Bible Study The First Book of Moses Called Genesis

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
†. Gen 18:23a . . Abraham came forward

Abraham "came forward" in that he became somewhat assertive in this next scene. He was sort of like a godfather to the Sodomites, in spite of their decadence. That is amazing; yet, is so typical of the really holy men in the Bible to intercede for people who certainly didn't deserve it. (e.g. Ex 32:30-35)

There's nothing intrinsically wrong in taking the initiative to speak with God. After all, if people always waited for God to speak first before they ever said a word in prayer, hardly anybody would talk to God at all. Not that God is shy, it's just that He rarely ever says anything out loud, so a normal person would tend to think The Almighty was indifferent to His creations. But that just isn't true. We know from the Bible that God desires a rapport with everyone.

Some people wait until they're desperate and out of options before turning to God. But it is so insulting to treat God like a spare tire. It's better to begin a rapport with Him early, now, before a crisis brings you to your knees. (cf. Prv 1:24-33)

†. Gen 18:23b . . and said: Will You sweep away the innocent along with the guilty?

That possibility always exists in a climate of evil. The Flood itself surely drowned a very large number of innocent little underage children; not to mention a huge percentage of the animal kingdom too. When God proposed to destroy Ninevah, He expressed a concern for the children and the animals. (Jonah 4:11)

All the little pre-schoolers, and all the livestock, and pets too, would have died for sure if the sinful adults hadn't repented at Jonah's preaching. Some years later, in the book of Nahum, the wrath of God finally caught up with them-- the little kids from the first time were all grown up by then and it was their turn to face God as adults.

But Sodom's underage population wasn't a nest of innocents. No; according to Gen 19:4, every man, woman, and child in Sodom-- all the people from every quarter --were intent upon abusing the two messengers; which says to me that Sodom's children weren't sweet little angels; but rather, a pack of incorrigible little demon seeds.

Although Lot was living in a very bad environment, and among very bad people who caused him much mental and emotional stress (2Pet 2:4-9) it didn't eo ipso make Lot himself a bad man. In the final analysis, when it was time to make an end of Sodom, God made a difference between Lot and Sodom and got him out before it was too late. It's horrible to contemplate that some civilizations are so far gone that it's necessary to nuke 'em from orbit and start all over from scratch.

I'm becoming concerned that Washington, Wall Street, the Pharmaceutical Industry, and Agribusiness have become so mixed up together that the US Government's corruption has gone past the point of no return; and the only way to return it to sanity is to demolish America as we know it and start all over again from scratch. My grandchildren just might see that happen in their lifetime because the world will be all out of oil before this century is over, and that is going to change everybody's way of life; not just America's.

†. Gen 18:24-25 . . What if there should be fifty innocent within the city; will You then wipe out the place and not forgive it for the sake of the innocent fifty who are in it? Far be it from You to do such a thing, to bring death upon the innocent as well as the guilty, so that innocent and guilty fare alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?

I think Abraham's question was more rhetorical than anything else. Of course the Judge of all the earth deals justly; no true man of faith would ever seriously question his maker's integrity.

†. Gen 18:26-29 . . And the Lord answered: If I find within the city of Sodom fifty innocent ones, I will forgive the whole place for their sake. Abraham spoke up, saying: Here I venture to speak to my Lord, I who am but dust and ashes: What if the fifty innocent should lack five? Will You destroy the whole city for want of the five? And He answered: I will not destroy if I find forty-five there. But he spoke to Him again, and said: What if forty should be found there? And He answered: I will not do it, for the sake of the forty.

†. Gen 18:30-33 . . And he said: Let not my Lord be angry if I go on; what if thirty should be found there? And He answered: I will not do it if I find thirty there. And he said: I venture again to speak to my Lord; what if twenty should be found there? And He answered: I will not destroy, for the sake of the twenty. And he said: Let not my Lord be angry if I speak but this last time; what if ten should be found there? And He answered: I will not destroy, for the sake of the ten. When the Lord had finished speaking to Abraham, He departed; and Abraham returned to his place.

I'm guessing Abraham stopped at ten because he assumed there had to be at least that many righteous in Sodom who didn't deserve to die; but according to Peter; he was wrong. There was only one: and that's all there was in Noah's day too. (Gen 7:1)

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Called Genesis

.
†. Gen 19:1a . .The two angels arrived in Sodom

The word for "angels" is from mal'ak (mal-awk') from a root meaning to dispatch as a deputy; viz: a messenger; specifically of God, i.e. an angel and/or a prophet, priest or teacher.

Mal'ak doesn't eo ipso indicate a celestial being; because the word is focused more on an office or a function rather than a person. According to verse 3, these angels were capable of consuming food the same as were Abraham's human guests up in Hebron. According to verse 10, they were gender specific; viz: males. So from all outward appearances, these particular mal'aks were fully functioning human beings.

†. Gen 19:1b . . in the evening,

The word for "evening" is 'ereb (eh'-reb) which technically means dusk; which Webster's defines as: the darker part of twilight after sundown. It's the same word as the evenings of Gen 1:5-31.

'ereb is a bit ambiguous. In spite of its technical meaning; 'ereb doesn't eo ipso indicate twilight. It can also indicate any daytime hour between high noon and sunset e.g. Sam 17:16 where Goliath taunted Israel twice a Day-- once in the morning, and once in the afternoon.

On the surface, the two men appear to be ordinary travelers pulling into town for the night after a day's journey. That's a sensible choice. Sodom was walled, and much safer than camping out in the field where they would be vulnerable to brigands and wild animals. In those days, the Jordan valley had lions in it and Canaan was still pretty much out on the lawless frontier.

†. Gen 19:1c . . as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom.

In those days the gate vicinity was an important civic location where people could pick up the latest news and conduct public business like elections, marriages, notary public, municipal court, rallies, and soap-box speeches. It was in the gate of Bethlehem where Ruth's husband Boaz defended her cause and claimed the woman of Moab for his wife. (Ruth 4)

Lot probably wrapped up every one of his days at the gate before going on home; kind of like an ancient Miller time. Even today, either a newspaper or a television news program caps the day for many men in America.

†. Gen 19:1d . .When Lot saw them, he rose to greet them

Don't miss this man's courteous manners. Even living amongst the wickedest people in the whole region, Lot still practiced his uncle's brand of hospitality. No doubt a result of the years he spent under Abraham's wing. Actually Lot was a very good man in spite of his town's reputation. He stood out like a carnation blooming in a landfill.

†. Gen 19:1e-2a . . bowing low with his face to the ground, he said: Please, my lords, turn aside to your servant's house to spend the night, and bathe your feet; then you may be on your way early.

Bowing low is both an act of worship and a deference to one's superiors. The word is shachah (shaw-khaw') the same word used at Gen 22:5 for Abraham's worship during the course of offering his son Isaac as a burnt offering; and during Abraham's bargaining with Heth's kin at Gen 23:7.

Something about the look of these strangers impressed Lot. He probably didn't take in every stranger who came to Sodom; but must have sensed something unusual in these two and decided right then and there that they must stay at his home that night.

The word for "lords" that Genesis' author chose for the messengers is 'adown (aw-done') which is a nondescript title of respect like Master, Sir, your Lordship and/or Mister, and can apply to ordinary human beings like as in Rachel's respect for her father Laban in Gen 32:35.

Coupled with hospitality, was no doubt Lot's fear for these stranger's safety. Lot knew Sodom, and knew what might happen to those men if they stayed anywhere else but in his home and behind his walls. Exactly why Lot took an interest in these men's safety isn't stated. It could be that they were unusually handsome and well-favored, and he very well knew what happens to attractive strangers after dark in the town of Sodom. I suspect that those people enjoyed some very perverted live entertainment.

†. Gen 19:2b . . But they said: No, we will spend the night in the square.

Their response was most likely a temporary, courteous refusal, with the intention of accepting Lot's hospitality only after some customary resistance to test the sincerity of his offer. Their response to Lot is somewhat different than the response of the men who visited Abraham. Those accepted Abraham's offer immediately, and without resistance.

†. Gen 19:3 . . But he insisted, so they turned his way and entered his house. He prepared a feast for them and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.

Lot's is the very first mention of unleavened bread in the Bible and it won't show up again until Exodus 12:8 in the Passover meal.

The Hebrew word for "unleavened" is matstsah (mats-tsaw') which means, specifically: an unfermented cake or loaf; in other words: bread made with sweet dough rather than sour dough.

It's easy to make sour dough bread without the addition of cultured yeast simply by putting fresh dough in a warm place and letting nature take its course because even fresh non-yeasted dough retains a quantity of its own natural yeast after milling, which will cause fresh dough to go bad all by itself over time without the addition of cultured yeast. So it's not the yeast content that categorizes bread as leavened or unleavened; it's simply whether the bread is made with spoiled dough or fresh dough; vz: aged dough or new dough.

†. 1Cor 5:6 . . Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?

In the days prior to baking with cultured yeast, cooks kept a supply of spoiled dough on hand for mixing with fresh dough and thus considerably reduced the time required for fermentation by taking advantage of the spoiled dough's yeast content. They probably didn't know all that much about the properties of fungi in those days but one thing they did know was that when they mixed some old dough with new and let it set for a bit, the blended batch tended to make a softer, puffy bread due to minute bubbles in the mix; which today we know was carbon dioxide.

But either way, bread with leavened dough takes longer to make because time has to be allotted for the yeasts to do their job. So if you're in a hurry to feed someone, then unfermented dough is the wiser choice; for example at Ex 12:1-11 the Lord's passover instructions dictate the use of unleavened bread no doubt due to the urgency of the Jews' departure from Egypt.

†. Gen 19:4 . .They had not yet lain down, when the townspeople, the men of Sodom, young and old-- all the people to the last man --gathered about the house.

The word for "men" is from 'enowsh (en-oshe') : an ambiguous word that means: a mortal; a human being in general (singly or collectively). It can also mean: husband, person, and people.

So it wasn't just the males; it was everybody, young and old, gathered around Lot's door. All of the women, all of the kids, and all of the men. The entire town. Everybody.

I think the messengers were just about the prettiest men you ever laid eyes on-- straight, pearly white teeth, wavy hair, great complexions, youthful chiseled features, stood six foot two, and the spitting image of JFK Jr. This was probably Sodom's first ever visit by world class male models and nobody wanted to miss the show.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
†. Gen 19:5a . . And they shouted to Lot and said to him: Where are the men who came to you tonight?

Everyone was bellowing and clamoring; like impatient fans at wrestling matches, cage fights, and Roman coliseums; demanding their pound of flesh, and pools of blood, and/or vulgar displays.

†. Gen 19:5b . . Bring them out to us, that we may be intimate with them.

Since all the people of Sodom were in on this-- men, women, children, old and young alike --it becomes frightfully obvious the townsfolk desired far more than just stimulating gratification. They were looking for entertainment of the vilest sort imaginable-- quite possibly a filthy stage show of unspeakable acts; maybe including bestiality and bondage. Exactly what the people of Sodom intended to do with the messengers is not said. Scripture is silent on this matter. It's as if the author drew a curtain over Sodom and said : This is just too shocking. I'm not going to spell out what the people of Sodom wanted. You will just have to use your imagination. (No thanks to internet porn sites and graphic Hollywood movies; we no longer have to use our imaginations.)

†. Gen 19:6-7 . . So Lot went out to them to the entrance, shut the door behind him, and said: I beg you, my friends, do not commit such a wrong.

No doubt those people interpreted Lot's comment that they were "wrong" as judgmental. It was certain to provoke a hostile response in the typically indignant manner in which evil people can be expected to act when somebody criticizes their conduct.

†. Gen 19:8 . . Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you please; but do not do anything to these men, since they have come under the shelter of my roof.

Well . . I would kind of like to know exactly how Lot's daughters felt about that idea. And what about their mom? Do you think she was okay with it? I guarantee you she was NOT. You moms and dads; would you throw your little girls to the sharks to protect total strangers-- the little girls you brought into the world, fed and clothed, read stories to at night, taught them their prayers, put them through Girl Scouts, sewed outfits for their Barbies, and put away money for college?

There are people who, motivated by religious convictions, will let their children die of treatable conditions rather than take them to a doctor. Was Lot sort of like that? A man who felt so obligated to protect the guests in his home that he would sacrifice his own blood kin to do it?

†. Gen 19:9a . . But they said: Step aside! This fellow; they said; came here as an alien, and already he acts the judge!

People like the Sodomites instinctively know that what they're doing is wrong, but God pity the soul that dares to tell them so.

Lot called them friends, but when push came to shove, they regarded him as an outsider. And one thing you just don't do as an outsider is impose either your values or your beliefs upon others. They will deeply resent you for it-- whether you are right or wrong has nothing to do with it.

†. Gen 19:9a . . Now we will deal worse with you than with them. And they pressed hard against the person of Lot, and moved forward to break the door.

Talk about a thoughtless lynch mob! Those people totally forgot that not that long ago Lot's uncle saved them all from slavery in a foreign land-- and this is how they reciprocate Abraham's kindness; by assaulting his nephew?

†. Gen 19:9b-11 . . But the men stretched out their hands and pulled Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. And the people who were at the entrance of the house, young and old, they struck with blinding light, so that they were helpless to find the entrance.

(chuckle) That'll learn em' to keep one eye shut when somebody trips a flare. The flash was totally unexpected and must have startled Lot right out of his socks. Up to now, he was given no hint that the two men under his roof were anything but ordinary travelers. "Giminy! Where did all that light come from? There was no thunder. Was it some sort of stealth lightening? How'd you guys do that anyway? Is it patented?

Normally it takes about twenty minutes for visual purple in the human eye to adjust to darkness after a sudden burst of bright light. The flash didn't actually damage anyone's eyesight so that they went blind. It just made their surroundings difficult to see, like when someone pops your photo in dim light with a camera.

The situation now takes on a desperate atmosphere of survival. The crowd has turned into an ugly mob; and it's fight or flight-- no other options. The Lord's messengers chose flight because their purpose was not to remain in Sodom, but to leave it in ashes.

†. Gen 19:12-13 . .Then the men said to Lot: Whom else have you here? Sons-in-law, your sons and daughters, or anyone else that you have in the city-- bring them out of the place. For we are about to destroy this place; because the outcry against them before The Lord has become so great that the Lord has sent us to destroy it.

Lot was like Noah in that his kin, no matter whether they were pious or impious, had the option of going out with him to safety if they wanted.

Lot's head must have been reeling. Only just a few hours ago he was laid back, catching up on all the latest news and gossip at the gate; and on the way home to eat dinner with his family at the end of another routine day. In a succession of rapidly developing events beyond his control; within 24 hours, before the next sunrise, he would lose his home, his way of life, all his friends, his career, and all the wealth and possessions and property and livestock the Lots had accumulated in the 24 years they had lived in the land of Canaan.

My gosh! He is so caught off guard and must have been terribly shocked at the tone of those two men. The awful realization of who they were and why they came to Sodom slowly began to gel in his befuddled mind. I feel so sorry for him and his family. Calamity, like a 9.0 earthquake right out of the blue, pounced on them, and came to ruin their life. They will take nothing with them but some suit cases, the clothes on their backs, and the breath in their lungs. Lot was a well-to-do cattle baron; but he is just a few hours away from losing his entire life's work in a fiery inferno. (cf. 1Cor 3:11-15)

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
†. Gen 19:14a . . So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who had married his daughters,

Sons-in-law and daughters are plural. So Lot had at least two more daughters living outside the home with husbands. They will stay behind; and burn to death; and so will Lot's grandchildren, if any.

Where were the sons-in-law when the flash went off back in verse 11? Didn't it effect them? The flash actually only effected those who tried to break down the door. Lot's sons-in-law were out in the streets that night along with everyone else because Genesis said in verse 4 that everyone in Sodom to the last man was present. Apparently, after the mob's attempt to lay hands on the angels proved unsuccessful, Lot's sons-in-law remained nearby to see what would happen next.

†. Gen 19:14b . . and said: Up, get out of this place, for the Lord is about to destroy the city. But he seemed to his sons-in-law as a jester.

Lot's daughters had married Sodom men, with very sorrowful results. Lot's in-laws didn't share his religious principles, and had no interest whatsoever in his god. The husbands were counted among Sodom's citizens who were "very wicked sinners against the Lord."

Sodom was not only a bad environment for a man of God to build a life and a career, but it was also a very bad place to raise a family. He gave his daughters in matrimony to unholy men and now the girls are going to die right along with the rest of Sodom; and possibly some of Lot's grandchildren burned to death too. That's an awful high price to pay to achieve one's personal ambition.

†. Gen 19:15-16a . . As dawn broke, the angels urged Lot on, saying: Up, take your wife and your two remaining daughters, lest you be swept away because of the iniquity of the city. Still he delayed.

In verses 10, 12, and 16, the messengers are called men. In verses 1 and 15, they're called "angels". In verses 17 and 21, they're called "he". In verse 18, Lot called them 'Adonay. In verses 21 and 22, they speak in the first persona as "I". When you put it all together, it's apparent that God visited Sodom as a pair of male human beings. Why God appeared to Abraham as three human beings, rather than two, is a mystery.

The word for "delayed" is mahahh (maw-hah') which means: to question or hesitate, i.e. (by implication) to be reluctant

I can best picture this with a scene from John Steinbeck's novel: The Grapes Of Wrath. When the day came for the Joad clan to move out of their shack from the impoverished Oklahoma Dust Bowl to California during the economic depression of the 1930s, Ma Joad spent a few last minutes alone inside going through a box of mementos. She had lived in Oklahoma many years, since she was a young bride-- raised her family there and enjoyed the company of her kin. As she held up an old pair of earrings, looking at herself in a mirror, it pierced her heart to see etched in her face the many years that she had lived as a sharecropper; and that it was all now coming to naught. Her home was soon to be flattened by a bulldozer.

I can imagine that the Lots walked through the rooms in their house, reminiscing all the things that took place in their home over the years. As the girls grew up, maturing into young women, they made marks each year on a doorjamb to record their height. They looked at the beds where each girl slept for so many nights from their youth; and Mrs. Lot thought back to the days when she gave homebirth to each one in turn, read bedtime stories, and rocked them all to sleep.

Leaving a home of many years rends the soul; most especially if kids grew up there too. When I was about eleven, my parents sold the place where I had lived since toddlerhood. I had a life there out in nature with boyhood pals: fishing and hunting and exploring. It was so idyllic. Then we moved. I was never the same after that. My heart was in that first home and never left it. Subsequently, I became withdrawn, introverted, and disconnected; never really succeeding in replacing my boyhood pals with new friends who could give me a sense of belonging.

Years later, when ol' Harry Truman perished in the Mount Ste. Helens blast, I totally understood why he chose to remain instead of fleeing to safety. That mountain, and his lodge, had been a part of Harry's life for just too many years. Mr. Truman felt that if that mountain went, then life wouldn't be worth living any more. He decided to go with the mountain rather than see it go and leave him behind to exist without it.

†. Gen 19:16b . . So the men seized his hand, and the hands of his wife and his two daughters-- in the Lord's mercy on him-- and brought him out and left him outside the city.

The word for "mercy" in that verse is from chemlah (khem-law') which means: commiseration; which Webster's defines as: feeling sympathy for and/or feeling sorrow or compassion for. Unless one's feelings are in the mix, their commiseration is a hollow sham.

Does anybody out there reading this feel the plight of Lot's family? Can you feel any of their pain? Can you feel their sorrow? Do you feel any sympathy for them at all? None? Well . . anyway; God did. Yes, He was going to burn their home down and kill the daughters who stayed behind. But God took no pleasure in it whatsoever.

†. Lam 1:12 . . Is it nothing to you, all you who pass by? Look around and see. Is any suffering like my suffering that was inflicted on me, that The Lord brought on me in the day of his fierce anger?

Is the Lot family's fate nothing to you-- all you online who journey with me today through this passage in Gen 19? Just another Bible story? Well . . those were real people you know.

†. Mtt 5:7 . . Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

The Greek word for "merciful" in that verse is eleemon (el-eh-ay'-mone) which means essentially the same thing as chemlah. According to Jesus, non-commiserating people will get no sympathy from God whatsoever.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
†. Gen 19:17 . .When they had brought them outside, one said: Flee for your life! Do not look behind you, nor stop anywhere in The Plain; flee to the hills, lest you be swept away.

The messengers won't be going along. They're to stay behind to supervise the holocaust.

Up till now, it appeared that God intended to destroy only Sodom. But now His complete plan is unveiled. The whole plain was doomed-- all five cities of the Siddim confederation, and all of their agriculture to boot --including the livestock and all the wildlife and all the pets; plus the children, and all the adults. A total civil, cultural, environmental, and economic, melt-down.

Compare that to Rev 18:2-24 where it appears that the global economy is left a complete collapse just as rapidly as the twin towers of the World Trade Center were brought down.

†. Gen 19:18 . . But Lot said to them: Oh not so, my Lord!

The word Lot used for Lord is 'Adonay (ad-o-noy') which is a proper name of God only; in comparison to the word 'adown (aw-done'); which is a lesser-ranking superior than Yhvh. When the men first arrived in Sodom, Lot addressed them as 'adown because he wasn't aware as yet that they were of Divine origin.

It's significant that the men didn't scold Lot for calling them 'Adonay. So then, speaking with those messengers was all the same as speaking with God, and that, it seems, is exactly how Lot now perceived them.

Lot was a righteous man (2Pet 2:8) but lacked experience. His uncle Abraham, when called to leave Haran and move to Canaan; went without an argument. But Lot never really grew in grace and the knowledge of God. He was no more spiritually mature at this point than when he left his mentor and relocated to the Jordan Valley. God challenged Abraham to walk before Him and to be perfect (Gen 17:1). But when Lot moved out, he apparently never really took up a walk with God; nor did God ask him to. The proof of that was his choice of location for a home for his family among impious pagans; who certainly would discourage Lot from getting too serious about his religion.

Today, less than ten percent of the world's Jews are Orthodox. Even in the State of Israel, more than fifty percent of Jews are hiloni (secular). They're assimilated among the Gentiles and become like Lot-- worldly, irreligious, irreverent, and concerned only for what they can get out of this life. Jews can't avoid the world, that's true; but they don't have to become like the world. They can live among the Gentiles and still walk with God like Abraham walked among the Gentiles if they would but put their minds to it. There's just no excuse for that large percentage of secular Jews.

†. Gen 19:19 . .You have been so gracious to your servant, and have already shown me so much kindness in order to save my life; but I cannot flee to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me and I die.

Listen to this man! He calls himself "your servant" yet resists his master's wishes. Next, he expresses gratitude for the successful rescue, yet implies his savior doesn't know what He's doing by sending him into the hills. Why on earth would God send Lot to the hills if the disaster was headed that way too? Lot isn't being rational and objective; no, he's being emotional and reactive; which people under stress usually are.

†. Gen 19:20 . . Look, that town there is near enough to flee to; it is such a little place! Let me flee there-- it is such a little place --and let my life be spared.

Lot surely must have known that town was just as wicked as Sodom but he still wanted to live there anyway as if his future was any more secure in that town than the one he was just leaving. And why he thought a "little place" was a good place to live is a mystery. But then such is the human mind. Little country towns seem more cozy and wholesome than the big city to some of us. But all towns are populated with human beings; and human beings are human everywhere.

†. Gen 19:21-22 . . He replied: Very well, I will grant you this favor too, and I will not annihilate the town of which you have spoken. Hurry, flee there, for I cannot do anything until you arrive there. Hence the town came to be called Zoar.

Zoar is from Tso' ar (tso'ar) which means little. So maybe we could nick-name it Smallville?

†. Gen 19:23-25 . . As the sun rose upon the earth and Lot entered Zoar, the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulfurous fire from the Lord out of heaven. He annihilated those cities and the entire Plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities and the vegetation of the ground.

What a sight that must have been. The people in Smallville probably thought the world was coming to an end! Fiery hail fell out of nowhere. Everything all around them ignited and went up in flame and heat with a suffocating, smelly pall filling the whole valley like a nuclear winter.

NOTE : According to Jude 1:7, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by everlasting fire; which is a kind of fire that doesn't need fuel to keep itself going. So when it completed destroying those cities, I'm of the opinion that God had to gather it all up because He couldn't just leave that stuff lying around out there as a permanent hazard.

A common objection is that if everlasting fire doesn't need fuel to keep itself going, then it can't consume anything; but of course that isn't true because all that's needed to burn something is heat. I was a professional welder before retiring in 2006. Trust me, you can set things on fire without them making physical contact with flame. Take paper for example. It begins to smolder at Fahrenheit 451 degrees whether it makes contact with an open flame or not. The source of the 451 degrees doesn't matter. What matters is the degrees; and I have started lots of accidental fires merely by welding on a flat sheet of steel while unaware a rag or some plywood was under it.

Others object that the laws of physics demand that fire have fuel in order to keep itself going. But when pondering supernatural things, the laws of physics go out the window because supernatural things cannot be expected to behave like natural things. In other words: Faith believes what is revealed to it instead of believing only what makes sense to it.

†. Gen 19:26 . . Lot's wife looked back, and she thereupon turned into a pillar of salt.

If the chronology of the text is strict, then Lot's wife turned into salt after their arrival in Zoar rather than along the way.

I can just imagine the look of fear that came over people in town when they saw her like that. She didn't die in the conflagration, but she died just the same. Her "looking back" was obviously more than just a curious gaze. She was no doubt thinking they should have stayed in Sodom; and hoping it would survive the fire so they could return, rebuild, and search for their daughters' remains.

†. Luke 9:61-62 . . Still another said: I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say good-by to my family. Jesus replied: No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.

In other words; don't even think about becoming devoted to Christ as a pastor or a missionary with reluctance. If there's even the slightest chance you'll get distracted and/or regret it and wish you'd done something else with your life instead: forget it.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
†. Gen 19:27-28 . . Next morning, Abraham hurried to the place where he had stood before the Lord, and, looking down toward Sodom and Gomorrah and all the land of the Plain, he saw the smoke of the land rising like the smoke of a kiln.

Poor guy. Now he began the very same vigil that so many relatives of airline crashes suffer, waiting for some news, hoping against hope, that their loved ones somehow survived. And if they didn't, were their bodies recovered? Abraham really did love his nephew. I think it saddened the old boy's heart when Lot went off on his own down into the valley. If only he had stayed in the place of blessing, up in the highlands, this wouldn't have happened. And you know what goes through your mind at a time like that? . . . Would of - Should of - Could of. Sort of like closing the gate after the horses are already out.

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

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

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

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

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

The word for "hill country" is har (har) which means: a mountain or range of hills. It's the very same word used to describe the kind of terrain where Noah's ark came to rest in Gen 8:4. Why Lot didn't move back on up to his uncle's ranch is uncertain. You know, that kind of makes me wonder why Lot stayed in Sodom after his uncle rescued him from the clutches of El Ched. Surely they must have talked about Lot returning to the highlands with Abraham where he and his family would be safer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well I can believe that just from watching the recent news from Haiti. Large scale disasters just seem to breed looting, theft, vandalism, and violence. That entire region around Sodom was in utter chaos and the local farms and ranches were destroyed so that fresh food was scarce.

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

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

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

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

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

It's doubtful the girls meant the whole planet was void of men; probably just the region where their cave was. It was isolated and lonely; and the nearest cities where they might have met men were either now gone or simply unsuitable for polite society. But the real problem was finding heterosexual men. The girls' fertile years were passing and they still didn't have any children of their own to show for it.

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

You know who else was in Abraham's camp? Ms. Hagar. She could have taken Lot's girls under her wing and encouraged them with her story of how 'Ataah 'Eel R'iy, named her baby and took an interest in her problems. She could have taught the girls how to pray and put their hopes in Yhvh's providence. Pity. Rescue and safety were so close at hand, but the girls had no way of knowing it.

Some people have assumed that Lots daughters were very young because Lot had said back in Gen 19:8 that they had not known a man. Duh. Look where they lived. Sodom. Those girls were in grave danger of becoming old maids in that city because its men were not all that interested in women (cf. Jude 1:6-7). Other of Lots daughters were married, but apparently, there just wasn't enough "decent" men to go around.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

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

In Moses' day, Kadesh was a jumping off point just prior to crossing over Wadi Araba into the region of Moab.

†. Num 20:14-16 . . From Kadesh, Moses sent messengers to the king of Edom-- Thus says your brother Israel: You know all the hardships that have befallen us; that our ancestors went down to Egypt, that we dwelt in Egypt a long time, and that the Egyptians dealt harshly with us and our ancestors. We cried to the Lord and He heard our plea, and He sent a messenger who freed us from Egypt. Now we are in Kadesh, the town on the border of your territory.

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

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

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

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

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

Abraham was settled up near Kadesh; and his stay in Gerar was brief and temporary.

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

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

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

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

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

We might ask: what in the world did Abimelech want with a woman Sarah's age anyway. She was at least 89 years old by this time. But God had given Abraham's wife renewed vitality to bring a child into the world. So I don't think Sarah looked her age at all. I think she looked a whole lot younger; and with creamy, glowing skin too. But it could also be that Abimelech was up in years himself so that a girl of 89 would look pretty good. At my own current age of 67, a woman in her 40's is a chick to me.

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

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

That's no doubt precisely why Joseph didn't sleep with the Lord's mom till after he was born; so there would be no question, at least in his own home; that her firstborn son was not his.

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

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

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

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

Right about now ol' Ab is scared to death; so he mounts a feverish defense to save his hide. This man is highly motivated, and by no means ignorant of Abraham's god. He knows exactly who He is; and no doubt informed of Sodom's recent fate.

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

This incident is an excellent example for juxtaposing humanity's sense of right and wrong with God's.

†. Gen 3:22 . . And the Lord God said: Behold, the man is become as one of us, knowing good and evil

Adam became "as" one of us. In other words; Adam became his own God in matters of right and wrong; and every man since then has been his own God in matters of right and wrong; for example:

†. Jgs 17:6 . . In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

†. Isa 53:6 . . All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way

Ever wonder why the nine-man panel of the US Supreme Court is rarely unanimous? It's because each one is his own God; and they're typically not appointed for their wisdom; but for their politics: which is no doubt why they don't render absolutes; but instead render opinions. Wearing those robes doesn't make the justices eo ipso right; no, it only makes them nine bigots in an ivory tower; at least until they're replaced by new bigots who then may, if they wish, overturn the opinions of previous bigots.

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

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

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

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

This is the Bible's very first appearance of a prophet; which in Hebrew is nabiy' (naw-bee') and simply means an inspired man. But Abraham wasn't the first of God's inspired men. The earliest was Abel. (Luke 11:50-51)

There's no record of Abraham ever foretelling future events like Isaiah and Habakkuk. So then, just because someone is inspired doesn't necessarily mean they're some sort of prognosticator; although I take it that all the prophets, including Abraham, foresaw Christ's coming. (John 8:56, 1Pet 1:10-12)

Divine inspiration is a very mysterious thing. People can be inspired and not even know it because God's influence is paranormal, and impossible to detect with the five natural senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. Every Christian is supposed to be inspired (1Cor 2:11-15, 1Cor 12:7, 1John 2:26-27) which makes an inspired Bible teacher's job a whole lot easier.

This is also the very first place in the whole Bible where the word "intercede" appears. Webster's defines intercede as: to intervene between parties with a view to reconciling their differences; viz: mediate.

When you stop to think about it; mediation between God and Man by a human being is quite remarkable. It implies that the human being who mediates has to first be at peace with God themselves or they would be in need of a mediator before they could mediate for someone else (cf. Gal 6:1). I think it goes without saying, that mediators, then, have to be righteous first before they can qualify as candidates for the activity. This section in Genesis says a lot about Abraham's standing before God in spite of his bad habit of lying about Sarah.

Who mediated for Abraham in those days? There's but one textual possibility: Mr. Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High God back in chapter 14.

But I don't think Abimelech was much impressed with Abraham's inspiration. The man was now a proven liar; and lost whatever credibility he might have once had in Gerar. However, do you think Abimelech needed to be told twice? No way. He got on it lickety split at first light. But not because he feared Abraham. No, because he feared Abraham's god. Maybe Abraham's word was no good; but his god's word certainly was and Abimelech really took it to heart.

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

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

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

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

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

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

There were no Divine prohibitions at this time against adultery; yet Abimelech's ancient culture felt it to be wrong. This is very interesting. Even though the world at large didn't knowingly follow God's design; they observed one of His later-to-come commandments on their own and the reason for that is because God took the liberty to make some adjustments to the twisted conscience that man obtained by eating the forbidden fruit in the third chapter of Genesis. (Rom 2:14-15)

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

Abimelech is totally perplexed. The thing Abraham and Sarah perpetrated made no sense to him whatsoever. The best part of this is the scolding that Abimelech laid on the sacred couple. Abraham was a prophet. Prophets are supposed to be not only inspired; but also exemplary. But in this case, Abimelech, a pagan, was more righteous than a "holy" man.

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

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

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

Abraham, true to form, exercised his usual brand of flexible morality. Yes, what he said was technically true. But it was not the whole truth; it was a half-truth: a deliberate deception, told with the intent to mislead.

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

Moses' covenanted law would later forbid intimacy between half-siblings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

†. Rom 2:23-24 . .You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law? For it's written that the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.

†. Isa 52:5 . . And now what do I have here? --declares the Lord. For my people have been taken away for nothing, and those who rule them mock --declares the Lord. And all day long my name is constantly blasphemed.

The people of God shouldn't be living in such a way as to bring disgrace to their sovereign.

†. 2Tim 2:19 . .Those who claim they belong to the Lord must turn away from all wickedness.

†. Eph 4:1 . .Therefore I, a prisoner for serving the Lord, beg you to lead a life becoming of your calling, for you have been called by God.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abraham's ultimate chagrin was having to pray for the very people whose lives he almost ruined with his nefarious scheme. This is sometimes called: making things right; viz: restoration. (cf. Luke 19:8)

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

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

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

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

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

†. Gen 21:2a . . Sarah conceived

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

Her blood was the sunrise of a new day. Not just another day like all the others, but the beginning of an era of complete change in their lives. They would never be the same again. Parenthood is an irreversible state. It makes no difference if the children die, or leave home, or disown their moms and dads. After once children are engendered, those parents are always the parents. They were the two people who brought the children into the world and it can never be undone.

Abraham had pinned all his hopes upon God's promise and now he realized he should have never doubted. God truly is a man of His word after all. (cf. 49:22-23)

Yes, those who trust in the Bible's God don't have to worry about whether or not they have done something stupid and made a fool of themselves. He made good on His promise to give Sarah a baby boy, and some day He will make good on the promise to bring His people all home again.

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

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

Naming a boy is very significant. The man who does the naming is legally declaring the boy to be his own son even if he isn't the biological father; like in Joseph's and Jesus' case. (Mtt 1:18-21)

By taking part in naming his wife's firstborn son; the lad became Joseph's son too; which was very important because Jesus needed to be in Joseph's genealogy so he could be related to David through Solomon or he wouldn't qualify as an heir to David's throne. Although Jesus was related to David by blood through his mother's father, he wasn't Solomon's descendant; but rather Nathan's: Solomon's brother. By Joseph adopting him, Jesus became related to Solomon by law, and his name legally listed in Joseph's genealogy in the gospel of Matthew; and that's how Joseph became Jesus' parent (Luke 2:27, Luke 2:41). Some Jews don't like that but there's nothing they can do about it since Jacob set the precedent for adoption-to-patriarchy up ahead in chapter 48.

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

Isaac is the very first male in the family on record to be circumcised precisely on the eighth day in compliance with the covenant's stipulation. I just want to point out that circumcision was not Abraham's idea. It was his response to El Shaddai's earlier mandate in Gen 17:10-14.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

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

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

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

Not only was Ishmael Abraham's son, but, by law, he was Sarah's boy too. (Gen 16:1-2)

But Sarah rejected Ishmael and never was much of a mom to him. So Ms. Hagar went through all that for nothing. On top of that, she was still a slave; and had no husband. She was, in reality, a single mom saddled with a child that she never really wanted in the first place.

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

Ishmael's legal position was quite advantageous. Sarah had undertaken to generate Ishmael as her own male offspring by breeding Abraham and Hagar, a situation that she herself had initiated in Gen 16:1-2. Abraham, by taking part in naming the boy in Gen 16:15, legally accepted Ishmael as his firstborn son. That status gave Ishmael automatic inheritance rights to a double portion of Abraham's estate (cf. Gen 48:22). The reason Joseph inherited a double portion is because Jacob transferred the right of the firstborn to him after Reuben messed around with one of his father's servant-wives. (Gen 49:3-4, 1Chr 5:1)

†. Gen 21:10 . . She said to Abraham: Cast out that slave-woman and her son, for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.

Hagar had lived in Abraham's home for at least eighteen years; yet Sarah so hated her that she couldn't even speak Hagar's name. She called her "that slave-woman".

The phrase "cast out" implies cruelty; and leaves a wrong impression. Sarah wanted her own flesh and blood to become the firstborn instead of Hagar's boy Ishmael; and, in the case of slave mothers, there was a perfectly humane way to do it.

The Code Of Hammurabi, and of the still earlier laws of Lipit-Ishtar, implicitly made inheritance rights a legal consequence of the father's acceptance of an infant boy as his legitimate son; so then, the laws of Abraham's day entitled Ishmael to the lion's share of Abraham's estate.

However, there was a clause in the law stipulating that if the slave's owner emancipated his child's in-slavery biological mother; then the mother and the child would lose any and all claims to a paternal property settlement. Abram couldn't just sell Hagar nor could he just kick her out on her own; no, he had to emancipate her for the law to take effect. Sarah, in saying "cast out that slave-woman and her son" is actually encouraging her husband to grant Hagar's freedom; which would then have the effect of disowning Ishmael and elevating Isaac to the status of not just the firstborn son, but of the only son. (Gen 22:2)

†. Gen 21:11 . .The matter distressed Abraham greatly, for it concerned a son of his own.

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

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

So is God backing Sarah? Not entirely. Sarah was no doubt highly motivated by unbearable tensions between herself and Hagar, and by the best interests of her own flesh and blood. But God had already decreed and predestined Isaac to be Abraham's heir apparent. Ishmael's position in the family was created by human interference in Divine, long-range plans for the people of Israel. The man-made son had to be eliminated so the God-made son would have the preeminence, even though it would cause terrible grief for Abraham and Ishmael and Hagar. (cf. Ezra 9:1-10:44)

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

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

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

I think it's significant that God referred to Ishmael as Abraham's seed, rather than by name, even though God is the one who picked the name back in chapter 16. In this instance, Ishmael is referred to as the son of the slave-woman. God didn't refer to Hagar by name either, even though He spoke to her by name back in chapter 16. The emphasis here is upon Divine purpose instead of upon people.

I believe it's important to note that Hagar and Ishmael weren't cut loose because they were no longer worthy to live in Abraham's camp any more. No. It was only as a measure to expedite God's future for Isaac. Even if Sarah hadn't proposed the idea of emancipating Hagar, God was very likely on the verge of suggesting it Himself.

†. Gen 21:14a . . Early next morning Abraham took some bread and a skin of water, and gave them to Hagar. He placed them over her shoulder, together with the child, and sent her away.

The Hebrew word for "bread" is lechem (lekh'-em) which just simply means food (for man or beast), which therefore includes grain. So Abraham didn't necessarily send the poor woman out on her own with a ration of bread and water like some sort of hardened criminal, but very likely provisioned Hagar and his son Ishmael with enough camper-grade food stuffs to keep them going for a while.

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

The phrase "sent her away" is from the Hebrew word shalach (shaw-lakh') which is a word used of divorce as well as for the emancipation of slaves.

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

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

†. Gen 21:14b . . And she wandered about in the wilderness of Beer-sheba.

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

The Hebrew word for "wandered about" is from ta'ah (taw-aw') which means to vacillate. Webster's defines "vacillate" as: to waver in mind, will, or feeling; viz: to hesitate in choice of opinions or courses. (cf. Jas 1:8)

As often as Hagar traveled up and down the land of Palestine with Abraham over the years, she no doubt knew her way around; so she's not blundering through the woods like a lost hiker. At this point, Hagar is thoroughly rattled and doesn't really know what to do next or even how she and Ishmael are going to survive in a land where no State programs for unemployed single mothers existed. And to top it off; she's a freed slave who now has to make all her own decisions and fend for her child and for herself on her own rather than simply comply with the demands of a master who provided for all her daily necessities.

Slavery has its pluses and minuses; its upsides and its downsides; and it's not always to a slave's benefit to give them their walking papers. There's a provision in the old covenant that allows for a slave to remain a slave for life of their own free will. The law would apply to anyone living as a citizen in the land of Israel, whether Jew or Gentile. (Ex 21:2-6, Lev 24:22)

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

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

The word "child" is misleading. The Hebrew is yeled (yeh'-led) which can also mean: a lad. Webster's defines a lad as: a male person; of any age between early boyhood and maturity; viz: boys and/or youths. (or as Cousin Vinny would say: a yoot.) Ishmael was hardly what modern America might call a child. He was near to eighteen years old at this time; if he was circumcised at fourteen and Isaac was weaned at three. (cf. Gen 16:16, Gen 21:5, Gen 21:8)

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

When God's people lose confidence in His testimony, they usually always get themselves into trouble. If only Abraham had trusted God, Ishmael would never have been born in the first place because he wouldn't have listened to Sarah and slept with Hagar.

If only Hagar had trusted God's testimony, she wouldn't have despaired regarding Ishmael's life. He was perfectly safe. Don't you see? He had to live so God could keep His promise to multiply him; and so he could become a wild-burro of a man, and so he could live near the people of Israel like God predicted.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

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

I don't think Ishmael, at near eighteen, was bawling his eyes out like a little girl. Rather; his "cry" was a plea for help. Exactly what he said is unknown. But God heard him and responded. I strongly suspect that in those seventeen or so years with Abraham, Ishmael learned how to pray; and very likely he prayed at bed time with his mom Hagar. She knew Abraham's god too-- at first hand.

†. Gen 21:17b-19 . . and an angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her: What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not, for God has heeded the cry of the boy where he is. Come, lift up the boy and hold him by the hand, for I will make a great nation of him. Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. She went and filled the skin with water, and let the boy drink.

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

This particular angel wasn't an apparition but rather just a voice-- granted a very unusual voice. First it spoke for God, then it spoke as the Yhvh who would make good on the promise that God made to Hagar at Gen 16:10-11and the one made to Abraham at Gen 21:13.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A girl from Egypt was apparently a better choice than the girls of Canaan; from among whom Abraham would later not want a wife for his son Isaac. (Gen 24:3-4)

I wonder how Hagar traveled to Egypt. Did she go on to become prominent in the caravan business? I bet you one thing. She was very careful that her boy did not get himself hitched to a Sarah-type personality. And no way would Hagar ever have one for a mother-in-law either.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
†. Gen 21:22a . . At that time

While Hagar and Ishmael were busy setting up a new life for themselves, a seemingly trivial event occurred in Abraham's life. I don't have any idea why Genesis records this incident. It doesn't seem to mean anything.

†. Gen 21:22b . . Abimelech

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

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

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

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

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

†. Gen 21:23a . .Therefore swear

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

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

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

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

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

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

†. Gen 21:24 . . And Abraham said: I swear it.

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

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

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

NOTE : there are well-meaning folk who feel it's wrong for God's people to be confrontational; and base their reasoning on Mtt 5:3, Mtt 5:5, Mtt 5:9, and Mtt 5:39. But other than Isaac, I don't think you could find a more gracious man in the Old Testament than Abraham. He didn't have a hair-trigger temper, a spirit of vengeance, nor did he declare war over every little disagreement. Abraham picked his battles with care, and conducted them intelligently-- same with Moses, of whom the Old Testament says: was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth (Num 12:3). Jesus was meek too (Mtt 11:29 and Mtt 21:5) but could be very confrontational when the circumstances called for a heavy hand. (Mtt 23:13 36)

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

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

†. Gen 21:27-29 . . Abraham took sheep and oxen and gave them to Abimelech, and the two of them made a pact. Abraham then set seven ewes of the flock by themselves, and Abimelech said to Abraham: What mean these seven ewes which you have set apart?

This was not a local custom; whatever it is, because Abimelech is totally puzzled by it.

†. Gen 21:30 . . He replied: You are to accept these seven ewes from me as proof that I dug this well.

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

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

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

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

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

NOTE : some people think that because of Ex 6:2-3, Abraham wasn't supposed to have known the name Yhvh; but obviously he did.

The word for "tamarisk" is 'eshel (ay'-shel) which can mean a tamarisk tree; and it can also mean a grove of trees; of any kind. The grove was probably somewhat like a private garden where Abraham could have some solitude in prayer. Groves were popular as places of religious devotion and worship and of public meetings in both Canaan and Israel. It was in a garden where Jesus prayed his last great prayer in John 17 just before being arrested.

Backyards can serve as "gardens" too. Here in the part of Oregon where I live, row houses have become a common style of residential housing construction; which is really sad. The people living in them don't have any backyard to speak of like my wife and I do in an older home. When we look out the big windows on the east side of our house, we see trees and shrubs and grass and an old mossy playhouse I built for my son and his friends many years ago; and lots of urban wildlife too: birds, raccoons, skunks, huge banana slugs, and squirrels and such. That backyard gives us a feeling of escape and privacy: it's very soothing; like a week-end getaway except that it's every day.

The planners of New York City's central park had the very same idea in mind. Opponents of the park groused about the valuable real estate that would be lost to public recreation; but many of the residents of Manhattan wouldn't trade their park for all the thousands and thousands of diamonds the De Beers company is hoarding in their vaults. Not long ago one of Manhattan's abandoned elevated rail lines was converted into a park and it's already immensely popular as an escape. Human beings need their tamarisks; even holy human beings need them. (cf. Mrk 6:46 and John 6:15)

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

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

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

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

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

Testing by engineers is often done to see if their inventions are up to performing the tasks for which they were designed.

†. 1Pet 1:6-7 . . Now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: that the trial of your faith-- being much more precious than of gold that perisheth --though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ.

When the up-coming test is over; Abraham will have gained God's own personal testimony, as an expert witness in all aspects of faith, that Abraham really is a man of God after all.

†. Jas 2:21-24 . .Was not Abraham our father vindicated by actions when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his actions, and by actions faith was made complete? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says; "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. And he was called the friend of God". You see then that a man is validated by actions, and not by faith only.

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

The Hebrew word for "favored one" is yachiyd (yaw-kheed') which means sole. So then, Isaac wasn't just Abraham's favored son; he was also Abraham's only son because when the old gentleman emancipated Ishmael's mom Hagar, he automatically gave up his right to legal kinship with her children. Abraham is still Ishmael's biological father, but on the books, Abraham is no longer Ishmael's legal dad.

Isaac was about three to five years old when Hagar and Ishmael moved out. Some time has gone by; and in this chapter, Isaac is now old enough to shoulder a load of wood, and to ask an intelligent question based on experience and observation. If Sarah's reported age at death-- 127 years--which follows in the record after this incident, can be used, then Isaac was 37 years of age at the time of the Adedah since he was born when Sarah was 90 (Gen 17:17). Thirty-seven is, of course, an educated guess, because there's no way to determine the chronology of Gen 23:1-2.

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

When people truly love their kids, they will die protecting them. They'll quite literally run into a burning building if need be and/or step in front of a bus. Normal parents are very protective like that when they truly love their kids. People who love their kids don't drown them to please a boy friend, don't leave them unattended in the car and go inside a bar for a drink; don't let them go off with strangers, and don't let them go to the mall or to the playground all by themselves when they're little.

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

The word for "Moriah" is from Mowriyah (mo-ree-yaw') and/or Moriyah (mo-ree-yaw') which means: seen of Jah.

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

According to tradition, Genesis' land of Moriah is the same as 2Chronicles' mount Moriah-- the site of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem --which is bordered by the world famous Wailing Wall. Some justification for the tradition is found in verse 14, where Abraham named the location Adonai-yireh, from which came the expression; "On the mount of the Lord there is vision". However, Jerusalem's temple site isn't a three day trek on foot from Beer-sheba; nor would it have been necessary for Abraham to pack in his own wood since Jerusalem's locale was well-forested in his day. In reality; the precise geographic location of the land of Moriah remains to this day a total mystery.

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

Abraham's silence on this matter is puzzling because he's not above challenging God when he thinks The Almighty might be in the wrong; e.g. he stood up to God in the matter of Sodom back in chapter 18. God is ordering Abraham to offer his son as a burnt offering. That means he will have to slit Isaac's throat; and then burn his body to ashes. Why isn't Abraham recoiling and getting in God's face about this with a vehement protest? Would you kill one of your children in a religious ritual? I seriously doubt it; that is unless maybe you were glad to be rid of them.

The inference is quite obvious. Abraham didn't believe it wrong to sacrifice a human being. In other words: for Abraham, human sacrifice was a non-issue or he would have surely objected to it. On top of that, this couldn't be done without Isaac's consent or it would become a ritual murder.

What God ordered Abraham to do is totally illegal under the terms and conditions of Moses' covenanted law. However, since Biblical law doesn't have ex post facto jurisdiction (Rom 4:15, Gal 3:17) then human offerings were not yet illegal for Yhvh's people in Abraham's day.

Though God normally frowns upon sacrificing one's underage children-- e.g. Lev 18:21, Lev 20:2-5, Deut 12:31, Deut 18:10, cf. 2Kgs 16:3, 2Kgs 17:31, 2Kgs 23:10, 2Kgs 21:6, Ps 106:34, Ezk 20:31, Ezk 23:37, Jer 7:31, Jer 19:4, Jer 32:35 --to my knowledge He has never frowned upon sacrificing consenting adults. Really the primary reason adult human sacrifices are illegal under the terms and conditions of Moses' covenanted law is simply because they aren't stipulated; and it's illegal to amend the Law to include them. (Deut 4:2, Deut 5:29-30)

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
Parenthesis; part 1

Rabbis are quite divided as to the true meaning of Gen 22:2. Some feel Abraham was supposed to kill Isaac, and some feel he wasn't. There are some who feel that the angel stopped Abraham at Gen 22:11-12 because he was making a big mistake-- that Abraham misunderstood the instructions God gave to him in verse 2.

Targums-- which were commonly taught in the synagogues prior to, during, and after Jesus' day --paraphrased that verse to mean just exactly what it implies: that Isaac was supposed to die.

T. And He said: Take now thy son, thy only one whom thou lovest, Izhak, and go into the land of worship, and offer him there, a whole burnt offering, upon one of the mountains that I will tell thee. (Targum Jonathan)

The word "offer" is from 'alah (aw-law') which means: to ascend. Yosef Hallel, a rabbi who lived one or two generations before the Common Era, noted that 'alah is the same verb used with reference to a qorbanot offering, and does, in fact, imply "to slaughter". (e.g. Lev 17:8)

Here's a rendering of Gen 22:2 that closely follows Rashi (Shlomo Yitzchaki 1040-1105 c.e.)

And He said, "Please take your son, your only son, your only one, whom you love-- Isaac --and go to the land of Moriah; bring him up there as an offering upon one of the mountains which I shall tell you." (Stone Tanach)

By leaving out the word "burnt" Rashi's rendering makes it appear that Abraham was merely supposed to bring his son up and dedicate him to God but not kill him in the process.

Another rabbi, Zalman Sorotzkin, who lived in pre war Poland and post war Israel, said: "Abraham's going joyfully to slay his son [pre] atoned for his descendants refusal to go to the Holy Land." There are Midrash commentaries very similar to that line of thought.

Some ancient Jewish commentators did in fact credit the father, Abraham, for slaying his boy and they also credited the son, Isaac, for not only willingly offering his body, which was implied turned to ashes, but also for offering ¼ of his blood too. (Midrash HaGadol on Gen 22:19), (Sifra, 102c; b. Ta'anit 16a) and also (Mekhilta d'Rashbi, p.4; Tanh. Vayerra, sec.23)

For what, or for whom, did Isaac willingly offer his body and blood? Was it for himself? Was it for his father Abraham? According to the Targums, it was for his future progeny, the people of Israel.

T. And Abraham prayed in the name of the Word of the Lord, and said: Thou art The Lord who seest, and art not seen. I pray for mercy before Thee, O Lord. It is wholly manifest and known before Thee that in my heart there was no dividing, in the time that Thou didst command me to offer Izhak my son, and to make him dust and ashes before Thee; but that forthwith I arose in the morning and performed Thy word with joy, and I have fulfilled Thy word.

. . . And now I pray for mercies before Thee, O Lord God, that when the children of Izhak offer in the hour of need, the binding of Izhak their father Thou mayest remember on their behalf, and remit and forgive their sins, and deliver them out of all need. That the generations who are to arise after him may say, In the mountain of the house of the sanctuary of the Lord did Abraham offer Izhak his son, and in this mountain of the house of the sanctuary was revealed unto him the glory of the Shekinah of the Lord. (Jerusalem Targum)

in another Targum:

T. Now I pray for mercy before You, O Lord God, that when the children of Isaac come to a time of distress You may remember on their behalf the Binding Of Isaac their father, and loose and forgive them their sins and deliver them from all distress. (Fragmentary Targum)

This concept-- mitatan shel tsaddiqim mekapperet (the death of the righteous atones) --is deeply imbedded in ancient Jewish tradition and has been extremely helpful in giving a degree of sanity to horrors like the Holocaust. The six million Jews who died under the heels of Fascist oppression are reckoned by many pious Jews as effecting the salvation of the world.

In a widely known Talmudic discussion (b. Mo'ed Qatan 28a) the question is asked why the book of Numbers records the death of Miriam immediately after the section on the Red Heifer (Num 19:1-20:1). The answer is: that just as the Red Heifer atones, so also the death of the righteous atones (see also Rashi on Numbers 20:1). And why, the Talmud asks, is the death of Aaron recorded in conjunction with the Torah's reference to the priestly garments? (Num 20:25-28) The answer is: that just as the garments of the high priest atone (Ex 28; especially the 38th verse) so also the death of the righteous atones.

Mitatan shel tsaddiqim mekapperet, (the death of the righteous atones) is a fairly common principle in rabbinical literature. At Leviticus Rabbah 20:12, repeated elsewhere verbatim ( y. Yoma 2:1, Pesika deRav Kahana 26:16) Rabbi Hiyya Bar Abba said: The sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, died the first day of Nisan. Why then does the Torah mention their death in conjunction with the Day Of Atonement? (which occurred on the tenth of Tishrei; Lev 16:1) It is to teach that just as the Day Of Atonement atones, so also the death of the righteous atones.

It's stated in Midrash Assereth Memrot: The Messiah, in order to atone for them both, [for Adam and David] will make his soul a trespass offering, as it is written next to this, in the [scriptural passage] Behold My servant 'shm ['shm = guilt offering]

The "servant" that the midrash refers to is the servant of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 whom the midrash attests is none other than Messiah and whom the midrash also attests is to be a human sacrifice for both guilt and trespasses.

CONT.
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
Parenthesis; part 2

Rabbinical scholar Solomon Schechter summarizes the Talmudic teaching that human suffering and death atone for sin:

"The atonement of suffering and death is not limited to the suffering person. The atoning effect extends to all the generation. This is especially the case with such sufferers as cannot either by reason of their righteous life or by their youth possibly have merited the afflictions which have come upon them. The death of the righteous atones just as well as certain sacrifices (with reference to b. Mo'ed Qatan 28a). They are caught (suffer) for the sins of the generation. If there are no righteous, the children of the schools (that is, the innocent young school children) are caught for the sins of the generation. (b. Shabbat 32b)

. . .There are also Scriptural words-- And he bore the sins of many (Isa 53:12) -- applied to Moses because of his offering himself as an atonement for Israel's sin with the golden calf, being ready to sacrifice his very soul for Israel when he said: And if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book (that is, from the Book Of The Living) which thou has written. (Ex 32:32, b. Sotah 14a; b. Berakhoth 32a)

This readiness to sacrifice oneself for their countrymen is characteristic of all the great men of Israel-- the Patriarchs, and the Prophets acting in the same way --whilst also some Rabbis would, on certain occasions, exclaim: Behold, I am the atonement of Israel. (Mekhilta 2a; m. Negaim 2:1) "

The same thought is also carried over in a prayer, still included in the additional service for the Jewish new year, Rosh Hashanah, which culminates with these words: Remember today the Binding Of Isaac with mercy to his descendants.

The rabbis attested that the final resurrection of the dead would take place "through the merits of Isaac, who offered himself upon the altar." (Pesikta deRav Kahana, 32)

NOTE : that comment asserts Isaac was consenting; which is probably very true.

Rabbi Shem Klingberg-- known among his followers as the Zalosh-itzer Rebbe --when led out to be slaughtered by the Nazis, an instant before his death lifted up his eyes to heaven and cried out in a piercing voice: Let me be an atonement for Israel! To this very day, when a leading rabbi dies, it is quite common for his mourners to say: May his death serve as an atonement for us.

Some, completely ignoring Tradition, Midrashim, and the Talmud, have really gone off the deep end by claiming Gen 22:2 should be translated like this: And He said; “Take your son, your favored one, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer [with] him there a burnt offering."

Doctoring the Scripture like that impugns Abraham's intellect as a man whom God testified in Gen 20:7 to be a prophet. Abraham no doubt understood his Master perfectly and knew just what he was expected to do. He had three days to pray about it and ask for confirmation. Abraham was supposed to kill Isaac, and that is exactly what he tried to do.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

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

Precisely where the land of Moriah was, and the specific height God chose, is impossible to tell for sure. Abraham knew where the land was but he wouldn't know the exact spot until he got there. It's just as well to keep it a secret or otherwise somebody would turn it into a shrine; sort of like the so-called Garden Tomb, where people come from all over the world and make fools of themselves kissing the ground. Some would even take home souvenir jars of dirt too; so that by now, likely so much dirt would be gone that the site of Moriah would look more like a quarry than a high place.

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

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

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

Not too shabby for a guy his age. Abraham by this time was well past 103 years old; more like 114; but it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume Isaac and the two servants pitched in; bundling the wood and lashing it to the burro for transport.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There exists adequate proof that Abraham was capable of dishonesty, so it's difficult to tell at this point if he was actually predicting their return, or misleading everyone with a fib so nobody would become alarmed and throw a monkey wrench into the works. It was Abraham's full intention to slay Isaac but I'm sure you can understand why he wouldn't want the servants to know that. However, Abraham was confident that Isaac wouldn't stay dead; that much is known for certain so I vote to give Abraham the benefit of the doubt and say he really did believe that he and Isaac come back together.

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

Fair's fair. I chopped it - you haul it. (chuckle) No, I don't think Abraham really felt that way at all. It was just practical: Isaac was younger. But why not let the burro haul it to the site? Well; if you have never heard a burro bray up close and personal, I guarantee you would not want one to do it during a solemn church service. They are LOUD!

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

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

Oops! That's kind of like going out to a picnic and forgetting the hot dogs and hamburger buns. The Tanakh's translation of the Hebrew word 'esh (aysh) as firestone was probably an educated guess. 'Esh just simply means fire, with no stone implied. A convenient way to transport fire in those days was with a portable oven; viz: a fire pot (cf. Gen 15:17). So rather than a stone, which implies striking sparks, they most likely just brought along the camp stove, which held a receptacle for live coals. Fire pots in those days were the equivalent of modern propane-fueled camping equipment.

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

The word for "sheep" is either she (seh) or sey (say) which means: a member of a flock, which can be either a sheep or a goat. Neither the age nor the gender mattered in this instance because Scripture up to this point in time had not yet specified age or gender for a burnt offering. Abraham could have used kids and lambs, or ewes, nannies, or rams; it made no difference. Actually, Abraham might have offered birds too. Noah did in chapter 8-- but there was something special about this instance that Isaac somehow knew required something quite a bit more substantial than a bird.

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

Little did Isaac know the sheep of that day was to be him. Ol' Abraham and his half truths are at it again.

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

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

Arguments from silence insist that if something isn't clearly stated in the Bible, then it's inferred from the silence that there was nothing to state. In other words: according to the logic of an argument from silence, verses 7 and 8 are the only words that Isaac and Abraham ever spoke to each other their entire lives: which of course is highly unlikely.

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

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

I think it was right about here where Abraham and Isaac took time-out for a heart-to-heart. And I don't think it was pleasant. Abraham informed his son of their real purpose there that day and of what God required. Isaac must have been shocked and terrified. How could he not be?

It would take quite some very skilled diplomacy to convince Isaac that his death was the right thing to do. He was much younger and could easily outrun his dad. So if this was going to work, it would require his son's whole-hearted consent because there was no one there to assist Abraham in the event that Isaac chickened out. Besides, Isaac had to agree or the whole affair would disintegrate into a ritual murder instead of a sacred burnt offering.

The servants were behind, guarding the burro. And God could not interfere because burnt offerings are worship; and worship is supposed to be voluntary rather than at the point of a gun. So all in all, the success of this entire event hinged upon the free will of just two people that day: Abraham and Isaac; a father and his son.

If you were Abraham, how would you approach Isaac to convince him to let you slit his throat and incinerate his body to ashes?

Fortunately, Abraham was a man of God who walked with God. So his influence with Isaac was fully functional and effective. If there was one thing about his dad that Isaac knew was definitely not artificial, it was his relationship with Yhvh. If his dad said that God wanted Abraham's boy for a burnt offering, then by thunder that is what God said. I believe Isaac was confident his dad would never lie about such a thing. He might lie about other things, but not about that one especially since Isaac was a boy whom Abraham dearly loved.

If Abraham was hurt by the loss of Ishmael, just think how much worse he felt at the prospect of slicing Isaac with a knife and then cremating his corpse. How would he explain that to Sarah? Would she understand? I don't think so. Sarah had waited a lifetime for a baby of her own, and now Abraham would kill it in a religious ritual before the boy even had a chance to get married and have a family of his own. No, Sarah would not be understanding about that at all; and how could anyone possibly expect her to.

Anyway; it was a big hurdle, but Abraham got past it okay. However, he still had one more objection to overcome.

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

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

That young man really had guts; and incredible trust in his dad too. I'll tell you what: those two men deserve our deepest admiration. What an incredible display of faith and courage; both on the part of Abraham and on the part of his son Isaac.

Buen Camino
/