifest in Angels to the point where he failed to see the God who was behind them. Building the altar 'El-elohe-Israel' was his first step towards rectifying this. As time went on, he saw God as one, not as multitudes of Angels, even though he knew from the vision of Bethel that they were all active for him; he saw the El behind the Elohe, and realized that this was Yahweh, his very own God.
:3 The love of Hamor for Dinah indicates this was
not a rape nor was he using her as a harlot, as her brothers claimed.
All the way through the record, the honour of Hamor and his father is
demonstrated (he is called very honourable in :19) and for love's sake
offers to pay any dowry named (:12); there seems an intended contrast
with the way David's son Amnon raped his sister Tamar and then wanted
nothing more to do with her. The reference to "folly in Israel" (:7)
recurs in that record (2 Sam. 13:12,13).
34:7 There is
reason to think that even at the end, Jacob was still in some ways
weak. Thus
despite his name having been changed from Jacob to Israel, the two
terms are
used by God in the record in juxtaposition (34:7; 35:22; 46:2,
5,8; 48:2)
as if to reflect the way the full change of Jacob would only take place
in the
Kingdom, when each believer will receive his new name (Rev. 3:12).
34:11 God’s sight- see on Is. 6:7.
34:25 Taking swords makes them no better than Esau, who was condemned
to live by the sword. Simeon had a child by a Canaanite woman
(Gen. 46:10), so his zeal was hardly from any spiritual motive of
separation from the Canaanites.
So true to our experience, even after the night of wrestling Jacob slipped back at times into the old way of thinking. His pathetic bleating of 34:30 is a case of this: " I being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house" . Just note all those personal pronouns. God had promised to go with him, and the whole tenor of all the promises was that there would come a singular seed from the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who would become a great house, or nation. But in the heat of the moment, all this went out of the window.
:31 Hamor did not treat Dinah as a harlot
(:31). They exaggerated this in their own minds; they likewise
repeatedly speak of Dinah as having been 'defiled', using a Hebrew word
elsewhere used about rape of married women. Yet Dinah was single. They
decided she had been raped, even though the record is at pains to
emphasize this was not the case. And as with their later story about
Joseph's death, the more they repeated the lie to themselves, the more
they came to believe it as true. The punishment of Levi was to be
scattered in Israel (Gen. 46), and this came about through the Levites
having no land and living amongst all the tribes of Israel in the
priestly cities- but thereby this curse was turned into a blessing.
The moment of truth came
during Jacob’s wrestling with the Angel. He realized then that in
our
relationship with God, it's all or nothing. And after that, he firmly
rejected
the ways of the world in his own life and that if his family; he made
them bury
all their idols (35:2). This connection between the night of wrestling
and
Jacob's rejection of idols is hinted at in 1 Kings 18:31; here, Israel
openly
renounce their idolatry and claim to turn to Yahweh with their whole
heart. To
celebrate this, " Elijah took twelve stones, according to the number of
the tribes of the sons of Jacob unto whom the word of Yahweh
came
saying, Israel shall be thy name" . The change of name that night is
associated with Israel's rejection of idolatry. And then finally, at
the very
end, Jacob realizes his earlier idolatry and confesses it, and
emphasizes his
utter conviction that there is only one God, the God of his fathers,
Yahweh,
the God of Messiah, his very own God. Jacob resigned the things of
this
world for the sake of what was implicit in the promises, when he told
his
family: “Put away the strange gods that are among you”
(Gen. 35:2). These
household teraphim would have been the property deeds to Laban’s
property, but
because of what God had promised him at Bethel all those years ago,
Jacob was
willing to resign all that hope of worldly advantage (35:3).
35:7- see
on 33:11
35:11- see
on 43:14
There are a
few hints that the way of thinking associated with a life of idolatry
was still
in Jacob. Thus he set a pillar over Rachel's grave (35:14,20);
something which
was later forbidden under the Law because of its evident association
with
idolatry (same word in Lev. 26:1; Dt. 12:3; 16:22; 2 Kings 3:2; 10:27).
He had
done this previously, in a way his forefathers are not recorded as
doing
(28:18,22; 31:45,51,2).
An example of the way the
Spirit frames the record in Jacob's favour is in 37:3: " Now Israel
loved
Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old
age"
. We have shown that most of Jacob's children were born within a few
years of
each other, and in any case, Benjamin was the youngest. It seems that
the
Spirit is almost making a weak excuse for Jacob's favouritism, or
perhaps
picking up Jacob's self-justification for his favouritism and treating
it as if
it is valid.
Joseph was
likened to a sheaf (37:7)- Christ was the wave sheaf (Lev. 23:11,12)
It must
have taken Joseph quite some courage to explain the dreams to his
brethren.
" He dreamed yet another dream, and told it his
brethren" (37:9). There was quite likely a certain bucking up of
courage
in the spirit of the Lord Jesus at age 30, when he 'came down from
Heaven' and
started preaching the glories of his future Kingdom to a cynical
Israel. This
is our struggle, to tell forth the things revealed to us.
37:10
reveals how Jacob's view of the promises, even at the age of 108, was
very much
on a surface level: " Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed
come
to bow down ourselves unto thee?" . Rachel was dead (35:19), and Jacob
mocked the suggestion that she would ever " come" to bow to her son.
37:10 Jacob’s anger with
Joseph's claim that all his brothers would bow down to him is
explicable when
we remember that Isaac had promised Jacob that this would be his
blessing (27:29 cp. 37:10). Yet at the end, he realized that the
promised
blessings didn't only apply to him on a personal level, and
he even
conferred such a blessing on Judah (49:8).
"
...but his father observed the saying" (37:11)- As did Mary ,
mother of
Jesus (Lk. 2:19,51)
Joseph
readily responded to his father's desire that he go to his brethren: "
Here am I" (37:13). Isaiah, another type of Christ, uttered similar
words
before his mission to Israel (Is. 6:8). Yet in both Joseph and
Isaiah
there must have been a sense of apprehension, sensing the persecution
that
would come. There was a point when Christ said to God: " Lo, I
come..." (Heb. 10:5-7). This would indicate that in line with the
typology
of Joseph and Isaiah, there was a point when Christ received and
responded to
His Father's commission. This may have been some time in His teens;
perhaps 17,
as with Joseph? Or at 30 when he began His ministry and came " into the
(Jewish) world" ?
"
Go...see whether it be well with thy brethren" (37:14)- Same Hebrew
as
1 Sam. 17:18, also typical of Christ.
" See
whether it be well with thy brethren, and well with the flocks; and
bring me
word again" (37:14). Christ was sent to the shepherds and the sheep of
Israel. This accounts for the special effort he made to appeal to the
Jewish
religious leaders, even when it seemed he was wasting time with them.
" When
they saw him afar off...they conspired against him to slay
him"
(37:18)- " When the husbandmen saw the son, they said among
themselves (i.e. conspired), This is the heir; come, let us
kill
him" (Mt. 21:38) . Mt. 21:38 is quoting the LXX of Gen. 37:18.
" Let
us slay him...and we will see what will become of his (prophetic,
inspired)
dreams" (37:20) - Christ's inspired prophecies of His death and
resurrection must have motivated the Jews' slaying of Him
" They
stript Joseph out of his coat" (37:23); was Joseph naked
in
the pit? - Same LXX word in Mt. 27:28; was Christ naked on the
cross?
See Heb. 6:6 " open shame" .
Throughout
the records of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his children there is
continual
repetition in the manner in which the record is written. This
repetition is of
both experiences and of the language used to describe those
experiences.
Gen.39:1- 8 provides an example of this: " Joseph was brought down to
Egypt...the Ishmeelites, which had brought him down thither...down to
Egypt" (37:25). " The Lord was with Joseph...and his master saw that
the Lord was with him" . " His master the Egyptian...his master"
. " Joseph...was a prosperous man...the Lord made all that he did to
prosper" . Potiphar " made him overseer over his house...from the
time that he had made him overseer in his house" . " All that he had
he put into his hand...over all that he had...the blessing of the Lord
was upon
all that he had...he left all that he had in Joseph's hand" . " His
hand...into his hand...Joseph's hand...to my hand" . This kind of
linguistic device suggests that the Spirit in Genesis is inviting us to
observe
the development of theme and to note emphasis. The above example from
Joseph's
life is one of many such sets of evidence. The repetition of
certain
descriptions and common experiences in the lives of Abraham's family
members
is to enable us to build up a very clear picture of what they
were like
as people. We are being enabled to get to know them as a family. This
is
necessary for us if we are to realistically obey the New Testament
commands to
see Abraham and the patriarchs as our spiritual fathers, to model our
daily
walk upon them, to see in them the examples which should dominate our
lives and
thinking. The way the record repeats their similar experiences reveals
certain
family traits; the majority of which are negative . This
takes
some appreciating.
At least 2
of his 10 persecutors were unhappy about what they were doing , and
said so
(37:22,26). Perhaps the whole group egged each other on to adopt an
attitude
none were totally happy with in their conscience- Ditto for first
century
Israel?
His
brothers said: " He is our brother and our flesh" (37:27)- "
We are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones" (Eph. 5:30)
" Let
not our hand be upon him" (37:27). They thought that the rigours of
slavery would be enough to kill him- The Jews handed Jesus over to
the
Romans. Does the type indicate some of them thought this fact would
absolve
them of guilt?
37:28
" And they sat down" after symbolically killing him- Mt. 27:36.; Sold
him for pieces of silver- Ditto for Christ. Jesus was
“him…whom they priced
on the part of the sons of Israel” (Mt. 27:9 RVmg.). The
reference to “the sons
of Israel” is surely an allusion to the sons of Jacob selling
Joseph for his
value.
"
Joseph is...rent in pieces. And Jacob rent his clothes"
(37:33,34); Jacob shared in Joseph's death - This is a fine
prefigurement of
the (sadly ignored) pain of God.
Jacob's
love for Rachel is reflected and acknowledged by the inspired record
when we
read of Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be
comforted
"because they are not" (Mt. 2:18; Jer. 31:15). But these ideas are
more relevant surely to Jacob weeping for Rachel and especially
for
Joseph- for Jacob wept for Joseph and refused to be comforted (Gen.
37:35).
This was after the death of Rachel (Gen. 35:19). Surely the record is
reflecting the unity which there was between Jacob and Rachel; even
after her
death, Jacob wept as it were with her kind of weeping.
"Joseph
was a goodly person, and well favoured" (39:6) clearly means he was
good-looking (like his mother, grandmother and great-grandmother). The
record
seems to stress that the family was good looking. Perhaps this gives
another
angle on an old chestnut: Was Christ good looking and handsome as the
Son of
God, or weak and ugly as the suffering servant? On the cross, " his
visage
was so marred more than any man...there is no beauty that we should
desire
him...despised...we hid as it were our faces from him" (Is. 52:14;
53:2-4).
Yet Joseph was strong and good looking, pleasing in the eyes of men
(and
women). So may we suggest that Christ too was naturally strong and
attractive,
but he lost this due to the mental trauma of his life, resulting in his
repulsive physical appearance as he hung on the cross.
Joseph lost
his garment before he went into the pit and before he went to prison
(39:13)- Jn.
19:23
The
sensitive reader will perceive that Joseph had a strong fatherly image,
even
from a young age (40:7; 41:43 mg.; 45:8). The Lord Jesus likewise;
hence He
referred to the disciples as His children when they were in the same
peer
group. This is understandable in that He is the supreme manifestation
of the
sovereign Father.
The shame
of Joseph in the dungeon (40:15); the lowest of the low, according to
Ex.
12:29- A type of the supreme degradation of Christ on the cross.
" They
made him run hastily out of the dungeon...and changed his raiment"
(41:14
mg.)- The energy of Christ's resurrection; change of clothing =
change of
nature, Zech. 3:3,4.
41:45 Given
a new name: " Zaphnath-paaneah" : 'Saviour of the world', or 'bread
of life'. Christ given a new name on ascension (Phil. 2:6-9; Rev.
3:12).
Joseph's
wife had to forget all about her pagan past (41:45 = Ps. 45:10 = Dt.
21:13), especially
her father's house. Joseph alluded to what she had gone through when he
spoke
of how he too had forgotten all his past suffering and his father's
house
(41:51). What a pair they were! Both had broken free of their pasts and
were
dedicated to the new life together. As such they typify the
relationship
between Christ and His bride.
41:48 Bread
laid up in preparation for the famine- Laying up the word as a
foundation
against the judgment (1 Tim. 6:19).
Joseph's
(half-Gentile) sons were counted as the twelve tribes of Jacob (41:51)-
We
are Christ's sons (Heb. 2:13). Joseph was called " tender father"
(41:43 mg.) as Christ will be called 'Father' in the future age (Is.
9:6 Heb.)
The
brothers suffer in prison for three days to prod their conscience about
Joseph
(42:17)- Three year tribulation of Israel in the last days to bring
them to
accept Christ?We get the impression that Joseph changed his plans
for them
several times; he recalled them when already on their journey etc. - Does
this show that he hastened the day of revelation to them from purely
emotional
considerations- and will the Lord do the same with His Israel?
" The
anguish of his soul" and pleas for deliverance (42:21), ignored by the
brothers. " The travail of his soul" (Is. 53:12), ignored by
Israel (Is. 53:1-4).
Joseph wept
(this is recorded seven times in the record) (42:24). He must have
found it
hard to prolong the agony of not revealing himself to them immediately;
he was
motivated by a desire to make them see the enormity of their sin, for
their
spiritual good rather than his own vindication- Joseph as a type of
Christ
makes his story prophetic. This is a stunningly deep prophecy of the
intensity
of Christ's feelings, as the mighty Son of God, towards wayward Israel
in the
last days. He was a man of sorrow in his mortal life, and will still
have an
element of this characteristic in the future.
God (this is important) made
Joseph forget all his " toil" , his mental sufferings (42:51). This
was a miracle; no amount of steel-willed suppression of his past could
have
made Joseph paper over all the pain. But God did a psychological
miracle upon
him. Has God done the same to Christ now in His glory, as He will to us
one day
soon (Rev. 21:4)? Yet Christ will be factually aware of His sacrifice
and the
associated pain. God presumably did not obliterate Joseph's memory
cells, but
He made him " forget" the pain. This is surely what God has done to
Christ, and what He will do to us: take away the pain on a
psychological level
whilst still leaving a factual awareness. Is it too much to suggest
that even
now, God is ready and willing to do something like this?
The
brothers delay in their return, doubtless because of the struggle with
their
conscience; never spoken of together, but operating on each man
individually
(43:10)- Will there be a 'delay' in Israel's repentance, and
therefore in
the full manifestation of Christ? Every Jew in the last days will go
through
the silent struggle of conscience about Christ.
43:14 God Almighty.
Jacob's perception of God was as very powerful, One
who can give undeserved grace to men like Jacob's sinful sons. He uses
a term
he has not previously used: El-Shaddai, the Almighty El. Using
new terms
for God reveals a deepening of understanding of Him. We likewise will
grow in
our knowledge of Him through the trials of life.
43:14 In 35:11
God encourages Jacob, fearful he would lose all his family to attacks
from
neighbouring tribes, to “be fruitful and multiply; a
nation…shall
be of thee, and
kings shall
come out of thy loins”. If he played his part, the promises would
be fulfilled.
But at the time it seems Jacop wanted to cut and run, forgetting about
having
any more children. " If I am bereaved of my children, I am bereaved"
(43:14) sounds more like depressive fatalism than firm faith in the
promises
that his seed would eternally fill the earth.
Joseph
celebrates their repentance with a meal together, at which they sit in
their
proper places (43:16)- The marriage supper of the lamb, with each
in his
proper place (Lk. 14:10; 22:30; Rev. 19:9)
" Slay
and make ready" (43:16) for the meal. This is the basis of the
prodigal
son parable (45:14,15 = Lk. 15:20); father = Christ; prodigal =
repentant Jews,
wanting to be servants and nothing else.
The
desperate desire of Joseph for them to relax with him and accept his
forgiveness led him to make them drunk so as to ease their relationship
(43:34
AVmg.). This otherwise unethical act reveals the earnestness of his
desire for
them to be relaxed with him and open themselves to him. The Lord will
have the
same basic desire with us at the judgment.
The
repetition of circumstance in our lives is not only to teach us, but to
make
sure that we learnt the lesson- for what teacher doesn't give pupils
exercises
to practice the theory they've learnt? It seems that Joseph, acting on
God's
behalf and as a type of Christ, manipulated circumstances so that his
brothers
would have deja vu experiences. Thus he sets things up to tempt
them
with freedom if they again betray their younger brother (Benjamin) and
are
thoughtless to their father's pain. The united, frank and open response
of the
brothers (Gen. 44:13,16,17) showed how they had indeed learnt their
lesson.
" Then
Joseph could not refrain himself..." (45:1) implies he planned to drag
out
the process of spiritually refining his brothers, but his love for them
caused
him to cut it short- " For the elects sake the days shall be
shortened" by Christ (Mt. 24:22).The same Hebrew word is used in Is.
42:14
about how God can no longer refrain Himself in the last days.
Joseph as a
type of Christ means that his brothers also have significance. The
brethren
meeting Joseph at the end has many echoes of the judgment seat of
Christ. The
whole purpose of the painful process which led up to that meeting was
for the
benefit of the brethren, to make them realize the enormity of their sin
and the
greatness of Joseph's grace. Likewise the judgment is for our benefit;
the
outcome is known to God beforehand. Does the (emphasized) emotionalism
of
Joseph at this time indicate anything about Christ's attitude
then?
" What shall we say unto my lord? what shall we speak? or how shall we
clear ourselves?" strikes a chord with Dan. 10:17, where even righteous
Daniel in his figurative judgment finds it hard to speak. Our awareness
of our
sinfulness will doubtless have a like effect upon us. The moral
desperation of
the brethren (" how shall we clear ourselves?" ) will then be seen in
us. Speechlessness is a characteristic of the rejected (Mt. 22:12); the
brothers slunk away from Joseph's physical presence (45:4), as the
rejected
will (1 Jn. 2:28 Gk.). This all suggests that those accepted at the
judgment
seat will go through all the emotions of the rejected; they will
realize that
rejection is what they deserve. Those who judge (condemn) themselves
now in
their self-examination will not be condemned then.
" A
great deliverance" (45:7)- Heb. 2:3 " that great salvation" .
Israel saved, all the surrounding world also blessed with
deliverance from
the famine- Ditto for the last days; the nations around Israel
blessed
materially to overcome the problems of the latter day judgments. These
judgments are to make Israel repent, but in that time of trouble the
whole
world suffers.
The news
that Joseph was alive and glorified was received rather like that of
Christ's
resurrection: initial disbelief, but then the family of Jacob who
believed it
rose up and left all they had to go to be with Joseph; Israel in AD70
and the
last days are likewise bidden leave their stuff and go to be with
Christ (45:20
cp. Lk. 17:31). The brethren went forth on this journey with the
admonition not
to fall out with each other by the way (45:24). The wonder that was
ahead of
them should have made petty differences disappear.
Jacob's nervousness of
going down into Egypt was doubtless due to his recollection of Abraham
and
Isaac's tales of spiritual woe concerning it. God appeared to Jacob
concerning
this, with the words: " Jacob, Jacob...fear not to go down into
Egypt" (46:2,3). The double repetition of a name is usually a rebuke;
but
for what? Possibly for still being influenced in his spirituality by
the
spectre of his forefathers, rather than personally reflecting on the
implications of God's word to Abraham, that his seed would have to live
in a
Gentile land for a period before they could be led into the promised
land
(15:13).
46:3- see
on 31:54
At the end,
Jacob as it were had come to repentance. Joseph falls on his neck and
weeps for
him (46:29), just as the Father does to the repentant prodigal.
There are
many echoes of Christ which seem to have no specific
purpose apart
from to confirm us in our enthusiasm to constantly see the spirit of
Christ in
this record (e.g. 46:30 = Lk. 2:29,30).
It may be
that Jacob considered Joseph to be the special Messianic seed (which he
was, in
type), and this would explain his profound joy on seeing Joseph alive and his children,
for
this would have meant that the promises concerning the seed, as he
understood
them, had been proved true (46:30; 48:11). See on Heb. 11:21
At the
close of his life, Jacob was still emotionally attached, consciously
and
unconsciously, to his father and grandfather (consider the way he
unconsciously
imitates his father by feeling he is about to die years before he does,
47:9
cp. 28 cp. 27:2 cp. 35:28). But he had made their faith his own.
Jacob
speaks of his life as a " pilgrimage" (47:9), using the same word
used about Abraham and Isaac (17:8; 28:4; 36:7; 37:1). Thus he showed
his
connection with them; they became in
spiritual not just emotional terms the centre of his
thinking. See
on 49:31. Jacob speaking of how his life had been a " pilgrimage"
(47:9) shows that he realized that this life was only a series of
temporary
abodes. The same word is translated " stranger" with reference to the
patriarchs' separation from the tribes around them (17:8; 28:4; 36:7;
37:1).
Jacob's attitude that the things of this life were only temporary, that
we are
only passing through, is identified in Heb. 11:10-16 as an indicator
that Jacob
shared the faith of Abraham and Isaac
At 130,
Jacob seems to have felt that the fact he had not lived as long as his
father
and grandfather had, indicated that he had not received so much
blessing as
they had; he saw length of years in
this life as being significant (47:9), rather than allowing
the
prospect of future eternity make present longevity fade into
insignificance.
And yet in his final 17 years, he grew quickly; he was not spiritually
idle in
those last 17 years of retirement. For at the very end he could say
that his
blessings had exceeded " the blessings of my progenitors" (49:26).
47:29 The
way Jacob recognizes the greatness of Christ at the end reflects a
maturing of
attitude since the day when he refused to accept that he would ever bow
down to
Joseph (37:10). The way he speaks to Joseph at the end shows his deeper
respect
of him: " If I have found grace in thy sight" (47:29) was the same
way in which he had addressed Esau, when crawling before him in
33:8,10,15. His
appreciation of the greatness of Joseph reflected his appreciation of
the
greatness of Christ.
48:3 God
Almighty. Jacob's perception of the power of God, this one Almighty El,
is growing. Ex. 6:3 says that Yahweh appeared to Jacob " by the name of
God Almighty" , so presumably this Name was declared to Jacob at the
vision in Bethel; for this, Jacob says, was when God primarily "
appeared" to him. And yet he is only recorded as using this name 50
years
later. It took 50 years for the fact that God really is ALL mighty to
sink in,
and for him to come out with this publicly.
Jacob’s personal
grasp of the wonder of the promises at the end is revealed in 48:4,
where Jacob
recounts how " God Almighty...said unto me, Behold, I will make thee
fruitful, and multiply thee, and I will make of thee a multitude of
people; and
will give this land to thy seed after thee for an everlasting
possession"
. God never actually said all this to Jacob; Jacob is quoting the
promise to
Abraham of Gen. 17:8 and applying it to himself. And with us
too, a
personal grasp of the wonder of it all, that it really applies to me,
is a mark of that final maturity we fain would achieve.
He seems to have perceived
the spiritual danger his children were in, living in the luxury of
Egypt. The
promises of being fruitful and being given a land were being fulfilled,
in a
primary sense, in Israel's experience in Egypt (48:4 cp. 47:27). Joseph
was given
the land of Egypt (41:41), using the same words as in 45:18;
48:4
concerning how the true land -of Canaan- had been given
to
Abraham's children. Jacob's children were given a possession
in Egypt
(47:11), and therefore Jacob emphasized that their real
possession was
the eternal inheritance of Canaan, not Egypt (48:4; 49:30; 50:13). Thus
Jacob
at the end realized the importance of warning God's people against the
world,
against the temptation of feeling that God's present material blessing
of us
with a foretaste of His Kingdom means that in fact we lose our
enthusiasm for
the true Kingdom, in its real, material sense. Like Paul in
his final
flourish of 2 Tim., Jacob saw the need to warn God's people, to point
them away
from the world, and towards the future Kingdom. Jacob saw that his
people, like
him in his earlier life, would be tempted to see God's promises on an
altogether too human and material level.
At the very end, Jacob's
blessing of Joseph's sons as the firstborn is seen as an act of faith
(48:5;
Heb. 11:21). Yet on another level, Jacob was taking the blessings away
from the
firstborn who was the son of the wife he disliked, and giving those
blessings
to the son of his favourite wife, who was not the furstborn. This was
quite
contrary to the will of God as expressed in Dt. 21:17. At best we can
say that
God allowed one principle to be broken to keep another (although what
other?).
At worst, Jacob was simply showing rank favouritism, and yet at the
same time
he foresaw in faith the Messianic suggestions in Joseph's experience,
and
therefore made Joseph's sons the firstborn. God saw the good in Jacob
at this
time, and counted this to him, and recognized and worked with Joseph's
decision
to make " the son of the hated" the firstborn (1 Chron. 5:1), even
though this may have been contrary to God's highest intentions.
Likewise God
worked through Jacob's paganic use of poplar rods and mandrakes. The
way Jacob
insisted on blessing Ephraim as the firstborn again seems to show some
kind of
favouritism and a desire to see his grandson living out his own
experience,
i.e. the younger son who fought his way up and received the blessings
as
opposed to the rightful heir. Ephraim becomes a code-name for apostate
Israel
throughout the prophets. And yet God accepted Jacob's preferential
blessing of
Ephraim and repeated this in Dt. 33:17.
The
weakness in Jacob's tendency to have an over-physical view of the
promises was
still with him at the end. He seems to speak as if he saw the fact that
Rachel
was buried in Canaan as a proof that therefore in that sense he
had
possessed the land of Canaan (48:7 and context). Yet the NT says that
the fact
Jacob didn't own the land meant that he hadn't received the
fulfillment
of the promises, but would do so in the future.
There was a
unity, a mutuality, between Jacob and God at the end. No longer did he
see God
as someone else's God, not even just his father's God. The lessons of
Jacob's
name change were finally learnt. Thus he asks Joseph to bring his sons
to him,
so that he may bless them; but when he gives the blessing, he states
that this
is God blessing them (48:8,9,15,16); he saw God working through him.
See on
49:33
48:11- see
on 49:8
Jacob's final appreciation
of God's grace, the way he does far above what our works should
deserve, is
indicated by his comment that " I had not thought to see thy (Joseph's)
face: and, lo, God hath shewed me also thy seed" (48:11). "
Thought" is 74 times translated " pray" , and only once "
thought" ; the idea is surely: 'I never prayed to see you again, I
didn't
therefore have the faith in the resurrection which I should have done,
just as
I didn’t believe your mother could be resurrected when you spoke
of her coming
to bow before you (37:10); but God in His grace has done exceeding
abundantly
above all I asked or didn't ask for, and shewed me not only your face
in this
life, but also your children'.
At age 130,
Jacob mumbled to Pharaoh: " Few and evil have the days of the
years
of my life been" , as if every day had dragged (47:9). But at the very
end, 17 years later, he more positively speaks of the Angel that had
redeemed
him from all evil (48:15).
Jacob’s
reference to how Abraham and Isaac 'walked before' his God (48:15) is a
reference back to 17:1; 24:40. Jacob had meditated upon these
records, in
whatever form they were preserved, and now bubbled out with reference
to them.
Those same promises concerning the Lord Jesus and his Kingdom should
become the
centre of our thought as we reach spiritual maturity. " Let my name be
named upon them (Joseph's children), and the name of my fathers Abraham
and
Isaac" (48:16) indicates that he saw an equivalence between them and
him;
he saw they were " heirs of the same promise" (Heb. 11:9). Jacob came
to realize that those promises made to them were the very basis of his faith
too, as well
as theirs, and he knew therefore that he would be resurrected with them
into
the glory of God's Kingdom. And so he wanted to be buried with them; he
didn't
reject them, but he came to understand that the promises were
gloriously true
for him on a personal level.
It is so
easy to under-estimate the amount of work the Angels are doing in our
lives;
Jacob recognized that his Angel physically fed him all his days, and
that it
was not just at the crises in his life that the Angel had been present;
he
describes the Angel as "ever redeeming me" (Gen. 48:15,16), as if the
whole process of life is one continual redeeming process by the Angel,
as He
designs trials for us which will perfect us in order to gain
redemption, as
well as physically redeeming us more times than we realize.
Almost on
his deathbed, Jacob speaks of how the God of Abraham and Isaac is his
God
(48:15,16); he speaks of being gathered to his people, to them, just as
they
too had been gathered to their people (49:29 cp. 25:8; 35:29). He
really
stresses his desire to be buried in Canaan along with Abraham and Isaac
(47:29,30;
49:29; 50:5,6), alongside his dad and grandfather, remembering how they
had
lived together in the same tents in his childhood (Heb. 11), speaking
together
of the promises. The fact he had prepared his grave there years before
shows
that this was not only the sentimental feeling of a dying man. This
repeated
emphasis on his connection with Abraham and Isaac shows that at the
end, Jacob
saw the supreme importance of being a member of God's people. He didn't
just
fix on his own personal hope, but on the fact he was connected with all
the
heirs of the promise. Paul also focused on this aspect when he came to
his time
of departing. And so with us, we will come to see (if we haven't
already) that
our association with Christianity is not just a part of our social
structure.
We aren't just Christians because of parental expectation. Our
association with
God's people is eternal, the consequences of being baptized into the
body of
Christ (the believers) are related to our salvation. Thus the believers
are
joint-heirs together of the same Abrahamic promises (Rom. 8:17; 1 Pet.
3:7),
just as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob lived together as joint heirs of the
same
promises (Heb. 11:9).
Gen. 48:16
“the God” see on Ex. 23:27
At the end, Jacob spoke of
God as his redeemer (48:16), which is the first Biblical reference to
the
concept of redemption. This was not the only area in which Jacob was a
paradigm
breaker (consider how he coined the word abiyr to describe
God's
mightiness). The Hebrew for " redeem" is taken from the idea of the
nearest kinsman. Jacob at the end of his days is surely saying that now
he saw
God as closer than his family. We really have a lot to learn here. God
comes
before family- although increasingly this isn't appreciated by
Anglo-Saxon
believers. The new convert who sacrifices family ties for allegiance to
Christ
realizes this full well. But in my observation, second and third
generation
believers aren't so committed. The majority of the divisions and
bitternesses
which plague the brotherhood are largely a result of believers wanting
to stay
with their family, rather than follow Divine principles. Time and again
brethren and sisters change fellowships, with all the disruption this
causes,
simply because of family, not for any genuine Biblical conviction.
Effectively
they will throw others out of fellowship, throw new converts into
turmoil and
disillusion, just to stick with a dogmatic family member, even though
they may
not share his or her convictions. And so God's Truth becomes a social
and
family affair rather than a candlestick burning with the fire of the
Spirit.
Christians tend to follow parental expectation and the norms of
their
social network rather than God's word.
Although
Jacob maybe favoured Judah on a human level, he certainly favoured
Joseph
spiritually. It seems that he made up his mind that Messiah would come
from
Joseph (when in fact Christ came through Judah). He said that Ephraim's
seed
would become a multitude of nations (48:19)- he was applying the
Messianic
promise to Ephraim. Likewise he stated that from Joseph (Ephraim's
father)
would come the Shepherd / Stone / Messiah (49:24); presumably, Jacob
thought,
through Ephraim. Yet Jacob was wrong in this. Thus whilst Jacob showed
his
spiritual maturity by an enthusiasm for the Lord Jesus Christ, even
right at
the very end of his life, he still had an old flaw: a desire to fulfill
God's
promises in the way he wanted them fulfilled, a desire to turn
God's
word round to fit in with his preferred way of thinking (in
this case,
that Messiah would come through Joseph / Ephraim). The way the prophets
continually describe sinful Israel as " Ephraim" is perhaps God's way
of showing that Jacob's way was not His way.
Jacob’s all
too physical view of the promises is perhaps also suggested in his
desire to
make Yahweh his God because He had fed him all his life long (48:20).
Earlier
he had promised to do this, if Yahweh would indeed provide him with
daily food
(28:20). That bargain he struck with God would surely have been best
repented
of rather than carried through.
"
(Shechem), which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my
sword and with my bow" (48:22) indicates that Jacob's old
self-reliance was still not totally gone; his sense that through his
own effort
he could bring about the fulfillment of God's promises for him. In this
area,
the weakness of Jacob remained. These very words are alluded to in
Josh. 24:12
and Ps. 44:1-6, where the Spirit says that the land was given to Israel
not
on account of their bow and sword.
Several
times at the very end (Gen. 49:2,7,24) Jacob mentions his old and new
names
('Jacob' and 'Israel') together, as if to show that now he finally
accepted and
believed the wondrous change that God had wrought in him. First of all,
he
doesn't seem to have accepted his name change, and needed God to remind
him of
it again (32:28; 35:10). To accept, really accept, the Name we called
upon
ourselves at baptism (Acts 2:21; 9:14; 22:16; Rom. 10:12-14) is
difficult. To
believe that God really does see us as His people, bearing His Name,
with all
the moral glory this implies... it took Jacob no less than 50 years to
realize
the implications of Jacob's name change (Jacob's name was changed when
he was
97, and he only uses it freely of himself just before his death at
147). It's
unusual for a man to repeatedly mention his own name when talking to
others;
and yet this is exactly what Jacob did in 48:20; 49:2,7,24; it was as
if he was
playing with a new toy, reflecting his grasp of that basic, wondrous
truth he
had been taught 50 years ago; that in God's eyes, his name had
changed.
In God's eyes, he was not the Jacob, the liar, the supplanter, the
deceiver;
but Israel, the prince with God. But it took 50 years for the wonder of
it all
to come home to him.
The way
Jacob rebukes and effectively rejects Reuben, Simeon and Levi, the sons
who had
flaunted their natural strength and prowess, reflects the perspectives
which
Jacob attained at the end. " Reuben...my might, and the beginning of my
strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power...thou
shalt
not excel" (49:3,4) sounds as if Jacob associated his natural strength
with Reuben, and yet now he rejected it. Doubtless these men gathered
round
their father expecting to hear some sweet fatherly blessing mixed with
a few gentle
reproofs for past behaviour. The whole process of Israel's sons being "
gathered" to him and receiving their blessing and judgment is typical
of
the final judgment, showing how Jacob was a type of Christ at this
time. The
surprise of the sons we are left to imagine, but it would point forward
quite
accurately to the surprise which will be a feature of the rejected (Mt.
25:44).
The evident
problem the Abraham family had with women s emphasized in the record.
One man,
one woman was the declared standard of God at this time. Adam, Noah,
Noah's
sons, Aaron, Moses were all one man: one woman cases. The patriarchs
having
more than one wife at a time sticks out like a sore thumb. Abraham's
apparently
casual relationship with Hagar, Judah's use of a harlot (apparently the
sort of
thing he often did), Esau's many carnal wives, Dinah's love affair,
Reuben's
incest (49:4)...all this creates a certain impression of weakness in
this area.
Joseph's evil report regarding his brothers may well have featured news
of
their playboy escapades while far away from usual family life (37:2 = 1
Sam.2:23,24). The repeated way in which they lied about their wives
also
indicates that they didn't take their marital responsibilities as they
should
have (12:13; 20:3,13; 26:7).
Although Jacob’s seed had
become a " multitude" as promised, he says that he refuses to unite
himself with the " assembly" (s.w. multitude) of Simeon and Levi
(49:6), as if he saw this physical fulfilment of the promises in his
lifetime
as worthy little. His appreciation of the promises absolutely fills his
thinking at the end. The promised Kingdom was " the pride of Jacob"
(Ps. 47:4 NIV; Am. 6:8; Nah. 2:2), his chiefest joy. There are aspects
of
Jacob's blessings of his sons which evidently have not been fulfilled.
Presumably
they will be fulfilled in the Kingdom, which shows how Jacob's mind was
not
dwelling on his children receiving physical blessings from God in the
short
term (cp. how Isaac blessed his sons), but rather the promised eternal
blessings of the Kingdom. It is quite likely that the sons, in their
humanity,
expected blessings of a more immediate sort, such as a dying father of
those
times would have shared out between his sons. But instead, Jacob's talk
is not
of the things of this brief life, but of the Kingdom.
Jacob's reflection on
Joseph's sufferings gave him a clearer picture of those of the future
Messiah.
Jacob foresaw how Simeon and Levi would be especially responsible for
'houghing
the ox' (49:6 RV), or bullock (Concordant Version), i.e. Christ (Dt.
33:17 RV),
the bullock of the sin offering (Heb. 13:11-13). Gen. 49:6 can also be
rendered, with evident Messianic reference, 'murdering the prince'
(49:6 Adam
Clarke's Translation). The Roman historian Hippolytus says that " From
Simeon came the Scribes, and from Levi the priests" ; it was these
groups
who murdered the Lord, and Jacob seems to have foreseen this, through
his
reflection on their hatred of Joseph. He comments that they took
counsel
against Joseph, as the scribes and priests would do against Christ (Ps.
2:2).
49:8- see
on 37:10
Finally,
Jacob accepted Joseph as a type of Christ. And yet it would seem that
he
favoured Judah with an unseemly favouritism. His comment that " thy
father's children shall bow down before thee" (49:8) seems a conscious
allusion to Joseph's dream that Jacob's children would bow to him;
as
Jacob refused to accept it then, so he had problems with it even at the
end
(37:10). " I had not thought to see thy face" (48:11) suggests that
he had discounted the possibility of Joseph's dream ever coming true.
Jacob twice describes his
Messianic descendant as devouring the prey in the morning of the second
coming
(49:9, 27); he foresaw an aggressive tension between Messiah and other
beasts,
i.e. the nations of the surrounding world, which would end in the
glorious
victory of Christ's coming in glory. This image of devouring the prey
after the
battle against the world in this life is the basis of other latter day
prophecies (Ez. 39:18-20; Rev. 19:17-20). The faithful will eat the
carcass of
the beast at Christ's coming (Mt. 24:28 cp. Rev. 19:17-20), sharing in
the
victory of the lion of Judah who has slain his prey and now devours it.
This
was all foreseen by Jacob, although he would have seen the beasts which
the
Messiah / lion devoured as the nations surrounding his people (Jer.
15:3;
28:14; Ez. 5:17 and many others).
He saw
Messiah as being associated with the ass (49:11), the Hebrew for which
essentially means 'patience'; he foresaw the Lord's patient endurance
in the
struggle, and even foresaw his garments as dipped in blood (49:11 cp.
Rev.
14:18), eyes bloodshot with the struggle, and yet with teeth white as
milk from
a true assimilation of God's teaching (49:12 cp. Is. 55:1); through his
personal experience and extensive reflection on the basic need of man
and the
promised blessing of forgiveness, Jacob really went deeply and
accurately into
a personal knowledge of Christ. Blind as he was (48:10), Jacob
meditated upon
the Lord Jesus. His mind was filled with him. He perhaps contrasted his
own dim
eyes with the burning, bloodshot eyes of his zealous Lord, visualizing
the
suffering which he knew He would endure for his sake. The
blessings of
Gen. 49 are in well planned poetic form; it may be that Jacob composed
these poems
about the Lord Jesus as the crystallization of his extended reflection
on the
Lord. Would that we would rise up to the Messianic perception of the
blind poet
Jacob. Likewise David foresaw the Lord Jesus always before his face,
and
therefore his heart was never ruffled. Jacob evidently saw in Joseph's
experience a type of Christ's future sufferings and resurrection
(49:11,23).
His border shall be unto
Zidon" (49:13) is an unreconciled expositional problem. The canton of
Zebulun in the Millennium will be nowhere near Zidon, and Zebulun
didn't have a
border unto Zidon in the past. According to Josephus (Ant. 19:10,16),
Zebulun
was never even bounded by the sea, being cut off by Asher. Could it be
that at
times Jacob's enthusiasm carried him away, and what he said was more
his own
wishing than the direct revelation of God? Until a satisfactory
explanation can
be come up with, it seems this is what we must accept. In this case, we
see
that even in this flurry of faith in the future Kingdom and Messiah,
Jacob's
interest in the physical aspect of the promises still remained with
him, and
carried him away in a way which God refused to work with. David's
spiritual
enthusiasm for Solomon needs to be read in a similar light; he makes
statements
concerning him which reflect a Messianic zeal, but also a desire to see
his
physical son more blessed than he was worthy of. This comment
that
Zebulun would dwell at the haven of the sea (49:13) was not fulfilled
in this
dispensation, seeing that according to Josephus (and a careful
reconstruction
of Joshua's words), Zebulun never dwelt by the Sea, being cut off from
the
coast by the tribe of Asher. And yet according to the distribution of
the
tribal cantons recorded in Ezekiel, Zebulun will border the Red Sea in
the
Millennium (Ez. 48:26). And Jacob foresaw this, and gave Zebulun that
blessing,
with not a mention of any more immediate blessing. He had come to learn
that in
essence, the promised blessings of God were of the future, not the here
and
now.
" Issachar has desired
that which is good; (i.e.) resting between the inheritance. And having
seen the
resting place that it was good...he subjected his shoulder to labour"
(49:14 LXX). The Apostle alludes to this Greek text in Heb. 4:1: " Let
us
labour therefore to enter into that rest" . Jacob imputed righteousness
to
his son Issachar at the end. Imputing righteousness to others, seeing
the good
and the potential in them, was something Jacob only reached at the end;
he saw
Issachar as seeing the future Kingdom, and devoting himself to labour
now to
attain that future rest. And the writer to the Hebrews bids us follow
that
man's example. Jacob's judgment of his Issachar was with regard to how
keenly
he perceived the future rest of the Kingdom, and laboured now to attain
it. For
this reason, Jacob commended him; he judged Issachar according to how
keenly he
desired the Kingdom.
Jacob's
achievement of a true humility is evident in his last words. The way he
blessed
his sons in Gen. 49 indicates this; note how he saw Isaachar's
greatness in the
fact he was a humble servant (49:14). He learnt the lesson of that
night of
wrestling; his natural strength was not to be gloried in, neither was
this to
be his true greatness.
Dan was to bite the horse
heels, so that the riders fell backwards (49:17). This is to be
connected with
Zech. 10:5, which speaks of how in the last days, the Arab invaders of
Israel
will be toppled from their horses by the men of Israel / Jacob. Again,
Jacob's
mind was on the far distant glory of his sons in the day of the
Kingdom. There
is also reference here to Gen. 3:15, but with an unexpected twist; Dan
as the
snake (not the woman) would bite his enemies, and thereby subdue them.
Is there
a hint here that Jacob had so meditated on the Lord Jesus, the future
Messiah,
that he realized that he must have our sinful, snake-like, Jacob-like
nature,
and yet through that very fact the final victory against sin would be
won?
'Jacob' meaning 'heel-catcher' associates him with the seed of the
snake, who
would bruise the seed of the woman in the heel. He saw how he would
somehow be
rescued from his own ‘Jacob-ness’, saved from himself, by
the Saviour to come.
It turned out that Jacob, who in some ways was the seed of the snake,
became
the seed of the woman. And yet his Messianic blessing of Dan indicates
that he
saw these two aspects in his Saviour Lord; he was the one who had the
appearance of the seed of the snake (cp. how the bronze snake
symbolized him),
and yet was in fact the seed of the woman. I really believe that Jacob
had so
deeply reflected on his own life and sinfulness, on the promise in
Eden, and on
the promises of Abraham's saviour-seed, that he came to as fine an
appreciation
of the representative nature of Christ's sacrifice as any believer has
today.
Thus a lifetime of reflection on the promises (rather than thinking
'Yes, we
know all about them') and sustained self-examination will lead to a
deep grasp
of the fact that Christ really represented you, he had
exactly your
nature, and thereby he is your very own saviour. And yet the fact
Christ was
our representative seems to be written off by many of us as a dead
piece of
doctrine we must learn before baptism.
Jacob's
hope of Messiah was the hope of his life; " I have waited for thy
salvation" , 'Your Jesus', he commented (49:18). " I have waited for
thy salvation (Jesus)" (49:18) is commented upon by the Jerusalem
Targum
with the suggestion that Jacob was expressing a very definite Messianic
expectation: " My soul waiteth not for the deliverance of Gideon, the
son
of Joash, for it was only temporal; nor for that of Samson, for it was
but
transient; but for the redemption by the Messiah, the Son of David,
which in
thy word thou hast promised to send to thy people, the children of
Israel; for
this, thy salvation, my soul waiteth"
49:18 LORD
[Yahweh]. Yahweh is a saviour God, not just a provider of children,
cattle and
land for the present; and now, at long last, Jacob associates Yahweh
with
himself; Yahweh has become his God, as he promised 70 years before. Ex.
6:3
says that Jacob knew the Yahweh Name from the time God appeared to him;
but it
took him a lifetime to make Yahweh his very own God.
Gad "
shall overcome at
the last"
(49:19) reflects how Jacob's mind was focused on the final victory of
his
people, " at the last" .
At the end
of his life, Jacob had come to terms with his earlier idolatry. 'Gad'
was the
name of a Babylonish deity which presided over chance; Israel were
condemned
for believing in him in Is. 65:11 AVmg. Leah using this name reflected
the sentiment
of 'Good fortune at the hand of the god Gad'. The way she effectively
accuses
Jacob’s God of treating her like a prostitute who gave her
“hire” because she
let her maid sleep with her husband…doesn’t indicate that
she was a great
believer in Yahweh. Yet when Jacob blessed Gad in 49:19, he seems to
change
this: " Gad, a troop (Heb. gedud, not gad) shall
overcome (guwd,
related to gad) him: but he shall overcome" . These word plays
would suggest that the god Gad would be overcome, would be 'Gad-ed', by
the
troop of warriors that would come from the tribe of Gad.
49:20 Asher "
shall yield royal dainties" , or 'dainties fit for a king' suggests
Jacob
imagining how in the Kingdom, the Lord Jesus would eat food grown in
Asher? The
tribes of Israel will each bring their royal dainties to the Lord Jesus
in the
Millennium (Ez. 45:16).
Naphtali " is a hind let loose: he
giveth goodly (lit. 'gracious') words" (49:21) is another Messianic
hint;
Ps. 22 (title) likens the Lord to a hind at the time of his death; and
again,
Jacob's appreciation of the quality of grace as it would be manifested
in
Christ comes out. The LXX says that Naphtali is " a tree trunk let
loose" . With all the other Messianic insights in Jacob's words, this
cannot be accidental. Jacob even saw something of the physical
manner of
the Lord's death. The idea of being let loose has day of atonement
connections
(Lev. 16:21). Did Jacob see that far ahead? One Chaldee text reads for
this verse:
“Naphtali is a swift messenger like a hind that runneth on the
tops of the
mountains bringing glad tidings”.
Gen.
49:23,24 speaks of Angelic strengthening of Jesus: "The archers have
sorely grieved him, and shot at him, and hated him (a prophecy of the
Lord's
sufferings): but his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands
were made
strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the
shepherd,
the stone of Israel:) even by the God of thy father, who shall help
thee; and
by the Almighty, who shall bless thee. . ". There are similarities here
with Moses' hands being held up by Aaron and Hur until Amalek was
destroyed- an exhausted man with both hands upheld above his head
until
the great enemy of God's people (cp. sin) was destroyed must recall the
suffering of Christ on the cross. The many Angelic titles in these
verses
("God of Jacob. . of thy fathers") are made all the more relevant by
being mentioned in the context of Gen. 48:15,16, which is the clearest
association of them with the Angel. Thus it was through the Angels that
Christ
was strengthened on the cross.
Gen. 49:24
describes "the mighty God of Jacob" (an Angelic phrase) as the
shepherd and rock of Israel. The references in Deuteronomy to God being
the
rock that Israel forsook therefore refer to the Angel (Dt. 32:15,18).
It is
worth noting that the shepherd and rock ("stone" of Gen. 49:24) are
both clear titles of Christ- implying that this Angel specifically
represented
Jesus? Hence "that rock (Angel) was Christ" (1 Cor. 10:4).
Jacob describes Christ as
"the stone of Jacob / Israel" (49:24); Jacob's physical stone had
been overturned, rested upon, set up and anointed (28:13-15); perhaps
now at
the end, Jacob thought back to that incident and saw in that stone a
prophecy
of the death and resurrection of the Lord. Perhaps he even saw that the
anointing, the 'Christ-ing' of the Stone would be after its raising up;
he
foresaw that the Lord Jesus would be made the Christ, the anointed, in
the
fullest sense by the resurrection (Acts 2:36). " The hope of Israel"
, or (see modern versions), " he for whom Israel / Jacob hopes" is
another title of Christ (Acts 28:20 cp. Jer. 14:8; 17:13; Joel 3:16);
he was
the one for whom Jacob / Israel hoped. And his hope is the hallmark of
all the
Israel of God.
Jacob's reflection on the
Lord Jesus must have been deep indeed, for he reaches some quite
advanced and
deep conclusions concerning him. Thus he describes God as the God from
whom is
" the shepherd, the stone of Israel / Jacob" (49:24), both evidently
Messianic titles. Yet " the rock of Israel" is later understood to be
a reference to the God of Jacob (2 Sam. 23:3). Therefore we may
conclude that
Jacob saw his God as manifest in the future Messiah, who would come out
of the
Father, i.e. be the Son of God. To understand God manifestation in
Christ and
the necessity for his Divine Sonship could have come from direct Divine
revelation, but my sense is that it came instead from his deep
appreciation of
the promised blessing of forgiveness through Abraham's Messianic seed.
Jacob's
ever deepening appreciation of this and his progressive appreciation of
God's
grace led him to deeply meditate on the Lord's role. Jacob himself was
a
shepherd (46:34; Hos. 12:12), and yet he gave Christ the title of " the
shepherd" (49:24), as if he recognized that although Christ would come
out
of God, he would also be exactly like Jacob, of his nature. He saw on a
completely personal level the way in which Christ truly was his very
very own
representative. He therefore saw in himself a type of Christ, indicated
by the
way in which he asks his sons to gather themselves unto him, and then
goes on
to say that ultimately, his people will gather themselves together unto
Messiah
(49:1,2 cp. 10).
49:24- see
on 1 Cor. 10:4; Gen. 48:19
49:24,25
Mighty God. Finally, at long last, Jacob got there. He says
three times
the same thing; God is my God, Yahweh- Messiah will be the my rock, my
stone,
yes, He is the God of your father Jacob, He is ALL-MIGHTY to save. That
promise
made 70 years previously in semi-belief, he had now fulfilled. He had
made
Yahweh his God. He was not only the God of his father and
grandfather.
The God who can do all things, not only physically but more importantly
(as
Jacob now realized) spiritually, was with his very own God. No
wonder he
dies repeating this three times over. And remember, he's our pattern.
Jacob
coins a new name for God: the abiyr, translated here " the
mighty
[God]" . This word occurs only in five other places, and each time it
is
in the phrase " the mighty one (abiyr) of Jacob" (Ps. 132:2,5;
Is. 1:24; 49:26; 60:16). Likewise, the Lord used new titles of God in
his time
of ultimate spiritual maturity as he faced death (Jn. 17:11,25). Many
of the
Messianic Psalms refer to God as " my God" , and it was one of the
phrases in the Lord's mind in His final, glorious maturity (Mt. 27:46).
Moses
in his final speech of Deuteronomy often encouraged Israel that God was
thy (singular,
personal) God. Jacob knew God's mightiness for himself in a
very special
way; he knew His gentle forgiveness of all his pride and self-will,
that mighty
forgiveness, that mighty patience with him, that Almighty salvation of
him
which had been made possible. In the same way we will each be given the
name of
God, and yet this Name will be known only to us (Rev. 2:17; 3:12;
14:1); it
will be God's Name, but in a form entirely personal to us. In dim
foreshadowing
of that glorious relationship with God, Jacob reached something of this
even in
his mortal life.
49:26- see
on 47:9
Jacob's
progression from perceiving the promises as concerning physical
blessing to
seeing their essential relevance to forgiveness and future salvation is
made
explicit by 49:26: " The blessings of thy father have prevailed above
the
blessings of the ancient mountains, the delight, glory or loveliness of
the
hills of eternity" (this rendition is supported by the LXX, Gesenius,
RVmg.). Remember that in the wrestling incident, Jacob realized that
the
blessing of God essentially refers to His forgiveness; and this
connection
between blessing and forgiveness / salvation is widespread throughout
Scripture: Dt. 33:23; Ps. 5:12 (blessing = grace) Dt. 30:19; Ps.
3:8;
24:5; 28:9; 133:3 (= salvation); Ex. 12:32; 32:29; Num. 24:1; 2 Sam.
21:3; Ps.
67:1 (cp. context); Lk. 6:28 (cp. ) Acts 3:26; Rom. 4:7,8; 1 Cor.
10:16; Gal.
3:14 (= forgiveness). Surrounded by his sons clamouring, one can
imagine, for
physical, immediate blessings, just as he did in the first half of his
life,
Jacob says that the spiritual blessings he had received, the grace, the
forgiveness, the salvation, were infinitely higher than the blessings
of
rock-solid hills and mountains, things which seemed so permanent and
tangible.
His intangible blessings were, he finally realized,. much higher than
his intangible
ones.
Jacob no
longer saw the promised blessings as referring to him personally having
a
prosperous time in the promised land; he joyfully looked forward to the
future
Kingdom. He says that he now realizes that his blessings (of
forgiveness and
the subsequent hope of the Kingdom) are greater than the blessings of
the
everlasting mountains (49:26 RV mg.); he saw the spiritual side of his
blessings as more significant than the material aspect. Despite the
fact that
the promises were primarily fulfilled in the peace and prosperity he
and his
seed enjoyed at the end (48:4 " multitude" s.w. 47:27; 35:11; 28:3),
Jacob doesn't emphasize this fact as he could have done; instead, he
looks to
the future, ultimate fulfilments. He looked back on his life as a "
pilgrimage"
, a series of temporary abodes on the way to something permanent, i.e.
the
future Kingdom (47:9).
" In the morning he
shall devour the prey" (49:27) connects with the promises that
Messiah's
second coming would be the true morning (Is. 60:1; Mal. 4:1,2); this
was the
day when Benjamin would have his true blessing.
Many of
Jacob's blessings of his sons contain some reference to Christ's future
work,
e.g. " he shall divide the spoil" (49:27); " he whom thy
brethren shall praise" (49:8 = Rev. 5:5). Jacob describes Judah's
Messianic descendant as " my son" ; he eagerly looked ahead to the
Lord Jesus as fulfilment of the promised Messianic seed. He perhaps saw
that
the multitudinous seed he had been promised was in fact an intensive
plural, referring
to the one great Messianic seed.
49:22 This
speaks of the descendant of Joseph as a fruitful vine (N.I.V.), with
branches.
The Lord Jesus seems to have quarried his description of himself as a
vine with
branches from this very passage (Jn.15:5). Verse 23 continues: " The
archers have sorely grieved him, and shot at him, and hated him: but
his bow
abode in strength, and (note this bit) the arms of his hands were made
strong
by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; from thence is the shepherd,
the stone
(more Messianic allusions here) of Israel" . The upholding of Moses'
arms
in Ex. 17:12 is being unmistakably prophesied here; in a Messianic
prophecy.
In his penultimate
sentence, Jacob makes the perhaps strange comment that " they buried
Isaac" (his father; 49:31). The " they" meant him and Esau
(35:29), but perhaps Jacob wanted to show his separation from Esau by
describing the funeral in this way. Separation from the world is thus
an aspect
of spiritual maturity, and also a result of sustained appreciation of
the
covenant promises.
It seems
that Jacob came to see his beloved parents in spiritual, not emotional
terms,
at the end. Consider the pronouns he uses in almost his last words: "
There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife; there they (i.e. he and
his
brother, 35:29) buried Isaac and Rebekah his wife; and there I buried
Leah" (49:31). He doesn't talk about in the first person about " my
father" or " I" buried. He sees himself as their friend in
faith, more than their son. These words were said in Jacob's last
breath. It
shows to me how at last he had won this battle, he had shed the crutch
of his
father's faith, he stood alone before his
God, at the very end he wasn't leaning on his parents spiritually any
more, all
the scaffolding had been removed, and he stood alone, on his own deep
foundation. His final words are full of conscious and unconscious
reference to
the fathers and the promises. See on 47:9; 48:15
Jacob’s
final words reflect his resentment against the children of Heth
(49:32); he saw
that they were the world, the children of this world which now possess
the land
of promise, covenanted to be God's Kingdom, not theirs. He realized
that the
time was not yet ripe, and his very last words were a reminder of this:
"
The purchase of the field and of the cave that is therein was from the
children
of Heth" (49:32). His mind was centred on the promises and the future
ownership of the land, and on his connection with Abraham and Isaac;
the fact
that the land was not inherited during the patriarch's lifetimes (the
land had
to be bought from the children of Heth) is seen by the Spirit as an
indication
that the Kingdom had not yet come, but surely would do (Acts 7:5). And
Jacob
died with exactly the same perception. In doing so, he was reflecting
the view of
his dear mother, who detested the ways of the Godless children of Heth
(27:46).
So in his time of dying, Jacob was not divided from the spiritual views
of his
parents. Their Hope was his Hope, but he had made it his own. He was
not just
living out their expectations of him. The way he got there in the
end is
just marvellous to behold.
At the very
end, Jacob gathered himself up into his bed to die, and then God
gathered him
up (this comes out very clearly in the Hebrew text; 49:33). That desire
of God
for mutuality with His servant Jacob had always been there. See on 48:8
" Fear
not: for I am in the place of God" (50:19 Heb.); " thou art even as
Pharaoh" (44:18)- Joseph as a type of Christ reveals the revelation
of
God's essential love through the face of Jesus Christ.