Original Meaning

Hittite Land (23:1–3)

IT IS DIFFICULT to determine whether the Hittites mentioned here are related to those of the Hittite empire known from Anatolia a few centuries later. Abraham’s era is far too early to coincide with the dissemination of the Hittites into Syro-Palestine that took place in the aftermath of the turmoil associated with the Sea Peoples around 1200 B.C. Genesis knows of Hittites that were distinct from the Indo-European empire builders (see 10:15, which mentions Hittites from the family of Heth, a descendant of Canaan). These Genesis Hittites have Semitic names and appear to possess a thoroughly Semitic culture. That they appear to own substantial amounts of land suggests they are part of the indigenous population rather than a merchant colony from far-away Anatolia.

Arable land was so precious in the ancient world that owners usually refrained from selling it to anyone outside the kinship group. But Abraham is not trying to buy farmland, only property for a burial site. Village cultures used burial chambers. Most often a family tomb was used by several generations. A body was laid in a prepared shelf along with grave goods (food, pottery, trinkets, weapons, tools, and other personal items). Later the skeletal remains were removed and placed in another chamber or an ossuary box or simply swept to the rear of the tomb to accommodate another burial.

Bridging Contexts

SARAH’S BURIAL. It seems obvious that Genesis 23 has little to do with Sarah’s death and Abraham’s mourning for her. Important as those elements are from a personal standpoint, the narrator has another purpose. Both from the proportion of the content of the chapter and from the introduction and conclusion of the chapter, the author’s focus is clearly on the purchase of the land and the cave. This is no surprise given the fact that the acquisition of the land is one of the most significant aspects of the covenant agreement. Abraham appears content enough to wait for the land to come to him in the Lord’s time, but meanwhile, the dead must be laid to rest.

In Genesis 21 Abraham acquired wells, while here he acquires a burial chamber and the land surrounding it. These are important stakes in the land and provide the impetus for future return (see 49:29–50:14, 24–25). This passage, therefore, is comparable to chapter 14 and 21:22–34. In the first Abraham refused to gain land or possessions by right of conquest; in the second he secures water rights but no land. Here in chapter 23, he purchases only what is necessary to bury his dead. Attachments to the land are being established, but little that can be called possession of the land; but what there is, the narrator includes as he traces the preliminary fulfillment of the covenant promises.

Purpose of the Rebekah narrative. The covenantal significance of Genesis 24 is transparent enough. It follows the same procedure that has dominated the previous narratives. The second generation will also have obstacles that need to be overcome. How is Isaac to procure a wife if he is to avoid assimilation into the peoples of the land? A wife brought from afar will have to demonstrate the same sort of faith that characterized Abraham when he left his land, his family, and his security. In short, getting a wife for Isaac in a way that will preserve the covenant ideals is not an easy matter. It is for that reason that the narrator goes to such great length to demonstrate the role that God played in bringing the marriage to fruition. Abraham has not yet become a great nation. Survival of the line still hangs by a thread.

The covenant issue is family. The obstacle is the difficulty in acquiring a wife for Isaac. God’s provision is astounding and undeniable as he continues to reveal his sovereignty and grace in the advance of the covenant. In this regard the oracle is of central significance. The participants as well as the reading audience will recognize the hand of God in this situation. The author does not preserve the narrative to commend the procedure or instruct the reader in the use of oracles. He uses it the same way the servant does in his retelling: to persuade.

Purpose of the sections in Genesis 25. The author’s purpose in the two pericopes of chapter 25 (vv. 1–11 and vv. 12–18) is to tie up the loose ends before moving on to the narratives concerning Jacob. Both have to do with covenant promises. Since Isaac is to be the sole heir of the covenant, it is important for the author to indicate that all other heirs have been cared for and have received their due. They have no claims on that which belongs to Isaac. Verses 5 and 11 show respectively Abraham’s and God’s blessing of Isaac, while the verses in between detail the fact that the other sons were compensated and sent away. Thus Isaac’s position is vouchsafed.

The second pericope is not as interested in removing Ishmael from a position of competition (that had already been cared for in ch. 21) as it is in showing that God keeps his quasi-covenant promises to Ishmael. Even in this, then, we see God as One who overcomes obstacles and fulfills promises.

Contemporary Significance

ONCE AGAIN WE see God’s ability to overcome obstacles and to fulfill his promises. He is working out his plan as he continues to reveal himself and establish his covenant people. We have already explored these issues elsewhere for their contemporary significance. The narrative is not being repetitive or redundant as it revisits these issues, because it is important to see how God sustains his plan and shows himself persistent and capable from situation to situation and from generation to generation.

Using oracles today. When we consider the contemporary significance of a passage, sometimes we have to engage in a discussion about some of the teachings people are prone to extract from a passage to consider whether these popular conceptions are legitimate or not. Genesis 24 offers such an opportunity in that the procedure used by the servant is similar to a procedure used at times today. In modern Christianity, the use of oracle mechanisms such as the one employed in this passage is sometimes referred to as the “fleece method,” based on the story of Gideon. People “lay out a fleece” before God, meaning that they devise a test by which they can receive a sign and be guided in a decision they have to make. Are there problems with this? A look at history and a look at theory will help us to answer that question.

But before proceeding, I must make a disclaimer eminently clear. This passage of Scripture is not about how to get information from God (or about how not to get such information). As much as we would like to get direct and clear guidance on specific issues, we dare not come to this passage looking for a formula by which we can extract information from God, any more than we would come to it for a procedure on how to find a wife.

The three examples in Scripture of the use of mechanistic nature oracles (Gen. 24; Judg. 6; 1 Sam. 6) have a few characteristics in common. (1) They are all in the premonarchy period, therefore early in the history of revelation. (2) They are all conducted by those who show no indication of theological sophistication or spiritual maturity. We know little about Abraham’s servant who acts in the name of his master’s God. Gideon, though greatly used by God, was raised in a family with a Baal altar and an Asherah pole in the backyard (Judg. 6:25), and later he committed apostasy by forming some sort of oracle cult (8:27). And, of course, no one would elevate the Philistines to spiritual role models. Consequently, even if we felt free to seek out role models to teach certain types of behavior, none of these individuals commend themselves as spiritually mature or as consistent and reliable guides to spirituality.

It is important to remember that people of these early periods had little revelation from God. As revelation progresses, changes take place in how information is gathered. During the time of Moses, the Urim and Thummim were used to receive oracles, but they were not available for the common people to use. Once we get to the time of David, we find that he rarely used mechanistic oracles. Instead, he received verbal oracles from the prophets (e.g., 2 Sam. 7). This process continues throughout the Old Testament period as prophets functioned to give oracles to the leaders of Israel, whether the leaders sought them out or not.

By the time we reach the first century A.D., written revelation becomes complete, and prophetic oracles fade from usage. The “oracles of God” are now inscripturated, committed to writing and available to any who would read them. From this historical perspective, we can see mechanistic oracles belonged to a particular time period when God’s written revelation had barely begun. It is an antiquated and primitive approach and has been replaced by something that is far superior, God’s written Word. In addition, since Pentecost the Holy Spirit has indwelt the people of God and guides our choices from within.

Some may claim that the identification of an approach as antiquated, primitive, or inferior does not necessarily proscribe its use. Is there anything wrong with laying out a fleece? To answer this we should speak briefly of the theory behind oracles. In the process of asking oracles, the inquirer assumes a position of control; deity is summoned to be at his or her beck and call in ways far beyond normal prayer. An oracle requests (demands?) specific information in a specific way at a specific time. This has the appearance of backing God into a corner because, as the mechanism is set up, anything that happens is an answer.

If Rebekah had just given the servant the drink he had asked for, her actions would have been construed as a “no” answer. Anytime that we put ourselves in the position of trying to force God’s hand by making him act in certain ways, according to our dictates, we are exercising an inclination that seeks to control God. I call this the paganism in all of us. If we try to put God on a leash and call him to heel, we will be sadly disappointed.6 In a nutshell, the problem with these oracular mechanisms is that they make demands on God. Unlike the bold prayers of the psalmists who call on God to be God, these are manipulative devices because they seek to oblige him to respond according to our specifications.

The fact that sometimes oracles have worked is no excuse. That God does sometimes condescend and accommodate our weaknesses and ignorance is a demonstration of his grace, not a license to repeat our presumptuous behavior. Moreover, oracles are not reliable because God is not obliged to respond to them.

This does not mean, of course, that we cannot be guided by circumstances. The difference comes when we dictate to God what kinds of circumstances he should arrange. If we merely observe the circumstances God lays out before us rather than dictate what he should do to communicate to us, we avoid the problem of placing God under obligation.

Despite the hazards of mechanistic oracles, people have used them throughout history and continue to use them today. In the following paragraphs we will see three different historical examples illustrating some of the issues and hazards connected with mechanistic oracles. The first concerns the abuse of signs in judicial systems in which oracles determined the guilt or innocence of the accused; the second, the hazardous conditions that may result when the requested oracle does not occur; the third, the ambiguity that may still exist when the sign does occur.

Judicial system. In the ancient world, it was believed that the gods would respond to oracular inquiries. This belief was so strong that oracles were incorporated into the justice system. With little ability to gather evidence for many types of crimes, the courts depended on guidance from deity to settle matters of guilt or innocence. One of the most well-known methods was known as the river ordeal. The accused would be thrown into a river. If he or she survived, it was taken as an indication of innocence. Those who did not survive, a majority, were considered to have been judged by the gods. This mentality continued into relatively modern times, as evidenced in the use of dunking stools in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Christian Europe. When the victim drowned after being held under, it was taken as a sign of his or her guilt.

In this sort of judicial mechanistic oracle, the normal, expected result (drowning) was taken to indicate guilt, while the abnormal, nearly impossible result (survival) was taken as a sign from God affirming the innocence of the accused. The abuse of the system is evident here in that it assumes the guilt of the accused and presumes that the deity will intervene to save an innocent person’s life. We might recognize the same mentality in those who taunted Christ on the cross that if he were from God, God should save him.

A vestige of the same mentality can be found today in how Christians sometimes respond to serious illness. In the desperate crisis of a potentially terminal condition, the prayers of the afflicted person or family are sometimes inclined to equate healing with favor. If healing does not take place, they conclude that God is angry or unfair. As in the ancient oracles, the default situation leads to an inference of guilt. It is an abuse in that it assumes that God’s favor will always bring good health. This abuse is particularly apparent in the thinking of those who adhere to the so-called health and wealth gospel.

Hazards when the sign fails. The tragedy known as the Children’s Crusade in 1212 offers a different sort of example of the misuse of mechanistic oracles. When Stephen of Cloyes, a twelve-year-old shepherd boy, came before the French king Philip with a letter that he had purportedly received from Christ directing him to lead a crusade of children to free the Holy Land, the monarch attempted to dissuade him of his folly. The boy nonetheless marched through France gathering thousands of young followers, proclaiming that God would part the sea to let them pass through. They arrived at Marseilles and awaited the miraculous sign that would confirm that God had inspired this crusade.

When several days passed and no miracle occurred, Stephen accepted the help of seemingly friendly merchants who offered to supply ships. Most of the children were never heard from again, but stragglers who made their way back to France decades later reported that the ships were taken by Saracens, with whom arrangements were made for the children to be sold into slavery. In this case, the oracle failed, but the enterprise was pursued anyway with disastrous results.

In this kind of situation, the sign is desired, but the system is not followed. When normal and abnormal occurrences are set up as yes/no answers and the normal happens (e.g., the sea is not parted), that should be taken as a “no” answer. This was precisely the situation Gideon faced on the first night of his fleece trial. He set up the test so that the normal occurrence (wet fleece, dry ground) was a “yes” answer (God was still intending to deliver by Gideon’s hand). But in the end, that did not satisfy Gideon, so he reversed the indicators so as to get more specific direction. The fact is that sometimes, like Stephen of Cloyes, we are already determined to pursue a particular course of action. In the worst case scenario, the sign gives God a chance to hop on our bandwagon when we are in reality prepared to proceed whether he gives the sign or not.

Ambiguity when the sign happens. But is the result any more clear when the oracle succeeds? In 1429 the prince who was later to be crowned Charles VII of France was told that a teenage girl had reportedly received messages from saints urging her to support his kingship and drive the English out of France. After he agreed to give her an audience, he decided to conduct a test. He had someone else sit on his throne while he himself stood among the courtiers in attendance. He thought that if the girl were receiving supernatural guidance, she would immediately detect the imposter and pick him out in the crowd (though they had never met). He was impressed when the girl walked into the throne room and, after only a minute of indecision, turned away from the throne, strode up to him, and bowed before him. He took this as a divine sign that the girl, Joan of Arc, had been chosen by God to liberate France.

Was he right? Joan certainly enjoyed initial success, and the dauphin was crowned king in the wake of her success. But that success was short-lived and did not lead directly to the liberation of France. France was eventually liberated, but it was many years after Joan’s execution by the English. Hindsight has made it easy to question whether that first sign was truly God’s endorsement of Joan’s mission.

We may fall prey to this same sort of situation when we pray for God to bring success to some endeavor so that we can be assured it pleases him. But does the indicated sign really give such assurance? Is it not possible for an endeavor to have some success even though God does not approve of it? Let’s say someone prays to God to help him pass his CPA exam the first time or to help her get into medical school to confirm certain career directions. But perhaps the student’s skills or academic record was sufficient to achieve the desired end anyway. Does that mean that an accountant career or medical career represents God’s will? Not at all. The accounting student may have considered that it would qualify as sufficiently abnormal to pass the CPA exam the first time, but perhaps it was not abnormal at all.

These and many other examples demonstrate that the use of such oracle mechanisms represents not faith but folly. Oracular mechanisms are unreliable guides to God’s will because we have been given no confidence to expect that God will respond to such conditions. God cannot be obliged to act in certain ways so as to reveal his will in a given situation. This is true whether it has to do with crusades, with whom you will marry, or with what job you will take. Oracles of the ordeal variety continue to be evident in those pockets of Christianity where it is believed that accepting medical intervention shows a lack of faith. In this way of thinking, if God wants the person to recover and be well, he will do the healing. As in the ordeal, this leaves the abnormal occurrence as required of God to spare a person’s life.

The fallacy in all of this oracle-type thinking is that it allows a person to think that he or she can push God into a corner. The alternative is to leave matters open-ended and to simply look for God’s hand in circumstances as he sovereignly works them out. In Genesis 24, even though the servant dictated what circumstances he wanted to occur, Rebekah, Laban, and the extended family are all persuaded by circumstances that God has indeed communicated. Rather than forcing God’s hand, we need to learn to see his fingerprints on our lives.

The story is told of a man who had been forced to take refuge on his roof to escape the waters of a flashflood. There he fervently prayed for God to provide deliverance and accepted in faith that his prayer would be answered. A short time later a neighbor came by in a rowboat and invited to take the man in. He refused, claiming that God was going to deliver him. The waters continued to rise. Soon the man was forced to the peak of his roof. When evening came a National Guard motorboat came by and offered to take the man to safety. But no, the man insisted that God was going to save him. And the waters continued to rise.

Finally the man had to take up a perch on the top of his chimney. In the middle of the night a helicopter hovered into sight and dropped a ladder down to lift the man to dry ground. Again the man was resolute that God was going to save him. Sometime shortly before dawn the man was overcome by the floodwaters and died. Standing before God in heaven, he lamented his great disappointment that God had let him down despite his firm faith. Why had God not delivered him? God gently replied that he had sent two boats and a helicopter, what more did he expect?

Though this story is often told with a touch of humor, we must see the serious point it makes. The man was so busy looking for the oracles that he missed the fingerprints of God. We can easily fall prey to the same error. Instead of making demands on God to do abnormal things to direct us, we should be content to be guided by the everyday circumstances he brings into our lives.

In the process of discerning God’s will in our lives, there are aspects that are our responsibility and others that are God’s responsibility. It is our responsibility to be committed to doing his will. Our prayers should focus on ferreting out self-will and selfish motivations. Instead of asking for miraculous signs, we should ask God to help us to be motivated only by what pleases and honors him. We should ask him to help us think clearly about the decision and to direct our thinking. If we faithfully do our part, it is then his job to guide us to the right decision. He can do this through abnormal circumstances that carry his unmistakable mark, but more frequently he will do it through closed and open doors, through our own thinking process, and through his Spirit working within us. Asking for signs may indicate that we do not trust God enough to allow him to work in our minds and hearts to give us godly discernment.7

Original Meaning

Negotiations (23:4–16)

FOUR HUNDRED shekels of silver is a substantial price—equivalent to about seven and a quarter pounds of silver. Compared to other land purchases, Omri bought the site of Samaria for 6,000 shekels (1 Kings 16:24), while David bought the site of the temple for 600 gold shekels (1 Chron. 21:25) with the threshing floor itself fetching 50 shekels (2 Sam. 24:24). Jeremiah bought property at greatly deflated prices for 17 shekels (Jer. 32:9). Abraham’s payment was more likely viewed as exorbitant rather than discounted, for rather than negotiating, he pays the inflated initial quote. Abraham refuses the offer to receive the land as a gift because then Ephron’s heirs could reclaim the land after Ephron’s death. In fact, Abraham is likely anxious to pay full price because a discounted price could be later connected to family debt problems and also allow the heirs of Ephron to reclaim the land. A laborer or artisan at ten shekels per year would not expect to make this much in a lifetime.1

Bridging Contexts

SARAH’S BURIAL. It seems obvious that Genesis 23 has little to do with Sarah’s death and Abraham’s mourning for her. Important as those elements are from a personal standpoint, the narrator has another purpose. Both from the proportion of the content of the chapter and from the introduction and conclusion of the chapter, the author’s focus is clearly on the purchase of the land and the cave. This is no surprise given the fact that the acquisition of the land is one of the most significant aspects of the covenant agreement. Abraham appears content enough to wait for the land to come to him in the Lord’s time, but meanwhile, the dead must be laid to rest.

In Genesis 21 Abraham acquired wells, while here he acquires a burial chamber and the land surrounding it. These are important stakes in the land and provide the impetus for future return (see 49:29–50:14, 24–25). This passage, therefore, is comparable to chapter 14 and 21:22–34. In the first Abraham refused to gain land or possessions by right of conquest; in the second he secures water rights but no land. Here in chapter 23, he purchases only what is necessary to bury his dead. Attachments to the land are being established, but little that can be called possession of the land; but what there is, the narrator includes as he traces the preliminary fulfillment of the covenant promises.

Purpose of the Rebekah narrative. The covenantal significance of Genesis 24 is transparent enough. It follows the same procedure that has dominated the previous narratives. The second generation will also have obstacles that need to be overcome. How is Isaac to procure a wife if he is to avoid assimilation into the peoples of the land? A wife brought from afar will have to demonstrate the same sort of faith that characterized Abraham when he left his land, his family, and his security. In short, getting a wife for Isaac in a way that will preserve the covenant ideals is not an easy matter. It is for that reason that the narrator goes to such great length to demonstrate the role that God played in bringing the marriage to fruition. Abraham has not yet become a great nation. Survival of the line still hangs by a thread.

The covenant issue is family. The obstacle is the difficulty in acquiring a wife for Isaac. God’s provision is astounding and undeniable as he continues to reveal his sovereignty and grace in the advance of the covenant. In this regard the oracle is of central significance. The participants as well as the reading audience will recognize the hand of God in this situation. The author does not preserve the narrative to commend the procedure or instruct the reader in the use of oracles. He uses it the same way the servant does in his retelling: to persuade.

Purpose of the sections in Genesis 25. The author’s purpose in the two pericopes of chapter 25 (vv. 1–11 and vv. 12–18) is to tie up the loose ends before moving on to the narratives concerning Jacob. Both have to do with covenant promises. Since Isaac is to be the sole heir of the covenant, it is important for the author to indicate that all other heirs have been cared for and have received their due. They have no claims on that which belongs to Isaac. Verses 5 and 11 show respectively Abraham’s and God’s blessing of Isaac, while the verses in between detail the fact that the other sons were compensated and sent away. Thus Isaac’s position is vouchsafed.

The second pericope is not as interested in removing Ishmael from a position of competition (that had already been cared for in ch. 21) as it is in showing that God keeps his quasi-covenant promises to Ishmael. Even in this, then, we see God as One who overcomes obstacles and fulfills promises.

Contemporary Significance

ONCE AGAIN WE see God’s ability to overcome obstacles and to fulfill his promises. He is working out his plan as he continues to reveal himself and establish his covenant people. We have already explored these issues elsewhere for their contemporary significance. The narrative is not being repetitive or redundant as it revisits these issues, because it is important to see how God sustains his plan and shows himself persistent and capable from situation to situation and from generation to generation.

Using oracles today. When we consider the contemporary significance of a passage, sometimes we have to engage in a discussion about some of the teachings people are prone to extract from a passage to consider whether these popular conceptions are legitimate or not. Genesis 24 offers such an opportunity in that the procedure used by the servant is similar to a procedure used at times today. In modern Christianity, the use of oracle mechanisms such as the one employed in this passage is sometimes referred to as the “fleece method,” based on the story of Gideon. People “lay out a fleece” before God, meaning that they devise a test by which they can receive a sign and be guided in a decision they have to make. Are there problems with this? A look at history and a look at theory will help us to answer that question.

But before proceeding, I must make a disclaimer eminently clear. This passage of Scripture is not about how to get information from God (or about how not to get such information). As much as we would like to get direct and clear guidance on specific issues, we dare not come to this passage looking for a formula by which we can extract information from God, any more than we would come to it for a procedure on how to find a wife.

The three examples in Scripture of the use of mechanistic nature oracles (Gen. 24; Judg. 6; 1 Sam. 6) have a few characteristics in common. (1) They are all in the premonarchy period, therefore early in the history of revelation. (2) They are all conducted by those who show no indication of theological sophistication or spiritual maturity. We know little about Abraham’s servant who acts in the name of his master’s God. Gideon, though greatly used by God, was raised in a family with a Baal altar and an Asherah pole in the backyard (Judg. 6:25), and later he committed apostasy by forming some sort of oracle cult (8:27). And, of course, no one would elevate the Philistines to spiritual role models. Consequently, even if we felt free to seek out role models to teach certain types of behavior, none of these individuals commend themselves as spiritually mature or as consistent and reliable guides to spirituality.

It is important to remember that people of these early periods had little revelation from God. As revelation progresses, changes take place in how information is gathered. During the time of Moses, the Urim and Thummim were used to receive oracles, but they were not available for the common people to use. Once we get to the time of David, we find that he rarely used mechanistic oracles. Instead, he received verbal oracles from the prophets (e.g., 2 Sam. 7). This process continues throughout the Old Testament period as prophets functioned to give oracles to the leaders of Israel, whether the leaders sought them out or not.

By the time we reach the first century A.D., written revelation becomes complete, and prophetic oracles fade from usage. The “oracles of God” are now inscripturated, committed to writing and available to any who would read them. From this historical perspective, we can see mechanistic oracles belonged to a particular time period when God’s written revelation had barely begun. It is an antiquated and primitive approach and has been replaced by something that is far superior, God’s written Word. In addition, since Pentecost the Holy Spirit has indwelt the people of God and guides our choices from within.

Some may claim that the identification of an approach as antiquated, primitive, or inferior does not necessarily proscribe its use. Is there anything wrong with laying out a fleece? To answer this we should speak briefly of the theory behind oracles. In the process of asking oracles, the inquirer assumes a position of control; deity is summoned to be at his or her beck and call in ways far beyond normal prayer. An oracle requests (demands?) specific information in a specific way at a specific time. This has the appearance of backing God into a corner because, as the mechanism is set up, anything that happens is an answer.

If Rebekah had just given the servant the drink he had asked for, her actions would have been construed as a “no” answer. Anytime that we put ourselves in the position of trying to force God’s hand by making him act in certain ways, according to our dictates, we are exercising an inclination that seeks to control God. I call this the paganism in all of us. If we try to put God on a leash and call him to heel, we will be sadly disappointed.6 In a nutshell, the problem with these oracular mechanisms is that they make demands on God. Unlike the bold prayers of the psalmists who call on God to be God, these are manipulative devices because they seek to oblige him to respond according to our specifications.

The fact that sometimes oracles have worked is no excuse. That God does sometimes condescend and accommodate our weaknesses and ignorance is a demonstration of his grace, not a license to repeat our presumptuous behavior. Moreover, oracles are not reliable because God is not obliged to respond to them.

This does not mean, of course, that we cannot be guided by circumstances. The difference comes when we dictate to God what kinds of circumstances he should arrange. If we merely observe the circumstances God lays out before us rather than dictate what he should do to communicate to us, we avoid the problem of placing God under obligation.

Despite the hazards of mechanistic oracles, people have used them throughout history and continue to use them today. In the following paragraphs we will see three different historical examples illustrating some of the issues and hazards connected with mechanistic oracles. The first concerns the abuse of signs in judicial systems in which oracles determined the guilt or innocence of the accused; the second, the hazardous conditions that may result when the requested oracle does not occur; the third, the ambiguity that may still exist when the sign does occur.

Judicial system. In the ancient world, it was believed that the gods would respond to oracular inquiries. This belief was so strong that oracles were incorporated into the justice system. With little ability to gather evidence for many types of crimes, the courts depended on guidance from deity to settle matters of guilt or innocence. One of the most well-known methods was known as the river ordeal. The accused would be thrown into a river. If he or she survived, it was taken as an indication of innocence. Those who did not survive, a majority, were considered to have been judged by the gods. This mentality continued into relatively modern times, as evidenced in the use of dunking stools in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Christian Europe. When the victim drowned after being held under, it was taken as a sign of his or her guilt.

In this sort of judicial mechanistic oracle, the normal, expected result (drowning) was taken to indicate guilt, while the abnormal, nearly impossible result (survival) was taken as a sign from God affirming the innocence of the accused. The abuse of the system is evident here in that it assumes the guilt of the accused and presumes that the deity will intervene to save an innocent person’s life. We might recognize the same mentality in those who taunted Christ on the cross that if he were from God, God should save him.

A vestige of the same mentality can be found today in how Christians sometimes respond to serious illness. In the desperate crisis of a potentially terminal condition, the prayers of the afflicted person or family are sometimes inclined to equate healing with favor. If healing does not take place, they conclude that God is angry or unfair. As in the ancient oracles, the default situation leads to an inference of guilt. It is an abuse in that it assumes that God’s favor will always bring good health. This abuse is particularly apparent in the thinking of those who adhere to the so-called health and wealth gospel.

Hazards when the sign fails. The tragedy known as the Children’s Crusade in 1212 offers a different sort of example of the misuse of mechanistic oracles. When Stephen of Cloyes, a twelve-year-old shepherd boy, came before the French king Philip with a letter that he had purportedly received from Christ directing him to lead a crusade of children to free the Holy Land, the monarch attempted to dissuade him of his folly. The boy nonetheless marched through France gathering thousands of young followers, proclaiming that God would part the sea to let them pass through. They arrived at Marseilles and awaited the miraculous sign that would confirm that God had inspired this crusade.

When several days passed and no miracle occurred, Stephen accepted the help of seemingly friendly merchants who offered to supply ships. Most of the children were never heard from again, but stragglers who made their way back to France decades later reported that the ships were taken by Saracens, with whom arrangements were made for the children to be sold into slavery. In this case, the oracle failed, but the enterprise was pursued anyway with disastrous results.

In this kind of situation, the sign is desired, but the system is not followed. When normal and abnormal occurrences are set up as yes/no answers and the normal happens (e.g., the sea is not parted), that should be taken as a “no” answer. This was precisely the situation Gideon faced on the first night of his fleece trial. He set up the test so that the normal occurrence (wet fleece, dry ground) was a “yes” answer (God was still intending to deliver by Gideon’s hand). But in the end, that did not satisfy Gideon, so he reversed the indicators so as to get more specific direction. The fact is that sometimes, like Stephen of Cloyes, we are already determined to pursue a particular course of action. In the worst case scenario, the sign gives God a chance to hop on our bandwagon when we are in reality prepared to proceed whether he gives the sign or not.

Ambiguity when the sign happens. But is the result any more clear when the oracle succeeds? In 1429 the prince who was later to be crowned Charles VII of France was told that a teenage girl had reportedly received messages from saints urging her to support his kingship and drive the English out of France. After he agreed to give her an audience, he decided to conduct a test. He had someone else sit on his throne while he himself stood among the courtiers in attendance. He thought that if the girl were receiving supernatural guidance, she would immediately detect the imposter and pick him out in the crowd (though they had never met). He was impressed when the girl walked into the throne room and, after only a minute of indecision, turned away from the throne, strode up to him, and bowed before him. He took this as a divine sign that the girl, Joan of Arc, had been chosen by God to liberate France.

Was he right? Joan certainly enjoyed initial success, and the dauphin was crowned king in the wake of her success. But that success was short-lived and did not lead directly to the liberation of France. France was eventually liberated, but it was many years after Joan’s execution by the English. Hindsight has made it easy to question whether that first sign was truly God’s endorsement of Joan’s mission.

We may fall prey to this same sort of situation when we pray for God to bring success to some endeavor so that we can be assured it pleases him. But does the indicated sign really give such assurance? Is it not possible for an endeavor to have some success even though God does not approve of it? Let’s say someone prays to God to help him pass his CPA exam the first time or to help her get into medical school to confirm certain career directions. But perhaps the student’s skills or academic record was sufficient to achieve the desired end anyway. Does that mean that an accountant career or medical career represents God’s will? Not at all. The accounting student may have considered that it would qualify as sufficiently abnormal to pass the CPA exam the first time, but perhaps it was not abnormal at all.

These and many other examples demonstrate that the use of such oracle mechanisms represents not faith but folly. Oracular mechanisms are unreliable guides to God’s will because we have been given no confidence to expect that God will respond to such conditions. God cannot be obliged to act in certain ways so as to reveal his will in a given situation. This is true whether it has to do with crusades, with whom you will marry, or with what job you will take. Oracles of the ordeal variety continue to be evident in those pockets of Christianity where it is believed that accepting medical intervention shows a lack of faith. In this way of thinking, if God wants the person to recover and be well, he will do the healing. As in the ordeal, this leaves the abnormal occurrence as required of God to spare a person’s life.

The fallacy in all of this oracle-type thinking is that it allows a person to think that he or she can push God into a corner. The alternative is to leave matters open-ended and to simply look for God’s hand in circumstances as he sovereignly works them out. In Genesis 24, even though the servant dictated what circumstances he wanted to occur, Rebekah, Laban, and the extended family are all persuaded by circumstances that God has indeed communicated. Rather than forcing God’s hand, we need to learn to see his fingerprints on our lives.

The story is told of a man who had been forced to take refuge on his roof to escape the waters of a flashflood. There he fervently prayed for God to provide deliverance and accepted in faith that his prayer would be answered. A short time later a neighbor came by in a rowboat and invited to take the man in. He refused, claiming that God was going to deliver him. The waters continued to rise. Soon the man was forced to the peak of his roof. When evening came a National Guard motorboat came by and offered to take the man to safety. But no, the man insisted that God was going to save him. And the waters continued to rise.

Finally the man had to take up a perch on the top of his chimney. In the middle of the night a helicopter hovered into sight and dropped a ladder down to lift the man to dry ground. Again the man was resolute that God was going to save him. Sometime shortly before dawn the man was overcome by the floodwaters and died. Standing before God in heaven, he lamented his great disappointment that God had let him down despite his firm faith. Why had God not delivered him? God gently replied that he had sent two boats and a helicopter, what more did he expect?

Though this story is often told with a touch of humor, we must see the serious point it makes. The man was so busy looking for the oracles that he missed the fingerprints of God. We can easily fall prey to the same error. Instead of making demands on God to do abnormal things to direct us, we should be content to be guided by the everyday circumstances he brings into our lives.

In the process of discerning God’s will in our lives, there are aspects that are our responsibility and others that are God’s responsibility. It is our responsibility to be committed to doing his will. Our prayers should focus on ferreting out self-will and selfish motivations. Instead of asking for miraculous signs, we should ask God to help us to be motivated only by what pleases and honors him. We should ask him to help us think clearly about the decision and to direct our thinking. If we faithfully do our part, it is then his job to guide us to the right decision. He can do this through abnormal circumstances that carry his unmistakable mark, but more frequently he will do it through closed and open doors, through our own thinking process, and through his Spirit working within us. Asking for signs may indicate that we do not trust God enough to allow him to work in our minds and hearts to give us godly discernment.7

Original Meaning

Negotiations (23:4–16)

FOUR HUNDRED shekels of silver is a substantial price—equivalent to about seven and a quarter pounds of silver. Compared to other land purchases, Omri bought the site of Samaria for 6,000 shekels (1 Kings 16:24), while David bought the site of the temple for 600 gold shekels (1 Chron. 21:25) with the threshing floor itself fetching 50 shekels (2 Sam. 24:24). Jeremiah bought property at greatly deflated prices for 17 shekels (Jer. 32:9). Abraham’s payment was more likely viewed as exorbitant rather than discounted, for rather than negotiating, he pays the inflated initial quote. Abraham refuses the offer to receive the land as a gift because then Ephron’s heirs could reclaim the land after Ephron’s death. In fact, Abraham is likely anxious to pay full price because a discounted price could be later connected to family debt problems and also allow the heirs of Ephron to reclaim the land. A laborer or artisan at ten shekels per year would not expect to make this much in a lifetime.1

Bridging Contexts

SARAH’S BURIAL. It seems obvious that Genesis 23 has little to do with Sarah’s death and Abraham’s mourning for her. Important as those elements are from a personal standpoint, the narrator has another purpose. Both from the proportion of the content of the chapter and from the introduction and conclusion of the chapter, the author’s focus is clearly on the purchase of the land and the cave. This is no surprise given the fact that the acquisition of the land is one of the most significant aspects of the covenant agreement. Abraham appears content enough to wait for the land to come to him in the Lord’s time, but meanwhile, the dead must be laid to rest.

In Genesis 21 Abraham acquired wells, while here he acquires a burial chamber and the land surrounding it. These are important stakes in the land and provide the impetus for future return (see 49:29–50:14, 24–25). This passage, therefore, is comparable to chapter 14 and 21:22–34. In the first Abraham refused to gain land or possessions by right of conquest; in the second he secures water rights but no land. Here in chapter 23, he purchases only what is necessary to bury his dead. Attachments to the land are being established, but little that can be called possession of the land; but what there is, the narrator includes as he traces the preliminary fulfillment of the covenant promises.

Purpose of the Rebekah narrative. The covenantal significance of Genesis 24 is transparent enough. It follows the same procedure that has dominated the previous narratives. The second generation will also have obstacles that need to be overcome. How is Isaac to procure a wife if he is to avoid assimilation into the peoples of the land? A wife brought from afar will have to demonstrate the same sort of faith that characterized Abraham when he left his land, his family, and his security. In short, getting a wife for Isaac in a way that will preserve the covenant ideals is not an easy matter. It is for that reason that the narrator goes to such great length to demonstrate the role that God played in bringing the marriage to fruition. Abraham has not yet become a great nation. Survival of the line still hangs by a thread.

The covenant issue is family. The obstacle is the difficulty in acquiring a wife for Isaac. God’s provision is astounding and undeniable as he continues to reveal his sovereignty and grace in the advance of the covenant. In this regard the oracle is of central significance. The participants as well as the reading audience will recognize the hand of God in this situation. The author does not preserve the narrative to commend the procedure or instruct the reader in the use of oracles. He uses it the same way the servant does in his retelling: to persuade.

Purpose of the sections in Genesis 25. The author’s purpose in the two pericopes of chapter 25 (vv. 1–11 and vv. 12–18) is to tie up the loose ends before moving on to the narratives concerning Jacob. Both have to do with covenant promises. Since Isaac is to be the sole heir of the covenant, it is important for the author to indicate that all other heirs have been cared for and have received their due. They have no claims on that which belongs to Isaac. Verses 5 and 11 show respectively Abraham’s and God’s blessing of Isaac, while the verses in between detail the fact that the other sons were compensated and sent away. Thus Isaac’s position is vouchsafed.

The second pericope is not as interested in removing Ishmael from a position of competition (that had already been cared for in ch. 21) as it is in showing that God keeps his quasi-covenant promises to Ishmael. Even in this, then, we see God as One who overcomes obstacles and fulfills promises.

Contemporary Significance

ONCE AGAIN WE see God’s ability to overcome obstacles and to fulfill his promises. He is working out his plan as he continues to reveal himself and establish his covenant people. We have already explored these issues elsewhere for their contemporary significance. The narrative is not being repetitive or redundant as it revisits these issues, because it is important to see how God sustains his plan and shows himself persistent and capable from situation to situation and from generation to generation.

Using oracles today. When we consider the contemporary significance of a passage, sometimes we have to engage in a discussion about some of the teachings people are prone to extract from a passage to consider whether these popular conceptions are legitimate or not. Genesis 24 offers such an opportunity in that the procedure used by the servant is similar to a procedure used at times today. In modern Christianity, the use of oracle mechanisms such as the one employed in this passage is sometimes referred to as the “fleece method,” based on the story of Gideon. People “lay out a fleece” before God, meaning that they devise a test by which they can receive a sign and be guided in a decision they have to make. Are there problems with this? A look at history and a look at theory will help us to answer that question.

But before proceeding, I must make a disclaimer eminently clear. This passage of Scripture is not about how to get information from God (or about how not to get such information). As much as we would like to get direct and clear guidance on specific issues, we dare not come to this passage looking for a formula by which we can extract information from God, any more than we would come to it for a procedure on how to find a wife.

The three examples in Scripture of the use of mechanistic nature oracles (Gen. 24; Judg. 6; 1 Sam. 6) have a few characteristics in common. (1) They are all in the premonarchy period, therefore early in the history of revelation. (2) They are all conducted by those who show no indication of theological sophistication or spiritual maturity. We know little about Abraham’s servant who acts in the name of his master’s God. Gideon, though greatly used by God, was raised in a family with a Baal altar and an Asherah pole in the backyard (Judg. 6:25), and later he committed apostasy by forming some sort of oracle cult (8:27). And, of course, no one would elevate the Philistines to spiritual role models. Consequently, even if we felt free to seek out role models to teach certain types of behavior, none of these individuals commend themselves as spiritually mature or as consistent and reliable guides to spirituality.

It is important to remember that people of these early periods had little revelation from God. As revelation progresses, changes take place in how information is gathered. During the time of Moses, the Urim and Thummim were used to receive oracles, but they were not available for the common people to use. Once we get to the time of David, we find that he rarely used mechanistic oracles. Instead, he received verbal oracles from the prophets (e.g., 2 Sam. 7). This process continues throughout the Old Testament period as prophets functioned to give oracles to the leaders of Israel, whether the leaders sought them out or not.

By the time we reach the first century A.D., written revelation becomes complete, and prophetic oracles fade from usage. The “oracles of God” are now inscripturated, committed to writing and available to any who would read them. From this historical perspective, we can see mechanistic oracles belonged to a particular time period when God’s written revelation had barely begun. It is an antiquated and primitive approach and has been replaced by something that is far superior, God’s written Word. In addition, since Pentecost the Holy Spirit has indwelt the people of God and guides our choices from within.

Some may claim that the identification of an approach as antiquated, primitive, or inferior does not necessarily proscribe its use. Is there anything wrong with laying out a fleece? To answer this we should speak briefly of the theory behind oracles. In the process of asking oracles, the inquirer assumes a position of control; deity is summoned to be at his or her beck and call in ways far beyond normal prayer. An oracle requests (demands?) specific information in a specific way at a specific time. This has the appearance of backing God into a corner because, as the mechanism is set up, anything that happens is an answer.

If Rebekah had just given the servant the drink he had asked for, her actions would have been construed as a “no” answer. Anytime that we put ourselves in the position of trying to force God’s hand by making him act in certain ways, according to our dictates, we are exercising an inclination that seeks to control God. I call this the paganism in all of us. If we try to put God on a leash and call him to heel, we will be sadly disappointed.6 In a nutshell, the problem with these oracular mechanisms is that they make demands on God. Unlike the bold prayers of the psalmists who call on God to be God, these are manipulative devices because they seek to oblige him to respond according to our specifications.

The fact that sometimes oracles have worked is no excuse. That God does sometimes condescend and accommodate our weaknesses and ignorance is a demonstration of his grace, not a license to repeat our presumptuous behavior. Moreover, oracles are not reliable because God is not obliged to respond to them.

This does not mean, of course, that we cannot be guided by circumstances. The difference comes when we dictate to God what kinds of circumstances he should arrange. If we merely observe the circumstances God lays out before us rather than dictate what he should do to communicate to us, we avoid the problem of placing God under obligation.

Despite the hazards of mechanistic oracles, people have used them throughout history and continue to use them today. In the following paragraphs we will see three different historical examples illustrating some of the issues and hazards connected with mechanistic oracles. The first concerns the abuse of signs in judicial systems in which oracles determined the guilt or innocence of the accused; the second, the hazardous conditions that may result when the requested oracle does not occur; the third, the ambiguity that may still exist when the sign does occur.

Judicial system. In the ancient world, it was believed that the gods would respond to oracular inquiries. This belief was so strong that oracles were incorporated into the justice system. With little ability to gather evidence for many types of crimes, the courts depended on guidance from deity to settle matters of guilt or innocence. One of the most well-known methods was known as the river ordeal. The accused would be thrown into a river. If he or she survived, it was taken as an indication of innocence. Those who did not survive, a majority, were considered to have been judged by the gods. This mentality continued into relatively modern times, as evidenced in the use of dunking stools in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Christian Europe. When the victim drowned after being held under, it was taken as a sign of his or her guilt.

In this sort of judicial mechanistic oracle, the normal, expected result (drowning) was taken to indicate guilt, while the abnormal, nearly impossible result (survival) was taken as a sign from God affirming the innocence of the accused. The abuse of the system is evident here in that it assumes the guilt of the accused and presumes that the deity will intervene to save an innocent person’s life. We might recognize the same mentality in those who taunted Christ on the cross that if he were from God, God should save him.

A vestige of the same mentality can be found today in how Christians sometimes respond to serious illness. In the desperate crisis of a potentially terminal condition, the prayers of the afflicted person or family are sometimes inclined to equate healing with favor. If healing does not take place, they conclude that God is angry or unfair. As in the ancient oracles, the default situation leads to an inference of guilt. It is an abuse in that it assumes that God’s favor will always bring good health. This abuse is particularly apparent in the thinking of those who adhere to the so-called health and wealth gospel.

Hazards when the sign fails. The tragedy known as the Children’s Crusade in 1212 offers a different sort of example of the misuse of mechanistic oracles. When Stephen of Cloyes, a twelve-year-old shepherd boy, came before the French king Philip with a letter that he had purportedly received from Christ directing him to lead a crusade of children to free the Holy Land, the monarch attempted to dissuade him of his folly. The boy nonetheless marched through France gathering thousands of young followers, proclaiming that God would part the sea to let them pass through. They arrived at Marseilles and awaited the miraculous sign that would confirm that God had inspired this crusade.

When several days passed and no miracle occurred, Stephen accepted the help of seemingly friendly merchants who offered to supply ships. Most of the children were never heard from again, but stragglers who made their way back to France decades later reported that the ships were taken by Saracens, with whom arrangements were made for the children to be sold into slavery. In this case, the oracle failed, but the enterprise was pursued anyway with disastrous results.

In this kind of situation, the sign is desired, but the system is not followed. When normal and abnormal occurrences are set up as yes/no answers and the normal happens (e.g., the sea is not parted), that should be taken as a “no” answer. This was precisely the situation Gideon faced on the first night of his fleece trial. He set up the test so that the normal occurrence (wet fleece, dry ground) was a “yes” answer (God was still intending to deliver by Gideon’s hand). But in the end, that did not satisfy Gideon, so he reversed the indicators so as to get more specific direction. The fact is that sometimes, like Stephen of Cloyes, we are already determined to pursue a particular course of action. In the worst case scenario, the sign gives God a chance to hop on our bandwagon when we are in reality prepared to proceed whether he gives the sign or not.

Ambiguity when the sign happens. But is the result any more clear when the oracle succeeds? In 1429 the prince who was later to be crowned Charles VII of France was told that a teenage girl had reportedly received messages from saints urging her to support his kingship and drive the English out of France. After he agreed to give her an audience, he decided to conduct a test. He had someone else sit on his throne while he himself stood among the courtiers in attendance. He thought that if the girl were receiving supernatural guidance, she would immediately detect the imposter and pick him out in the crowd (though they had never met). He was impressed when the girl walked into the throne room and, after only a minute of indecision, turned away from the throne, strode up to him, and bowed before him. He took this as a divine sign that the girl, Joan of Arc, had been chosen by God to liberate France.

Was he right? Joan certainly enjoyed initial success, and the dauphin was crowned king in the wake of her success. But that success was short-lived and did not lead directly to the liberation of France. France was eventually liberated, but it was many years after Joan’s execution by the English. Hindsight has made it easy to question whether that first sign was truly God’s endorsement of Joan’s mission.

We may fall prey to this same sort of situation when we pray for God to bring success to some endeavor so that we can be assured it pleases him. But does the indicated sign really give such assurance? Is it not possible for an endeavor to have some success even though God does not approve of it? Let’s say someone prays to God to help him pass his CPA exam the first time or to help her get into medical school to confirm certain career directions. But perhaps the student’s skills or academic record was sufficient to achieve the desired end anyway. Does that mean that an accountant career or medical career represents God’s will? Not at all. The accounting student may have considered that it would qualify as sufficiently abnormal to pass the CPA exam the first time, but perhaps it was not abnormal at all.

These and many other examples demonstrate that the use of such oracle mechanisms represents not faith but folly. Oracular mechanisms are unreliable guides to God’s will because we have been given no confidence to expect that God will respond to such conditions. God cannot be obliged to act in certain ways so as to reveal his will in a given situation. This is true whether it has to do with crusades, with whom you will marry, or with what job you will take. Oracles of the ordeal variety continue to be evident in those pockets of Christianity where it is believed that accepting medical intervention shows a lack of faith. In this way of thinking, if God wants the person to recover and be well, he will do the healing. As in the ordeal, this leaves the abnormal occurrence as required of God to spare a person’s life.

The fallacy in all of this oracle-type thinking is that it allows a person to think that he or she can push God into a corner. The alternative is to leave matters open-ended and to simply look for God’s hand in circumstances as he sovereignly works them out. In Genesis 24, even though the servant dictated what circumstances he wanted to occur, Rebekah, Laban, and the extended family are all persuaded by circumstances that God has indeed communicated. Rather than forcing God’s hand, we need to learn to see his fingerprints on our lives.

The story is told of a man who had been forced to take refuge on his roof to escape the waters of a flashflood. There he fervently prayed for God to provide deliverance and accepted in faith that his prayer would be answered. A short time later a neighbor came by in a rowboat and invited to take the man in. He refused, claiming that God was going to deliver him. The waters continued to rise. Soon the man was forced to the peak of his roof. When evening came a National Guard motorboat came by and offered to take the man to safety. But no, the man insisted that God was going to save him. And the waters continued to rise.

Finally the man had to take up a perch on the top of his chimney. In the middle of the night a helicopter hovered into sight and dropped a ladder down to lift the man to dry ground. Again the man was resolute that God was going to save him. Sometime shortly before dawn the man was overcome by the floodwaters and died. Standing before God in heaven, he lamented his great disappointment that God had let him down despite his firm faith. Why had God not delivered him? God gently replied that he had sent two boats and a helicopter, what more did he expect?

Though this story is often told with a touch of humor, we must see the serious point it makes. The man was so busy looking for the oracles that he missed the fingerprints of God. We can easily fall prey to the same error. Instead of making demands on God to do abnormal things to direct us, we should be content to be guided by the everyday circumstances he brings into our lives.

In the process of discerning God’s will in our lives, there are aspects that are our responsibility and others that are God’s responsibility. It is our responsibility to be committed to doing his will. Our prayers should focus on ferreting out self-will and selfish motivations. Instead of asking for miraculous signs, we should ask God to help us to be motivated only by what pleases and honors him. We should ask him to help us think clearly about the decision and to direct our thinking. If we faithfully do our part, it is then his job to guide us to the right decision. He can do this through abnormal circumstances that carry his unmistakable mark, but more frequently he will do it through closed and open doors, through our own thinking process, and through his Spirit working within us. Asking for signs may indicate that we do not trust God enough to allow him to work in our minds and hearts to give us godly discernment.7

Original Meaning

Negotiations (23:4–16)

FOUR HUNDRED shekels of silver is a substantial price—equivalent to about seven and a quarter pounds of silver. Compared to other land purchases, Omri bought the site of Samaria for 6,000 shekels (1 Kings 16:24), while David bought the site of the temple for 600 gold shekels (1 Chron. 21:25) with the threshing floor itself fetching 50 shekels (2 Sam. 24:24). Jeremiah bought property at greatly deflated prices for 17 shekels (Jer. 32:9). Abraham’s payment was more likely viewed as exorbitant rather than discounted, for rather than negotiating, he pays the inflated initial quote. Abraham refuses the offer to receive the land as a gift because then Ephron’s heirs could reclaim the land after Ephron’s death. In fact, Abraham is likely anxious to pay full price because a discounted price could be later connected to family debt problems and also allow the heirs of Ephron to reclaim the land. A laborer or artisan at ten shekels per year would not expect to make this much in a lifetime.1

Bridging Contexts

SARAH’S BURIAL. It seems obvious that Genesis 23 has little to do with Sarah’s death and Abraham’s mourning for her. Important as those elements are from a personal standpoint, the narrator has another purpose. Both from the proportion of the content of the chapter and from the introduction and conclusion of the chapter, the author’s focus is clearly on the purchase of the land and the cave. This is no surprise given the fact that the acquisition of the land is one of the most significant aspects of the covenant agreement. Abraham appears content enough to wait for the land to come to him in the Lord’s time, but meanwhile, the dead must be laid to rest.

In Genesis 21 Abraham acquired wells, while here he acquires a burial chamber and the land surrounding it. These are important stakes in the land and provide the impetus for future return (see 49:29–50:14, 24–25). This passage, therefore, is comparable to chapter 14 and 21:22–34. In the first Abraham refused to gain land or possessions by right of conquest; in the second he secures water rights but no land. Here in chapter 23, he purchases only what is necessary to bury his dead. Attachments to the land are being established, but little that can be called possession of the land; but what there is, the narrator includes as he traces the preliminary fulfillment of the covenant promises.

Purpose of the Rebekah narrative. The covenantal significance of Genesis 24 is transparent enough. It follows the same procedure that has dominated the previous narratives. The second generation will also have obstacles that need to be overcome. How is Isaac to procure a wife if he is to avoid assimilation into the peoples of the land? A wife brought from afar will have to demonstrate the same sort of faith that characterized Abraham when he left his land, his family, and his security. In short, getting a wife for Isaac in a way that will preserve the covenant ideals is not an easy matter. It is for that reason that the narrator goes to such great length to demonstrate the role that God played in bringing the marriage to fruition. Abraham has not yet become a great nation. Survival of the line still hangs by a thread.

The covenant issue is family. The obstacle is the difficulty in acquiring a wife for Isaac. God’s provision is astounding and undeniable as he continues to reveal his sovereignty and grace in the advance of the covenant. In this regard the oracle is of central significance. The participants as well as the reading audience will recognize the hand of God in this situation. The author does not preserve the narrative to commend the procedure or instruct the reader in the use of oracles. He uses it the same way the servant does in his retelling: to persuade.

Purpose of the sections in Genesis 25. The author’s purpose in the two pericopes of chapter 25 (vv. 1–11 and vv. 12–18) is to tie up the loose ends before moving on to the narratives concerning Jacob. Both have to do with covenant promises. Since Isaac is to be the sole heir of the covenant, it is important for the author to indicate that all other heirs have been cared for and have received their due. They have no claims on that which belongs to Isaac. Verses 5 and 11 show respectively Abraham’s and God’s blessing of Isaac, while the verses in between detail the fact that the other sons were compensated and sent away. Thus Isaac’s position is vouchsafed.

The second pericope is not as interested in removing Ishmael from a position of competition (that had already been cared for in ch. 21) as it is in showing that God keeps his quasi-covenant promises to Ishmael. Even in this, then, we see God as One who overcomes obstacles and fulfills promises.

Contemporary Significance

ONCE AGAIN WE see God’s ability to overcome obstacles and to fulfill his promises. He is working out his plan as he continues to reveal himself and establish his covenant people. We have already explored these issues elsewhere for their contemporary significance. The narrative is not being repetitive or redundant as it revisits these issues, because it is important to see how God sustains his plan and shows himself persistent and capable from situation to situation and from generation to generation.

Using oracles today. When we consider the contemporary significance of a passage, sometimes we have to engage in a discussion about some of the teachings people are prone to extract from a passage to consider whether these popular conceptions are legitimate or not. Genesis 24 offers such an opportunity in that the procedure used by the servant is similar to a procedure used at times today. In modern Christianity, the use of oracle mechanisms such as the one employed in this passage is sometimes referred to as the “fleece method,” based on the story of Gideon. People “lay out a fleece” before God, meaning that they devise a test by which they can receive a sign and be guided in a decision they have to make. Are there problems with this? A look at history and a look at theory will help us to answer that question.

But before proceeding, I must make a disclaimer eminently clear. This passage of Scripture is not about how to get information from God (or about how not to get such information). As much as we would like to get direct and clear guidance on specific issues, we dare not come to this passage looking for a formula by which we can extract information from God, any more than we would come to it for a procedure on how to find a wife.

The three examples in Scripture of the use of mechanistic nature oracles (Gen. 24; Judg. 6; 1 Sam. 6) have a few characteristics in common. (1) They are all in the premonarchy period, therefore early in the history of revelation. (2) They are all conducted by those who show no indication of theological sophistication or spiritual maturity. We know little about Abraham’s servant who acts in the name of his master’s God. Gideon, though greatly used by God, was raised in a family with a Baal altar and an Asherah pole in the backyard (Judg. 6:25), and later he committed apostasy by forming some sort of oracle cult (8:27). And, of course, no one would elevate the Philistines to spiritual role models. Consequently, even if we felt free to seek out role models to teach certain types of behavior, none of these individuals commend themselves as spiritually mature or as consistent and reliable guides to spirituality.

It is important to remember that people of these early periods had little revelation from God. As revelation progresses, changes take place in how information is gathered. During the time of Moses, the Urim and Thummim were used to receive oracles, but they were not available for the common people to use. Once we get to the time of David, we find that he rarely used mechanistic oracles. Instead, he received verbal oracles from the prophets (e.g., 2 Sam. 7). This process continues throughout the Old Testament period as prophets functioned to give oracles to the leaders of Israel, whether the leaders sought them out or not.

By the time we reach the first century A.D., written revelation becomes complete, and prophetic oracles fade from usage. The “oracles of God” are now inscripturated, committed to writing and available to any who would read them. From this historical perspective, we can see mechanistic oracles belonged to a particular time period when God’s written revelation had barely begun. It is an antiquated and primitive approach and has been replaced by something that is far superior, God’s written Word. In addition, since Pentecost the Holy Spirit has indwelt the people of God and guides our choices from within.

Some may claim that the identification of an approach as antiquated, primitive, or inferior does not necessarily proscribe its use. Is there anything wrong with laying out a fleece? To answer this we should speak briefly of the theory behind oracles. In the process of asking oracles, the inquirer assumes a position of control; deity is summoned to be at his or her beck and call in ways far beyond normal prayer. An oracle requests (demands?) specific information in a specific way at a specific time. This has the appearance of backing God into a corner because, as the mechanism is set up, anything that happens is an answer.

If Rebekah had just given the servant the drink he had asked for, her actions would have been construed as a “no” answer. Anytime that we put ourselves in the position of trying to force God’s hand by making him act in certain ways, according to our dictates, we are exercising an inclination that seeks to control God. I call this the paganism in all of us. If we try to put God on a leash and call him to heel, we will be sadly disappointed.6 In a nutshell, the problem with these oracular mechanisms is that they make demands on God. Unlike the bold prayers of the psalmists who call on God to be God, these are manipulative devices because they seek to oblige him to respond according to our specifications.

The fact that sometimes oracles have worked is no excuse. That God does sometimes condescend and accommodate our weaknesses and ignorance is a demonstration of his grace, not a license to repeat our presumptuous behavior. Moreover, oracles are not reliable because God is not obliged to respond to them.

This does not mean, of course, that we cannot be guided by circumstances. The difference comes when we dictate to God what kinds of circumstances he should arrange. If we merely observe the circumstances God lays out before us rather than dictate what he should do to communicate to us, we avoid the problem of placing God under obligation.

Despite the hazards of mechanistic oracles, people have used them throughout history and continue to use them today. In the following paragraphs we will see three different historical examples illustrating some of the issues and hazards connected with mechanistic oracles. The first concerns the abuse of signs in judicial systems in which oracles determined the guilt or innocence of the accused; the second, the hazardous conditions that may result when the requested oracle does not occur; the third, the ambiguity that may still exist when the sign does occur.

Judicial system. In the ancient world, it was believed that the gods would respond to oracular inquiries. This belief was so strong that oracles were incorporated into the justice system. With little ability to gather evidence for many types of crimes, the courts depended on guidance from deity to settle matters of guilt or innocence. One of the most well-known methods was known as the river ordeal. The accused would be thrown into a river. If he or she survived, it was taken as an indication of innocence. Those who did not survive, a majority, were considered to have been judged by the gods. This mentality continued into relatively modern times, as evidenced in the use of dunking stools in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Christian Europe. When the victim drowned after being held under, it was taken as a sign of his or her guilt.

In this sort of judicial mechanistic oracle, the normal, expected result (drowning) was taken to indicate guilt, while the abnormal, nearly impossible result (survival) was taken as a sign from God affirming the innocence of the accused. The abuse of the system is evident here in that it assumes the guilt of the accused and presumes that the deity will intervene to save an innocent person’s life. We might recognize the same mentality in those who taunted Christ on the cross that if he were from God, God should save him.

A vestige of the same mentality can be found today in how Christians sometimes respond to serious illness. In the desperate crisis of a potentially terminal condition, the prayers of the afflicted person or family are sometimes inclined to equate healing with favor. If healing does not take place, they conclude that God is angry or unfair. As in the ancient oracles, the default situation leads to an inference of guilt. It is an abuse in that it assumes that God’s favor will always bring good health. This abuse is particularly apparent in the thinking of those who adhere to the so-called health and wealth gospel.

Hazards when the sign fails. The tragedy known as the Children’s Crusade in 1212 offers a different sort of example of the misuse of mechanistic oracles. When Stephen of Cloyes, a twelve-year-old shepherd boy, came before the French king Philip with a letter that he had purportedly received from Christ directing him to lead a crusade of children to free the Holy Land, the monarch attempted to dissuade him of his folly. The boy nonetheless marched through France gathering thousands of young followers, proclaiming that God would part the sea to let them pass through. They arrived at Marseilles and awaited the miraculous sign that would confirm that God had inspired this crusade.

When several days passed and no miracle occurred, Stephen accepted the help of seemingly friendly merchants who offered to supply ships. Most of the children were never heard from again, but stragglers who made their way back to France decades later reported that the ships were taken by Saracens, with whom arrangements were made for the children to be sold into slavery. In this case, the oracle failed, but the enterprise was pursued anyway with disastrous results.

In this kind of situation, the sign is desired, but the system is not followed. When normal and abnormal occurrences are set up as yes/no answers and the normal happens (e.g., the sea is not parted), that should be taken as a “no” answer. This was precisely the situation Gideon faced on the first night of his fleece trial. He set up the test so that the normal occurrence (wet fleece, dry ground) was a “yes” answer (God was still intending to deliver by Gideon’s hand). But in the end, that did not satisfy Gideon, so he reversed the indicators so as to get more specific direction. The fact is that sometimes, like Stephen of Cloyes, we are already determined to pursue a particular course of action. In the worst case scenario, the sign gives God a chance to hop on our bandwagon when we are in reality prepared to proceed whether he gives the sign or not.

Ambiguity when the sign happens. But is the result any more clear when the oracle succeeds? In 1429 the prince who was later to be crowned Charles VII of France was told that a teenage girl had reportedly received messages from saints urging her to support his kingship and drive the English out of France. After he agreed to give her an audience, he decided to conduct a test. He had someone else sit on his throne while he himself stood among the courtiers in attendance. He thought that if the girl were receiving supernatural guidance, she would immediately detect the imposter and pick him out in the crowd (though they had never met). He was impressed when the girl walked into the throne room and, after only a minute of indecision, turned away from the throne, strode up to him, and bowed before him. He took this as a divine sign that the girl, Joan of Arc, had been chosen by God to liberate France.

Was he right? Joan certainly enjoyed initial success, and the dauphin was crowned king in the wake of her success. But that success was short-lived and did not lead directly to the liberation of France. France was eventually liberated, but it was many years after Joan’s execution by the English. Hindsight has made it easy to question whether that first sign was truly God’s endorsement of Joan’s mission.

We may fall prey to this same sort of situation when we pray for God to bring success to some endeavor so that we can be assured it pleases him. But does the indicated sign really give such assurance? Is it not possible for an endeavor to have some success even though God does not approve of it? Let’s say someone prays to God to help him pass his CPA exam the first time or to help her get into medical school to confirm certain career directions. But perhaps the student’s skills or academic record was sufficient to achieve the desired end anyway. Does that mean that an accountant career or medical career represents God’s will? Not at all. The accounting student may have considered that it would qualify as sufficiently abnormal to pass the CPA exam the first time, but perhaps it was not abnormal at all.

These and many other examples demonstrate that the use of such oracle mechanisms represents not faith but folly. Oracular mechanisms are unreliable guides to God’s will because we have been given no confidence to expect that God will respond to such conditions. God cannot be obliged to act in certain ways so as to reveal his will in a given situation. This is true whether it has to do with crusades, with whom you will marry, or with what job you will take. Oracles of the ordeal variety continue to be evident in those pockets of Christianity where it is believed that accepting medical intervention shows a lack of faith. In this way of thinking, if God wants the person to recover and be well, he will do the healing. As in the ordeal, this leaves the abnormal occurrence as required of God to spare a person’s life.

The fallacy in all of this oracle-type thinking is that it allows a person to think that he or she can push God into a corner. The alternative is to leave matters open-ended and to simply look for God’s hand in circumstances as he sovereignly works them out. In Genesis 24, even though the servant dictated what circumstances he wanted to occur, Rebekah, Laban, and the extended family are all persuaded by circumstances that God has indeed communicated. Rather than forcing God’s hand, we need to learn to see his fingerprints on our lives.

The story is told of a man who had been forced to take refuge on his roof to escape the waters of a flashflood. There he fervently prayed for God to provide deliverance and accepted in faith that his prayer would be answered. A short time later a neighbor came by in a rowboat and invited to take the man in. He refused, claiming that God was going to deliver him. The waters continued to rise. Soon the man was forced to the peak of his roof. When evening came a National Guard motorboat came by and offered to take the man to safety. But no, the man insisted that God was going to save him. And the waters continued to rise.

Finally the man had to take up a perch on the top of his chimney. In the middle of the night a helicopter hovered into sight and dropped a ladder down to lift the man to dry ground. Again the man was resolute that God was going to save him. Sometime shortly before dawn the man was overcome by the floodwaters and died. Standing before God in heaven, he lamented his great disappointment that God had let him down despite his firm faith. Why had God not delivered him? God gently replied that he had sent two boats and a helicopter, what more did he expect?

Though this story is often told with a touch of humor, we must see the serious point it makes. The man was so busy looking for the oracles that he missed the fingerprints of God. We can easily fall prey to the same error. Instead of making demands on God to do abnormal things to direct us, we should be content to be guided by the everyday circumstances he brings into our lives.

In the process of discerning God’s will in our lives, there are aspects that are our responsibility and others that are God’s responsibility. It is our responsibility to be committed to doing his will. Our prayers should focus on ferreting out self-will and selfish motivations. Instead of asking for miraculous signs, we should ask God to help us to be motivated only by what pleases and honors him. We should ask him to help us think clearly about the decision and to direct our thinking. If we faithfully do our part, it is then his job to guide us to the right decision. He can do this through abnormal circumstances that carry his unmistakable mark, but more frequently he will do it through closed and open doors, through our own thinking process, and through his Spirit working within us. Asking for signs may indicate that we do not trust God enough to allow him to work in our minds and hearts to give us godly discernment.7

Original Meaning

Mamre, Hebron, and Machpelah (23:17–20)

THE CITY OF Hebron is in the Judean hill country about halfway between Jerusalem and Beersheba. Mamre is identified as Ramet el-Khalil, about two miles north of Hebron. Excavations indicate a wall around an ancient terebinth there already in the Second Temple period. Machpelah has long been considered a sacred site. The monumental construction around the area is Herodian. Explorations of the tomb area have taken place from time to time. In A.D. 1119, one group claimed to have found the bones of the patriarchs. But no physical remains or artifacts from the site have ever been subjected to scientific analysis, and nothing from the patriarchs or their age is attested.

Bridging Contexts

SARAH’S BURIAL. It seems obvious that Genesis 23 has little to do with Sarah’s death and Abraham’s mourning for her. Important as those elements are from a personal standpoint, the narrator has another purpose. Both from the proportion of the content of the chapter and from the introduction and conclusion of the chapter, the author’s focus is clearly on the purchase of the land and the cave. This is no surprise given the fact that the acquisition of the land is one of the most significant aspects of the covenant agreement. Abraham appears content enough to wait for the land to come to him in the Lord’s time, but meanwhile, the dead must be laid to rest.

In Genesis 21 Abraham acquired wells, while here he acquires a burial chamber and the land surrounding it. These are important stakes in the land and provide the impetus for future return (see 49:29–50:14, 24–25). This passage, therefore, is comparable to chapter 14 and 21:22–34. In the first Abraham refused to gain land or possessions by right of conquest; in the second he secures water rights but no land. Here in chapter 23, he purchases only what is necessary to bury his dead. Attachments to the land are being established, but little that can be called possession of the land; but what there is, the narrator includes as he traces the preliminary fulfillment of the covenant promises.

Purpose of the Rebekah narrative. The covenantal significance of Genesis 24 is transparent enough. It follows the same procedure that has dominated the previous narratives. The second generation will also have obstacles that need to be overcome. How is Isaac to procure a wife if he is to avoid assimilation into the peoples of the land? A wife brought from afar will have to demonstrate the same sort of faith that characterized Abraham when he left his land, his family, and his security. In short, getting a wife for Isaac in a way that will preserve the covenant ideals is not an easy matter. It is for that reason that the narrator goes to such great length to demonstrate the role that God played in bringing the marriage to fruition. Abraham has not yet become a great nation. Survival of the line still hangs by a thread.

The covenant issue is family. The obstacle is the difficulty in acquiring a wife for Isaac. God’s provision is astounding and undeniable as he continues to reveal his sovereignty and grace in the advance of the covenant. In this regard the oracle is of central significance. The participants as well as the reading audience will recognize the hand of God in this situation. The author does not preserve the narrative to commend the procedure or instruct the reader in the use of oracles. He uses it the same way the servant does in his retelling: to persuade.

Purpose of the sections in Genesis 25. The author’s purpose in the two pericopes of chapter 25 (vv. 1–11 and vv. 12–18) is to tie up the loose ends before moving on to the narratives concerning Jacob. Both have to do with covenant promises. Since Isaac is to be the sole heir of the covenant, it is important for the author to indicate that all other heirs have been cared for and have received their due. They have no claims on that which belongs to Isaac. Verses 5 and 11 show respectively Abraham’s and God’s blessing of Isaac, while the verses in between detail the fact that the other sons were compensated and sent away. Thus Isaac’s position is vouchsafed.

The second pericope is not as interested in removing Ishmael from a position of competition (that had already been cared for in ch. 21) as it is in showing that God keeps his quasi-covenant promises to Ishmael. Even in this, then, we see God as One who overcomes obstacles and fulfills promises.

Contemporary Significance

ONCE AGAIN WE see God’s ability to overcome obstacles and to fulfill his promises. He is working out his plan as he continues to reveal himself and establish his covenant people. We have already explored these issues elsewhere for their contemporary significance. The narrative is not being repetitive or redundant as it revisits these issues, because it is important to see how God sustains his plan and shows himself persistent and capable from situation to situation and from generation to generation.

Using oracles today. When we consider the contemporary significance of a passage, sometimes we have to engage in a discussion about some of the teachings people are prone to extract from a passage to consider whether these popular conceptions are legitimate or not. Genesis 24 offers such an opportunity in that the procedure used by the servant is similar to a procedure used at times today. In modern Christianity, the use of oracle mechanisms such as the one employed in this passage is sometimes referred to as the “fleece method,” based on the story of Gideon. People “lay out a fleece” before God, meaning that they devise a test by which they can receive a sign and be guided in a decision they have to make. Are there problems with this? A look at history and a look at theory will help us to answer that question.

But before proceeding, I must make a disclaimer eminently clear. This passage of Scripture is not about how to get information from God (or about how not to get such information). As much as we would like to get direct and clear guidance on specific issues, we dare not come to this passage looking for a formula by which we can extract information from God, any more than we would come to it for a procedure on how to find a wife.

The three examples in Scripture of the use of mechanistic nature oracles (Gen. 24; Judg. 6; 1 Sam. 6) have a few characteristics in common. (1) They are all in the premonarchy period, therefore early in the history of revelation. (2) They are all conducted by those who show no indication of theological sophistication or spiritual maturity. We know little about Abraham’s servant who acts in the name of his master’s God. Gideon, though greatly used by God, was raised in a family with a Baal altar and an Asherah pole in the backyard (Judg. 6:25), and later he committed apostasy by forming some sort of oracle cult (8:27). And, of course, no one would elevate the Philistines to spiritual role models. Consequently, even if we felt free to seek out role models to teach certain types of behavior, none of these individuals commend themselves as spiritually mature or as consistent and reliable guides to spirituality.

It is important to remember that people of these early periods had little revelation from God. As revelation progresses, changes take place in how information is gathered. During the time of Moses, the Urim and Thummim were used to receive oracles, but they were not available for the common people to use. Once we get to the time of David, we find that he rarely used mechanistic oracles. Instead, he received verbal oracles from the prophets (e.g., 2 Sam. 7). This process continues throughout the Old Testament period as prophets functioned to give oracles to the leaders of Israel, whether the leaders sought them out or not.

By the time we reach the first century A.D., written revelation becomes complete, and prophetic oracles fade from usage. The “oracles of God” are now inscripturated, committed to writing and available to any who would read them. From this historical perspective, we can see mechanistic oracles belonged to a particular time period when God’s written revelation had barely begun. It is an antiquated and primitive approach and has been replaced by something that is far superior, God’s written Word. In addition, since Pentecost the Holy Spirit has indwelt the people of God and guides our choices from within.

Some may claim that the identification of an approach as antiquated, primitive, or inferior does not necessarily proscribe its use. Is there anything wrong with laying out a fleece? To answer this we should speak briefly of the theory behind oracles. In the process of asking oracles, the inquirer assumes a position of control; deity is summoned to be at his or her beck and call in ways far beyond normal prayer. An oracle requests (demands?) specific information in a specific way at a specific time. This has the appearance of backing God into a corner because, as the mechanism is set up, anything that happens is an answer.

If Rebekah had just given the servant the drink he had asked for, her actions would have been construed as a “no” answer. Anytime that we put ourselves in the position of trying to force God’s hand by making him act in certain ways, according to our dictates, we are exercising an inclination that seeks to control God. I call this the paganism in all of us. If we try to put God on a leash and call him to heel, we will be sadly disappointed.6 In a nutshell, the problem with these oracular mechanisms is that they make demands on God. Unlike the bold prayers of the psalmists who call on God to be God, these are manipulative devices because they seek to oblige him to respond according to our specifications.

The fact that sometimes oracles have worked is no excuse. That God does sometimes condescend and accommodate our weaknesses and ignorance is a demonstration of his grace, not a license to repeat our presumptuous behavior. Moreover, oracles are not reliable because God is not obliged to respond to them.

This does not mean, of course, that we cannot be guided by circumstances. The difference comes when we dictate to God what kinds of circumstances he should arrange. If we merely observe the circumstances God lays out before us rather than dictate what he should do to communicate to us, we avoid the problem of placing God under obligation.

Despite the hazards of mechanistic oracles, people have used them throughout history and continue to use them today. In the following paragraphs we will see three different historical examples illustrating some of the issues and hazards connected with mechanistic oracles. The first concerns the abuse of signs in judicial systems in which oracles determined the guilt or innocence of the accused; the second, the hazardous conditions that may result when the requested oracle does not occur; the third, the ambiguity that may still exist when the sign does occur.

Judicial system. In the ancient world, it was believed that the gods would respond to oracular inquiries. This belief was so strong that oracles were incorporated into the justice system. With little ability to gather evidence for many types of crimes, the courts depended on guidance from deity to settle matters of guilt or innocence. One of the most well-known methods was known as the river ordeal. The accused would be thrown into a river. If he or she survived, it was taken as an indication of innocence. Those who did not survive, a majority, were considered to have been judged by the gods. This mentality continued into relatively modern times, as evidenced in the use of dunking stools in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Christian Europe. When the victim drowned after being held under, it was taken as a sign of his or her guilt.

In this sort of judicial mechanistic oracle, the normal, expected result (drowning) was taken to indicate guilt, while the abnormal, nearly impossible result (survival) was taken as a sign from God affirming the innocence of the accused. The abuse of the system is evident here in that it assumes the guilt of the accused and presumes that the deity will intervene to save an innocent person’s life. We might recognize the same mentality in those who taunted Christ on the cross that if he were from God, God should save him.

A vestige of the same mentality can be found today in how Christians sometimes respond to serious illness. In the desperate crisis of a potentially terminal condition, the prayers of the afflicted person or family are sometimes inclined to equate healing with favor. If healing does not take place, they conclude that God is angry or unfair. As in the ancient oracles, the default situation leads to an inference of guilt. It is an abuse in that it assumes that God’s favor will always bring good health. This abuse is particularly apparent in the thinking of those who adhere to the so-called health and wealth gospel.

Hazards when the sign fails. The tragedy known as the Children’s Crusade in 1212 offers a different sort of example of the misuse of mechanistic oracles. When Stephen of Cloyes, a twelve-year-old shepherd boy, came before the French king Philip with a letter that he had purportedly received from Christ directing him to lead a crusade of children to free the Holy Land, the monarch attempted to dissuade him of his folly. The boy nonetheless marched through France gathering thousands of young followers, proclaiming that God would part the sea to let them pass through. They arrived at Marseilles and awaited the miraculous sign that would confirm that God had inspired this crusade.

When several days passed and no miracle occurred, Stephen accepted the help of seemingly friendly merchants who offered to supply ships. Most of the children were never heard from again, but stragglers who made their way back to France decades later reported that the ships were taken by Saracens, with whom arrangements were made for the children to be sold into slavery. In this case, the oracle failed, but the enterprise was pursued anyway with disastrous results.

In this kind of situation, the sign is desired, but the system is not followed. When normal and abnormal occurrences are set up as yes/no answers and the normal happens (e.g., the sea is not parted), that should be taken as a “no” answer. This was precisely the situation Gideon faced on the first night of his fleece trial. He set up the test so that the normal occurrence (wet fleece, dry ground) was a “yes” answer (God was still intending to deliver by Gideon’s hand). But in the end, that did not satisfy Gideon, so he reversed the indicators so as to get more specific direction. The fact is that sometimes, like Stephen of Cloyes, we are already determined to pursue a particular course of action. In the worst case scenario, the sign gives God a chance to hop on our bandwagon when we are in reality prepared to proceed whether he gives the sign or not.

Ambiguity when the sign happens. But is the result any more clear when the oracle succeeds? In 1429 the prince who was later to be crowned Charles VII of France was told that a teenage girl had reportedly received messages from saints urging her to support his kingship and drive the English out of France. After he agreed to give her an audience, he decided to conduct a test. He had someone else sit on his throne while he himself stood among the courtiers in attendance. He thought that if the girl were receiving supernatural guidance, she would immediately detect the imposter and pick him out in the crowd (though they had never met). He was impressed when the girl walked into the throne room and, after only a minute of indecision, turned away from the throne, strode up to him, and bowed before him. He took this as a divine sign that the girl, Joan of Arc, had been chosen by God to liberate France.

Was he right? Joan certainly enjoyed initial success, and the dauphin was crowned king in the wake of her success. But that success was short-lived and did not lead directly to the liberation of France. France was eventually liberated, but it was many years after Joan’s execution by the English. Hindsight has made it easy to question whether that first sign was truly God’s endorsement of Joan’s mission.

We may fall prey to this same sort of situation when we pray for God to bring success to some endeavor so that we can be assured it pleases him. But does the indicated sign really give such assurance? Is it not possible for an endeavor to have some success even though God does not approve of it? Let’s say someone prays to God to help him pass his CPA exam the first time or to help her get into medical school to confirm certain career directions. But perhaps the student’s skills or academic record was sufficient to achieve the desired end anyway. Does that mean that an accountant career or medical career represents God’s will? Not at all. The accounting student may have considered that it would qualify as sufficiently abnormal to pass the CPA exam the first time, but perhaps it was not abnormal at all.

These and many other examples demonstrate that the use of such oracle mechanisms represents not faith but folly. Oracular mechanisms are unreliable guides to God’s will because we have been given no confidence to expect that God will respond to such conditions. God cannot be obliged to act in certain ways so as to reveal his will in a given situation. This is true whether it has to do with crusades, with whom you will marry, or with what job you will take. Oracles of the ordeal variety continue to be evident in those pockets of Christianity where it is believed that accepting medical intervention shows a lack of faith. In this way of thinking, if God wants the person to recover and be well, he will do the healing. As in the ordeal, this leaves the abnormal occurrence as required of God to spare a person’s life.

The fallacy in all of this oracle-type thinking is that it allows a person to think that he or she can push God into a corner. The alternative is to leave matters open-ended and to simply look for God’s hand in circumstances as he sovereignly works them out. In Genesis 24, even though the servant dictated what circumstances he wanted to occur, Rebekah, Laban, and the extended family are all persuaded by circumstances that God has indeed communicated. Rather than forcing God’s hand, we need to learn to see his fingerprints on our lives.

The story is told of a man who had been forced to take refuge on his roof to escape the waters of a flashflood. There he fervently prayed for God to provide deliverance and accepted in faith that his prayer would be answered. A short time later a neighbor came by in a rowboat and invited to take the man in. He refused, claiming that God was going to deliver him. The waters continued to rise. Soon the man was forced to the peak of his roof. When evening came a National Guard motorboat came by and offered to take the man to safety. But no, the man insisted that God was going to save him. And the waters continued to rise.

Finally the man had to take up a perch on the top of his chimney. In the middle of the night a helicopter hovered into sight and dropped a ladder down to lift the man to dry ground. Again the man was resolute that God was going to save him. Sometime shortly before dawn the man was overcome by the floodwaters and died. Standing before God in heaven, he lamented his great disappointment that God had let him down despite his firm faith. Why had God not delivered him? God gently replied that he had sent two boats and a helicopter, what more did he expect?

Though this story is often told with a touch of humor, we must see the serious point it makes. The man was so busy looking for the oracles that he missed the fingerprints of God. We can easily fall prey to the same error. Instead of making demands on God to do abnormal things to direct us, we should be content to be guided by the everyday circumstances he brings into our lives.

In the process of discerning God’s will in our lives, there are aspects that are our responsibility and others that are God’s responsibility. It is our responsibility to be committed to doing his will. Our prayers should focus on ferreting out self-will and selfish motivations. Instead of asking for miraculous signs, we should ask God to help us to be motivated only by what pleases and honors him. We should ask him to help us think clearly about the decision and to direct our thinking. If we faithfully do our part, it is then his job to guide us to the right decision. He can do this through abnormal circumstances that carry his unmistakable mark, but more frequently he will do it through closed and open doors, through our own thinking process, and through his Spirit working within us. Asking for signs may indicate that we do not trust God enough to allow him to work in our minds and hearts to give us godly discernment.7

Original Meaning

Negotiations (24:22–54)

THE GIVING OF GIFTS—the nose ring and bracelets—serves several functions. On the most basic level it can be thought of as an exorbitant payment for exorbitant service (the hospitality shown by watering his camels). But no one would have taken this as a pay-for-hire situation. Hospitality is not to be bought, however excessive it may be. Thus, the gifts also create a context for the servant’s more personal inquiries concerning who she is and whether lodging is available. He is no vagabond. In fact, the gifts give evidence of his master’s wealth and serve as motivation for the eventual proposal to be taken seriously. Finally, whether they are initially recognized as such or not, they serve as a down payment on a bride price.

Nose rings were especially popular later on during the Iron Age (1200–600 B.C.), though there are examples from earlier periods. Made of silver, bronze, and gold, and often tubular in design, they were round with two ends for insertion and sometimes included a tiny pendant. A “beka” is the half-shekel measure of weight, equal to one-fifth ounce or about 5.5 grams. The bracelets were bands worn around the wrist as bangles. They were popular items and are often found on the arms and wrists of females in tombs. By placing them on Rebekah’s arms, the servant may be symbolizing the marriage contract. A ten-shekel bracelet weighs about four ounces. Legal materials from this time period suggest a worker might expect to make at most ten shekels of silver per year and less. Gold shekels were even more valuable. In other words, these extremely costly gifts from Abraham would have undoubtedly caused a stir of great excitement.

The servant waits while Rebekah informs her family of the events that have transpired and makes arrangements. Laban eagerly takes the servant in, and the bulk of the chapter contains the repetition of the story. The retelling of the story is significant because of the evidence that it offers that this marriage is divinely sanctioned (esp. vv. 40, 48, 50).

Bridging Contexts

SARAH’S BURIAL. It seems obvious that Genesis 23 has little to do with Sarah’s death and Abraham’s mourning for her. Important as those elements are from a personal standpoint, the narrator has another purpose. Both from the proportion of the content of the chapter and from the introduction and conclusion of the chapter, the author’s focus is clearly on the purchase of the land and the cave. This is no surprise given the fact that the acquisition of the land is one of the most significant aspects of the covenant agreement. Abraham appears content enough to wait for the land to come to him in the Lord’s time, but meanwhile, the dead must be laid to rest.

In Genesis 21 Abraham acquired wells, while here he acquires a burial chamber and the land surrounding it. These are important stakes in the land and provide the impetus for future return (see 49:29–50:14, 24–25). This passage, therefore, is comparable to chapter 14 and 21:22–34. In the first Abraham refused to gain land or possessions by right of conquest; in the second he secures water rights but no land. Here in chapter 23, he purchases only what is necessary to bury his dead. Attachments to the land are being established, but little that can be called possession of the land; but what there is, the narrator includes as he traces the preliminary fulfillment of the covenant promises.

Purpose of the Rebekah narrative. The covenantal significance of Genesis 24 is transparent enough. It follows the same procedure that has dominated the previous narratives. The second generation will also have obstacles that need to be overcome. How is Isaac to procure a wife if he is to avoid assimilation into the peoples of the land? A wife brought from afar will have to demonstrate the same sort of faith that characterized Abraham when he left his land, his family, and his security. In short, getting a wife for Isaac in a way that will preserve the covenant ideals is not an easy matter. It is for that reason that the narrator goes to such great length to demonstrate the role that God played in bringing the marriage to fruition. Abraham has not yet become a great nation. Survival of the line still hangs by a thread.

The covenant issue is family. The obstacle is the difficulty in acquiring a wife for Isaac. God’s provision is astounding and undeniable as he continues to reveal his sovereignty and grace in the advance of the covenant. In this regard the oracle is of central significance. The participants as well as the reading audience will recognize the hand of God in this situation. The author does not preserve the narrative to commend the procedure or instruct the reader in the use of oracles. He uses it the same way the servant does in his retelling: to persuade.

Purpose of the sections in Genesis 25. The author’s purpose in the two pericopes of chapter 25 (vv. 1–11 and vv. 12–18) is to tie up the loose ends before moving on to the narratives concerning Jacob. Both have to do with covenant promises. Since Isaac is to be the sole heir of the covenant, it is important for the author to indicate that all other heirs have been cared for and have received their due. They have no claims on that which belongs to Isaac. Verses 5 and 11 show respectively Abraham’s and God’s blessing of Isaac, while the verses in between detail the fact that the other sons were compensated and sent away. Thus Isaac’s position is vouchsafed.

The second pericope is not as interested in removing Ishmael from a position of competition (that had already been cared for in ch. 21) as it is in showing that God keeps his quasi-covenant promises to Ishmael. Even in this, then, we see God as One who overcomes obstacles and fulfills promises.

Contemporary Significance

ONCE AGAIN WE see God’s ability to overcome obstacles and to fulfill his promises. He is working out his plan as he continues to reveal himself and establish his covenant people. We have already explored these issues elsewhere for their contemporary significance. The narrative is not being repetitive or redundant as it revisits these issues, because it is important to see how God sustains his plan and shows himself persistent and capable from situation to situation and from generation to generation.

Using oracles today. When we consider the contemporary significance of a passage, sometimes we have to engage in a discussion about some of the teachings people are prone to extract from a passage to consider whether these popular conceptions are legitimate or not. Genesis 24 offers such an opportunity in that the procedure used by the servant is similar to a procedure used at times today. In modern Christianity, the use of oracle mechanisms such as the one employed in this passage is sometimes referred to as the “fleece method,” based on the story of Gideon. People “lay out a fleece” before God, meaning that they devise a test by which they can receive a sign and be guided in a decision they have to make. Are there problems with this? A look at history and a look at theory will help us to answer that question.

But before proceeding, I must make a disclaimer eminently clear. This passage of Scripture is not about how to get information from God (or about how not to get such information). As much as we would like to get direct and clear guidance on specific issues, we dare not come to this passage looking for a formula by which we can extract information from God, any more than we would come to it for a procedure on how to find a wife.

The three examples in Scripture of the use of mechanistic nature oracles (Gen. 24; Judg. 6; 1 Sam. 6) have a few characteristics in common. (1) They are all in the premonarchy period, therefore early in the history of revelation. (2) They are all conducted by those who show no indication of theological sophistication or spiritual maturity. We know little about Abraham’s servant who acts in the name of his master’s God. Gideon, though greatly used by God, was raised in a family with a Baal altar and an Asherah pole in the backyard (Judg. 6:25), and later he committed apostasy by forming some sort of oracle cult (8:27). And, of course, no one would elevate the Philistines to spiritual role models. Consequently, even if we felt free to seek out role models to teach certain types of behavior, none of these individuals commend themselves as spiritually mature or as consistent and reliable guides to spirituality.

It is important to remember that people of these early periods had little revelation from God. As revelation progresses, changes take place in how information is gathered. During the time of Moses, the Urim and Thummim were used to receive oracles, but they were not available for the common people to use. Once we get to the time of David, we find that he rarely used mechanistic oracles. Instead, he received verbal oracles from the prophets (e.g., 2 Sam. 7). This process continues throughout the Old Testament period as prophets functioned to give oracles to the leaders of Israel, whether the leaders sought them out or not.

By the time we reach the first century A.D., written revelation becomes complete, and prophetic oracles fade from usage. The “oracles of God” are now inscripturated, committed to writing and available to any who would read them. From this historical perspective, we can see mechanistic oracles belonged to a particular time period when God’s written revelation had barely begun. It is an antiquated and primitive approach and has been replaced by something that is far superior, God’s written Word. In addition, since Pentecost the Holy Spirit has indwelt the people of God and guides our choices from within.

Some may claim that the identification of an approach as antiquated, primitive, or inferior does not necessarily proscribe its use. Is there anything wrong with laying out a fleece? To answer this we should speak briefly of the theory behind oracles. In the process of asking oracles, the inquirer assumes a position of control; deity is summoned to be at his or her beck and call in ways far beyond normal prayer. An oracle requests (demands?) specific information in a specific way at a specific time. This has the appearance of backing God into a corner because, as the mechanism is set up, anything that happens is an answer.

If Rebekah had just given the servant the drink he had asked for, her actions would have been construed as a “no” answer. Anytime that we put ourselves in the position of trying to force God’s hand by making him act in certain ways, according to our dictates, we are exercising an inclination that seeks to control God. I call this the paganism in all of us. If we try to put God on a leash and call him to heel, we will be sadly disappointed.6 In a nutshell, the problem with these oracular mechanisms is that they make demands on God. Unlike the bold prayers of the psalmists who call on God to be God, these are manipulative devices because they seek to oblige him to respond according to our specifications.

The fact that sometimes oracles have worked is no excuse. That God does sometimes condescend and accommodate our weaknesses and ignorance is a demonstration of his grace, not a license to repeat our presumptuous behavior. Moreover, oracles are not reliable because God is not obliged to respond to them.

This does not mean, of course, that we cannot be guided by circumstances. The difference comes when we dictate to God what kinds of circumstances he should arrange. If we merely observe the circumstances God lays out before us rather than dictate what he should do to communicate to us, we avoid the problem of placing God under obligation.

Despite the hazards of mechanistic oracles, people have used them throughout history and continue to use them today. In the following paragraphs we will see three different historical examples illustrating some of the issues and hazards connected with mechanistic oracles. The first concerns the abuse of signs in judicial systems in which oracles determined the guilt or innocence of the accused; the second, the hazardous conditions that may result when the requested oracle does not occur; the third, the ambiguity that may still exist when the sign does occur.

Judicial system. In the ancient world, it was believed that the gods would respond to oracular inquiries. This belief was so strong that oracles were incorporated into the justice system. With little ability to gather evidence for many types of crimes, the courts depended on guidance from deity to settle matters of guilt or innocence. One of the most well-known methods was known as the river ordeal. The accused would be thrown into a river. If he or she survived, it was taken as an indication of innocence. Those who did not survive, a majority, were considered to have been judged by the gods. This mentality continued into relatively modern times, as evidenced in the use of dunking stools in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Christian Europe. When the victim drowned after being held under, it was taken as a sign of his or her guilt.

In this sort of judicial mechanistic oracle, the normal, expected result (drowning) was taken to indicate guilt, while the abnormal, nearly impossible result (survival) was taken as a sign from God affirming the innocence of the accused. The abuse of the system is evident here in that it assumes the guilt of the accused and presumes that the deity will intervene to save an innocent person’s life. We might recognize the same mentality in those who taunted Christ on the cross that if he were from God, God should save him.

A vestige of the same mentality can be found today in how Christians sometimes respond to serious illness. In the desperate crisis of a potentially terminal condition, the prayers of the afflicted person or family are sometimes inclined to equate healing with favor. If healing does not take place, they conclude that God is angry or unfair. As in the ancient oracles, the default situation leads to an inference of guilt. It is an abuse in that it assumes that God’s favor will always bring good health. This abuse is particularly apparent in the thinking of those who adhere to the so-called health and wealth gospel.

Hazards when the sign fails. The tragedy known as the Children’s Crusade in 1212 offers a different sort of example of the misuse of mechanistic oracles. When Stephen of Cloyes, a twelve-year-old shepherd boy, came before the French king Philip with a letter that he had purportedly received from Christ directing him to lead a crusade of children to free the Holy Land, the monarch attempted to dissuade him of his folly. The boy nonetheless marched through France gathering thousands of young followers, proclaiming that God would part the sea to let them pass through. They arrived at Marseilles and awaited the miraculous sign that would confirm that God had inspired this crusade.

When several days passed and no miracle occurred, Stephen accepted the help of seemingly friendly merchants who offered to supply ships. Most of the children were never heard from again, but stragglers who made their way back to France decades later reported that the ships were taken by Saracens, with whom arrangements were made for the children to be sold into slavery. In this case, the oracle failed, but the enterprise was pursued anyway with disastrous results.

In this kind of situation, the sign is desired, but the system is not followed. When normal and abnormal occurrences are set up as yes/no answers and the normal happens (e.g., the sea is not parted), that should be taken as a “no” answer. This was precisely the situation Gideon faced on the first night of his fleece trial. He set up the test so that the normal occurrence (wet fleece, dry ground) was a “yes” answer (God was still intending to deliver by Gideon’s hand). But in the end, that did not satisfy Gideon, so he reversed the indicators so as to get more specific direction. The fact is that sometimes, like Stephen of Cloyes, we are already determined to pursue a particular course of action. In the worst case scenario, the sign gives God a chance to hop on our bandwagon when we are in reality prepared to proceed whether he gives the sign or not.

Ambiguity when the sign happens. But is the result any more clear when the oracle succeeds? In 1429 the prince who was later to be crowned Charles VII of France was told that a teenage girl had reportedly received messages from saints urging her to support his kingship and drive the English out of France. After he agreed to give her an audience, he decided to conduct a test. He had someone else sit on his throne while he himself stood among the courtiers in attendance. He thought that if the girl were receiving supernatural guidance, she would immediately detect the imposter and pick him out in the crowd (though they had never met). He was impressed when the girl walked into the throne room and, after only a minute of indecision, turned away from the throne, strode up to him, and bowed before him. He took this as a divine sign that the girl, Joan of Arc, had been chosen by God to liberate France.

Was he right? Joan certainly enjoyed initial success, and the dauphin was crowned king in the wake of her success. But that success was short-lived and did not lead directly to the liberation of France. France was eventually liberated, but it was many years after Joan’s execution by the English. Hindsight has made it easy to question whether that first sign was truly God’s endorsement of Joan’s mission.

We may fall prey to this same sort of situation when we pray for God to bring success to some endeavor so that we can be assured it pleases him. But does the indicated sign really give such assurance? Is it not possible for an endeavor to have some success even though God does not approve of it? Let’s say someone prays to God to help him pass his CPA exam the first time or to help her get into medical school to confirm certain career directions. But perhaps the student’s skills or academic record was sufficient to achieve the desired end anyway. Does that mean that an accountant career or medical career represents God’s will? Not at all. The accounting student may have considered that it would qualify as sufficiently abnormal to pass the CPA exam the first time, but perhaps it was not abnormal at all.

These and many other examples demonstrate that the use of such oracle mechanisms represents not faith but folly. Oracular mechanisms are unreliable guides to God’s will because we have been given no confidence to expect that God will respond to such conditions. God cannot be obliged to act in certain ways so as to reveal his will in a given situation. This is true whether it has to do with crusades, with whom you will marry, or with what job you will take. Oracles of the ordeal variety continue to be evident in those pockets of Christianity where it is believed that accepting medical intervention shows a lack of faith. In this way of thinking, if God wants the person to recover and be well, he will do the healing. As in the ordeal, this leaves the abnormal occurrence as required of God to spare a person’s life.

The fallacy in all of this oracle-type thinking is that it allows a person to think that he or she can push God into a corner. The alternative is to leave matters open-ended and to simply look for God’s hand in circumstances as he sovereignly works them out. In Genesis 24, even though the servant dictated what circumstances he wanted to occur, Rebekah, Laban, and the extended family are all persuaded by circumstances that God has indeed communicated. Rather than forcing God’s hand, we need to learn to see his fingerprints on our lives.

The story is told of a man who had been forced to take refuge on his roof to escape the waters of a flashflood. There he fervently prayed for God to provide deliverance and accepted in faith that his prayer would be answered. A short time later a neighbor came by in a rowboat and invited to take the man in. He refused, claiming that God was going to deliver him. The waters continued to rise. Soon the man was forced to the peak of his roof. When evening came a National Guard motorboat came by and offered to take the man to safety. But no, the man insisted that God was going to save him. And the waters continued to rise.

Finally the man had to take up a perch on the top of his chimney. In the middle of the night a helicopter hovered into sight and dropped a ladder down to lift the man to dry ground. Again the man was resolute that God was going to save him. Sometime shortly before dawn the man was overcome by the floodwaters and died. Standing before God in heaven, he lamented his great disappointment that God had let him down despite his firm faith. Why had God not delivered him? God gently replied that he had sent two boats and a helicopter, what more did he expect?

Though this story is often told with a touch of humor, we must see the serious point it makes. The man was so busy looking for the oracles that he missed the fingerprints of God. We can easily fall prey to the same error. Instead of making demands on God to do abnormal things to direct us, we should be content to be guided by the everyday circumstances he brings into our lives.

In the process of discerning God’s will in our lives, there are aspects that are our responsibility and others that are God’s responsibility. It is our responsibility to be committed to doing his will. Our prayers should focus on ferreting out self-will and selfish motivations. Instead of asking for miraculous signs, we should ask God to help us to be motivated only by what pleases and honors him. We should ask him to help us think clearly about the decision and to direct our thinking. If we faithfully do our part, it is then his job to guide us to the right decision. He can do this through abnormal circumstances that carry his unmistakable mark, but more frequently he will do it through closed and open doors, through our own thinking process, and through his Spirit working within us. Asking for signs may indicate that we do not trust God enough to allow him to work in our minds and hearts to give us godly discernment.7

Original Meaning

Blessing and Marriage (24:55–67)

FOR A MARRIAGE to be arranged, the groom’s family must provide a bride price while the bride’s family provides a dowry. The silver and gold objects and the garments presented to Rebekah are part of her transformation into a member of Abraham’s household. The word used in the text denotes metal worked into useful items, whether jewelry or plates and other utensils. The presents given to her brother Laban and her mother demonstrate Abraham’s wealth and the desirability of the marriage.

It was unusual in the ancient world for the woman to have any part in major decisions. Rebekah is not consulted with regard to the marriage (vv. 50–51), but when the servant asks to leave right away, the men look to Rebekah for consent. Marriage contracts of this general period show a great concern for maintaining the woman’s security within her husband’s family. The presence of her own family was one of the guarantees that she would be cared for and treated properly. The ten days that Rebekah’s family requests (v. 55) would give them a little more opportunity to make sure that everything is as it appears to be. She is probably consulted because of the substantial risk involved in leaving family protection under such unusual circumstances.

It was suitable for a woman betrothed to a wealthy man to have an entourage of servants. A nurse, however, as the nurturer of the child, has higher status than other servants, and she now becomes part of her ward’s new household and serves as a chaperon on the return journey.4

With Rebekah leaving home, the family recites a blessing that reiterates some of the elements that have by now been identified firmly within the covenant benefits (v. 60). The increase of descendants goes back to Genesis 1, but the possession of enemy cities was not included until Genesis 22. These themes have become programmatic in the family blessings of Genesis (22:17; 27:27–29).

When the group arrives in Beer Lahai Roi, Abraham’s servant identifies Isaac in the fields, and Rebekah dons her veil. Since she has gone unveiled during the journey, she is probably now indicating that she is Isaac’s bride. Brides were veiled during the wedding but went unveiled as married women. Veil customs differed in various locations and times. Asiatic women on the Beni-hassan tomb painting (early second millennium) are not veiled, but in the Middle Assyrian laws (late second millennium) all respectable ladies went about veiled in public. By taking Rebekah into his mother’s tent, Isaac demonstrates that she is now the mistress of the household.

Bridging Contexts

SARAH’S BURIAL. It seems obvious that Genesis 23 has little to do with Sarah’s death and Abraham’s mourning for her. Important as those elements are from a personal standpoint, the narrator has another purpose. Both from the proportion of the content of the chapter and from the introduction and conclusion of the chapter, the author’s focus is clearly on the purchase of the land and the cave. This is no surprise given the fact that the acquisition of the land is one of the most significant aspects of the covenant agreement. Abraham appears content enough to wait for the land to come to him in the Lord’s time, but meanwhile, the dead must be laid to rest.

In Genesis 21 Abraham acquired wells, while here he acquires a burial chamber and the land surrounding it. These are important stakes in the land and provide the impetus for future return (see 49:29–50:14, 24–25). This passage, therefore, is comparable to chapter 14 and 21:22–34. In the first Abraham refused to gain land or possessions by right of conquest; in the second he secures water rights but no land. Here in chapter 23, he purchases only what is necessary to bury his dead. Attachments to the land are being established, but little that can be called possession of the land; but what there is, the narrator includes as he traces the preliminary fulfillment of the covenant promises.

Purpose of the Rebekah narrative. The covenantal significance of Genesis 24 is transparent enough. It follows the same procedure that has dominated the previous narratives. The second generation will also have obstacles that need to be overcome. How is Isaac to procure a wife if he is to avoid assimilation into the peoples of the land? A wife brought from afar will have to demonstrate the same sort of faith that characterized Abraham when he left his land, his family, and his security. In short, getting a wife for Isaac in a way that will preserve the covenant ideals is not an easy matter. It is for that reason that the narrator goes to such great length to demonstrate the role that God played in bringing the marriage to fruition. Abraham has not yet become a great nation. Survival of the line still hangs by a thread.

The covenant issue is family. The obstacle is the difficulty in acquiring a wife for Isaac. God’s provision is astounding and undeniable as he continues to reveal his sovereignty and grace in the advance of the covenant. In this regard the oracle is of central significance. The participants as well as the reading audience will recognize the hand of God in this situation. The author does not preserve the narrative to commend the procedure or instruct the reader in the use of oracles. He uses it the same way the servant does in his retelling: to persuade.

Purpose of the sections in Genesis 25. The author’s purpose in the two pericopes of chapter 25 (vv. 1–11 and vv. 12–18) is to tie up the loose ends before moving on to the narratives concerning Jacob. Both have to do with covenant promises. Since Isaac is to be the sole heir of the covenant, it is important for the author to indicate that all other heirs have been cared for and have received their due. They have no claims on that which belongs to Isaac. Verses 5 and 11 show respectively Abraham’s and God’s blessing of Isaac, while the verses in between detail the fact that the other sons were compensated and sent away. Thus Isaac’s position is vouchsafed.

The second pericope is not as interested in removing Ishmael from a position of competition (that had already been cared for in ch. 21) as it is in showing that God keeps his quasi-covenant promises to Ishmael. Even in this, then, we see God as One who overcomes obstacles and fulfills promises.

Contemporary Significance

ONCE AGAIN WE see God’s ability to overcome obstacles and to fulfill his promises. He is working out his plan as he continues to reveal himself and establish his covenant people. We have already explored these issues elsewhere for their contemporary significance. The narrative is not being repetitive or redundant as it revisits these issues, because it is important to see how God sustains his plan and shows himself persistent and capable from situation to situation and from generation to generation.

Using oracles today. When we consider the contemporary significance of a passage, sometimes we have to engage in a discussion about some of the teachings people are prone to extract from a passage to consider whether these popular conceptions are legitimate or not. Genesis 24 offers such an opportunity in that the procedure used by the servant is similar to a procedure used at times today. In modern Christianity, the use of oracle mechanisms such as the one employed in this passage is sometimes referred to as the “fleece method,” based on the story of Gideon. People “lay out a fleece” before God, meaning that they devise a test by which they can receive a sign and be guided in a decision they have to make. Are there problems with this? A look at history and a look at theory will help us to answer that question.

But before proceeding, I must make a disclaimer eminently clear. This passage of Scripture is not about how to get information from God (or about how not to get such information). As much as we would like to get direct and clear guidance on specific issues, we dare not come to this passage looking for a formula by which we can extract information from God, any more than we would come to it for a procedure on how to find a wife.

The three examples in Scripture of the use of mechanistic nature oracles (Gen. 24; Judg. 6; 1 Sam. 6) have a few characteristics in common. (1) They are all in the premonarchy period, therefore early in the history of revelation. (2) They are all conducted by those who show no indication of theological sophistication or spiritual maturity. We know little about Abraham’s servant who acts in the name of his master’s God. Gideon, though greatly used by God, was raised in a family with a Baal altar and an Asherah pole in the backyard (Judg. 6:25), and later he committed apostasy by forming some sort of oracle cult (8:27). And, of course, no one would elevate the Philistines to spiritual role models. Consequently, even if we felt free to seek out role models to teach certain types of behavior, none of these individuals commend themselves as spiritually mature or as consistent and reliable guides to spirituality.

It is important to remember that people of these early periods had little revelation from God. As revelation progresses, changes take place in how information is gathered. During the time of Moses, the Urim and Thummim were used to receive oracles, but they were not available for the common people to use. Once we get to the time of David, we find that he rarely used mechanistic oracles. Instead, he received verbal oracles from the prophets (e.g., 2 Sam. 7). This process continues throughout the Old Testament period as prophets functioned to give oracles to the leaders of Israel, whether the leaders sought them out or not.

By the time we reach the first century A.D., written revelation becomes complete, and prophetic oracles fade from usage. The “oracles of God” are now inscripturated, committed to writing and available to any who would read them. From this historical perspective, we can see mechanistic oracles belonged to a particular time period when God’s written revelation had barely begun. It is an antiquated and primitive approach and has been replaced by something that is far superior, God’s written Word. In addition, since Pentecost the Holy Spirit has indwelt the people of God and guides our choices from within.

Some may claim that the identification of an approach as antiquated, primitive, or inferior does not necessarily proscribe its use. Is there anything wrong with laying out a fleece? To answer this we should speak briefly of the theory behind oracles. In the process of asking oracles, the inquirer assumes a position of control; deity is summoned to be at his or her beck and call in ways far beyond normal prayer. An oracle requests (demands?) specific information in a specific way at a specific time. This has the appearance of backing God into a corner because, as the mechanism is set up, anything that happens is an answer.

If Rebekah had just given the servant the drink he had asked for, her actions would have been construed as a “no” answer. Anytime that we put ourselves in the position of trying to force God’s hand by making him act in certain ways, according to our dictates, we are exercising an inclination that seeks to control God. I call this the paganism in all of us. If we try to put God on a leash and call him to heel, we will be sadly disappointed.6 In a nutshell, the problem with these oracular mechanisms is that they make demands on God. Unlike the bold prayers of the psalmists who call on God to be God, these are manipulative devices because they seek to oblige him to respond according to our specifications.

The fact that sometimes oracles have worked is no excuse. That God does sometimes condescend and accommodate our weaknesses and ignorance is a demonstration of his grace, not a license to repeat our presumptuous behavior. Moreover, oracles are not reliable because God is not obliged to respond to them.

This does not mean, of course, that we cannot be guided by circumstances. The difference comes when we dictate to God what kinds of circumstances he should arrange. If we merely observe the circumstances God lays out before us rather than dictate what he should do to communicate to us, we avoid the problem of placing God under obligation.

Despite the hazards of mechanistic oracles, people have used them throughout history and continue to use them today. In the following paragraphs we will see three different historical examples illustrating some of the issues and hazards connected with mechanistic oracles. The first concerns the abuse of signs in judicial systems in which oracles determined the guilt or innocence of the accused; the second, the hazardous conditions that may result when the requested oracle does not occur; the third, the ambiguity that may still exist when the sign does occur.

Judicial system. In the ancient world, it was believed that the gods would respond to oracular inquiries. This belief was so strong that oracles were incorporated into the justice system. With little ability to gather evidence for many types of crimes, the courts depended on guidance from deity to settle matters of guilt or innocence. One of the most well-known methods was known as the river ordeal. The accused would be thrown into a river. If he or she survived, it was taken as an indication of innocence. Those who did not survive, a majority, were considered to have been judged by the gods. This mentality continued into relatively modern times, as evidenced in the use of dunking stools in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Christian Europe. When the victim drowned after being held under, it was taken as a sign of his or her guilt.

In this sort of judicial mechanistic oracle, the normal, expected result (drowning) was taken to indicate guilt, while the abnormal, nearly impossible result (survival) was taken as a sign from God affirming the innocence of the accused. The abuse of the system is evident here in that it assumes the guilt of the accused and presumes that the deity will intervene to save an innocent person’s life. We might recognize the same mentality in those who taunted Christ on the cross that if he were from God, God should save him.

A vestige of the same mentality can be found today in how Christians sometimes respond to serious illness. In the desperate crisis of a potentially terminal condition, the prayers of the afflicted person or family are sometimes inclined to equate healing with favor. If healing does not take place, they conclude that God is angry or unfair. As in the ancient oracles, the default situation leads to an inference of guilt. It is an abuse in that it assumes that God’s favor will always bring good health. This abuse is particularly apparent in the thinking of those who adhere to the so-called health and wealth gospel.

Hazards when the sign fails. The tragedy known as the Children’s Crusade in 1212 offers a different sort of example of the misuse of mechanistic oracles. When Stephen of Cloyes, a twelve-year-old shepherd boy, came before the French king Philip with a letter that he had purportedly received from Christ directing him to lead a crusade of children to free the Holy Land, the monarch attempted to dissuade him of his folly. The boy nonetheless marched through France gathering thousands of young followers, proclaiming that God would part the sea to let them pass through. They arrived at Marseilles and awaited the miraculous sign that would confirm that God had inspired this crusade.

When several days passed and no miracle occurred, Stephen accepted the help of seemingly friendly merchants who offered to supply ships. Most of the children were never heard from again, but stragglers who made their way back to France decades later reported that the ships were taken by Saracens, with whom arrangements were made for the children to be sold into slavery. In this case, the oracle failed, but the enterprise was pursued anyway with disastrous results.

In this kind of situation, the sign is desired, but the system is not followed. When normal and abnormal occurrences are set up as yes/no answers and the normal happens (e.g., the sea is not parted), that should be taken as a “no” answer. This was precisely the situation Gideon faced on the first night of his fleece trial. He set up the test so that the normal occurrence (wet fleece, dry ground) was a “yes” answer (God was still intending to deliver by Gideon’s hand). But in the end, that did not satisfy Gideon, so he reversed the indicators so as to get more specific direction. The fact is that sometimes, like Stephen of Cloyes, we are already determined to pursue a particular course of action. In the worst case scenario, the sign gives God a chance to hop on our bandwagon when we are in reality prepared to proceed whether he gives the sign or not.

Ambiguity when the sign happens. But is the result any more clear when the oracle succeeds? In 1429 the prince who was later to be crowned Charles VII of France was told that a teenage girl had reportedly received messages from saints urging her to support his kingship and drive the English out of France. After he agreed to give her an audience, he decided to conduct a test. He had someone else sit on his throne while he himself stood among the courtiers in attendance. He thought that if the girl were receiving supernatural guidance, she would immediately detect the imposter and pick him out in the crowd (though they had never met). He was impressed when the girl walked into the throne room and, after only a minute of indecision, turned away from the throne, strode up to him, and bowed before him. He took this as a divine sign that the girl, Joan of Arc, had been chosen by God to liberate France.

Was he right? Joan certainly enjoyed initial success, and the dauphin was crowned king in the wake of her success. But that success was short-lived and did not lead directly to the liberation of France. France was eventually liberated, but it was many years after Joan’s execution by the English. Hindsight has made it easy to question whether that first sign was truly God’s endorsement of Joan’s mission.

We may fall prey to this same sort of situation when we pray for God to bring success to some endeavor so that we can be assured it pleases him. But does the indicated sign really give such assurance? Is it not possible for an endeavor to have some success even though God does not approve of it? Let’s say someone prays to God to help him pass his CPA exam the first time or to help her get into medical school to confirm certain career directions. But perhaps the student’s skills or academic record was sufficient to achieve the desired end anyway. Does that mean that an accountant career or medical career represents God’s will? Not at all. The accounting student may have considered that it would qualify as sufficiently abnormal to pass the CPA exam the first time, but perhaps it was not abnormal at all.

These and many other examples demonstrate that the use of such oracle mechanisms represents not faith but folly. Oracular mechanisms are unreliable guides to God’s will because we have been given no confidence to expect that God will respond to such conditions. God cannot be obliged to act in certain ways so as to reveal his will in a given situation. This is true whether it has to do with crusades, with whom you will marry, or with what job you will take. Oracles of the ordeal variety continue to be evident in those pockets of Christianity where it is believed that accepting medical intervention shows a lack of faith. In this way of thinking, if God wants the person to recover and be well, he will do the healing. As in the ordeal, this leaves the abnormal occurrence as required of God to spare a person’s life.

The fallacy in all of this oracle-type thinking is that it allows a person to think that he or she can push God into a corner. The alternative is to leave matters open-ended and to simply look for God’s hand in circumstances as he sovereignly works them out. In Genesis 24, even though the servant dictated what circumstances he wanted to occur, Rebekah, Laban, and the extended family are all persuaded by circumstances that God has indeed communicated. Rather than forcing God’s hand, we need to learn to see his fingerprints on our lives.

The story is told of a man who had been forced to take refuge on his roof to escape the waters of a flashflood. There he fervently prayed for God to provide deliverance and accepted in faith that his prayer would be answered. A short time later a neighbor came by in a rowboat and invited to take the man in. He refused, claiming that God was going to deliver him. The waters continued to rise. Soon the man was forced to the peak of his roof. When evening came a National Guard motorboat came by and offered to take the man to safety. But no, the man insisted that God was going to save him. And the waters continued to rise.

Finally the man had to take up a perch on the top of his chimney. In the middle of the night a helicopter hovered into sight and dropped a ladder down to lift the man to dry ground. Again the man was resolute that God was going to save him. Sometime shortly before dawn the man was overcome by the floodwaters and died. Standing before God in heaven, he lamented his great disappointment that God had let him down despite his firm faith. Why had God not delivered him? God gently replied that he had sent two boats and a helicopter, what more did he expect?

Though this story is often told with a touch of humor, we must see the serious point it makes. The man was so busy looking for the oracles that he missed the fingerprints of God. We can easily fall prey to the same error. Instead of making demands on God to do abnormal things to direct us, we should be content to be guided by the everyday circumstances he brings into our lives.

In the process of discerning God’s will in our lives, there are aspects that are our responsibility and others that are God’s responsibility. It is our responsibility to be committed to doing his will. Our prayers should focus on ferreting out self-will and selfish motivations. Instead of asking for miraculous signs, we should ask God to help us to be motivated only by what pleases and honors him. We should ask him to help us think clearly about the decision and to direct our thinking. If we faithfully do our part, it is then his job to guide us to the right decision. He can do this through abnormal circumstances that carry his unmistakable mark, but more frequently he will do it through closed and open doors, through our own thinking process, and through his Spirit working within us. Asking for signs may indicate that we do not trust God enough to allow him to work in our minds and hearts to give us godly discernment.7