12:4-9. In response (not as a prerequisite) to God’s promises Abram … departed from Haran and continued on to Canaan with Sarai his wife and Lot his nephew. This statement, together with the reference in 11:32 to their halting in Haran (most likely because of ailment or infirmity on the part of Terah), suggests that the declaration in 12:1-3 was in fact God’s second, given to Abram in Haran, and not the first declaration given to him in Mesopotamia (see Ac 7:2-3). The implication for Abram’s faith at this point is hardly flattering, for this would suggest that he was contemplating a return to his home city following Terah’s death. Thus God repeated His call and exhorted Abram to continue the journey his father had begun. On a theological level, however, this is perfectly consistent with the manner in which the Abrahamic covenant is introduced—as a promise that is actively and sovereignly made by God to a passive and undeserving recipient. At the same time Abram responded to God’s promise with commendable obedience, completing the journey to Canaan and building an altar to the Lord at Shechem (a city in the hill country of Ephraim about 40 miles [65 km] north of Jerusalem).

c. God’s Unshakable Hold: Abram’s Deep Depravity (12:10-20)

12:10-20. However, Abram’s initial obedience was short-lived. When faced with a famine in the land he took matters in his own hands, rather than trusting that God would bless and provide for him in the midst of the famine (as He did for Isaac, Gn 26:1-3) or seeking guidance through sacrifice and prayer (as Jacob did during the famine in his day, 46:1-4). Abram adopted a course of “situational ethics.” First, he demonstrated a lack of faith in God’s provision, prompting him to leave Canaan and go to Egypt. Then he demonstrated a lack of faith in God’s protection, prompting him to lie—and to ask Sarai to lie as well—about their marital relationship. Rather than loving his wife as himself (see Eph 5:33; Lv 19:18), considering her welfare, and guarding her honor, Abram was concerned with only his own welfare—that it may go well with me (Gn 12:13). In his self-interest and weak faith Abram remains silent not only when Sarai was taken to the palace, but also when she was taken as Pharaoh’s wife. In this way Abram was the cause of the additional sin of adultery on the part of Sarai and Pharaoh. Though some translations attempt to soften the situation by paraphrasing Pharaoh’s words in v. 19 in a way that suggests he had not yet married her, the Hebrew text is quite clear. Pharaoh employed the typical verbal idiom for marriage, “to take so-and-so to oneself as a wife” in a form signifying completed (past) action. When confronted with his misbehavior, Abram said nothing. He simply took Sarai and departed. Though admittedly an inference, a lack of repentance indeed appears to be Abram’s last—and most depraved—sin in this episode. This is supported by the observation that, when confronted for this same sin committed later against Abimelech (in chap. 20), Abram responds by excusing himself and denying any guilt in misrepresenting the truth, for Sarai, he points out, “actually is my sister, the daughter of my father, but not … of my mother” (20:12). This indicates that Abraham’s lie was justified in his mind since it was partially true.

The purpose of this episode is not to single out Abram as more depraved than anyone else, for in the end he is merely symptomatic of the human condition and the virus of depravity endemic to all humanity. Rather, by presenting this episode immediately after God’s declaration of the Abrahamic covenant, Scripture is making clear that God gave the promise in the presence of demerit (indeed, God “justifies the ungodly,” Rm 4:5; Abram was without merit). And since this was true of Abram, it is also true of present-day beneficiaries of that covenant.

As to this episode’s significance in the patriarchal narrative, this is the first time (but certainly not the last) that God’s promise to Abraham was placed in jeopardy. By allowing his wife to become part of Pharaoh’s harem, Abram nearly obstructed God’s promise of a great nation coming from him, specifically because Abraham’s promised line would only be through Sarai as God would make clear later (Gn 17:15-22). Other episodes that place the promise in jeopardy are Abram’s peace offer to Lot, which threatened the land promise (13:1-13); Sarai’s manipulative attempt to obtain a child by giving her maid-servant Hagar to Abraham, jeopardizing the seed promise (16:1-6); Abraham’s deceit in calling Sarah his sister and allowing her to become part of Abimelech’s harem, once again threatening the promised line (20:1-18); and the ultimate example, when God seemingly placed the promise in jeopardy by calling on Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, thereby threatening the seed promise (22:1-19). In each case it appears that God’s promise would be thwarted only to have God intervene and assure the certain outcome of His promises.

A common aspect of narratives in Genesis is that they frequently foreshadow future events that will occur later in the Pentateuch. Here are examples: Abram’s Egyptian sojourn foreshadows Israel’s experience in the exodus. Abram went to Egypt because of a famine (12:10); so did Israel (see the entire Joseph narrative but particularly Gn 41:54 and 45:11). Both Abram and Israel sojourned in Egypt and were threatened with death (Gn 12:13; Ex 1:16). Abram acquired wealth from Pharaoh (Gn 12:16); so the Israelites received wealth in Egypt (Gn 47:27). In the same way that the Lord sent plagues upon Pharaoh to deliver Abram (Gn 12:17), so He sent plagues upon Egypt to deliver Israel (Ex 9:14; 11:1); In Genesis, Pharaoh sends Abram out of Egypt (Gn 12:19-20), while in Exodus Pharaoh sends the Israelites out from Egypt (Ex 12:32-33). Finally, Abram went out to the Negev with Lot; was rich in livestock, silver, and gold; and worshipped the Lord (Gn 13:1-4). Likewise, Israel left Egypt and went to the Negev with a mixed multitude; was rich in livestock, silver, and gold; and worshipped by celebrating the Passover (Ex 12:35-42). For these and other parallels, see Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 142. Sailhamer astutely explains the author’s purpose for shaping these narratives in parallel fashion: “[T]he author permits the reader to see the implications of God’s past deeds with his chosen people. The past is not allowed to remain in the past. Its lessons are drawn for the future. Behind the pattern stands a faithful, loving God. What he has done with Abraham, he will do for his people today and tomorrow” (142).

2. Living in the Land: God’s Affirmation of the Covenant (13:1–14:24)

Having declared what He would do for Abram, God was now bound by His attributes of truth and justice to fulfill His word (the ratification ceremony of chap. 15 will serve to more firmly “establish” the covenant in the mind of Abram), and the rest of the Abrahamic narrative will focus on the outworking of the three provisions of that promise for Abram. At the end of the previous section, despite Abram’s lack of faith and multiple sins, God already began to fulfill the material aspect of the blessing He promised Abram by moving Pharaoh to allow Abram to keep the vast wealth he had received (12:16). This is another indication that the covenant does not depend on obedience. At this point in the narrative that material wealth provided the basis for focusing on the provision of the land, specifically establishing Abram’s “hold” on and reputation in Canaan, the land of promise.

a. Affirming Abram’s Right to the Land (13:1-18)

13:1-18. Canaan was a fruitful land and hence in high demand in Abram’s day (as today). The Canaanites, as already noted (see comment on 10:6-20; cf. Gn 10:15-19), were in fact a collection of sociopolitical and ethnic groups situated throughout the land and always therefore in the background as potential competitors wherever Abram went. That Abram’s descendants eventually became the dominant force throughout all that land is thus powerful testimony of God’s sovereign involvement in fulfilling His promise. To highlight this point to a reader living during this later period of Israelite dominance—when the Canaanites had all but vanished from the land—God prompted a later writer (prophet) to add to the Mosaic text the statement in v. 7b: Now the Canaanite and the Perizzite were dwelling then in the land (cf. 12:6). The competition for this fruitful land was fierce, all the more so because of the increased wealth in livestock and servants Abram had acquired in Egypt from Pharaoh (12:16). And that was in addition to the large entourage Abram had already brought with him from Mesopotamia (conservatively numbering at least 500 people and their necessary provisions; see 14:14). As Lot also had his own large entourage, strife between … the herdsmen was inevitable. So Abram called on Lot to separate (i.e., distance himself) from him, giving his nephew the first choice of location. The strife between relatives in this passage reflects a common theme in Genesis (see comments on 4:8).

It may seem surprising to read that (1) such fierce competition existed in this region of the Negev, which is primarily a desert, and (2) that Lot, when given first choice, chose not only to stay in that general area, but, in particular, to relocate to the especially inhospitable region along the southern shore of what is today the Dead Sea (the general area where most contemporary scholars locate Sodom and Gomorrah). That the land Lot chose was well watered everywhere (v. 10) contrasts with the situation familiar to the Israelites and to people today. The answer is that all of this took place before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. In other words, the inhospitable, barren state of that portion of the upper Negev and lower Jordan Valley (i.e., the “Dead Sea”) region is the direct result of the manner by which God judged the sins of the Canaanites who lived there. This stands in direct contrast to the theory that the formation of the Dead Sea and barrenness of the surrounding area resulted from millions of years of interrelated geologic processes. The sudden transformation of this region that was well watered and filled with life like the garden of the LORD to a region whose land and water are all but dead serves as a reminder of the consequence of sin (2Pt 2:6).

Christians and Jews sometimes cite Gn 13 as a paradigm for peace in the Middle East today. “If Abram gave away land for peace,” it is claimed, “should not his descendants, the Jewish people, be willing to do the same?” This chapter, however, nowhere indicates that Abram “gave” any land to Lot. And God affirmed twice toward the end of this chapter (v. 17) that the land was given to Abram (the only two times that the verb give [natan] is used in this chapter)—and not only to Abram, but also to his descendants in the line of promise (i.e., Israel; cf. Ps 105:10-11) forever (v. 15). Though peace is unquestionably an important goal, Christians must support it by means consistent with God’s revealed truth, and certainly not by advocating giving away to a non-Jewish national entity land that was divinely deeded to the people of Israel as an eternal possession.

b. Affirming Abram’s Might and Prosperity (14:1-16)

14:1-16. This passage concerning the conquest of the five Canaanite kings by the four kings of the east, though at first sight seemingly tangential in nature, serves the following three significant purposes. First, the narrative presents the first explicit evidence of the truly prophetic nature of Noah’s statement in 9:25-26, according to which (the descendants of) Canaan would be subordinated/enslaved to (the descendants of) his siblings and uncles (this being the general sense of achim, “brothers”). The conquering quartet was led by the king of Elam, and the Elamites were descendants of Shem (10:22). This historical precedent would also have served as further encouragement for the Israelites, likewise descended from Shem, in their divinely ordained conquest of the Canaanites. Second, the message gives an extremely vivid example of God’s military concern for Abram, who succeeded in rescuing Lot (who was taken captive with the people living in Sodom) by defeating the four kings from the east. This would have served as a historical precedent of military success for the Israelites, Abram’s descendants in the line of promise, both in their initial conquest of Canaan as well as in their ensuing battles to maintain control of the land (cf. 2Sm 5:24-25). Third, the passage sets up the immediately following episode in which Abram gave “a tithe of all” the spoil (i.e., the spoil he had taken from the four eastern kings, who had themselves taken it from the five Canaanite kings) to Melchizedek. This is one of the most theologically important encounters in the Bible.

c. Affirming Abram’s Blessing and Status (14:17-24)

14:17-24. Other than the present passage, the figure of Melchizedek is mentioned in the OT only in Ps 110:4. Both of these passages are cited in Heb 7 as the basis for one of the most important topics in Christian theology, namely, the eternal efficacy of Christ’s high priestly work. In the general priestly economy of God, the nature of the priest inevitably determines the nature of his priestly work (cf. Heb 7:26-28). Therefore the discussion of Melchizedek in Heb 7 commences with an explicit discussion of his titles/names. Melchizedek (Hb. malki-tsedeq) means “King of Righteousness,” and King of Salem (Hb. melek shalem) means “King of Peace.” Since “righteousness” and “peace” are qualities centered in and administered by God, the implication is that Melchizedek is none other than God Himself—yet another example of the many theophanies (preincarnational appearances of the Son of God) in the OT (though for the alternative view that Melchizedek was a type of the Messiah, see comments on Heb 7:1-10). These two titles/names are not employed for any other individual—king, priest, or otherwise—in Israel, and the two names are prophetically applied to the Messiah in His eschatological role of eternal Priest-King: “the LORD our righteousness” (’adonay [yhvh] tsidqenu) in Jr 23:6 and “Prince of Peace” (shar-shalom) in Is 9:6.

This identification of Melchizedek with God explains why Abram immediately recognized and submitted to Melchizedek’s superiority—not simply out of social respect, but as an expression of faith and worship. Abram allowed himself to be blessed (though typically “the lesser is blessed by the greater,” cf. Heb 7:7) and responded by giving Melchizedek a tenth of all (tithe), portrayed throughout the OT as a specific act of worship. The implication of Melchizedek’s deity is further seen in Heb 7 by (1) the contrast in Heb 7:8 between the receiving of tithes by the Levites, who are “mortal men,” and the receiving of tithes by Melchizedek, who “lives on” (i.e., who is immortal); and (2) the statement in Heb 7:3 that “he” (Melchizedek) “remains a priest perpetually.” If Jesus “continues [lit., abides] forever” (Hb 7:24) as high priest “according to the order of Melchizedek” (Gn 7:17)—and there can be only one high priest—how can Melchizedek of Gn 14, who we are told “remains (or abides, Gk. menei, present tense) a priest perpetually” (Hb 7:3), be anyone but Christ, the believer’s great high priest?

A small number of Jewish people, prior to the first advent of Christ and based on the Hebrew Scriptures, did in fact believe that Melchizedek was none other than God Himself, in the form of a man, who not only atones for the remnant of His people Israel, but is also the One who will execute final judgment on the wicked at the end of this age before the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth. This belief is attested by one of the DSS, dated to c. the first century BC, known as 11Q13, or 11QMelch, and referred to as Melchizedek (see Michael O. Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook, trans., The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, rev. ed. [San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005].

3. Ratifying the Covenant: God’s Compromise with Weak Faith (15:1-21)

In this chapter God affirmed, clarified, and “ratified” His promise of 12:1-3. The concept of “ratification” is an inherent part of postfall (i.e., depraved) human culture, since by definition it assumes that the word alone of the one(s) making the promise/covenant is insufficient. In ratifying the Abrahamic covenant God is not “activating” it, but rather establishing the certainty of its fulfillment in the mind of Abram. Moreover, it is designed to give further assurance to those Israelites who originally received the Torah at the end of their wilderness wanderings and were then about to embark on the conquest, that God had surely given them this land. Here, as continually throughout the history of redemption, God condescended to “meet” people in their lack of faith by doing more (or less, depending on one’s perspective) than that required by the ideal since the depraved with whom He interacts are so far from that ideal.

a. Answering Abram’s Doubt about the Son (15:1-5)

15:1-5. As in the initial expression of God’s promise in Gn 12, so too here the scene commenced immediately with God’s active expression of what He will do for Abram (and his descendants in the line of promise). And so too here, as in the latter part of chap. 12, God’s declaration of promise is followed by a clear expression of doubt on the part of Abram. In the present instance this doubt is represented by Abram’s questioning response, O Lord GOD, what will You give me, since I am childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus? By this question, Abram was, at best, seeking to “force” God’s “hand” into specifying and fulfilling His previous statement, “I will make you a great nation” (12:2). At worst he was denying that God could give him the son that he so desired, since Sarai was barren (11:30) and postmenopausal (18:13). Thus Abram’s statement in 15:2 could be understood as the despondent statement of an old man of little faith anticipating his death: “O Lord GOD, what can You give me, since I am childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” (italics added). As in chap. 12, however, God responded not with judgment, but with patience and grace, thus emphasizing the unconditional nature of His promise. Condescending to meet Abram in his lack of faith, God declared outright what His words in 12:2 logically implied, namely, that one who will come forth from your own body [lit., “inner parts”], he shall be your heir and thence Abram’s descendants would expand into a mighty nation, which God illustrated by the panoply of stars illuminating the night sky (v. 5).

b. Affirming Abram’s Imperfect Faith (15:6)

15:6. God reckoned Abram’s faith as righteousness. The Hebrew grammar indicates this verse is parenthetical—background information that Abram had previously believed God. This harmonizes with Heb 11:8, which depicts Abraham expressing saving faith previous to Gn 15, in response to God’s call to emigrate to Canaan (Gn 12:1). Abram’s faith in Gn 15 reflects his growth of faith since that call. This verse presents three facts about justification. (1) Justification is based on faith, not works, since there is nothing that Abram had ever done to earn it. This was precisely Paul’s point when he cited Gn 15:6 in Rm 4:3-5 as an example of one “who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly.” (2) The faith on which justification is based need not be perfect, since Abram’s faith in God’s promise of a genetic heir is also the very thing he continued to doubt (see, e.g., Gn 17:17). One can appreciate the value of this for all believers, for who can claim his faith is truly perfect? (3) Justification is not a matter of being “made” actually and practically righteous, but of being “declared” righteous. Genesis 15:6 does not say God “made him righteous,” but rather God reckoned it to him as righteousness. The expression “reckoned it” may also be translated “considered it” or “credited it.” While believers are still sinful, through justification, God has imputed righteousness to them. It is through sanctification that, by God’s grace, believers can overcome their sinful inclinations and grow in righteousness, a process not addressed in Gn 15:6 (for sanctification see comments on Rm 5–8, esp. Rm 6:21-23; 8:12-17).

c. Answering Abram’s Doubt about the Land (15:7-21)

15:7-21. Having assured to Abram the promise of an heir, God next affirmed His promise that Abram would possess this land (i.e., Canaan). Not unexpectedly, this prompted a new expression of doubt on the part of Abram, who responded to God’s affirmation by asking, How may I know that I will possess it? Again God responded with patience and grace. In this instance, however, since the provision in view is abstract (the right of possession/ownership) rather than material (such as an heir and descendants), God affirmed His promise and assuaged Abram’s doubt by condescending to participate in the human convention of covenant “ratification” (i.e., establishing a “binding” agreement). In this act the covenantee was “bound” to the conditions of the agreement by the blood of a sacrifice—either by walking between the bloody parts, as here, or being sprinkled by the blood, as in Ex 24:6-8, where both Israel and God (represented by the altar) were sprinkled with the sacrificial blood. In this instance, however, though God adopted the generally accepted form of ratification, He altered it slightly to conform to the unconditional nature of His promise to Abram. Thus, while Abram was waiting for God, as the superior party, to pass between the pieces, he fell into a deep sleep (induced by God), during which God passed between these pieces in the form of a smoking oven and a flaming torch (v. 17), thereby ensuring that the pieces were completely burned up in the process. When Abram awoke, he would have perceived (1) that God had passed between the pieces, and (2) that He had done so in such a way as to prevent Abram from doing so afterward. Thus the only one to whom the covenant was “bound” for its fulfillment is God, that is, the covenant was unconditional. This is also Paul’s point in his comment on this event in Gl 3:17, in which he stated that the Abrahamic covenant was “ratified by God” alone, hence justifying his designation of it as a “promise” (an unconditional covenant) rather than “the Law” (a conditional covenant).

4. Doubting God: The Fall Reprised (16:1-16)

In this section Abram’s doubt in God’s promise of an heir resurfaced, prompting the sin with Hagar. The specific pattern surrounding the temptation, sin, consequences, and divine response to Abram parallels Adam’s sin in Gn 3. This reinforces that God’s ideal purpose for humanity is refocused in Abram, and God will sovereignly ensure the success of this purpose despite Abram being tainted by depravity.

a. The Temptation (16:1-4a)

16:1-4a. Like Adam, Abram was the leader of his family. God had communicated His word directly to Abram, and therefore Abram was responsible for properly communicating this word to his family and leading them to obey it. Here as in chap. 3, the temptation to doubt and disobey God’s word was subtly set before the husband through the mediation of his wife, to whom Abram, like Adam, gave in and did what he knew was wrong. The sinfulness of Abram’s action is underscored in v. 2b by the words And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai in describing his action. God said a similar thing in His comments to Adam in 3:17, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife.”

b. The Human Consequences (16:4b-6)

16:4b-6. As in the garden, the immediate consequence of the sin was personal enmity. This enmity between Adam and Eve was expressed in their covering/hiding from each other those parts of themselves that physically reflect their deepest intimacy. In the present instance the marital enmity is expressed in v. 5, where Sarai accosted Abram for impregnating Hagar. This resulted in Sarai being despised in her [Hagar’s] sight. As in the case of Adam and Eve, the enmity resulting from sin was carried over into the relationship of the couple’s children. This also reinforces that sexual sin invariably results in personal enmity at some level.

c. The Divine Response (16:7-16)

16:7-16. As a result of the enmity between Sarai and Hagar, Sarai, who was still in the socially superior position as first wife, treated Hagar harshly, causing Hagar to flee from her presence (v. 6). Then, as in the garden following the fall, the Son of God appeared, here described for the first time as the angel [lit., “messenger”] of the LORD. He responded with patient, gentle grace, first by asking questions (Where have you come from and where are you going? v. 8) and then by issuing a pronouncement that both affirmed the consequence of sin but also established the promise of great blessing. In chap. 3 that promise of blessing is centered in the male “seed” of the woman (3:15), who will ultimately defeat the instigator of the fall and restore creation to its ideal. In chap. 16 the promise of blessing is likewise centered in the male seed (as it is lit., in v. 10, though often translated descendants) of the woman (Hagar), whom God promised to greatly multiply … so that they will be too many to count (see also 17:20).This employed the same language of blessing applied to Isaac and Israel (cf. 22:17).

The angel of the LORD said that her son Ishmael … will be a wild donkey of a man (v. 12; i.e., uncontrollable and fractious), with especial animosity (such being the sense of to the east—i.e., in rebellion/enmity) toward his brothers in the line of promise, namely, Israel (v. 12). Throughout the Bible, the Ishmaelites are represented as being in continual opposition to Israel and their assertion of ownership and dominion of the land of Israel (cf. Ps 83:2-6; Jdg 8:24).

5. Circumcision: The Sign of the Covenant (17:1-16)

In this chapter, wherein Abram still struggled with believing God’s promise of an heir from him and Sarai, God affirmed His unconditional covenant yet again, at the same time also underscoring its eternality (see vv. 7-8). He also decreed circumcision as the “sign” of this covenant, as an outward marker of those to whom the covenant is applied, and a symbol of the submission to God for which they are to strive.

a. The Effected Covenant as the Basis of the Rite (17:1-8)

17:1-8. God prefaced His establishment of the rite of circumcision by affirming again His already active and unconditional covenant with Abram. As often represented in translation, however, it would seem that God is in fact here conditioning His covenant on Abram’s obedience, for immediately after commanding him to walk before Me, and be blameless (v. 1) God stated, I will establish My covenant between Me and you (v. 2). This translation in v. 2 (as again in v. 7) in the future tense implies a sequential relationship to His previous command (walk before Me, etc.). This, in turn, leads to the deduction that establishment of the covenant depended on obedience to the previous command. Yet this future-tense translation in both vv. 2 and 7 is not the only grammatical one possible. In Hebrew this verbal form can be used to denote either present or future tenses. In light of the context, a future-tense translation clearly contradicts God’s statement in v. 4 that My covenant is with you (italics added). A future-tense translation also contradicts previous passages in Genesis that indicate that the covenant was already established, active, and ratified. In fact it was ratified and then sealed, for once a covenant “has been ratified, no one … adds conditions to it” (Gl 3:15). Furthermore, the verb rendered establish may also be translated “uphold” or “maintain.” Thus, God’s statement in vv. 2 and 7 would be better translated, “I am upholding My covenant.” Hence God’s previous command to walk before Me, and be blameless (v. 1) should not be viewed a condition to ensure that the covenant will be made, but rather as a response to the covenant having already been made.

b. Content of the Rite (17:9-16)

17:9-16. Part of the reason the Abrahamic covenant is viewed by some as conditional is the conditional language surrounding the use of the word “covenant” (berit) here in vv. 9-16 (you shall keep My covenant; he has broken My covenant). Biblical Hebrew, however, is an extremely efficient language, and so the same word can be used in different passages in somewhat different senses, determined as always by the word’s use in context. Since the unconditionality of the Abrahamic covenant has already been established, the word “covenant” in this section signifies an individual rite or obligation. This is clarified further in v. 11, in which circumcision is called the sign of the covenant that already existed between Him and His people Israel (cf. 12:1-9; 15:18-21). In this respect circumcision anticipates and parallels baptism, which as a sign of the new covenant is likewise a follow-up rite of obedience, not a precondition of entrance.

c. Abram’s Response to the Rite (17:17-27)

17:17-27. After establishing the rite of circumcision, God changed Sarai’s name to Sarah (the former possibly meaning “striver,” foreshadowing her difficulties with Hagar [16:1-6; 21:9-14], to the latter meaning “princess,” reflecting the promise that kings of peoples will come from her, vv. 15-16), even as He had earlier changed Abram’s to Abraham (“exalted father” to what sounds like “father of a multitude,” v. 5). Following this, God once again affirmed His promise to give Abraham a son by her, in response to which Abraham fell on his face (as He did in v. 3). But instead of worshiping God he laughed (v. 17, vayitschaq), asking instead that Ishmael be confirmed as his heir and inheritor of the promise. To this God responded with gentle patience and unflappable grace (a perfect Father!), declaring that it will not be Ishmael with whom He will establish (better, “maintain”) His covenant (vv. 19, 21), but rather with the son whom Sarah will bear to Abraham the following year (v. 21). God also told Abraham to name that son Isaac (v. 19, yitschaq), meaning “he laughs,” thus serving as a continual reminder to the parents, from the moment of Isaac’s birth, of their faithless response (Sarah laughed also in 18:12) to the promise that God faithfully fulfilled (the negative nuance of the laughter is also given a positive twist in 21:6). In light of these specifics, Abraham’s doubt, as in 15:4-5, is again quelled—this time more substantially since no further expression of doubt is attributed to him. For this reason, Paul wrote that Abraham did not waver but was strengthened in his faith (see Ro 4:19-20 and comments there). In marked obedience he proceeded to circumcise all the men of his household, who were born in the house or bought with money (v. 23-27).

6. An Expression of Divine Fellowship (18:1-33)

This chapter presents a beautiful picture of divine fellowship with humanity—one that shows that God’s interaction with humanity during this postfall period of corruption and sin is not only about accomplishing tasks. He goes beyond tasks such as giving revelation, making covenants, enacting judgment, but also emphasizes experiencing relationship, taking the time to relate to man even during the “downtime” or more “mundane” periods of life.

a. God Affirming His Empathy with Abraham (18:1-8)

18:1-8. One of the most frequent venues of “mundane” human life is mealtime. God’s visit in this instance is a half-day affair, beginning with His arrival when the Middle Eastern sun was at its hottest—this being the sense of the expression in the heat of the day (v. 1)—and continuing until the evening (as the process of preparing the choice calf, v. 7, would require), when the two angels then left and headed toward nearby Sodom (see 18:22 and 19:1). That Abraham immediately recognized that God Himself had come in human form to visit him is clear from his greeting in v. 3, in which he addressed him with the specific form of the Hebrew word lord reserved exclusively for God: ’adonay (as opposed to ’adonay, ending with a short vowel). Also the verbs and possessive pronouns are sg. rather than pl. (as they would be if Abraham were addressing all three visitors).

b. God Affirming His Grace toward Abraham (18:9-15)

18:9-15. While sitting over the meal (or after it) God reiterated His promise of 17:21 that He would grant Abraham a son by his wife Sarah in a year’s time (v. 10). Notably Abraham received this reiteration of God’s promise without any expression of doubt; apparently his faith was growing in concert with the anticipation of its near realization. Sarah, on the other hand, who heard this from God for the first time while listening at the tent door, responded as Abraham did in the previous chapter—with laughter (v. 12). In Sarah’s case, however, the laughter was to herself (lit., “within herself”), that is, it was internalized laughter, accompanied by the disbelief that she might still have pleasure, both she and her husband being old (lit., past childbearing, postmenopausal). In God’s response to Sarah’s disbelief, notably, He was just as gentle and patient as He was toward Abraham. As He did with Eve, so with Sarah; God was concerned foremost with her spiritual welfare and with having her confront her sin squarely. So He rephrased her faithless thought in more direct fashion: Shall I indeed bear a child, when I am so old? (v. 13). That God intended to perform a miracle by permitting Sarah to become pregnant from Abraham is evident from his following statement, Is anything too difficult for the LORD? (v. 14). The word translated difficult, which means “wonderful” is applied to God (Jdg 13:18; Is 9:6) and the divine and/or miraculous actions He performs (Ps 139:14; Is 29:14).

c. God Affirming His Justice to Abraham (18:16-33)

18:16-33. The two angels rose up and directed their attention toward Sodom (v. 16), as they prepared for their redemptive task of warning Lot and his family to flee the city before its destruction by the Lord. God then deliberated—for the benefit of the reader—whether to inform Abraham of His impending plan for Sodom, which He then did (because I have chosen him (v. 19). By this statement God was reinforcing a profound fact that likewise applies to every believer, for the verb here translated chosen literally signifies “knowing.” Hence “I have come to know him.” Throughout the OT this verb denotes the deepest or most “intimate” possible knowledge of the object in view. It usually refers to one of three types: (1) knowledge of information, usually acquired by experience; (2) one person’s thorough knowledge of another person acquired by sexual intercourse (or sodomy; cf. 19:5); and (3) God’s thorough knowledge of human individuals acquired by union with the Holy Spirit—in Jn 10:27 Jesus intended this third type of knowledge when He said, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me” (italics added). By contrast, not to be known by God leads ultimately to “perishing” (Ps 1:6) or the “second death” (Rv 20:6)—that is, being severed eternally from the experience of His love.

Continuing this theme of the difference between how God treats those whom He knows and those whom He does not, Abraham stated that the LORD will not sweep away … the righteous (v. 23; i.e., those who are reckoned righteous) of Sodom along with the wicked (v. 23), and that as Judge of all the earth He is expected to deal justly (v. 25). In his theological naivete Abraham was in fact merging two distinct expectations: (1) that God acts justly by treating the (reckoned) righteous differently from the wicked and (2) that He acts mercifully by not executing Sodom’s just punishment in consideration of the few righteous ones in the city. In adhering to perfect justice God is not obligated to spare the righteous from the consequences of life in a corrupt and fallen world. But He is obligated to mete out justice when judgment is to be passed, at the resurrection of the dead, when some (the reckoned righteous) will be acquitted and experience “everlasting life” and others (the wicked) will be condemned and experience “everlasting contempt” (Dn 12:2; Rv 20:4-15). However, because Abraham was still little more than an “infant” in faith, God demonstrated His justice (in combination with mercy) prior to the point of proper final judgment so as to visibly instruct Abraham in these essential divine attributes.

7. A Paradigm of Corporate Judgment (19:1-29)

a. Cause of Judgment (19:1-11)

19:1-11. When the two angels arrived in Sodom (v. 1), they were immediately spotted by Lot, who was sitting in the gate of the city. He graciously invited them to spend the night as guests in his house (v. 2). In contrast to Lot’s hospitality, when the other men of the city … both young and old hear of the strangers’ arrival, they surrounded Lot’s house and demanded that he bring them out so that they might have relations with them (vv. 4-5) (lit., “that we might know them,” referring to sexual knowledge). From this incident derives the term sodomy.

Some modern proponents of homosexuality have argued that the word “know” as used here means “getting acquainted,” as in Middle Eastern hospitality, or in the sense of interrogating the angels to see if they were spies. Thus, they argue this is not a reference to homosexual behavior and the sin of Sodom was merely inhospitality. However, although the word “know” could mean “get acquainted,” in this context it is clearly a reference to sexual behavior. First, the word “know” is frequently used in Genesis for sexual behavior (4:1, 17, 25; 24:16; 38:26). Second, the context indicates that this is sexual behavior or else Lot would not have offered his daughters as an alternative. Furthermore, Lot describes them as not yet having “known a man” (lit., Hb. translation, v. 8), clearly using the word with a sexual meaning. Finally, in the NT, Jdg 7 says that the sin of Sodom was “gross immorality” and pursuing “strange flesh,” demonstrating that the sin was sexual, not a lack of hospitality.

This concerted, perverse desire on the part of the Sodomites clearly bears out why God decided to destroy them. In somewhat perplexing fashion, however, Lot sought to protect his two guests by offering his two virgin daughters instead to the rapacious mob (v. 8)!

All the more astonishing in light of this offer is Peter’s reference in 2Pt 2:7-8 to “righteous Lot …” who “felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their [i.e., the Sodomites’] lawless deeds” (italics added). As with Abraham in 15:6 the emphasis is on Lot’s being reckoned righteous—that is, the righteousness that God credited to him by virtue of his faith aside from any works, imperfect though that faith and his consequent behavior may have been. Abraham’s “reckoned” righteousness was both preceded (chap. 12) and followed (chap. 20) by his own intentional “handing over” of a female family member (his wife Sarai/Sarah) for what inevitably resulted in the commission of sexual sin.

b. Distinction of Judgment (19:12-22)

19:12-22. The two angels carried out their mission by warning Lot to flee the city and bring out with him his son-in-law, sons, daughters, and whomever else was part of his household (vv. 12-16). The term sons-in-law (v. 14) is applied here to the men living in Sodom who were to marry Lot’s two daughters, that is, the men who were betrothed to his daughters, for whom the marriage was yet to be completed. This reflects an approach to marriage consistently applied within Israel throughout the biblical period and even up to the present day in many strictly traditional Jewish societies, specifically that the marriage “begins” with the betrothal and is “completed” a year later with the ceremony and consummation. Hence, the marriage effectively begins with the betrothal, the process—even if not yet consummated—and can only be annulled by a writ of divorce. This shows why Joseph thought of “divorcing” Mary even though they were still in their betrothal period (see comments on Mt 1:18-20). In any event, all the males connected with Lot’s household rejected his appeal, thinking he was jesting. However, Lot’s wife and his two daughters fled with him. This was not necessarily because they believed him or desired to leave Sodom any more than the men did, but because in His compassion the LORD had the two angels seize them by their hands and force them out of the city.

c. Purpose of Judgment (19:23-29)

19:23-29. When exhorting Lot and his family to leave Sodom, the two angels had specifically stated that they were not to look behind them (v. 17), yet this is precisely what Lot’s wife did. As a result she became a pillar of salt. Why this happened was not simply because of her action of looking, but rather (consistent with the principle already established in 4:3-5 and 6:5) because of the heart attitude and spiritual allegiance that prompted her to “look back.” The Hebrew verb employed by the angels in their warning and in the statement afterward that Lot’s wife looked back (vathabbet) is not the usual verb employed to denote the action of looking or seeing, but is a less frequent verb that carries the specific idea of looking at something with desire, approval, or confidence (Ps 119:6; Is 66:2; Am 5:22; Zch 12:10). Abraham himself looked at the destruction, yet he did not become a pillar of salt (v. 28). Here the more common verb was used, the verb that indicates that the “looking” was no more than an action (although prompted, no doubt, by concern for Lot and his family), not the type of “looking” expressed by Lot’s wife. On the significance of both the permanent nature of God’s judgment (i.e., by brimstone) as well as its broad scope (i.e., all the valley … and what grew on the ground, v. 25), see 13:10 and comments on 13:1-18.

8. Persistence of Sin (19:30–20:18)

a. Struggles of Lot’s Household (19:30-38)

19:30-38. This passage vividly—and tragically—illustrates the potential danger of surrounding oneself with wicked society. Lot’s two daughters had been born and reared in Sodom, as may be inferred from the fact that they were marriageable virgins (19:8, 14), which in the Bible typically applies to women in their early teens, whereas Lot had by this point been living in Sodom for about 25 years. Lot had moved there when Abram was about 75 years old (12:4; 13:10), whereas Abraham was now 99 (17:1, 21; 18:10). Of course, simply living in a wicked society does not inevitably mean that one’s children will turn out “bad.” Isaac, for example, who grew up in a land filled with Canaanites, turned out quite good. The problem lies in the degree to which the family unit itself, the parents in particular, assimilates to the surrounding culture, which will impact the children’s spiritual and moral development. In this instance it is borne out by the logical implication that Lot’s wife, the mother of their daughters, was herself from Sodom. This would explain not only why she is mentioned in this chapter for the first time, but also why she “looked back” toward Sodom (v. 26), longing for what she did not want to leave. Also, since their husbands-to-be were destroyed along with Sodom, and in the absence of any other prospects, Lot’s daughters—being “children” of Sodom in the moral-spiritual as well as natal-cultural sense—made their father drink wine (i.e., they got him drunk) and lay with him (vv. 33-35) The resulting conceptions and births of the sons Moab and Ben-ammi continue the tragic paradigm begun with Hagar and Ishmael, namely, the commission of sexual sin in the patriarchal family, which ultimately resulted in the existence of another ethnic group at enmity with Israel, in this case the Moabites and the sons of Ammon (the Ammonites; vv. 37-38). Later, Moab sought to have Balaam curse Israel (Nm 22–24), and the Ammonites were at war with Israel at various times during the period of the judges and the monarchy (Jdg 3:12-30; 10:6-18; 1Ch 19).

b. Struggles of Abraham’s Household (20:1-16)

20:1-16. During his sojourn in the land of Gerar, located in the Negev of southern Israel, Abraham embarked on the same “chain of sin” previously described in 12:10-20 during his sojourn in Egypt. In contrast to this previous episode, however, in which the text occupies four vv. on Abraham’s sinful motives (fear of famine, fear of death), in the present instance Abraham simply said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister (v. 2). Though the same lack of faith was undoubtedly motivating Abraham to lie again about his relationship, the narrative focuses in this instance on the response to Abraham’s sin—and inevitably therefore on the contrast between Abraham’s response and that of Abimelech. This then underscores God’s grace and faithfulness in upholding His covenant with Abraham (whereas the focus on Abraham’s depraved motives in chap. 12 underscores God’s grace in establishing His covenant). Abimelech, king of the Philistines (see 26:1), conducted himself throughout this episode in blameless fashion, as he explicitly affirms to God who came to him in a dream and revealed to him that Sarah was married (v. 3). Indeed, as a result of Abimelech’s integrity and innocence in this matter God kept him from sinning, that is, from going through with the marriage and thus unwittingly committing the sin of adultery. Although a pagan, Abimelech would likely have included the God of Abraham in his panoply of gods. Moreover, like the pagan sailors in the story of Jonah (Jnh 1:10-16), in this instance he demonstrated more righteous behavior than the follower of the one true God.

In a clear demonstration of both subservience to and respect for the God of Abraham, Abimelech arose early the next morning, taking the first opportunity to “right” the situation by summoning Abraham and confronting him with his sin (v. 9-10). In contrast to Abimelech’s behavior Abraham refused to acknowledge his lie, seeking instead to excuse himself for two reasons that are (at best) only “half-truths” themselves, namely: (1) because he thought … there was no fear of God among the Philistines of Gerar (v. 11)—which Abimelech’s behavior had clearly disproven; and (2) because Sarah actually was Abraham’s sister (i.e., half sister) by the same father (v. 12) (However, this can hardly be claimed as a justifiable interpretation of a man introducing his wife as his “sister”!). To Abimelech’s credit—and as an undoubted example to the reader—he did not press the matter, but rather, having done his part in confronting the sinner with his sin, he left the hoped-for conviction and repentance of Abraham as something to be worked about between the sojourner and his God. In fact Abimelech even went beyond what anyone could justly ask of him and freely gave a thousand pieces of silver to Abraham as a public vindication of Sarah’s purity (v. 16). And who can blame Abimelech for giving vent to a slight bit of sarcasm when he told Sarah that he gave this money not to her husband but to her brother!

c. God’s Faithfulness and Grace in Sanctification (20:17-18)

20:17-18. Notwithstanding Abraham’s lack of repentance and generally unfaithful behavior, God demonstrated His own abiding and undiminished faithfulness by affirming His relationship with Abraham and underscoring the latter’s role as “a prophet” (v. 7), a spokesman to God on behalf of others (even in the midst of his sin!). As a prophet he prayed for Abimelech’s healing and the opening of all the wombs of the women of his household. The unconditional nature of God’s covenant with Abraham is vividly borne out by God afflicting Abimelech and closing the wombs of his women in the first place, all for a sin that they had unwittingly (almost) committed against the object of God’s parental love! For better or for worse God had made His commitment and would adhere to it, protecting and preserving His children for the sake of both His name as well as their ultimate recognition of His love (Dn 9:18-19; Mal 1:5).

9. Sovereignty of God in Blessing (21:1-34)

a. God’s Sovereignty in Blessing Abraham and Sarah (21:1-8)

21:1-8. Despite the relative absence of any merit on Abraham’s part, God did for Sarah as He had promised (v. 1; see 17:16, 21; 18:10, 14) and miraculously (since she was postmenopausal; see 18:11) enabled her to conceive and bear a son. As God had commanded him in 17:19, Abraham named his son Isaac (yitschaq), meaning “he laughs/will laugh,” thus serving as a continual reminder to his parents of their faithless reaction to God’s (ultimately) faithfully fulfilled promise (see 17:17; 18:12). At the same time—illustrating how God is able to “turn to good account” anything that sin or doubt has corrupted (cf. Rom 8:28)—Sarah highlighted the newly realized significance of Isaac’s name as direct testimony to the experience of God’s blessing by declaring, in a clearly intentional play on the name “Isaac” (yitschaq), everyone who hears will laugh [yitschaq] with me (v. 6), that is, they will laugh out of joy with her at the miracle of Isaac’s birth.

b. God’s Sovereignty in Blessing Hagar and Sarah (21:9-21)

21:9-14. Following Isaac’s weaning (v. 8), when he would have begun to “step out” from under the direct supervision of his mother, the enmity that God had declared would exist between the promised son and Ishmael (see 16:12) inevitably began to materialize. Thus Ishmael would have been around 16 or 17 years old at this point. He was 13 a year before Isaac’s birth (17:21, 27), with the weaning lasting for two or three years (1Sm 1:22-24; 2:11; 2 Macc 7:27; and in the Talmud in b. Ketub. 60b; b. Yebam. 43a). Ishmael acted in a mocking manner toward his younger brother. The word mocking is a deliberate example of wordplay, being identical to the name Isaac (“laughter”) but used here in the negative sense of mockery. Furthermore, some ancient rabbis noted something more sinister than mere sibling teasing, rather identifying a variety of evil actions. The ancient Jewish commentary, called the Midrash (cf. Gen. Rab. 53:11) notes that in addition to mockery (Pr 22:18), the word was associated with sexual immorality (Gn 39:17), idolatry (Ex 32:6), and attempted murder (2Sm 2:14). Although no conclusive meaning is offered, the Midrash does accurately demonstrate that Ishmael was likely not engaged in innocent play. The strife between brothers in this passage reflects a common theme in Genesis (see comments on 4:8).

The matter, once known, brought distress to everyone in the family (another reminder of the consequences of sin and not waiting on God): to Isaac, as the object of Ishmael’s mocking; to Sarah, who observed and fretted over Isaac’s maltreatment; to Abraham, in whose eyes the matter distressed him greatly; and to Hagar and Ishmael, who were ultimately sent … away from Abraham’s household for good and wandered about in the wilderness of Beersheba (v. 14). The expulsion of Ishmael distressed Abraham in particular because he loved Ishmael as was evident in his desire for him to be the heir of the promise (Gn 18:18) and his continuing desire to protect Ishmael as his son (21:11). Thus, it is a true act of sacrifice for Abraham to expel Hagar and Ishmael. Nevertheless, in comforting Abraham God assured him that He would act according to His own sovereignty—in determining that Isaac would be the heir to the Abrahamic promise and that Ishmael would become the father of a great nation (21:12-13).

21:15-21. When the water of Hagar and her son was used up and they resigned themselves to death in the desert, God sovereignly and graciously (being under no covenant obligation to them) attended to their needs by providing a well of water and reiterating His unconditional blessing to make a great nation of Ishmael (vv. 15-19; see 16:10). There is no textual indication as to whether the angel of God who called to Hagar was a theophany (as in 18:1-8). Significantly, the word for God is Elohim, reflecting His power but not His covenantal, relational name Yahweh. As with Isaac in the previous section, God’s blessing in this instance is also underscored by a play on the son’s name. The Hebrew for Ishmael is yishma‘el, which introduces God’s active involvement in v. 17, that is, And God heard (vayishma‘ ’elohim)—while at the same time hearkening back to God’s earlier, identical provision for Hagar and Ishmael in 16:7-11.

c. God’s Sovereignty in Blessing Abimelech and His People (21:22-34)

21:22-34. In anticipation—and as a reminder—of His ultimate goal of extending blessing (i.e., the blessing of knowing Him) more broadly among the Gentiles (12:3), God here prompted Abimelech, along with Phicol, the commander of his army, to make an oath of peace with Abraham on behalf of their people (the Philistines; vv. 22-24; cf. 26:1). This is especially significant when one considers that Abraham himself perversely misrepresented how a believer in the one true God should behave toward others, having gravely offended and sinned against Abimelech in the previous chapter. Yet contrary to human expectation Abimelech was drawn—not to Abraham—but to the God of Abraham, whom he affirmed was with Abraham in all that he did (v. 22). This affirmation indicates the beginning process of evangelism, that is, a budding awareness on the part of the Gentile king that Abraham’s God, Yahweh, is indeed the one and only true God to whom he was obligated to submit. This is seen when comparing the statement of Abimelech and Phicol in v. 22 to their statement to Isaac in 26:28, in which they employed the covenant name of God. The oath of peace between Abimelech (and his people) and Abraham was then sealed by the transfer to Abimelech of sheep and oxen (v. 27). The Hebrew is not clear as to whether the seven ewe lambs (v. 28) were part of the gift mentioned in v. 27 or an additional gift. The significance of seven in Hebrew thought was completion—hence indicating the “completion,” or “sealing,” of the oath. The Hebrew word for “seven” and “oath,” in fact, is the same (sheva‘), as reflected in the name of the well (and eventually the town) over which the oath was made—i.e., Beersheba (be’er sheva‘), which bears the complementary (not contradictory) meanings, “Well of the Oath” and “Well of the Seven.” That Abraham alone gave gifts and not Abimelech suggests that Abraham was the supplicant in this treaty. Moreover, the entire narrative portrays Abraham as dwelling in Philistine land and therefore still awaiting the fulfillment of God’s promises. The writer of Hebrews reflects this perspective, writing that Abraham “lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign land …” even as “strangers and exiles on the earth” (Heb 11:8-13).

10. The Pinnacle of Abraham’s Faith (22:1-19)

The significance of this chapter is twofold. On the one hand, it gives an exemplary paradigm of faith—both Isaac’s faith as well as Abraham’s—at its strongest, and shows how the strength of true faith will inevitably find expression in outer action. On the other hand, the chapter presents one of the most vivid types (prophetic-symbol patterns) of the Messiah to be found anywhere in the OT. In fact this is the only episode identified in the NT as a type of Christ in both His death and resurrection (Heb 11:17-19). Even in long-standing Jewish tradition—which precludes any specifically Christological significance—the general spiritual-redemptive symbolism of this chapter is reflected in the practice of reading this chapter on the second day of Rosh Hashanah (the New Year festival), which commences the ten-day period of “awe and repentance,” culminating in the Day of Atonement. The reason is that, in Jewish thought, Abraham’s binding of Isaac became the supreme example of faithful obedience and self-sacrifice to God. Thus, Abraham’s sacrifice is recalled in the Remembrance prayers of the Rosh Hashanah liturgy, asking God to “consider the binding with which Abraham our father bound his son Isaac on the altar, how he suppressed his compassion in order to perform Thy will with a perfect heart. So may Thy compassion overbear Thine anger against us; in Thy great goodness may Thy great wrath turn aside from Thy people” (Louis Jacobs, “Akedah” in Encyclopaedia Judaica, ed. Cecil Roth [Jerusalem: Keter Publishing, 1971], 2:480–81).

a. God’s Call to Faith (22:1-2)

22:1-2. In response to God’s call Abraham stated simply, Here I am (v. 1), indicating not simply that he was present, but more importantly that he was available, ready and willing to undertake whatever task God might assign to him. Others too affirmed their unconditional obedience, in each case expressed by the same simple statement, “Here I am” or “Here am I. Send me!” These include Jacob (46:2), Moses (Ex 3:4), Samuel (1Sm 3:4), and Isaiah (Is 6:8). And in each case the content of God’s call or commission was revealed only after the individual had expressed his readiness to serve. Though this might seem a sharp change in Abraham’s spiritual “fiber” as otherwise attested in the fiasco of chap. 20, we should recall that at least 13 years had passed between the present episode and the birth of Isaac in the previous chapter. During this period Abraham had ample time to reflect on God’s omnipotence, faithfulness, and grace—all turning on His fulfillment of the pivotal promise of an heir—with the result that he now moved substantially forward in aligning his thoughts and actions with the righteousness that was long ago already reckoned as his (Gn 15:6).

The typology of this chapter, though culminating in the binding and imminent sacrifice of Isaac, begins in v. 2, and is centered in the epithets applied to Isaac, each one of which is likewise applied to Christ. Thus Jesus, like Isaac, is described as a son, and the Father willingly sacrificed him (Is 53:10; Jn 3:16; Ac 2:23). Isaac is described as Abraham’s only son, but the Hebrew yachid should be translated “unique.” (Also “only” is not a suitable translation because Ishmael also was a son of Abraham.) Similarly the Messiah is called the monogenes Son (Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1Jn 4:9). Though incorrectly translated as “only begotten,” this word too has the sense of “unique” when applied to the Messiah. Just as Isaac was the object of his father’s love, so too Jesus is described as the object of His Father’s love (Mt 3:17; Lk 3:22). Also the name Isaac, like the name Jesus, was chosen by God and not the parents (Gn 17:19; Mt 1:21). This too was an extremely rare occurrence in Scripture. Thus, the collective force of these parallels establishes the typological link between Isaac and the Messiah.

b. Abraham’s Expression of Faith (22:3-9)

22:3-5. Abraham arrived at the place of sacrifice on the third day (v. 4), the messianic significance being that this was not only the day on which he prepared to offer Isaac as a sacrifice but also the day on which “he also received him back as a type” (Heb 11:19), that is, as a type of the One who was likewise received back “on the third day” (Ac 10:40) as “the first fruits of those who are asleep” (1Co 15:20). Abraham’s strong faith is noted in Heb 11:19 in that “he considered that God is able to raise [Isaac] even from the dead.” So Abraham told his young men (i.e., servants, v. 5) that he and Isaac would go up the mountain to worship and then return (both verbs in Hb. are pl.). For this to happen, God had to be able not only to resurrect Isaac from the dead, but also to reconstitute him from the ashes of being offered as a burnt offering. The basis for Abraham’s faith was God’s unconditional promise in the immediately preceding chapter that “through Isaac your descendants shall be named” (21:12; cf. Heb 11:18). Since Isaac was not yet married, this could not happen if he remained dead.

22:6-9. Isaac had not yet been told what would happen, as is evident from his question, Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb … ? (v. 7). How difficult it must have been for Abraham to talk about (let alone undertake) what God had asked of him. Yet in response to Isaac’s question Abraham stated with confident faith God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son (v. 8). However, this translation contradicts the expectation that God would resurrect Isaac, which later is clearly the correct expectation in view of God’s command that Isaac be offered “as a burnt offering” (v. 2), as well as the interpretation of this event given in Heb 11:19. The alternative explanation that Abraham is simply telling a “white lie” to Isaac, in order not to make him anxious, is also insufficient, since (1) lying is lying, and such a sin in the context of the present narrative exemplar of strong faith is incongruent, and (2) if this was what Abraham meant (and what Isaac understood), it is certainly surprising that Isaac did not ask where the lamb was when he was being tied to the altar. Actually Abraham was not referring to the future provision of a lamb at all. Keeping in mind that the same Hebrew verb form is used for the present as well as future tenses (see comments on 17:1-8), Abraham’s answer may be literally rendered, “God is providing the lamb.” This translation resolves any contradiction, for it is therefore to Isaac that Abraham was referring, that is, Isaac was the “lamb” God was providing. This understanding of Abraham’s response further underscores the typological significance of this event by presenting yet another linkage between Isaac and Jesus, namely, the description of both as a lamb specifically provided by God (Jn 1:29; 1Co 5:7). Also of significance is that Isaac, like Jesus, was not forced to be a sacrifice. Just as Isaac was a willing sacrifice, so the Lord Jesus willingly undertook this role as placed on him by his Father (Mk 10:45; Jn 10:18). Isaac was strong enough to carry the necessary amount of wood that would be used to consume him as a burnt offering (another typological connection to the wooden cross borne by Jesus), so he was strong enough to refuse being bound if he were so inclined. Also the verb translated provide in vv. 8 and 14 is the same verb meaning “to see” (r-’-h) that typically denotes God’s assessment and/or provision of what is always best.

c. The Angel’s Affirmation of Faith (22:10-19)

22:10-12. Having taken the knife in hand to slay his son (v. 10), and thus having psychologically passed the test of obeying God’s command (this is the point of Heb 11:17-19), the angel of the LORD (i.e., a preincarnate appearance of the Son of God) called out to Abraham to stop. This affirmed his mature faith (I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son … from Me, vv. 11-12). That is not to say that the omniscient God did not know that Abraham feared Him. Rather, God’s foreknowledge became actualized. As the medieval rabbinic theologian Nachmanides said, “At the beginning Abraham’s fear of God was latent; it had not become actualized through such a great deed, but now it was known [by God] in actuality …” (Ramban–Nachmanides, “Bereishis, Genesis Part 1” in Commentary on the Torah, vol. 1, ed. R. Yaakov Blinder [Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications, 2004], 503).

22:13-14. And the angel then provided a ram to be sacrificed in the place of his son (v. 13). As a result Abraham named that place The LORD Will Provide (v. 14). This phrase, for the same reason noted in the previous section, should properly be translated in the present tense, as a proverbial statement of general truth: “The LORD Provides” (lit., “The LORD sees”). This refers not just to what God will do but also to what He has just done and what He does generally. In the second part of v. 14 a later biblical editor, writing under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit before the close of the OT canon, inserted the comment it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it will be [or, is] provided. “The mount of the LORD” is Mount Moriah and this very mountain, where these events occurred, would later become the temple mount (22:2; 2Ch 3:1; Is 2:2). The offering on Mount Moriah is a vivid “shadow” of God the Father’s “provision” of the one and only sacrifice that could ever take away sin: the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus the Messiah, the “seed” of Abraham (v. 18), who offered His blood on the heavenly altar, “one sacrifice for sins for all time” (Heb 10:12).

22:15-19. As a result of Abraham’s faith, God reaffirmed the Abrahamic covenant, promising to bless Abraham and greatly multiply [his] seed (v. 17a). In this sentence, Abraham’s seed is obviously to be taken in a collective sense, since they will be as numerous as the stars of the heavens and as the sand … on the seashore. Then, God promised that Abraham’s seed shall possess the gate of their [lit., “his”] enemies, and in that seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed (vv. 17b-18). This usage of “seed” appears to refer to an individual who will bless the whole world. This is evident in that the pronoun referring back to that seed is singular (lit., “shall possess the gate of his enemies,” italics added). T. D. Alexander has correctly proposed that this reflects an oscillation from a collective use of the word “seed” in v. 17a to an individual sense in vv. 17b-18. His point is that although 22:17a uses “seed” in the collective sense, a new sentence begins in 22:17b (without a vav consecutive, typically used in Hebrew for a continuation of thought but instead here with a simple imperfect verb indicating the beginning of a completely new thought). This new sentence makes it likely that the word “seed” is being used in a new, individual sense. The significance of this is that this oracle looks forward to one particular descendant of Abraham who will rule over His enemies and bless the world. (T. Desmond Alexander, “Further Observations on the Term ‘Seed’ in Genesis,” Tyndale Bulletin 48, no. 2 [1997]: 363-67). Paul recognized that this individual seed was a reference to the Messiah and fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth (Gl 3:8, 16).

11. Family Matters (22:20–23:20)

a. Keeping Up with the Relatives (22:20-24)

22:20-24. This brief record of what was told to Abraham about the children born to his brother Nahor, and specifically the reference to Nahor’s granddaughter Rebekah, serves as a link between the previous Abrahamic narratives and what follows. Thematically, since Rebekah was the only female descendant mentioned in this brief genealogy, it anticipated the death of Sarah in the next chapter and ensures a “gapless” transition to the next matriarch and thus the continuation of the descendants of Abraham and the safeguarding of the continued viability of the Abrahamic covenant. Theologically it anticipates Abraham’s righteous desire not to find a wife for Isaac from among “the daughters of the Canaanites” (24:3; see v. 4), which in turn establishes the principle of not being spiritually “unequally yoked” as legislated in the Mosaic law (Dt 7:3-4; and see Ezr 9:1-2; Neh 13:27) and reiterated in the NT (1Co 7:39; 1Pt 3:7; cf. 2Co 6:14).

b. Mourning Sarah (23:1-2)

23:1-2. After living one hundred and twenty-seven years … Sarah died in the city of Kiriath-arba, so-named after Arba, the father of Anak (Jos 14:15; 21:11). To clarify the location of this city, which is about 19 miles (30.5 km) southwest of Jerusalem, a later editor has inserted the clarification, that is, Hebron, the name by which the city was generally known to the Israelites. This is also the burial site of Abraham (25:9), so this city has special significance for the Jewish people. It is also the burial site of Sarah (23:19), Isaac (39:29), Rebekah, Leah, and Jacob (49:31; 50:13; Ac 7:16), and is also the city from which David ruled for seven and a half years over Judah before being recognized as king by all twelve tribes (see 2Sm 5:3-5).

c. Purchasing the Family Burial Plot (23:3-20)

23:3-20. The rest of this chapter is devoted to a detailed—and at points even quite legally worded (esp. vv. 16-20)—description of the transaction by which Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah (as a burial site for Sarah) and the surrounding field from Ephron the Hittite (vv. 9-10, 20). Why the narrative devotes almost an entire chapter to this transaction may seem puzzling since God had already deeded over to Abraham and his descendants the entire land of Canaan, including specifically the land of “the Hittite” (15:20). Considering Abraham’s military prowess (see 14:14-16 and the comments on 14:1-16), he could simply (and justly) have taken the land by force. Had he done this, however, the sanctity and integrity of Sarah’s burial site would almost certainly not have been respected by the other inhabitants of the land. In this chapter Abraham is thus an example of a believer living among and interacting with unbelievers who, by definition, do not share his faith presuppositions or worldview. Because Abraham realized that the Hittites did not recognize his divine right to the land, he did what was necessary to ensure that his possession of the land would be respected by going through the culturally accepted process of commercial transaction.

12. Finding Rebekah in Mesopotamia (24:1-67)

a. Abraham’s Petition (24:1-9)

24:1-9. True to His promise of 12:2, the LORD had blessed Abraham in every way (v. 1). So, as Abraham drew nearer to the end of his life, he focused on accomplishing the one remaining task to ensure that the patriarchal “torch” would be passed on: finding a wife for Isaac. He charged his servant (in all likelihood his personal servant Eliezer of Damascus; see 15:2) not [to] take a wife for Isaac from the daughters of the Canaanites (v. 3), but rather from a family he knew had some predilection for the one true God, that is, his father’s house in Mesopotamia (v. 4). Abraham’s faith in the Lord is also seen in his statement to his servant that the choice of a proper wife did not depend on him, but rather on God who will send His angel before the servant (v. 7). In contrast to his spiritually immature leaving of the promised land to go to Egypt (12:10), Abraham here refused either to leave the land himself or to allow Isaac to leave. His reason was that the LORD … took him from the land of his birth to bring him into this land which was his and his descendants’ by divine right. To leave Canaan would be to express a lack of faith in God’s ability to provide. The servant swore to keep the charge of his master by plac[ing] his hand under the thigh of his master (v. 9). This was likely an ancient Near Eastern method of oath taking, similar to today’s practice of raising the right hand.

b. God’s Answer (24:10-49)

24:10-49. When the servant arrived at the well of water just outside the city of Nahor (v. 10), where Abraham’s relatives lived, he asked the Lord to grant him success in finding the right wife for Isaac. The servant proposed a rather specific “test,” that the appointed woman be the one who responded to his request for water by offering not only to give him a drink, but also of her own accord to water his camels. The servant had with him ten camels (v. 10), and the typical one-humped camel (Camelus dromedarius) found throughout the Middle East can drink between 25 and 40 gallons (100-150 liters) in one drink! After the servant turned directly to the Lord for help, the chosen woman made her appearance even before he had finished speaking (v. 15). This vividly illustrates the crucial point that God “knows what you need before you ask Him” (Mt 6:8). While Rebekah, described as a girl (v. 17; na‘arah generally denotes an adolescent), ran back and forth with her jar from the well to the trough as she drew water for all his camels (Gn 24:19-20) … the man was gazing at her in silence, to know whether the LORD had made his journey successful or not (v. 21). Apparently the answer to his prayer had come so quickly, he needed a little time to process what was happening. Eventually, of course, he did perceive the clear answer to his prayer, and he responded in proper fashion with deep thanksgiving: then the man bowed low and worshiped the LORD (vv. 26-27). Rebekah then ran home and told her family about these things. Rebekah’s brother Laban then ran back to the spring and took the servant to their house, where the servant related everything to Laban and her father Bethuel, emphasizing the sovereign role of the LORD, the God of his master Abraham throughout the matter (vv. 33-49).

c. The People’s Response (24:50-67)

24:50-67. Laban and Bethuel[’s] response to the servant’s account of his mission (The matter comes from the LORD; so we cannot speak to you bad or good [v. 50]) was noncommittal. One must be careful not to infer from their affirmation of Yahweh’s existence (The matter comes from the LORD) and even involvement in the matter that they are committed to Him as their God. The recognition of other peoples’ god(s) was common throughout the Bible. Were He truly their God, they would certainly have spoken “good”—i.e., responded in the affirmative that Rebekah was God’s choice. As it was, Laban and Bethuel were not opposed to the marriage (Isaac was, after all, a rather wealthy relative), and they initially acquiesced to the marriage, telling the servant to take her and go (v. 51). They apparently had second thoughts, however (vv. 55-56), and—probably hoping to reverse their acquiescence in “face-saving” fashion—they undertook the rather unusual move of summoning Rebekah to consult her wishes in the matter (vv. 57-58). She again demonstrated her exemplary character (and the propriety of God’s choice) by stating simply, I will go (v. 58). This response indicates not just a willingness to recommit socially and geographically, but also theologically (to belief in Yahweh), as borne out both by her later actions (25:22) and that the very phrase I will go (’elek) likewise later expressed the recommitment of Ruth (Ru 1:16) to Naomi and her God. The servant then took her back to Isaac (vv. 61-66), who took her as his wife, and he loved her (v. 67).

The author records the blessing of Rebekah as a continuation of the theme of the “seed” begun in Gn 3:15. Just as the seed of the woman will crush the head of the serpent (3:15), so the seed of Abraham will rule over the gate of his enemies and bless all nations (22:17b-18). Here Rebekah’s “seed” (mistranslated in v. 60 by the NASB as descendants) will one day possess the gate of those who hate Him (the Hb. uses the singular pronoun “Him,” mistranslated as them in the NASB). Genesis deliberately shows the progress of that one special offspring, the Messiah, who will have dominion over His enemies and bless the world.

13. Transferring the Torch to Isaac (25:1-11)

a. Abraham’s Affirmation of Isaac (25:1-6)

25:1-6. After Sarah’s death Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah (v. 1), by whom he had six sons (vv. 2-4)—among them the ancestor of another future nation inimical to Israel, namely, Midian (cf. Nm 31 and Jdg 6). Though Abraham undoubtedly loved all these sons—as also the sons of his concubines—and gave them gifts (v. 6), he affirmed that Isaac was the heir of all that he had (v. 5).

b. Isaac and Ishmael’s Burial of Abraham (25:7-10)

25:7-10. When Abraham died at the age of one hundred and seventy-five … Isaac and Ishmael, though estranged (16:12; 21:21; 25:18), came together in peace to bury their father alongside Sarah in the cave of Machpelah. This demonstrates that, at certain times, Ishmael acted contrary to his character (see 16:12). Moreover, it appears that Ishmael ultimately was able to reconcile himself to Isaac’s status as heir to Abraham.

c. God’s Affirmation of Isaac (25:11)

25:11. Isaac’s assumption of the patriarchal role—not only as the leader of his father’s household, but also as the mediator of God’s unconditional promise (the Abrahamic covenant)—is here (as expected) affirmed by God, as indicated by the statement that after the death of Abraham … God blessed his son Isaac. This covenantal allusion to the language of 12:2 and 24:1 is further crystallized in 26:3-4, where God explicitly affirmed the application to Isaac (and his descendants in the line of promise) of all three provisions of the covenant (land—a defined location, the land of Israel, 12:1; seed—a distinct people, 12:2; and blessing—an authoritative moral standard, 12:3) as first expressed to Abraham in 12:1-3. The delineation of the promise through Isaac is also explicitly highlighted in several other Bible books (e.g., 1Ch 16:16; Ps 105:9; Rm 9:7; and Heb 11:18).

B. Descendants of Ishmael: A Locus of Conflict with God’s People (25:12-18)

25:12-18. Although the Abrahamic promise—and hence the central narrative focus on the “path of redemption”—continues through Isaac, this brief presentation of the genealogy of Ishmael serves several important purposes. (1) It bears out the fulfillment of God’s blessing of Ishmael, in which God had promised to make him the father of twelve princes (v. 16), to “multiply him exceedingly” and “make him a great nation” (cf. 17:20; see also 16:10; 21:13). (2) The concluding statement that Ishmael settled in defiance of all his relatives (v. 18) shows that despite uniting with Isaac to bury their father, the enmity that God had decreed would be instigated and perpetuated by Ishmael and his descendants toward “everyone” generally and “his brothers” in particular (see comments on 16:12) did indeed come to pass. (3) Perhaps this genealogy of Ishmael establishes the connection between Ishmael and his twelve sons with the Arabs of later biblical and postbiblical history. Some scholars have denied this connection, noting that Genesis includes nothing to link Ishmael to the Arab peoples and that it is the Qur’an that makes this association—not the Bible. However, possible biblical evidence for associating Ishmael with the Arabs is that Ishmael’s second eldest son Kedar is identified with “Arabia” in Is 21:13-17 and Ezk 27:21. Other evidence to associate Ishmael with the Arab peoples is historical, with “Geshem the Arab” of Neh 6:1 being possibly mentioned in a fifth-century BC inscription as “king of Kedar,” linking the Arabs with the second eldest son of Ishmael. Also Arabs, since the rise of Islam in the seventh century (2,700 years after Abraham) have maintained their descent from Ishmael, and Jewish and Christian tradition has generally accepted this.

C. Descendants of Isaac: Learning to Wait on God (25:19–35:29)

A new narrative “cycle” is introduced in 25:19, like every major narrative section in Genesis (except the first, the beginning of which is obvious), by the expression these are … the generations of (e.g., 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:27; 25:19; 37:2) with the focus of attention being given not to the person named in the title (i.e., Isaac), but rather to that son in the next generation through whom the Abrahamic covenant is channeled (i.e., Jacob). Just as the previous narrative cycle focusing on Abraham and Isaac was followed by a brief genealogical “epilogue” devoted to Ishmael, the elder son who was not chosen as the covenant mediator, so too the present narrative cycle focuses on Jacob followed by a brief genealogical epilogue devoted to Esau (36:1–37:1). The focus in this narrative is primarily on the patriarchal growth process of learning to wait on the Lord (i.e., to do things in His way and in His time) in light of what He has already promised and accomplished. Jacob is another vivid example (like Adam and Eve, Cain, and Abraham) of a believer struggling to overcome his abiding depravity and live as he truly is: as the child of a perfect and loving Father who delights to interact with his children “face to face” (32:30).

1. Jacob and Esau: The Sons of Isaac (25:19-34)

a. Barrenness of Rebekah (25:19-21a)

25:19-21a. When Isaac married Rebekah he was forty years old, a relatively late age for a man during the biblical period to enter into his first marriage. The norm was to marry as teenagers—the early teens for women and the late teens for men (cf., e.g., the expression “wife of [one’s] youth” [Pr 5:18; Is 54:6; Mal 2:14-15], in which the term “youth” [ne‘urim] primarily denotes the teenage years; and in one of the earliest rabbinic statements on the subject, a man’s preferred marriage age is explicitly set at 18 [m. ’Abot 5.21]). Nevertheless one may deduce from the example of Isaac that it is more important to marry the right person than to marry early—especially when one finds oneself, like Isaac, surrounded by a culture that is overwhelmingly “unfit” for one’s self in the preeminent matter of faith. Like Sarai (11:30), Rebekah too was barren, though the response of the patriarch in each case—reflecting their spiritual maturity—is different. Abraham did nothing (at least nothing is stated in Scripture), whereas Isaac prayed to the LORD … and the LORD answered him and Rebekah his wife conceived (v. 21). God’s answer was not immediate, for Rebekah gave birth 20 years after their marriage, when Isaac was 60 (v. 26). This further bears out, in any event, the important biblical principle already clearly set forth in 4:25; 20:17-18; and 21:1-2 that the Lord alone ultimately enables a woman to conceive (or who “opens” and “closes” the womb), for “children are a gift of the LORD” (Ps 127:3).

b. Birth of Jacob and Esau (25:21b-26)

25:21b-26. Not knowing that she was pregnant with twins, and concerned by the movement that she felt within her, Rebekah went to inquire of the LORD (v. 22). In response God indicated not only that there were two nations (i.e., twin sons from whom will arise two peoples) in her womb, but also that the older shall serve the younger (v. 23). By this statement God was declaring that by His own sovereign will—and in contrast to the convention of recognizing the eldest son as preeminent—Jacob and all his descendants (i.e., the “nation” that Jacob/Israel would later become) will be privileged to be the benefactors and mediators of the Abrahamic covenant. The preference of the younger for the older is a common theme in Genesis. Some additional examples are that Abel was preferred over Cain (Gn 4:1-8), Isaac over Ishmael (Gn 21:1-21), Rachel over Leah (Gn 29:30-31), Joseph over all his brothers (Gn 37:4), Perez over Zerah (Gn 38:29-30), and Ephraim over Manasseh (Gn 48:13-20). To make the point that God’s choices are based on His own sovereign will and not on human merit Paul cited this divine response in Rm 9:11-12: “though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad.” God’s response to Rebekah was not merely prophetic (i.e., looking forward to the national ascendancy of Israel over Edom) but rather declarative (i.e., His decision for the twins as of that moment). Paul emphasized that God spoke with respect to the twins before they were even born or had done anything. Hence, the sole explanation for this is God’s sovereign election. God made the same point in His statement through Malachi, “I have loved Jacob; but I have hated Esau” (Mal 1:2-3; see comments on Rm 9:6-13 and Mal 1:2-3). This refers not to God’s emotional attitude toward the two, but rather to His simple, sovereign choice of one and rejection of the other (see also Gn 29:30-31; with respect to His emotional orientation, God loves everyone; see Jn 3:16).

c. Sale of Esau’s Birthright (25:27-34)

25:27-34. Though spiritually mature and of commendable character, Isaac was not perfect. Here he fell into the common parental trap of favoring one child with whom he had more in common over another. This pattern was carried over by his son Jacob, both toward his own children (preferring Joseph and Benjamin over the other ten) as well as in his marital relationships (favoring Rachel over Leah). Thus, Isaac loved (i.e., preferred) Esau (v. 28), who was a skillful hunter … because he [Isaac] had a taste for game. But Rebekah, falling into the same parental trap, loved (i.e., preferred) her more peaceful, tent-dwelling son Jacob. This parental split favoritism no doubt later encouraged that “distance” between Jacob and Esau that prompted the former to solicit the latter’s birthright (v. 31) for a bowl of stew. The strife between brothers that begins in this passage continues throughout the Jacob narrative and reflects a common theme in Genesis (see comments on 4:8). The birthright under dispute is distinct from the paternal blessing; see 27:30-46 and 49:8-12. Esau, of course, was also at fault for having despised (not having valued) his birthright (v. 34), and in infamous commemoration of his selling it for a bowl red (’adom) lentil stew, his descendants are identified ever afterward by the label Edom (’edom, “red [people]”, v. 30).

2. Isaac: Struggles of a Patriarch (26:1-33)

This chapter presents Isaac in the role of patriarchal head and trustee of God’s promise. Carrying out this responsibility leads to a variety of struggles in Isaac’s life. He must confront his lack of faith in God’s protection as he feared identifying Rebekah as his wife to Abimelech, deal with quarrels over wells of water with locals in the land of promise, and make a covenant with Abimelech, king of the Philistines.

a. Struggling to Trust in God’s Promises: Isaac Lies about Rebekah (26:1-17)

26:1-17. As soon as Isaac adopts his role as patriarchal head and trustee of God’s promise, he reprises the failures of his father Abraham, who misrepresented his relationship with Sarah on two occasions (12:10-20; 20:1-18). This account exhibits several striking parallels to the first major episode involving Abraham in the same role (in chap. 12). (1) Each was confronted at the outset with a famine in the land (v. 1; cf. 12:10a), which, when occurring in the promised land, was always a test of faith. (2) Each responded to the famine by moving south, with a view to going down to Egypt (v. 2, cf. 12:10b). (3) God sovereignly affirmed His covenant with each man, referring explicitly to the three provisions of land, seed (descendants), and blessing—for the patriarch personally as well as ultimately for all the nations of the earth (vv. 3-4; cf. 12:1-3). (4) Following God’s affirmation of His covenant, each patriarch falsely said of his wife, She is my sister, out of fear that the local men would kill him on account of her beauty (v. 7; cf. 12:11-13, 19). (5) The king of that place deduced the lie and responded—quite to the contrary of the patriarch’s fearful expectation—by affirming their marriage, rebuking the patriarch for lying about it, and issuing a royal “charge” to ensure their protection (and, in Abram’s case, safe departure from Egypt) (vv. 10-11; cf. 12:19-20). The point of these parallels, centering on the patriarchs’ less-than-perfect faith and expressed sin, is to highlight that Isaac did not merit being the covenant recipient. It thus emphasizes the unconditional nature of the covenant as well as the faithfulness and sovereignty of God in maintaining it.

Of special significance is God’s statement in v. 5 that Abraham … kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws. Though God did command Abraham to do a few things, such as immigrating to Canaan (12:1), adopting circumcision (17:10), and sacrificing Isaac (22:2), such actions would hardly seem to square with this emphatic “piling up” of specifically legal terminology. Indeed, this is the first time in Scripture that any one of these four specific terms (whether pl. or sg.) is used, and after this they are applied almost exclusively to the Mosaic law, especially when they are used together (cf. Dt 11:1). This Mosaic legal terminology in God’s statement is intended to teach the reader that by his faith Abraham was credited with the righteousness of perfect law-keeping. It is precisely this point, in fact, that Paul the apostle made in Rm 3:31, as an introduction to his extended discussion of Abraham’s righteousness: “Do we then nullify the [Mosaic] Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law [i.e., we prove what the law teaches].”

b. Struggling to Live with Sinful Men: Isaac Quarrels with the Men of Gerar (26:18-25)

26:18-25. The patriarchal parallels continue. Abram’s “chain of sin” in 12:10-20 was followed in chap. 13 by the depiction of strife between Abram’s herdsmen and Lot’s herdsmen over the land’s resources. So too in this passage the herdsmen of Gerar quarreled with the herdsmen of Isaac (v. 20) over water, a preciously rare Middle Eastern commodity. To his credit, though Isaac’s entourage undoubtedly outnumbered and overpowered the Canaanite herdsmen (since he would have inherited the formidable fighting force of Abram; described in 14:14-15), he patiently moved on from each disputed site until finding a location that the herdsmen did not quarrel over (vv. 21-22). God subsequently affirmed His covenant protection and provision for Isaac (v. 24) just as He had done for Abram (13:14-17; 15:1). In response the patriarch Isaac built an altar … and called upon the name of the LORD (v. 25).

c. Struggling to Recognize the Sovereignty of God: Isaac Makes a Covenant with Abimelech (26:26-33)

26:26-33. Again, just as Abimelech initiated a covenant with Abraham in chap. 20, despite having been gravely offended by the patriarch, so too in this section Abimelech initiated a covenant with Isaac (vv. 26-31). This was despite Isaac offending the king in precisely the same way (i.e., by almost allowing Abimelech to be unknowingly drawn into the sin of adultery with the patriarch’s wife, 20:3-4)!

The present episode took place at least 75 years after the events in chap. 20, so this Abimelech may be different from the one who interacted with Abraham. The name “Abimelech” (meaning “father of [the] king” or “Melech is a father”) may be intended as a Philistine throne name, like “pharaoh” for the king of Egypt (also in the heading of Ps 34 where the Philistine king Achish is called “Abimelech”). On the other hand, this may be the same Abimelech who interacted with Abraham, as suggested by the following observations: (1) Phicol, the name of the commander of his army, is the same in both accounts (v. 26; see 21:22); (2) the life span of man at this point was in the 200-year range (Terah died at age 205, Abraham at 175, and Isaac at 180), which is consistent with a reign of 80-plus years; and (3) the initiative and wording of Abimelech’s covenant with Isaac (vv. 28-29) is similar—at points even identical—to that expressed by Abimelech to Abraham in 21:22-23.

More importantly this passage stands as a testimony to God’s absolute, gracious sovereignty in fulfilling the mission of God to bless even the Gentiles, for here, as in chap. 21, the patriarch failed to exhibit the confident trust and righteous behavior of a believer in the one true God—even common human decency, doing what most people in general know “ought not to be done” (see 20:9). And yet in both instances Abimelech, the one most directly sinned against, affirmed not only a covenant of peace with Isaac who, by his irresponsible actions, hindered the extension of God’s blessings to the Gentiles, but also the supreme sovereignty and gracious character of Isaac’s God! Indeed, the possibility that Abimelech’s appreciation of, and perhaps faith in, the one true God had been deepening since his encounter with Abraham is suggested by his use of the general term for “God” (’elohim) in his encounter with Abraham (21:22-23). But here Abimelech referred to God by His covenant name “Yahweh” (yhwh) in his encounter with Isaac (26:28-29).

In terms of blessing the nations through Abraham’s “seed” today (Gn 12:1-3; 22:18; 26:4-5), God calls believers to share the good news of salvation in Jesus primarily for their own sakes, giving them the privilege of showing their love and gratitude to the Lord as the church fulfills its redemptive mandate (Mt 28:18-20). Yet the work of salvation is His alone, and regardless of what one does or does not do, God’s purposes will be accomplished, and each one who has “been predestined according to His purpose” (Eph 1:11) will ultimately be drawn to Him (cf. Jer 31:3; Jn 6:44, 65).

3. Jacob: Successor of Isaac (26:34–35:29)

The Jacob narrative is told in three narrative sections, determined by Jacob’s presence or absence from the land of promise. The first shows Jacob in the promised land, striving with his brother Esau (26:34–28:9). The second depicts Jacob outside the land of promise, striving with his uncle Laban (28:10–31:55). The third part of the Jacob narrative records Jacob’s return to the promised land, when his striving with both Esau and God will finally be resolved (32:1–35:29). The purpose of these three narratives is to emphasize the sovereign choice of God in granting His promise to Jacob.

a. In the Land: Striving with Esau (26:34–28:9)

The first part of the Jacob narrative, when he is in the land, striving for the blessing with his brother Esau, has three sections. It begins with a prologue about Esau’s marriages to foreign women, is followed by the body of the story, depicting the strife about the blessing, and concludes with an epilogue, returning to Esau’s further marriages to foreign women.

(1) Prologue: Esau Marries Foreign Women (26:34-35)

26:34-35. The story of Jacob’s deception of Isaac resulting in Jacob being blessed instead of Esau opens with a prologue about the two marriages of Esau. In both cases, Esau married pagan Hittite women, rather than returning to Mesopotamia to find a bride from among his relatives. These marriages brought grief to Isaac and Rebekah. The story of Jacob’s deception of Isaac also concludes with an epilogue about Esau’s additional marriages (28:8-9), forming a frame around this narrative. For the significance of this narrative framing, see 28:8-9 and comments on 28:6-9.

(2) Body: Jacob Strives for a Blessing (27:1–28:5)

27:1-46. The story of Isaac blessing Jacob emphasizes the transference of the patriarchal blessing. This single narrative section (26:34–28:9) uses the word “blessing” in either a noun or verb form 28 times in the NASB. As a background to this present narrative, it begins with Esau selling his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of stew (25:29-34). The birthright appears to have included the blessing of the firstborn. For this reason, Heb 12:16-17 correctly equates the birthright with the blessing.

Now that Isaac had grown old (at least 100, since Esau was born when Isaac was 60 [see 25:26] and was married prior to this at 40 [26:34]) and his eyes were too dim to see, he decided that it was to time to pass on the patriarchal blessing before he died (27:4). Although Isaac lived on for many more decades, seeing all 12 of his grandsons by Jacob (see 35:22b-27), this was now the crucial moment when the “path of redemption”—the genealogical line that would carry on the Abrahamic covenant—was decided, since preeminence in the covenant was bound up with the patriarchal blessing (see also 49:8-12). Since Isaac intended to bless Esau, it may be that Rebekah had not yet revealed to her husband God’s birth oracle, indicating His choice of “the younger” son over “the older” (25:23). Rebekah’s silence is consistent with the two parents each favoring different sons. However, it is more likely that Isaac knew of the birth oracle and of Esau’s sale of the birthright but was choosing to ignore these facts in granting the blessing.

So Rebekah, rather than trusting God to accomplish His purposes, when overhearing Isaac’s intention, initiated a plot to deceive her husband into blessing her favored son Jacob instead (27:5-13). At Rebekah’s direction, Jacob succeeded in stealing the blessing by presenting himself as Esau to the touch and smell of his blind father. He used the deceptive stratagem of wearing Esau’s clothes and counterfeiting Esau’s hairy arms by wearing goat skins (27:15-17). When his brother found this out, he pointed out that Jacob (whose name means “he supplants” had again lived up to his name, for he has supplanted me these two times (referring to Jacob trading red lentil stew for Esau’s birthright [25:29-34] and then to deceiving Isaac into granting the patriarchal blessing, v. 36). When Esau’s plan to avenge himself on Jacob by kill[ing] him was reported to Rebekah (v. 42), she urged her favored son to take refuge with her brother Laban until Esau’s fury would subside (v. 44).

Readers often see this story through the eyes of Esau—emphasizing Jacob’s culpability in deceiving his father and stealing the blessing. Nevertheless, the narrator wants to emphasize that all four parties to this story are guilty. Isaac and Esau are guilty of deliberately overlooking God’s intended recipient of the blessing. Isaac chose to ignore Esau’s sale of the birthright and the birth oracle. Esau chose to ignore that he willingly sold his birthright. Rebekah and Jacob are guilty of deliberately deceiving to achieve their goal of blessing. Rebekah deceived her beloved husband by preparing savory food and using clothing and hairy goat skins to present Jacob as a counterfeit Esau to blind Isaac. Jacob somewhat begrudgingly went along with his mother’s scheming to achieve his goal of being blessed. Jacob’s deception was wrong not because he stole the blessing—it was rightfully his because he had already purchased it. Rather, his deception was wrong because it lacked faith in God to accomplish His will without Jacob’s human deceit and manipulation. Thus, God, who had sovereignly decreed that “the older shall serve the younger” (25:23), accomplished His sovereign purpose despite human failings. Once again, the blessing of God was unmerited but still given an act of divine grace and election.

Though Rebekah’s deception of Isaac was clearly condemnable, she was not a completely ill-natured person, and—no doubt feeling guilty over what she had done—her words and actions in vv. 45-46 evince a tender concern for her ailing husband. Rather than informing Isaac of his favored son’s intention to kill his brother, which would undoubtedly have caused the patriarch great distress (by the phrase you both [v. 45] she is probably referring to Jacob and his frail father, not Esau), she exhorted him to send Jacob away for the single purpose (not pretense, since the goal is valid—even spiritually requisite) of finding a wife among their relatives back in Mesopotamia.

Although the narrator never explicitly condemned Jacob’s deceitfulness, the events of Jacob’s life show that, by manipulating his father instead of trusting God, he brought suffering to himself and others. First, Jacob, a homebody, now had to flee his home. Second, as the favorite son of Rebekah, he never saw his beloved mother again. Third, Jacob would be exploited by his uncle Laban even as he had taken advantage of Esau. Fourth, even as his father’s blindness was a veil to enable Jacob to deceive, so Laban used a veil over Leah’s face to deceive Jacob (note how both Isaac and Jacob say they were deceived, 27:35; 29:25). Fifth, just as Jacob deceived his father using Esau’s garments, so his sons would deceive him using Joseph’s garments (37:32). Sixth, Jacob was miserable at the end of his life (47:9) in contrast to both Abraham (25:8) and Isaac (35:28-29) who both appeared to have been satisfied with life when they died.

28:1-5. In response to Rebekah’s urging, and no doubt out of similar concern on his part, Isaac charged Jacob to go to Paddan-aram (Upper Mesopotamia, southeastern modern Turkey), to the house of his maternal grandfather Bethuel, and take to himself a wife from the daughters of Laban, his uncle. The reason Isaac gave is the same as that given by Abraham in 24:3, namely, that he not take a wife from the daughters of Canaan (28:6; i.e., that he not be unequally “yoked” in faith; cf. 2Co 6:14 and see comments on 22:20-24).

(3) Epilogue: Esau Marries Foreign Women (28:6-9)

28:6-9. The story of the deception of Isaac began with a prologue about Esau marrying pagan women and bringing grief to his parents (26:34-35). Here, the narrative of the deception concludes with an epilogue about Esau’s additional marriages. It says that when Esau saw the displeasure his parents had with his first foreign wives, rather than repent, he went to Ishmael, and married other pagan wives, in order to further annoy his father. The point of framing the deception narrative with Esau’s pagan marriages is to show that despite Jacob receiving the blessing by deception, Esau was distinctly unworthy of the blessing in his unwillingness to maintain the purity of the seed.

b. Outside the Land: Striving with Laban (28:10–31:55)

The second part of the Jacob narrative depicts Jacob outside the land and striving with his uncle Laban. This section demonstrates how God cared for Jacob despite the deceitful and dishonest actions of Laban. In a sense, the narrative here shows how God taught Jacob a lesson for his own disreputable behavior. If Jacob was guilty of deceitful behavior, now by the hand of Laban he would learn what it was like to be at the other end of trickery and dishonesty.

(1) Jacob’s Journey (28:10-22)

28:10-15. The Jacob/Laban story begins with Jacob’s journey to Mesopotamia and God’s assurance that His promise would be the guiding principle of the entire story. On his way to Paddan-aram via Haran, Jacob camped for the night at a certain place known by the Canaanites as Luz (see v. 19), which he called Bethel, about 10.5 miles (17 km) north of Jerusalem. As he leaves the land of Israel, Jacob dreamed that he saw a ladder bridging the earth and heaven, with angels of God (not “the angels of God”) ascending and descending on it (v. 12), representing the ongoing activity of the angels on Jacob’s behalf. Likely, the ascending angels represent those of the land of Israel, who had protected Jacob while he was in the land, and the descending angels represent those who operate outside the land, and will protect Jacob in his travels. The LORD, who was standing above the ladder, affirmed to Isaac all three provisions of the promise (Abrahamic covenant): the land (of Canaan), descendants who will be like the dust of the earth, and blessing of all the families of the earth through his descendants (lit., “seed,” vv. 13-14, emphasis added).

28:16-22. In response to the dream, when he awoke from his sleep, Jacob affirmed God’s presence in that place. Therefore he marked it as sacred place by anointing his stone pillow with oil. He concluded with a vow (vv. 20-22) that if God (1) would be with him and keep him safe on his journey, (2) give him food to eat, (3) give him garments to wear, and (4) bring him back to his father’s house in safety, then the LORD (Yahweh, the covenant God) would be his God (v. 21). From this point forward until his return from Paddan-aram, Jacob never calls Yahweh his God but always identifies Him as the God of Abraham and/or Isaac (this suggests that Jacob had not yet come to saving faith in the Lord, showing that God’s choices do not depend on human understanding or merit).

(2) Jacob’s Marriages (29:1-30)

29:1-14. The second part of the Jacob/Laban story is about Jacob’s marriages and Laban’s deceitful behavior toward him. Jacob eventually arrived at his destination of Paddan-aram (see 28:2), where he encountered three flocks of sheep and their shepherds by a well (29:2). After greeting the shepherds and learning they were from Haran, the city of his uncle Laban, Jacob issued them a mild rebuke for allowing their flocks to lie around (v. 7) when they should still be grazing (though likely there would be little to graze in the environs of the well). Since the shepherds had also told Jacob that Laban’s daughter Rachel was on her way to the well with her father’s (i.e., Laban’s) sheep, his rebuke of the shepherds and urging that they water the sheep, and go, pasture them was likely motivated by a desire to make it easier for his cousin to get through to the well with her own flock. When Rachel arrived, Jacob rolled the stone from the mouth of the well and watered her sheep. Jacob’s own mother Rebekah had industriously watered the camels of Abraham’s servant when he was sent to find a bride from the same family for Isaac (24:20). As an appropriate greeting for his relative, Jacob also kissed (but did not embrace) Rachel (v. 11), just as he subsequently embraced … kissed his uncle Laban (v. 13).

29:15-30. After staying with Laban for a month (v. 14), Jacob fell in love with Rachel, and Laban agreed to give her to him as his wife in return for seven years of service. When this time is completed, however, Laban deceived Jacob by giving him Leah, whom Jacob did not recognize because it was evening (v. 23) and because she would have been veiled. This is an example of retributive justice since Jacob had previously deceived his blind father (27:1-29). Nevertheless, Laban is not thereby exonerated since he deliberately and unfairly deceived Jacob. The strife between relatives Jacob and Laban, continuing throughout the narrative, is a common theme in Genesis (see comments on 4:8). After working another week (seven years) Jacob was then given Rachel, whom he loved … more than Leah (lit., “preferred over Leah”). This section demonstrates that God would indeed discipline Jacob for his scheming but still fulfill all His promises. The discipline is evident in the fair retribution Jacob experiences, living with his even more deceitful uncle. But the promise is also evident, as Leah, the unwanted wife, actually becomes the primary matriarch of Israel.

(3) Jacob’s Children (29:31–30:24)

29:31–30:24. The third part of the Jacob/Laban story pertains to the birth of Jacob’s children while working for Laban. It begins with the expression the LORD saw (see comments on 1:4-5). setting up the expectation that God was about to do something for the benefit of the one whom God has seen. In this case the Lord saw Leah, who in most translations is described as being unloved (29:31). The translation of v. 30, he loved Rachel more than Leah, sets up a contradiction, for Leah’s being loved less is not the same as her being “unloved.” In the Hebrew text, however, there is no contradiction, for the adjective describing Leah in v. 31 can also mean “unpreferred” (shenu’ah from sh-n-’), just as its antonym used in v. 30 can also mean “preferred” (ye’ehav from ’-h-b). These words “unpreferred” and “preferred” are the only ones that make sense in the present context. Thus v. 30 says Jacob preferred Rachel over Leah, whereas v. 31 says Leah was unpreferred. Therefore, God graciously acted for the benefit of Leah and opened her womb, after which she bore Jacob’s first four sons (vv. 31-35)—the fourth of whom, Judah, would be the one through whom the greatest provision of the Abrahamic covenant was mediated (49:8-12). Of Jacob’s other eight sons, two more were born by Leah (Issachar and Zebulun, 30:18, 20), and two each by Leah’s maid Zilpah (Gad and Asher, 30:11, 13), Rachel (Joseph, 30:24 and, in 35:18, Benjamin), and Rachel’s maid Bilhah (Dan and Naphtali, 30:6, 8).

Besides recounting how the 12 sons of Jacob were born, the purpose of this story is to show that the promise of God would be obtained through God’s gracious gift, not human scheming. In this story, Rachel has what Leah yearns for—Jacob’s love. Leah has what Rachel longs for—children. As a result, all sorts of human manipulations, schemes, and tensions ensue to obtain that which is desired. Yet, whatever is received, is of grace. Hence, the story culminates with the words God gave heed to Leah (30:17) and God remembered Rachel (30:22), indicating God’s blessing comes from grace, not human machinations. This foreshadows God’s gracious election of the nation of Israel, whom God chose and loved “not … because you were more in number than any of the peoples … but because the LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers” (Dt 7:7-8).

(4) Jacob’s Prosperity (30:25-43)

30:25-26. The fourth part of the Jacob/Laban story reveals how the Lord gave Jacob prosperity despite Laban’s efforts to cheat him. After the birth of Joseph, Jacob informed his uncle Laban of his desire to return to his own country (Canaan, v. 25). Laban, however, urged Jacob to stay, observing that the LORD had blessed him on Jacob’s account (v. 27)—providing yet another example of God fulfilling His promise to “bless those who bless” Abraham and his descendants in the line of promise (12:3). Although Laban had not treated Jacob with honesty, it was merely by his association with Jacob in his household that caused God’s blessing to “spill over” onto Laban.

30:27-30. Laban’s recognition that the Lord had blessed him was based not on personal faith in the one true God, but rather on divination. Laban’s words I have divined do not merely refer to “discovering” something “by intuition or insight,” as the English verb to divine is often used, but in fact to the pagan religious practice of “reading” livers, observing the flight of birds, and so forth. This is later specifically condemned by God in the law given to Israel through Moses (Lv 19:26; Dt 18:10; cf. 2Kg 17:17). However, God’s blessing of those who bless His covenant family does not depend on the nature of their faith. This reflection of God’s grace and the unconditional nature of His covenant are evident all the more in His blessing of the covenant family itself.

30:31-36. The patriarch Jacob agreed to stay on the condition that his wages be culled from all the speckled and spotted among Laban’s goats and sheep, as well as every black lamb among Laban’s flock (v. 32). Since these colorings would normally represent a minority of the flock, Laban readily accepted Jacob’s terms. Not satisfied with the unlikelihood that Jacob would then receive many sheep, Laban unscrupulously removed the speckled and spotted animals and transported them three days journey away from Jacob (vv. 35-36). This would make it far less likely for the remaining animals to give birth to speckled, spotted, and black ones.

30:37-43. Jacob responded with an elaborate process of intermittently placing freshly peeled rods of poplar and almond and plane trees before the animals while they mated. This was based on the commonly held but completely false view that whatever an animal sees while mating will cause its offspring to look similarly. Jacob was still not trusting completely in the sufficiency of God’s covenant provision and continued his behavioral pattern of seeking to better his circumstances through his own maneuverings. Jacob’s behavior shows the degree of his human striving to attain what God had otherwise promised to bestow in His own sovereign power and grace. Nevertheless, the process seemingly worked because, having looked at the striped bark while mating, the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted animals (v. 39). Ultimately, Jacob does not credit his own manipulation for the success but attributes it to God, saying “God has taken away your father’s livestock and given them to me” (31:9).

God granted prosperity to Jacob, even as He did for Abraham (12:16) and Isaac (26:12-14). Thus, the passage demonstrates God’s faithfulness to His promises despite the scheming and opposition of Laban. This account foreshadows Israel’s experience in Egypt. Just as Jacob wanted to return to his land (30:25), so would Israel (Ex 3:7). Even as Laban was reluctant to let him go because Jacob’s service was useful to him (Gn 30:26), so Pharaoh would be reluctant to allow Israel to leave (Ex 1:14). Furthermore, just as Jacob’s abundance literally “teemed” (Gn 30:43, translated as became exceedingly prosperous), so Israel would also “teem” with people (Ex 1:12, translated “spread out”). Hence, the promise of God to His people, personified in Jacob, would succeed despite opposition.

(5) Jacob’s Flight (31:1–32:2)

31:1-16. The fifth and final part of the Jacob/Laban story recounts Jacob’s flight from his uncle’s house (31:1-55). This section of the narrative begins with why Jacob fled (31:1-16). The relationship between Jacob and Laban had deteriorated because the expected minority of stripped, speckled, and spotted sheep and goats, as well as black lambs, turned out to be the vast majority of new animals born to Laban’s flocks. This greatly enhanced Jacob’s wealth at the expense of Laban’s. Though this may seem to contradict Laban’s affirmation in the previous chapter that God had blessed him on Jacob’s account (30:27), this new turn of circumstances was completely consistent with (and an early example of) God’s accompanying covenant promise to curse “the one who curses [lit., ‘slights’] you” (12:3); for as Jacob told his wives Rachel and Leah, Your father has cheated me and changed my wages ten times (31:7). This refers to the time following their agreement of 30:31-34, according to which Jacob was to have all the striped, speckled, and spotted sheep and goats, as well as black lambs. Then becoming dissatisfied with this arrangement, Laban went back on his word and told Jacob that only the speckled would be his wages; and then, when all the flock brought forth speckled, Laban changed again and told Jacob that only the striped would be his wages (31:8). In this way Jacob observed, God has taken away Laban’s livestock and given them to me. This bears out not only the covenant paradigm of “cursing for slighting,” but also raises the expectation that He will curse the one who curses in much the same way as he sought to curse the covenant family. Jacob’s eyes were being slowly opened to the true character and covenant love of the Lord, for he affirmed that the God of his father has been with him (v. 5) and protected him from being hurt economically (v. 7). Despite his elaborate undertaking at animal husbandry, Jacob did not attribute the accumulation of striped, speckled, and mottled livestock to anything but the activity of God (vv. 11-12). Thus in obedience to God’s command to him in a dream and because of the enmity between him and Laban, Jacob and his household prepared to return to the land of Canaan (vv. 13-16).

31:17-30. The next section describes Jacob’s actual flight. The cycle of deception—contrasted with God’s unmitigated blessing—continued as Jacob led away all his livestock and departed from Paddan-aram with his household to go to the land of Canaan, when Laban was distracted with the need to shear his flock (vv. 17-19). A key verb that underscores, both explicitly and implicitly, the theological immaturity and sin of the three major figures in this episode (Jacob, Rachel, and Laban) is the verb “to steal” (ganab from the root g-n-b), employed here eight times (vv. 19, 20, 26, 27, 30, 32, 39 [twice]). This is the same verb God used in the eighth commandment against stealing (see Ex 20:15). Rachel stole Laban’s household idols (v. 19), and in v. 20 Jacob stole the heart of Laban (lit., marg. reading, which is often paraphrased as deceived, including NASB). There is a subtle irony here, for in the immediately following statement that Jacob deceived Laban … by not telling him that he was fleeing, one might assume that the “stealing” of Laban’s “heart” centered in the surreptitious removal of his daughters (Rachel and Leah) and grandchildren. Laban himself seems to have suggested this in vv. 26-27. However the parallelism between this reference to “stealing” Laban’s “heart” (v. 20) with the reference to “stealing” Laban’s “idols” (v. 19b) suggests that his heart was more attached to his idols than his own flesh and blood! And indeed Laban was clearly preoccupied with recovering his idols. Laban ultimately caught up with Jacob (v. 25) and made four specific accusations. First, he accused Jacob of stealing his heart (deceiving me, v. 26 NASB) in fleeing secretly. Second, he charged that Jacob, by taking his daughters away like captives (v. 26), was in a sense stealing them. Third, he accused Jacob of stealing away secretly and not allowing Laban to say farewell to his grandchildren (vv. 27-28). Finally, he charged Jacob with the theft of his gods (idols) (v. 30). In some respects these were all unfair accusations. First, Jacob had good cause to flee secretly since God had seen Laban’s mistreatment and told him to leave (vv. 11-13). Second, Jacob’s wives had agreed to go with him because they felt mistreated by their father (vv. 14-16). Third, telling Laban of his departure might have endangered Jacob and his family as seen in Laban’s acknowledgment that it was in his power to do [Jacob] harm (v. 29), but God had warned him against it in a dream (vv. 24, 29). Finally, Jacob did not know that Rachel had stolen the idols (v. 32).

31:31-42. Not only was Laban deceived, but so too was Jacob, since he did not know that Rachel has stolen her father’s idols. Had he known that he would not have vowed to Laban that the one with whom you find your gods [idols] shall not live (v. 32). The idols were not found because Rachel put them in the camel’s saddle, and she sat on them (v. 34), excusing herself from moving by saying that the manner of women (i.e., her menses) was upon her (v. 35). Despite the potential volatility of the situation—fomented by Laban’s ire over the stealing of his “gods” (vv. 30, 32, 35b) and Jacob’s anger at being accused of such (vv. 36-37)—God extended his blessing to both sides by warning Laban, who had the power to do Jacob harm, not to injure him (vv. 29, 42).

Jacob responded to Laban by reminding him that his uncle had falsely accused him (vv. 36-37) and mistreated him for twenty years despite his hard work (vv. 38-41). In this way God’s covenant protection of Jacob was upheld, and Laban was spared the inevitable curse of God that would follow from injuring the patriarch in His promised line (v. 42). In anger, Jacob recognized the Lord’s covenant protection, noting that it was the God of [his] father, the God of Abraham, and the fear of Isaac, who had provided justice for him. Years before, when Jacob fled Canaan, he had vowed that if God brought him back to Canaan safely, only then would the LORD be his God (28:20-21). Even now, having escaped from Laban but not yet having made it all the way back to Canaan safely, true to his vow, Jacob recognized that the LORD was the God of his fathers, but not yet his own God. In describing the LORD, he used the unique name, the fear of Isaac, meaning the God whom Isaac feared (31:42, cf. 31:53).

31:43-55. The two men then [made] a covenant of peace (v. 44), and they established a witness to it by making a mound of stones that Laban called in Aramaic (his native tongue) Jegar-sahadutha and Jacob in Hebrew (his native tongue) called Galeed (meaning “a witness mound” in both languages) and additionally Mizpah (meaning “watchtower”). The mound of stones was to establish a boundary between the two relatives, thereby establishing a cold peace between them. As a polytheist, Laban swore his oath of peace by the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor, while Jacob swore by the one true God, the fear of his father Isaac, the One whom Isaac feared. This section then ends with the positive statement that Laban … kissed his sons and his daughters and grandchildren and blessed them. This ending demonstrates the break with Paddan-aram (Upper Mesopotamia) for the sons of Israel. There would be no returning to the land of their fathers for wives or any other reason.

32:1-2. As a postlude to the separation from Laban and his return to the promised land, Jacob had a vision of the angels of God. Jacob named that place Mahanaim, meaning “Two Camps,” indicating that there were two camps aligned with each other in this place, God’s camp with these angels and Jacob’s camp with his wives, children, and flocks. This vision of angels is clearly tied to Jacob’s dream 20 years earlier with “angels of God … ascending and descending” on a ladder as he left the land of promise (28:11-13). This deliberate linkage is evident in that the phrase angels of God can be found only in these two passages in the entire OT. Thus, as Jacob returns to land, he is once again reminded of God’s protection, just as he was shown when he departed the land. Knowing that God would continue to protect Jacob with His angels would be a great encouragement to him as he prepared to encounter his brother Esau.

The purpose of this entire section of the narrative describing the final break between Jacob and Laban was to show God’s protection and provision for Jacob (despite the human machinations, Rachel’s theft of household idols, and Laban’s animosity). Despite Laban’s animosity, evident in his changed attitude toward Jacob (31:5), his cheating of Jacob (v. 6-7), and his changing of Jacob’s wages (vv. 8-9), the Lord was with him (v. 5), protected him (v. 7), and gave him flocks (v. 9). Not only had God protected Jacob but provided for him as well, giving him great wealth (vv. 9, 16, 42), even as He had done for Abraham (12:16; 20:14) and Isaac (26:13-14). This would serve as a reminder to Israel centuries later as they entered the promised land, that God would indeed protect and provide for the nation despite the mistreatment by the Egyptians. Believers today can also be encouraged that the Lord will indeed protect and provide for His own, despite mistreatment by unscrupulous people: “If God is for us, who is against us?” (Rm 8:31).

c. Return to the Land: Striving Resolved with People and God (32:3–35:29)

The third part of the Jacob narrative depicts his exploits back in the land of promise. Its purpose is to show how Jacob finally resolved his striving and experienced peace with both his brother Esau and his God.

(1) The Restoration of Jacob and Esau (32:3–33:20)

The narrative of Jacob’s struggles continues as he enters the land, depicting his fear of Esau (32:1-23), his fight with God (32:24-32), and ultimately his restoration with Esau (33:1-17).

(a) Jacob’s Fear of Esau (32:3-23)

32:3-8. The story begins with a description of Jacob’s fear of Esau. As Jacob returned to Canaan, he drew closer to the dwelling place of his brother Esau in the land of Seir, a mountainous region in the country of Edom (see 36:21) southeast of the Dead Sea. He sent messengers before him to request that he find favor in his brother’s sight (vv. 4-5; since the main reason Jacob departed was Esau’s plan to kill him; 27:42). In response Esau set out to meet his brother with four hundred men, causing Jacob to believe this to be a war party and therefore he was greatly afraid and distressed (v. 7). These latter two verbs imply Jacob’s immaturity or even complete lack of true faith in the Lord and His covenant promises. The same two verbs are elsewhere used in the Hebrew OT (as in Jdg 10:9; 2Kg 25:26; etc.) to describe, among other things, the Israelites’ lack of faith in God’s covenant protection as well as in commands not to “be afraid … [or] be discouraged” because He “goes before [them] and will be with” them and “will never leave [them] nor forsake” them (Dt 31:8). God’s command not to fear or be afraid is one of the most frequent given in Scripture (e.g., Is 44:8; Lk 12:32; Ac 27:24; Rv 1:17), and the Lord’s promise to be with his people and never to leave them nor forsake them is likewise reiterated by Jesus (Mt 28:20b; Jn 14:16-18), who himself was called Immanuel, which means “God with us” (Mt 1:23; cf. Jn 1:14).

32:9-23. Jacob thus implored the LORD (Yahweh) to deliver him from the hand of his brother (vv. 9-12), noting that God must do so if He is to uphold His promise to prosper him (Jacob) and make his descendants as the sand of the sea (vv. 11-12). Yet, consistent with his pattern of behavior up to this point, although he invoked God’s covenant name, Jacob prayed to the God of … Abraham and God of … Isaac, not recognizing the Lord as his own God yet (vv. 9-10). Additionally, Jacob jumped ahead with his own plan, not content to wait on God, having already (before his prayer!) divided his household into two companies (v. 7), apparently coming upon this idea because of his experience at Mahanaim (32:12) in which he saw two companies, the angelic camp and his own. His logic was that “if Esau … attacks” one, the other “might escape” (31:8). Further, in an effort to mollify Esau, Jacob sent out a peace offering (vv. 13-21) of 550 animals (vv. 14-15). This section of the narrative demonstrates that Jacob is still at his old scheming ways; he is including God but not fully depending on Him. This would serve as a reminder for Israel when they entered the land of promise, not to follow Jacob’s scheming or to offer tribute to the Canaanites but to trust and obey the Lord for the conquest of the land.

(b) Jacob’s Fight with God (32:24-32)

32:24-25. Jacob’s spiritual struggle is here epitomized as well as brought to a climactic resolution by God when a man appeared and wrestled with him until daybreak. This struggle is not to be seen as an isolated event but a synopsis of Jacob’s entire life, constantly striving with both God and people. That this “man” was in fact God Himself in human form (specifically, a preincarnate appearance of the Son of God) is evident from the following facts. (1) Jacob’s thigh was dislocated just by the man’s having touched it (vv. 25, 32). (2) The man changed Jacob’s name (v. 28) to one better suited to his covenant position: Israel, meaning “God strives” (i.e., on behalf of Jacob), not “he has striven with God.” The former over the latter rendering is supported by (a) the imperfect (i.e., ongoing) Hebrew tense, (b) the normative presentation of God as the verbal subject in theophoric names, and (c) the ongoing covenant reality of Jacob’s position as intended by God, the Namer. This final item of support hearkens back to the same reason God changed Jacob’s grandfather’s name from “Abram” to “Abraham” in 17:5 (and, more generally, with Christ’s changing of the names of those who submit to him in faith). (3) The man’s reference to Jacob having striven with God—which, while reflecting the overall trajectory of Jacob’s life to this point, also clearly referred to the present struggle or wrestling match between Jacob and the man himself (v. 28). (4) Jacob named the site of the wrestling match “Peniel,” meaning “The face (or “presence”) of God,” for as Jacob himself explained, “I have seen God face to face” (v. 30). Although Ex 33:20 says that no one can see God and live, that text likely refers to God the Father (cf. Jn 6:46; 1Tm 6:16; 1Jn 4:12). The Son of God is the visible God (Col 1:15), making preincarnate appearances as the Angel of the Lord (as He appears to be doing in this narrative; cf. Jdg 6:11-16; Is 6:1-5; Dn 10:5-6) and after the incarnation in the person of the God-man, Jesus (Lk 2:25-32; Jn 1:18; 17:1-8; 2Co 4:6; Php 2:6; Heb 1:3; Rv 1:12-18).

32:26-32. Jacob continued to struggle, holding on to the mysterious man, even with his dislocated thigh, until he blessed him. Ultimately, the Angel of the Lord acquiesced and changed the patriarch’s name, because he had striven with God and with men and [had] prevailed (v. 28). The word prevailed does not mean that Jacob won the wrestling match by overpowering the man. Instead, it means that Jacob, having in the end been forcibly subdued by God, prevailed in receiving the blessing. That is, he was not just a benefactor of the material promises of the Abrahamic covenant, but also of its more selective spiritual promise of the blessing of saving faith. Paradoxically, he prevailed (received the blessing) through submission. This is precisely Jacob’s point at the end of v. 30, in which he said, Yet my life has been preserved. However, this is better translated, “and my soul has been rescued (or, ‘saved’).” This is the picture of a man who was brought to God (by God) “kicking and screaming.” As a result, Jacob was transformed from being a schemer to a triumphant receiver of God’s blessing. Thus, the original readers—the people of Israel entering the promised land—would learn that their victory was not to come only through striving with others but also through God’s blessing.

(c) Jacob’s Restoration with Esau (33:1-17)

33:1-4. Having received the blessing from God, Jacob still anticipated difficulties with Esau. As he saw Esau arriving with what appeared to be a war party (v. 1), Jacob next acted nobly, placing his wives and children behind him so that he could meet Esau first. After he passed on ahead of them and approached his brother, he bowed down to the ground seven times before Esau (vv. 2-3). In a totally unexpected act, Esau ran to meet him and embraced him, and fell on his neck and kissed him, and they wept (v. 4). After years of bitterness and even threats of murder (27:41), Esau was reconciled to his brother. This was the result of God’s work in his heart and not of any manipulation by Jacob.

33:5-17. After introducing his family to Esau (vv. 5-7), Jacob gave Esau gifts and insisted that his brother take them (vv. 8-11). Jacob also declined Esau’s offer of an escort back to the land out of concern for his own children and his flocks and herds at their slower pace (vv. 12-15) and perhaps in part out of fear, lest Esau experience a change of heart. Thus, Jacob returned to the promised land, settling temporarily in booths in a place named Succoth (booths), east of the Jordan River and north of the Jabbok River (v. 17), in the opposite direction of Seir, where Esau had gone (v. 16).

This story of the reconciliation of Esau and Jacob was designed to identify the transformations of both Esau and Jacob as works of God. Esau was changed from threatening to murder his brother to a desire to be at peace and even provide protection for him. This was clearly the work of God in answer to Jacob’s prayer in 32:9-10. Jacob was also changed from a schemer to a follower of the Lord. This is evident in his bravery, going before his family to meet Esau (33:3), his humility, bowing before Esau (33:3) and his generosity, insisting that Esau take his gifts even though it was apparent that Jacob was no longer in danger (33:10-11). Jacob’s behavior became the model for Israel—like Jacob, they would be able to conquer and settle in the land of promise only if they were to rely on the Lord for the victory.

(d) Jacob’s Restoration to the Land (33:18-20)

33:18-20. In a brief epilogue to the story of his reconciliation with Esau, Jacob is depicted as settled back in Canaan, the land of promise. He settled in the city of Shechem, about 20 miles (32 km) west of the Jabbok River, and there purchased land from the sons of Hamor just as his grandfather Abraham had purchased land near Hebron from the sons of Heth (23:1-20). Most significantly, Jacob built an altar and called it El-Elohe-Israel (v. 20), meaning “El (is) the God of Israel.” “Israel” at this point refers specifically to Jacob (as opposed to the later nation). This act of worship emphasized Jacob’s spiritual transformation. When Jacob left the land, he vowed that if God kept His promise and brought him back, then He the God of his fathers would be his God (28:21). Throughout the Jacob narrative following that vow made 20 years earlier, Jacob always referred to the Lord as the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac but never as his own God. Now, with God having kept His promise and returned him in safety, Jacob, in naming the altar, finally identified the Lord as his own God. Jacob’s spiritual transformation is now complete—he is not perfect and will still have his struggles, but he is clearly now a man of God and a follower of the God of Israel.

(2) The Rape of Dinah (34:1-31)

Now that Jacob had returned to Canaan, it might be thought that at this point God would fulfill the Abrahamic covenant and grant this land to Jacob and his twelve sons. To clarify that the conquest of the land was not to take place at this point, the story shows the difficulties Jacob had as a guest, living in the land God promised to him and his descendants.

34:1-12. Jacob and his family were now encamped on the outskirts of the city of Shechem. When Shechem, the prince named for the city, saw Jacob’s daughter Dinah (whose birth was mentioned previously as a prelude to this passage, 30:21), he lay with her by force (v. 2, lit., “humiliated her,” i.e., raped her). Jacob was surprisingly indifferent to the rape of his daughter (v. 5), perhaps because of fear of the Shechemites or because she was the daughter of the less loved Leah, or both. Through his father Hamor, Shechem petitioned Jacob to be given Dinah as his wife (vv. 3-12). The petition was made in the presence of Jacob’s sons, who rightly considered rape a disgraceful thing (v. 7).

34:13-24. The brothers, though grieved and angry over the crime, agreed to the marriage on the condition that every male among Shechem’s people be circumcised and thus become one people with the family of Israel (vv. 15-16). All parties in this deal, except for Jacob, appear to be acting with deceit (v. 13). Jacob’s sons were specifically described as deceiving the Shechemites and thus also their father (v. 13), much like Jacob had deceived his father. The Shechemites also were acting deceitfully because implicit in this arrangement, since they were uniting with Israel on Israel’s terms, was submission to the God of Israel (i.e., conversion) and hence inclusion in the Abrahamic covenant of which circumcision is the outward sign (see 17:11 and comments on 17:1-16). Yet, Hamor convinced the men of Shechem to accept circumcision in order to become one people with Israel (v. 22) and thereby confiscate the wealth (their livestock and their property, v. 23) of Israel.