Unless otherwise stated, all citations are taken from the New International Version (NIV).
Timeline for Abraham’s life
Abram was 10 years older than Sarai (Gen. 17:17).
Abram was 75 went he got his calling in Haran (Gen. 12:4).
Abram was 86 years old when Ishmael was born (Gen. 16:16).
Abram was 99 years old when God gave him circumcision (Gen. 17:1).
God called Abraham a prophet (Gen. 20:7).
Abraham was 100 years old and Sarah was 90 years old when Isaac was born (Gen. 21:5).
Sarah died at 127 years old (Gen. 23:1).
Abraham died at the age of 175 (Gen. 25:7).
Genesis 12 (Abram’s covenant stated)
In the previous chapter, God scattered humanity across the globe. In this chapter, he initiates his plan to gather humanity through the Jewish people and the Messiah. Hamilton writes, “In chs. 1-11 we read of individuals who had land, but are either losing it or being expelled from it. In chs. 12-50 the emphasis is on individuals who do not have land, but are on the way toward it. One group is losing; another group is expecting… After the series of sorry examples presented in chs. 1-11, we are meant to read chs. 12ff. (patriarchal history) as the solution to this problem. Will there be more Adams and more tower builders? Or is there a way out of this dilemma? The obedient model of Abraham contrasts to all the sorry models who have gone before him.”[1]
The people of Babel wanted a name, but were confused. Now God wants to give a name through Abram. When humans try to build an identity apart from God, it crumbles to the ground. But when God gives an identity to us, it is unconditional, eternal, and immutable. This is what we see continually in the life of Abraham—even when Abraham is foolish or falls into sin. God continues to be faithful to him.
When Abram (later renamed “Abraham”) was still in Haran, God called him to leave his comfort and security to become a part of a bigger plan to bless the world. He must have felt uncomfortable making this decision.
(12:1) The LORD had said to Abram, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you.”
God’s plan of creation began with God speaking, and now, God’s plan of redemption begins with God speaking.[2] God called Abram to leave his:
- “Country.” He would need to leave his culture and everything he was familiar with.
- “Your people.” Jesus taught that we need to place our love for God even before our loved ones (Mt. 10:37). This is shocking to us today. But it was far more shocking back then! Today we’ll leave our families at the call of our company or our career. In those days, the family stayed together for life—often under the same roof (or tent).
- “Father’s household.” Abram would’ve found security and financial provision by staying back with his dad. But God called him out of this security.
God called Abram to leave all of this, and he didn’t even tell him where the land was! He promised to show him this land in the future. But first, he waited to see if Abram was willing to take a step of faith.
That being said, God doesn’t enter our lives to call us to give up more and more and more. God doesn’t want to take anything from us that’s worth anything. If Abram was willing to trust God, then God was willing to bless Abram beyond his wildest dreams.
“Go from your country.” Mathews[3] holds that this is an inclusio of “bookend” for the final call of faith when God calls Abraham to sacrifice Isaac: “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah” (Gen. 22:2). The first call of faith was to leave his land, and the final was to go to a new land: Moriah. He continues, “Abram cut the strongest family bond by leaving his father’s domain, which provided his own household’s socioeconomic viability. He trusted the veracity of God’s promised generosity and received more than he would have had he remained in Haran.”[4]
(12:2) “I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing.”
“Great nation.” Abram was 75 years old at this point (Gen. 12:4), and Sarai was 65 (Gen. 17:17). They were past the age of being able to have children. So, the idea of becoming a great nation would’ve been unfathomable to Abram. But God is the one who gives children (Gen. 20:18; 29:31; 30:22; 1 Sam 1:5-6).
“I will make your name great.” This promise is connected with the Davidic Covenant as well: “I will make your name great, like the names of the greatest men on earth” (2 Sam. 7:9). Besides these two references, “only the name of God is characterized by the adjective ‘great.’”[5]
“You will be a blessing.” God didn’t bless Abram as an end in itself. He blessed Abram so he could bless others in return.
(12:3) “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”
“I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse.” God promised to judge anyone who cursed Abram, and reward anyone who helped him. This unconditional promise has never been nullified or abrogated. So, it is still in effect today.
“All peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” Abram would eventually bless all people on Earth. Of course, when Abram died, this hadn’t happened. Therefore, this refers to someone in Abram’s line: the future Messiah. Paul cites this portion of the Abrahamic Covenant to show that Jesus has already fulfilled this part: “Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ‘All nations will be blessed through you’” (Gal. 3:8). If Jesus is in the process of fulfilling this portion of the Abrahamic Covenant, then we can anticipate him fulfilling the other portions as well (e.g. nation, land, etc.).
The narrative goes on to show that Abram repeatedly puts this promise in danger from our perspective. He makes foolish and sometimes sinful decisions that would jeopardize this promise being fulfilled. However, this only highlights how God is going to fulfill this promise no matter what. Sailhamer explains this well when he writes, “A recurring theme can be traced throughout the subsequent narratives in Genesis, one that is first noted in the present story. That theme is the threat to God’s promise in 12:1-3 (Westermann). In nearly every episode that follows, the promise of a ‘numerous seed,’ ‘blessing to all peoples on earth,’ or the ‘gift of the land’ is placed in jeopardy by the actions of the characters of the narrative. The promise looks as if it will fail. In the face of such a threat, however, the narratives show that God always remains faithful to his word and that he himself enters the arena and safeguards the promise. The purpose of such a recurring narrative theme is to show that only God can bring about his promise. Man’s failure cannot stand in the way of God’s promise.”[6]
(12:4-5) So Abram went, as the LORD had told him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he set out from Harran. 5 He took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, all the possessions they had accumulated and the people they had acquired in Harran, and they set out for the land of Canaan, and they arrived there.
What would you have done if you were Abram? God was asking him to give up quite a bit of security and comfort in Haran. He was also 75 years old, which wouldn’t be a very good time to begin serving God, right? Wrong! Abraham followed God’s calling. He trusted in God’s promise more than his circumstances and feelings. He picked up his stuff and went. Lot, Sarai, and his clan went with him.
(12:6-7) Abram traveled through the land as far as the site of the great tree of Moreh at Shechem. At that time the Canaanites were in the land. 7 The LORD appeared to Abram and said, “To your offspring I will give this land.” So he built an altar there to the LORD, who had appeared to him.
“Shechem” was located between Mount Ebal and Gerizim. It was “marked out as a place of decision.” In this location, the Israelites chose “between blessing and cursing (Deut. 11:29, 30), here Joshua would give his last charge (Josh. 24), and here the kingdom of Solomon would one day break in two (1 Kgs 12).”[7]
“At that time the Canaanites were in the land.” This foreshadows what will happen in the days of Moses and Joshua.[8] The Canaanites won’t be driven from the land until the time of Joshua. God promised this land to Abraham and his descendants here.
(12:8-9) From there he went on toward the hills east of Bethel and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. There he built an altar to the LORD and called on the name of the LORD. 9 Then Abram set out and continued toward the Negev.
“Called on the name of the LORD.” What does this expression mean? Seth did it too (Gen. 4:26). This must have been some sort of prayer—perhaps turning from the false deities to the true God.
The Negev is the dryland south of Judah. In fact, this Hebrew word means “dry, south country.”[9]
(12:10) Now there was a famine in the land, and Abram went down to Egypt to live there for a while because the famine was severe.
God promised Abram land, but he fled to Egypt for help. He should’ve stayed in the Negev, where God sent him. In the end, he ended up going back to the Negev, so he should’ve stayed put (Gen. 13:3-4).
This could be a sign that Abraham is immediately lacking faith. After all, Egypt is a nation that is perpetually in opposition to God and his people. Indeed, this would explain why Abram tells his wife to lie in the subsequent verses: He knows that he’s making a bad decision.
(12:11-13) As he was about to enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, “I know what a beautiful woman you are. 12 When the Egyptians see you, they will say, ‘This is his wife.’ Then they will kill me but will let you live. 13 Say you are my sister, so that I will be treated well for your sake and my life will be spared because of you.”
Abram starts off so strong, but he falls into fear pretty quickly. Furthermore, if someone takes his wife, the Abrahamic Covenant would fall apart.
“Say you are my sister.” This is true (Gen. 20:12). However, Abraham was using a half-truth to protect himself.[10]
(12:14) When Abram came to Egypt, the Egyptians saw that Sarai was a very beautiful woman.
Considering the fact that she was 65 years old (Gen. 12:4; 17:17), Sarai must’ve been a very “beautiful woman.” Of course, the patriarchs lived to very old ages. Abraham died at the age of 175, and Sarai died at the age of 127. Thus, at this point in her life, she was a beautiful middle-aged woman. Kidner writes, “Their continued vigour shows that this was no mere postponement of death but a spreading-out of the whole life process.”[11] Mathews[12] agrees with Kidner on this hypothesis as well.
(12:15-16) And when Pharaoh’s officials saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh, and she was taken into his palace. 16 He treated Abram well for her sake, and Abram acquired sheep and cattle, male and female donkeys, male and female servants, and camels.
Abram profited from this despicable lie. He could’ve spoken up at any point. But he remained silent as the Pharaoh took Sarai as his own wife (Gen. 12:19). This is truly a disgraceful time in Abram’s life.
(12:17-20) But the LORD inflicted serious diseases on Pharaoh and his household because of Abram’s wife Sarai. 18 So Pharaoh summoned Abram. “What have you done to me?” he said. “Why didn’t you tell me she was your wife? 19 Why did you say, ‘She is my sister,’ so that I took her to be my wife? Now then, here is your wife. Take her and go!” 20 Then Pharaoh gave orders about Abram to his men, and they sent him on his way, with his wife and everything he had.
“I took her to be my wife.” Did Pharaoh have sex with her? The purpose of God’s intervention in verse 17 is intended to show that he is protecting his unconditional promise to Abram. So, it doesn’t seem that Pharaoh consummated his marriage with Sarai. Nothing is said about adultery or sex between Pharaoh and Sarai, and we simply shouldn’t read too much into this one sentence.
“Take her and go!” Later in the Exodus, Pharaoh will plead with the Jewish people to leave Egypt because of God’s wrath.
Questions for Reflection
Read verses 1-3. What do we learn about the Abrahamic Covenant from these opening verses?
What is the significance that God uses the word “bless” a total of five times in these three verses?
God didn’t tell Abram where he was going, and he didn’t tell him how he would bless all nations through him. We often want details on our calling, but God often doesn’t tell us the details. Why do you think God didn’t disclose his entire plan to Abram, but left him in the dark to a certain extent?
What do you think was going through Abram’s mind when God called him from his comfort and security at the age of 75 years old?
Read verses 10-20. In what ways did Abram succumb to fear in this section? In what ways did God protect Abram and his promise?
God gave Abram an amazing promise. However, the circumstances were immediately poor. What can we learn from this example when it comes to following God’s calling for our own lives?
In what areas is God calling you to leave your comfort and security to take a step of faith?
Genesis 13 (Abram and Lot split up)
(13:1) So Abram went up from Egypt to the Negev, with his wife and everything he had, and Lot went with him.
They went on to the Negev.
(13:2) Abram had become very wealthy in livestock and in silver and gold.
Abram may have received some of his wealth from Pharaoh (see Gen. 12:15-16).
(13:3-4) From the Negev he went from place to place until he came to Bethel, to the place between Bethel and Ai where his tent had been earlier 4 and where he had first built an altar. There Abram called on the name of the LORD.
God blocked Abram from going to Egypt (Gen. 12:10-20), and instead, he brings Abram back to where he was at first: the Negev (Gen. 12:9).
(13:5-7) Now Lot, who was moving about with Abram, also had flocks and herds and tents. 6 But the land could not support them while they stayed together, for their possessions were so great that they were not able to stay together. 7 And quarreling arose between Abram’s herders and Lot’s. The Canaanites and Perizzites were also living in the land at that time.
There wasn’t enough territory for both Abram and Lot. Apparently, their men were bickering with each other.
(13:8-9) So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herders and mine, for we are close relatives. 9 Is not the whole land before you? Let’s part company. If you go to the left, I’ll go to the right; if you go to the right, I’ll go to the left.”
Abram sees that there are plenty of resources. So, he gives Lot the choice. However, to the reader, this seems to put the “promise in jeopardy,”[13] because Abram gives Lot the choice. Lot later becomes the forefather of the Moabites and Ammonites (Gen. 19:37-38). So, when Moses wrote this, readers would think that Abram was about to hand over the Promised Land to the enemies of Israel (Num. 22-25; Deut. 23:3-6; Ezra 9:1). This shows that God—not Abram—secured this promise of the land, and “nothing can stand in the way of God’s promise to Abraham.”[14]
(13:10-12) Lot looked around and saw that the whole plain of the Jordan toward Zoar was well watered, like the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt. (This was before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.) 11 So Lot chose for himself the whole plain of the Jordan and set out toward the east. The two men parted company: 12 Abram lived in the land of Canaan, while Lot lived among the cities of the plain and pitched his tents near Sodom.
This alludes back to Adam and Eve in the Garden. For one, the garden in Eden is explicitly mentioned (v.10). Second, he set out for the “east,” which is a repeated theme for judgment in Genesis (see below). Third, many of the same terms are used for both Eve and Lot: “‘eyes’ (ʿayin; 13:10; 3:6-7); ‘saw’ (rāʾâ; 13:10; 3:6; 6:2); ‘watered’ (šāqâ; 13:10; 2:6, 10); ‘destroyed’ (šaḥēt; 13:10; 6:13 passim); ‘garden’ (gan; 13:10; 2:8).”[15] All Lot could see was what he could gain. Mathews writes, “[The] beauty attracted Lot but also distracted him from the wickedness that lurked there.”[16]
“Lot looked around and saw that the whole plain of the Jordan toward Zoar was well watered, like the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt.” Sodom was a wealthy city. Ezekiel writes, “This was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen” (Ezek. 16:49-50). So, this was a wealthy city, but also it was also deeply immoral.
Was Lot showing his materialistic values when he chose Sodom and Gomorrah? He viewed this territory “like the garden of the LORD.” He looked at this place like it was paradise—even though it was a place of extremely wicked people (v.13).
“Zoar.” Lot flees here when God comes to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:22).
“Toward the east.” Lot goes east, and Abram goes west. Some commentators see a theme of “going east” as being “separation from God” in the book of Genesis. We see this with the first humans (Gen. 3:24), Cain (Gen. 4:16), Lot (Gen. 13:10-12), Abraham’s other sons (Gen. 25:6), and Jacob (Gen. 29:1).
(13:13) Now the people of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.
This verse foreshadows what will happen in chapter 19. Indeed, Moses tells us that Sodom and Gomorrah will be destroyed (v.10). Lot chose poorly.
(13:14-18) The LORD said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, “Look around from where you are, to the north and south, to the east and west. 15 All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever. 16 I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted. 17 Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you.” 18 So Abram went to live near the great trees of Mamre at Hebron, where he pitched his tents. There he built an altar to the LORD.
This promise wouldn’t be fulfilled for another 500 years in the days of Joshua. But God allows Abram to scout around the land that would be his future inheritance. The author of Hebrews comments on this when he writes, “By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. 9 By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (Heb. 11:8-10).
Questions for Reflection
Read verses 10-13. Why did Lot choose the cities of the plain to live? What does this say about his character when we consider verse 13?
Read verses 14-18. Why did God show Abram the land if he wouldn’t give it to the Israelites for another 500 years during the days of Joshua?
Genesis 14 (The Mysterious Melchizedek)
(14:1-4) At the time when Amraphel was king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Kedorlaomer king of Elam and Tidal king of Goyim, 2 these kings went to war against Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboyim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar). 3 All these latter kings joined forces in the Valley of Siddim (that is, the Dead Sea Valley). 4 For twelve years they had been subject to Kedorlaomer, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled.
To summarize, Amraphel (Babylon, Gen. 10:10; 11:2, 9), Arioch, Kedorlaomer, and Tidal went to battle against Bera, Birsha, Shinab, Shemeber, and Zoar. These five armies revolted against Kedorlaomer’s confederacy (modern-day Iran).
(14:5-7) In the fourteenth year, Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him went out and defeated the Rephaites in Ashteroth Karnaim, the Zuzites in Ham, the Emites in Shaveh Kiriathaim 6 and the Horites in the hill country of Seir, as far as El Paran near the desert. 7 Then they turned back and went to En Mishpat (that is, Kadesh), and they conquered the whole territory of the Amalekites, as well as the Amorites who were living in Hazezon Tamar.
Kedorlaomer won his battle with these various kings and cites. Of course, these weren’t large cities. After all, Abraham ends up defeating them with 318 men (v.14). These were probably small cites or clans.
(14:8-11) Then the king of Sodom, the king of Gomorrah, the king of Admah, the king of Zeboyim and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar) marched out and drew up their battle lines in the Valley of Siddim 9 against Kedorlaomer king of Elam, Tidal king of Goyim, Amraphel king of Shinar and Arioch king of Ellasar—four kings against five. 10 Now the Valley of Siddim was full of tar pits, and when the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, some of the men fell into them and the rest fled to the hills. 11 The four kings seized all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah and all their food; then they went away.
Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zoar rose up to challenge Kedorlaomer. They failed as well, getting stuck in tar pits (v.10). Kedorlaomer sacked Sodom and Gomorrah (v.11).
(14:12) They also carried off Abram’s nephew Lot and his possessions, since he was living in Sodom.
In chapter 13, Lot chose Sodom and Gomorrah because of his materialistic values. However, this didn’t last. Both Lot “and his possessions” were taken away.
(14:13-16) A man who had escaped came and reported this to Abram the Hebrew. Now Abram was living near the great trees of Mamre the Amorite, a brother of Eshkol and Aner, all of whom were allied with Abram. 14 When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he called out the 318 trained men born in his household and went in pursuit as far as Dan. 15 During the night Abram divided his men to attack them and he routed them, pursuing them as far as Hobah, north of Damascus. 16 He recovered all the goods and brought back his relative Lot and his possessions, together with the women and the other people.
How could such a small army defeat Kedorlaomer? For one, these “kings” were probably small “chieftains.” This could explain why Abram only needed 318 men to fight them and win. Second, Abram had allies with him (e.g. Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner). Third, Kidner[17] also notes that Abraham attacked at night, causing a surprise attack and confusion. Fourth, because Abram was fighting a just war, God was surely with Abram as he fought. So, this would be no different than other battles in the OT where few could defeat many.
(14:17) After Abram returned from defeating Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley).
Earlier, the king of Sodom “came out” to fight Kedorlaomer (v.8), and he failed miserably. Kedorlaomer defeated the “king of Sodom” and stole his property as well (vv.10-11). Here, he “came out” to meet Abram (v.17). So, it’s no wonder that Kedorlaomer wanted to meet Abram.
“Valley of Shaveh.” This is likely near Jerusalem (2 Sam. 18:18).
(14:18-20) Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram, saying, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. 20 And praise be to God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.” Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.
(14:21-24) The king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me the people and keep the goods for yourself.” 22 But Abram said to the king of Sodom, “With raised hand I have sworn an oath to the LORD, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth, 23 that I will accept nothing belonging to you, not even a thread or the strap of a sandal, so that you will never be able to say, ‘I made Abram rich.’ 24 I will accept nothing but what my men have eaten and the share that belongs to the men who went with me—to Aner, Eshkol and Mamre. Let them have their share.”
The king of Sodom tried to reward Abram with the rescued plunder, but Abram refused to be rewarded for the battle. Apparently, Abram prayed before this battle ever occurred, and he agreed in advance that he wouldn’t get rich off of this fight. God seems to have honored that prayer. Abraham seems to be the example from which the principles of war were written (see Deut. 20:1-15).
Questions for Reflection
Differences begin to emerge between Abram and Lot in this chapter. What do we learn about Abram from this chapter? How does this compare to Lot?
To put this another way, why was lot passively captured, but Abram was able to conquer these kings with only 318 fighting men?
Read verses 17-20. If all you had were these verses, what would you know about the mysterious figure of Melchizedek?
Sailhamer[18] thinks that Lot is taken captive as a result of leaving Abram in chapter 13. After all, in the Abrahamic Covenant, if you bless Abraham, you will be blessed. But if you curse Abraham, you will be cursed. Do you agree with this interpretation?
Genesis 15 (Abram’s covenant signed)
This passage shows God’s promise, prophecy, and patience. He made an unconditional promise to Abram; he made perfect prophecies about the future of the Exodus and the conquering of Canaan; and he has incredible patience in carrying out his plan. This has been called “the very heart of the Abraham story.”[19]
(15:1) After this, the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision: “Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your very great reward.”
“The word of the LORD.” This expression occurs frequently in the prophets, but it only occurs twice in Genesis—both of which occur in this chapter. This language fits with the idea that Abraham was a “prophet” (Gen. 20:7).
“Do not be afraid.” Why would Abram be afraid? Maybe he was getting older, and he was wondering if God would really come through on his promise (see v.2, 8).
“I am your shield.” The promise of being Abram’s shield “assures Abram that in the face of hostilities he can rest in the protection that grants him victory.”[20]
“Your very great reward.” Abram recently turned down the booty from his raid of Kedorlaomer (Gen. 14:17-24).
(15:2-3) But Abram said, “Sovereign LORD, what can you give me since I remain childless and the one who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?” 3 And Abram said, “You have given me no children; so a servant in my household will be my heir.”
“Children” (zeraʿ) is actually the singular noun “seed” that we saw predicted in Genesis 3:15. There, God promised that the “seed” of Eve would crush the Serpent. This prophecy continues to track this promised “seed” (see comments on Genesis 3:15).
“A servant in my household will be my heir.” Abraham’s practice of having an adopted son being his heir was a common practice (according to the Nuzi texts). It was also customary to set this aside in light of a biological son (as Abraham did, when Isaac was born).[21]
(15:4-5) Then the word of the LORD came to him: “This man will not be your heir, but a son who is your own flesh and blood will be your heir.” 5 He took him outside and said, “Look up at the sky and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”
“Your own flesh and blood.” Abram later interprets this to mean that he should sleep with his servant Hagar. This legal loophole was culturally common, and it would fit with this promise here. After all, Ishmael was still Abraham’s “flesh and blood.” But God meant that he would have an heir through Sarah—not Hagar.
“Look up at the sky and count the stars.” Abram called God the “Creator of heaven and earth” (Gen. 14:22). Sailhamer comments, “If Yahweh was the Creator of the great multitude of the stars in heaven, it follows that he was able to give Abraham an equal number of descendants (‘offspring’). Thus God’s faithfulness in the past was made the basis for Abraham’s trust in the future.”[22]
(15:6) Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.
Abram believed God’s promise, and God considered Abram righteous as a result. The NT authors pick up on this passage frequently, seeing a parallel with the Christian’s faith in Christ (Rom. 4:3, 20-22; Gal. 3:6; Jas. 2:23).
“Credited” (ḥāšab) means “to assign… value,” and therefore, God “assigns Abram’s faith the value of righteousness.”[23]
(15:7-11) He also said to him, “I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it.”
8 But Abram said, “Sovereign LORD, how can I know that I will gain possession of it?”
9 So the LORD said to him, “Bring me a heifer, a goat and a ram, each three years old, along with a dove and a young pigeon.” 10 Abram brought all these to him, cut them in two and arranged the halves opposite each other; the birds, however, he did not cut in half. 11 Then birds of prey came down on the carcasses, but Abram drove them away.
“I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans.” This is almost the identical way that God opens up his covenant with Moses: “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery” (Ex. 20:2). God brought him from “Ur of the Chaldeans” in chapter 11 (Gen. 11:28, 31). Mathews comments, “Just as God had faithfully brought him to Canaan, he will also satisfy the promise of offspring.”[24]
“Sovereign LORD, how can I know…?” Abram still struggled with doubt. His faith wasn’t perfect faith, but God still considered him righteous for the faith he did express. Moreover, Abram wasn’t expressing unbelief when he asked this question. Indeed, he took his doubts to God, and he continued to call God “Sovereign LORD.”
God made a covenant (berîṯ) with Abram. Today, we sign contracts with ink, paper, and notaries present. But in the ancient Near East, they had a more gruesome method: They split animals in two, and both people would walk down the middle of the splayed animal parts. As their feet squished on the gore beneath their feet, the two people would forge their contract. This method served as a grisly way of saying, “If one of us breaks this promise, then this is what will happen to the one who breaks it!” (cf. Jer. 34:18-20)
An extrabiblical source states that this must’ve been a well-known custom. In the source, we read about a similar type of contract between Ashurnirari V (Assyria) and Mati’ilu (Arpad): “If Mati’ilu sins against (this) treaty made under oath by the gods, then, just as this spring lamb, brought from its fold, will not return to its fold… alas, Mati’ilu… will not return to his country.”[25]
“Birds of prey came down on the carcasses, but Abram drove them away.” Mathews[26] reads a lot of symbolism into each part of this account. He understands the dead animals to represent the future Israelites, the birds of prey to refer to enemies of Israel, Abraham’s defense of the dead animals represents his loyalty to the covenant. This is stretched.
(15:12) As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him.
What is the significance in the fact that Abram was in a “deep sleep”? Simply this: God was going to create and fulfill this covenant (berîṯ), and Abram would have no part in working to see it fulfilled. This was a unilateral promise—not a bilateral agreement.
“Dreadful darkness.” Again, Mathews[27] reads too much into these words. He holds that this refers to the “enslavement for his descendants,” as well as the terror and dread of the nations facing the Israelites (citing Ex. 15:16; 23:27; Josh. 2:9). While interesting, this seems like pure word association.
(15:13-16) Then the LORD said to him, “Know for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there. 14 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. 15 You, however, will go to your ancestors in peace and be buried at a good old age. 16 In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”
God predicts the events that are recorded in Exodus and Joshua. The Israelites endured slavery for 400 years, God punished Pharaoh for his cruelty, and he eventually led the people to conquer Canaan. God waited because “the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure” (v.16). Even with wicked nations, God shows incredible patience.
How many years were predicted? Multiple figures are used: 400 years (v.13), four generations (v.16), and 430 years (Ex. 12:40). The doctrine of inerrancy—at least that which is articulated in the CSBI—allows for round numbers (CSBI, article 13; cf. 2 Chron. 4:2; Num. 25:9 & 1 Cor. 10:8). Moreover, Kidner[28] notes that the word “generation” (dôr) could refer to a lifetime, and in this period, the patriarchs lived for very long—even over 100 years in age.
(15:17-21) When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces. 18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates—19 the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, 20 Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, 21 Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.”
“A smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces.” This imagery is used of a theophany of God at Mount Sinai: “smoke (ʿāšān), furnace (kibšān), fire (ʾēš), and lightning (lappîd at Exod 20:18).”[29]
Normally, both parties walked through the animal parts. But not here. God never asked Abram to walk through the line of animals, signing the contract (Gen. 15:7-12, 17). God did this all alone. In fact, Abram was asleep when God approached him (v.12). Therefore, Abram wasn’t a participant in the covenant; he was a recipient of it. This wasn’t a bilateral agreement; it was unilateral one (compare with Exodus 19:5). It was as if God was saying, “Abram, I’m going to fulfill my end of the bargain, whether you’re obedient or not.” Moreover, God specifically stated that the land of Israel was included in this agreement (Gen. 15:18-20).
Questions for Reflection
Read verses 1-3. What was making Abram feel afraid?
Read verses 4-5. What and 18-21. God made a promise to Abram. Explain this promise in your own words.
Read verse 5. Why does God tell Abram to look at the sky and count the stars in order to encourage him about his ability to produce a miracle in Abram’s life? (HINT: How does this connect with Genesis 1?)
Read verse 6-17. Abram had faith in God’s promise (v.6). If all you had was this chapter, how would you define biblical faith?
Genesis 16 (Abram and works: the birth of Ishmael)
God promised to give Abram a son and an entire nation. But since he was so old, Abram began to face the fact: He and Sarai are both old—well beyond childbearing years. Since God told Abram that the son would come through him (Gen. 15:4), he started to devise a way to make this happen. He decided that he would use a surrogate mother (Hagar) and impregnate her. Paul contrasts Abraham’s faith in God’s promise in Genesis 15 with the works mentality of Genesis 16 (see Gal. 4:22ff).
(16:1) Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar.
The problem was Sarai’s old age. How could God’s promise possibly come true? Sarai begins to look at her handmaiden Hagar—a young Egyptian woman. And the gears begin to turn.
(16:2-5) So she said to Abram, “The LORD has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.” Abram agreed to what Sarai said. 3 So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian slave Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. 4 He slept with Hagar, and she conceived. When she knew she was pregnant, she began to despise her mistress. 5 Then Sarai said to Abram, “You are responsible for the wrong I am suffering. I put my slave in your arms, and now that she knows she is pregnant, she despises me. May the LORD judge between you and me.”
“The LORD has kept me from having children.” This gives away the unbelieving mindset of Sarai. She thought that God was keeping her from having kids. In other words, she was blaming her infertility on God. In reality, there wasn’t a chance that she would be able to have a child without God’s supernatural intervention.
“Abram agreed to what Sarai said.” Abram was listening to what his wife said, rather than what God said.
“Sarai his wife took her Egyptian slave Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. He slept with Hagar, and she conceived.” The practice of using a surrogate for a barren woman was customary at the time. Mathews writes, “Ancient Near Eastern custom provided for the substitution of a slave for the purpose of bearing a child in the case of a barren mistress. If the wife could not produce children, the husband might marry another; perhaps the offer of a substitute circumvented the acquisition of a second wife.”[30] Waltke writes, “The practice of surrogate motherhood for an infertile wife through her maidservant seemed to be an acceptable social practice, as can be judged from Gen. 30:3-12, the Code of Hammurabi (ca. 1700 b.c.; ‘The Code of Hammurabi,’ ANET, 172, par. 146.) a Nuzi text (ca. 1500 b.c.), an Old Assyrian marriage contract (nineteenth century b.c.), and a Neo-Assyrian text. According to the Old Assyrian marriage contract, after the chief wife procured an infant for her husband, she could sell the surrogate mother whenever she pleased. According to the Code of Hammurabi, however, she could not sell her.”[31]
Was polygamy a good idea? Not at all! In fact, we see the disastrous consequences of this decision in the rest of the book, as well as the rest of the Bible (see “What about Polygamy?”).
“Abram had been living in Canaan ten years.” Eventually after ten years of dialogue or debate, Abram gave in and slept with Hagar.
“You are responsible for the wrong I am suffering.” Even though Sarai was the one who initiated this entire scheme, she Sarai blamed the conflict on Abram! Of course, Abram was to blame as well for committing adultery (even if it was culturally acceptable) and for not leading his wife in faith.
(16:6) “Your slave is in your hands,” Abram said. “Do with her whatever you think best.” Then Sarai mistreated Hagar; so she fled from her.
Instead of mediating this conflict, Abram backed away and allowed Sarai to mistreat Hagar.
(16:7-9) The angel of the LORD found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur. 8 And he said, “Hagar, slave of Sarai, where have you come from, and where are you going?”
“I’m running away from my mistress Sarai,” she answered.
9 Then the angel of the LORD told her, “Go back to your mistress and submit to her.”
“The spring that is beside the road to Shur.” This is a spring that is on the way to Egypt (Gen. 25:18). This means that Hagar was going home to Egypt after being dejected by Abram and Sarai.[32]
“The angel of the LORD.” The “angel of the LORD” appeared to Hagar in the wilderness. Yet, Hagar associates this angel with Yahweh. She says to the angel, “You are a God who sees” (v.13). Then, she wonders why she hasn’t died after seeing God face to face. She asks, “Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?’” (NASB, v.13)[33] This fear makes sense in light of the fact that “no one can see God and live” (Ex. 33:20). It makes no sense if she was encountering an angel because no such warning is ever given regarding seeing angelic beings. For more on this subject, see our section titled “The ‘Angel of the Lord’ and Theophanies in the Old Testament” in the article titled “A Biblical Defense of the Trinity.” Regardless of who this figure truly is, he mended the situation. He spoke to Hagar and sent her back to Sarai.
(16:10-12) The angel added, “I will increase your descendants so much that they will be too numerous to count.” 11 The angel of the LORD also said to her: “You are now pregnant and you will give birth to a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the LORD has heard of your misery. 12 He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers.”
God makes a similar promise to Hagar, as he did with Abram. Hagar’s descendants would be too difficult to count. Ishmael’s name means “God hears.” Ishmael’s sons would be persecuted, but they would also persecute others too. They would live to the east of the Jews.
(16:13) She gave this name to the LORD who spoke to her: “You are the God who sees me,” for she said, “I have now seen the One who sees me.”
This makes me think that she is viewing God himself—most likely Christ in a preincarnate form.
(16:14-16) That is why the well was called Beer Lahai Roi; it is still there, between Kadesh and Bered. 15 So Hagar bore Abram a son, and Abram gave the name Ishmael to the son she had borne. 16 Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael.
“Abram was eighty-six years old.” It had been roughly 11 years since Abram received his calling from God in Haran (Gen. 12:4). Sarai was 76 years old at this time (Gen. 17:17).
Questions for Reflection
In what ways did Abram fail to lead his marriage in this chapter? What consequences resulted from Abram failure to lead?
Read verses 1 and 3. Is there any significance to the fact that Hagar was an Egyptian woman?
Read verse 13. What do you think Hagar means when she says, “You are the God who sees me… I have now seen the One who sees me”?
Read Galatians 4:22-31. How does Paul interpret this OT narrative for us? What insights does he give that give clarity on what we just read?
What do we learn about the difficulty of waiting on God from Abram and Sarai’s example? What specific difficulties and temptations do we face when we’re waiting on God?
Genesis 17 (God gives Abram and Sarai new names)
Thirteen years pass. Abram was probably thinking that God was okay with his strategy to have a surrogate son through Hagar. Yet God appeared to him at the age of 99 years old to reaffirm his original covenant.
(17:1-4) When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty; walk before me faithfully and be blameless. 2 Then I will make my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers.” 3 Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4 “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations.”
God introduces himself as “God Almighty” (‘el Shaddai) to Abram to show that he is all-powerful to fulfill his promise. He doesn’t need a little bit of Abram’s ingenuity or effort. God has enough power to fulfill his promise on his own.
(17:5) “No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations.”
“Abram” comes from the Hebrew “father” (ab) and “exalted” or “to be high” (ram). This either refers to Abram’s father Terah, or to Abram himself.
“Abraham” comes from the Hebrew “father” (ab) and “multitude” (raham). Instead of focusing backward on Abram or Terah, the new name looks forward to the people he’ll impact in the future.
Abraham must’ve felt embarrassed to carry the name “father of a multitude” when he was 99 years old. Imagine him returning to his clan and telling his people, “God just changed my name. You need to call me ‘father of a multitude’ from now on.” If Abraham “laughed” at this promise (Gen. 17:17), just imagine what others would’ve done when they heard this. It would’ve been hard for Abraham to believe this new identity about himself. But this is precisely what God was calling him to do: Trust God’s view of him in faith.
(17:6) “I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you.”
God predicts his international impact, and God also predicts that kings will come from Abraham’s line.
(17:7-8) “I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8 The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.”
He emphasizes his adoption of the Jewish people and their real estate in the land of Canaan.
(17:9-14) Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
He gives a “sign” of the covenant: circumcision. This would normally happen on the eighth day (v.12), which was the best medical day to perform this surgery. It also included any foreigners who adopted the Jewish faith (v.12). Failure to keep the covenant meant that individuals would be thrown out of the spiritual community (v.14).
(Gen. 17:10) Isn’t circumcision a cruel and unusual act? No. Infants cannot remember this surgery, and medically, it was carried out in a rather sophisticated way. Circumcision helps to lower penile cancer by significantly lowering the gathering of smegma under the foreskin of the penis.[34] The Israelites circumcised infants on the eighth day, and today we know that our blood clots the best eight days after birth because a protein called prothrombin reaches 110% of its normal levels on this day.[35] Finally, because “bacteria and viruses cannot grow in rock,”[36] flint knives seem to be good instruments to use to perform the surgery (Ex. 4:25; Josh. 5:2).
(17:15-16) God also said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah. 16 I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her.”
Sarai is renamed to Sarah. Waltke notes, “Both Sarai and Sarah are probably dialectical variants meaning ‘princess.’ The promise that she will bear kings supports this interpretation. Sarai, her birth-name, probably looks back on her noble descent, whereas Sarah, her covenantal name, looks ahead to her noble descendants.”[37]
(17:17) Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, “Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?”
“Abraham fell facedown; he laughed.” Earlier, Abraham “fell facedown” before God (v.3). Here, however, he “fell facedown” and he laughed. Sailhamer is insightful when he writes, “When Abram heard that God would greatly increase his descendants, he responded with respect and submission. But when he heard how God would carry out his plan, his respect contained a tinge of laughter.”[38] God’s plans seem great and awesome in theory, but when we see what needs to practically go into this, we can often recoil in shock or incredulity.
As it turns out, Moses is using wordplay here. The word “laughter” (yiṣḥāq) is similar to the name of Abraham’s future son, Isaac (yiṣḥāq, Gen. 21:4).
Modern people look at this story with skepticism, but so did Abraham! He knew enough biology to know that 90-year-old women don’t get pregnant through natural causes. Indeed, the Bible would agree that this doesn’t naturally happen. God would need to act in a supernatural way for Sarah to give birth.
(17:18-19) And Abraham said to God, “If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!”
19 Then God said, “Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.”
“If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!” Abraham wanted God to conform with his own plan, rather than following God’s plan. But God doesn’t follow our brilliant ideas on how to run the universe. He had something far greater in mind.
(17:20) “And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him. I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.”
“As for Ishmael, I have heard you.” This is a play on words. The name Ishmael means “God hears.”[39]
“I will surely bless him.” God still blesses Ishmael, but works through Isaac instead. Ishmael goes on to have many descendants (Gen. 25:12-16).
“I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers.” This could harken back to God’s original mandate in the Garden to be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28). This would show that “the covenant with Abraham to be the means through which God’s original blessing would again be channeled to all mankind.”[40]
(17:21) “But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year.”
God predicts the birth of Isaac within the next year. Abraham received his calling at the age of 75 (Gen. 12:4), and now he is 99. He needed to wait on God’s answer to this promise for a quarter of a century. But now, the time of waiting is over.
(17:22-27) When he had finished speaking with Abraham, God went up from him. 23 On that very day Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household, and circumcised them, as God told him. 24 Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised, 25 and his son Ishmael was thirteen; 26 Abraham and his son Ishmael were both circumcised on that very day. 27 And every male in Abraham’s household, including those born in his household or bought from a foreigner, was circumcised with him.
Abraham had every man in his household circumcised—even Ishmael. Ishmael was 13 when this happened, and Abraham was 99. So, this must’ve been delicate surgery!
Questions for Reflection
Read verse 5. Why does God change Abram’s name to Abraham? How do you think Abraham felt telling people that God changed his name to “the father of a multitude”? (After all, he was nearly 100 years old, and he was still childless.)
Read verse 17. Do you think it was wrong for Abraham to laugh at God’s promise?
Read verse 18. Abraham wanted to keep his plan of works intact. Have you ever had a plan for your life that God interrupts? How did God’s plan work out? Have you ever regretted choosing God’s way? What about the opposite? Have you ever regretted choosing your own way?
Genesis 18 (Abraham’s bargain)
(18:1-2) The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. 2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.
“The LORD appeared to Abraham.” Those who reject this being a theophany have problems with this opening statement. Mathews writes, “‘The Lord appeared to Abraham’ (v. 1a) functions as a heading for the whole pericope, since theophany characterizes chaps. 18–19.”[41]
At first glance, we might think that all three men are merely angels. Yet, look closer.
Yahweh himself encountered Abraham. Yahweh “appeared” (wayyērāʾ) to Abraham (Gen. 18:1; cf. 12:7; 17:1). Later, Yahweh asks himself, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?” (v.17)
Yahweh was accompanied by two angels. A total of three men appeared to Abraham (v.2). Yet, two men are angels, and one is Yahweh: “the men got up to leave,” but “the LORD said, ‘Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?” (vv.16-17) Later, one of the figures is explicitly called Yahweh: “Abraham remained standing before the LORD” (Gen. 18:22). But the other figures are explicitly called “the two angels” (Gen. 19:1).[42] Moreover, God promises to return alone (Gen. 18:10), not accompanied by the two angels.
After Abraham speaks to God, the “LORD departed” (Gen. 18:33 NASB), but the remaining two men (angels) go to Sodom (Gen. 19:1). These two angels state that they were sent by Yahweh: “We are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it” (Gen. 19:13). This strongly implies that these two angels were not Yahweh. Only the person speaking to Abraham refers to himself as Yahweh—not the two angels.
Yahweh could be physically touched. Yahweh had feet that Abraham washed (v.4). Yahweh ate bread (v.5) and meat (v.7). Yahweh drank milk (v.8). For these reasons, we agree with Hamilton[43] and Currid[44] that this is indeed a theophany of Yahweh. For more on the subject of theophanies, see “A Biblical Defense of the Trinity.”
(18:3-8) He said, “If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord, do not pass your servant by. 4 Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash your feet and rest under this tree. 5 Let me get you something to eat, so you can be refreshed and then go on your way—now that you have come to your servant.”
“Very well,” they answered, “do as you say.”
6 So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah. “Quick,” he said, “get three seahs of the finest flour and knead it and bake some bread.” 7 Then he ran to the herd and selected a choice, tender calf and gave it to a servant, who hurried to prepare it. 8 He then brought some curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and set these before them. While they ate, he stood near them under a tree.
Abraham recognizes that he is encountering divine messengers. This is why he bows low to the ground, brings water to have them wash their feet, and immediately makes food for them. This is in stark contrast to Lot who doesn’t recognize the angelic visitors when he encounters them. Sailhamer comments, “Abraham, who had just entered the covenant (ch. 17), recognized the Lord when he appeared to him, whereas Lot, who then lived in Sodom, did not recognize the Lord. The lives of the two men continue to offer a contrast. Abraham knew God, but Lot did not.”[45]
Abraham prepares some choice food for his guests. The fact that these angels can eat implies that spiritual beings can interact with the physical world.
(18:9-10) “Where is your wife Sarah?” they asked him.
“There, in the tent,” he said.
10 Then one of them said, “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son.” Now Sarah was listening at the entrance to the tent, which was behind him.
God again announced the birth of Isaac through Sarah (cf. Gen. 17:21).
(18:11-15) Abraham and Sarah were already very old, and Sarah was past the age of childbearing. 12 So Sarah laughed to herself as she thought, “After I am worn out and my lord is old, will I now have this pleasure?”
13 Then the LORD said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Will I really have a child, now that I am old?’ 14 Is anything too hard for the LORD? I will return to you at the appointed time next year, and Sarah will have a son.”
15 Sarah was afraid, so she lied and said, “I did not laugh.”
But he said, “Yes, you did laugh.”
“[Sarah was] very old… past the age of childbearing… worn out.” The text goes out of its way to show that Sarah was physically incapable of having a child. Indeed, she laughed when she heard this promise. After all, it is naturally and physically impossible for a 90-year-old woman to get pregnant. This promise is so naturalistically absurd that Abraham had also laughed at it (Gen. 17:17-18). However, no one believes that this promise was fulfilled naturally or physically. This was supernaturally and metaphysically fulfilled through the miraculous intervention of God.
Even though both Abraham and Sarah laughed (Gen. 17:17-18; 18:15), God seems to have been patient with her.
“Will I now have this pleasure?” Mathews holds that the term “pleasure” (ʿednâ) refers to “sexual delight.” He writes, “Her inner thoughts poignantly confirmed that the couple had not engaged in sexual relations for years.”[46] While the semantic range of the word could include sexual pleasure, the context refers to childbearing—not sex. Abraham had sex with Keturah later in life, so virility doesn’t seem like the surprising miracle that Sarah has in mind.
Abraham intercedes for Sodom and Gomorrah
(18:16-22) When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. 17 Then the LORD said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? 18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. 19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”
20 Then the LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.” 22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD.
The two angels leave, but God stays behind to discuss his plan with Abraham. He declares judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah (vv.21-22). The “outcry” probably refers to the cry of the poor (Ezek. 16:49-50) or the cry of their blood (Gen. 4, Abel).
Abraham pleads with God
In the subsequent section, we see Abraham plead with God over the fate of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham speaks with all the savvy of a Middle Eastern man who is bargaining for a good deal. He sounds like an auctioneer, “Do I hear 50? Okay, 50! Do I hear 40…? What about 30…?” Kidner, however, qualifies this when he writes, “It would be easy to say that this prayer comes near to haggling, but the right word is ‘exploring.’”[47] Likewise, Matthews states that there is “no feverish haggling here,” because of the “the deference Abraham shows and the Lord’s amicable agreement.”[48] Either way, Abraham engages in bold intercession with God.
But Abraham isn’t manipulating God. He is basing his petition on God’s righteous character (Gen. 18:25). Abraham is probably bargaining for his nephew, Lot.
(18:23-33) Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
26 The LORD said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”
27 Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?” “If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”
29 Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?” He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”
30 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?” He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”
31 Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?” He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”
32 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?” He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.” 33 When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.
Abraham must be concerned about his nephew Lot. He barters with God based on his character (v.25). He starts with 50 righteous (v.24), then 45 righteous (v.28), then 40 righteous (v.29), then 30 righteous (v.30), then 20 righteous (v.31), then finally 10 righteous (v.32). With each new offer, Abraham is not demanding anything, but merely asking based on God’s character.
This passage doesn’t teach that God won’t judge people. Rather, the passage teaches that God is just, and he won’t judge the righteous along with the wicked. After all, God goes on to judge Sodom and Gomorrah because the men of Sodom were “wicked exceedingly and sinners against the Lord” (Gen. 13:13) and “their sin [was] exceedingly grave” (Gen. 18:20 NASB). The point is that God was willing to spare his judgment on the small remnant of people who didn’t fit this category. God sends an angelic extraction team to get Lot’s family out of Sodom before he judges the city.
“When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left.” This statement “forms an inclusio with v. 1 when the ‘Lord’ first appeared.”[49]
Questions for Reflection
Read verses 22-33. What do we learn about God’s character from his interaction with Abraham?
What do we learn about intercessory prayer from Abraham’s example? Is Abraham twisting God’s arm to spare the city of Sodom?
Sailhamer[50] states that the key to understanding this section is verse 25: “Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen. 18:25) Do you agree with his assessment?
Genesis 19 (The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah)
(19:1-3) The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground.
2 “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.”
“No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.”
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate.
“Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city.” Because he was the gatekeeper of the city, this could imply that Lot was “a man of standing in Sodom.”[51]
Lot “insisted strongly” not to stay in the public square at night. We might ask: What was Lot so afraid of? Lot’s fear “reveals that he knew his Sodom.”[52] The next verse explains the source of Lot’s fear.
(19:4) Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house.
It was men of Sodom who were wicked—not the women. Moses uses the word “people” elsewhere in his book, so he could have made this condemnation gender-neutral (Gen. 11:6; 14: 16, 21). This should tip us off to the fact that there is something immoral happening with the men in particular.
(19:5) They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”
Clearly this refers to male-to-male sexual intercourse. The fact that there is a large group of men could imply sexual assault. However, that isn’t made clear until later in the text.
(19:6-7) Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing [rāʿaʿ].”
Lot calls their desire a “wicked thing” (rāʿaʿ). Elsewhere, in the book of Genesis, we read, “Now the men of Sodom were wicked (rāʿaʿ) exceedingly and sinners against the Lord” (Gen. 13:13 NASB). God told Abraham, “The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave” (Gen. 18:20 NASB). Severe immorality was occurring in Sodom, and chapter 19 gives a window into the nature of the depravity at Sodom.
(19:8-9) “Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”
9 “Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse [rāʿaʿ] than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
The men of Sodom were outraged that Lot would judge their same-sex acts. As good moral relativists, they were asking, “Who are you to judge us?”
“We’ll treat you worse than them… Moved forward to break down the door.” At this point, this has shifted from any sort of consensual sex to sexual assault.
(19:10-13) But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door. 12 The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.”
Why would God enact corporate capital punishment on these cities? In Leviticus, we read that God brought judgment on Canaan because of the practices of the people (Lev. 18:25, 27). God held them responsible for their immorality—even though they didn’t have his explicit moral law. The same principle happened in Sodom.
Now that we have offered an interpretation of this passage, let’s consider some of the popular objections held against our interpretation.
OBJECTION #1: The Hebrew word for “knowing” (yādaʿ) does not refer to sexual intercourse.
Some interpreters argue that the Hebrew word for “knowing” (yādaʿ) doesn’t refer to sex. Instead, it literally refers to the men of Sodom wanting to get to “know” Lot’s guests, and nothing harmful was intended. This is a very poor interpretation. There are a number of reasons for inferring that this should be taken to mean sexual intercourse—not simply “making someone’s acquaintance.”
First, “know” (yādaʿ) refers to sexual intercourse in many places throughout the book of Genesis. Consider several examples:
(Gen. 4:1 NASB) Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have gotten a manchild with the help of the Lord.”
(Gen. 4:17 NASB) Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city Enoch, after the name of his son.
(Gen. 4:25 NASB) Adam had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a son, and named him Seth, for, she said, “God has appointed me another offspring in place of Abel, for Cain killed him.”
(Gen. 24:16 NASB) The girl was very beautiful, a virgin, and no man had had relations with her.
(Gen. 38:26) Judah recognized them, and said, “She is more righteous than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah.” And he did not have relations with her again.
Second, in the immediate context, the term “know” (yādaʿ) refers to sex. Lot says, “I have two daughters who have never slept with a man” (v.8). The same word “know” (yādaʿ) is used. Clearly, the daughters knew men in a personal sense. The clear interpretation is that they were virgins.
Third, Judges 19 contains a strikingly similar story, where “know” (yādaʿ) refers to sexual assault. In Judges 19, a man’s house was surrounded by the men of Gibeah, and in order to satisfy this rape mob, the owner of the house pushed his concubine out of the door. Thus, we read, “They raped her [yādaʿ] and abused her all night until morning” (Judg. 19:25 NASB). Therefore, in a strikingly similar story, the term “know” (yādaʿ) refers to sexual assault—not harmless greetings.
Fourth, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible rendered “know” (yādaʿ) as sexual intercourse. The Septuagint used the Greek term sungenometha, which refers to sexual intercourse—not mere knowledge of another person.
OBJECTION #2: The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality and materialism—not SSSA.
Some interpreters[53] argue that SSSA wasn’t the primary sin of Sodom. Instead, Ezekiel tells us that materialism was the greatest sin. Ezekiel writes, “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy” (Ezek. 16:49). Yet, this isn’t a strong reason for eliminating SSSA from the sins of Sodom.
For one, this doesn’t fit with the NT interpretation of this passage. Jude writes, “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire” (Jude 7). The
Second, the men were attempting gang rape on the angels and Lot. Materialism is a wicked sin. However, gang rape is far worse. If Ezekiel 16 is stating that materialism was the only sin in Sodom, then this would mean that he was minimizing gang rape.
In our view, Ezekiel is doing no such thing. Instead, he is adding to the indictment against Sodom, but he isn’t subtracting from it. Just because Ezekiel adds the sin of materialism to the list of Sodom’s sins, this doesn’t subtract from the fact that they also performed SSSA or attempted gang rape there as well. This is “both-and.” Not “either-or.”
Third, interpreters often neglect the context in Ezekiel. In the very next verse, we read, “They were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore, I removed them when I saw it” (Ezek. 16:50). The word “abominations” (tôʿēbâ) is the same term used in Leviticus to denounce SSSA. Leviticus states, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination (tôʿēbâ)” (Lev. 18:22; cf. 20:13).
Fourth, early rabbinic commentators held that Sodom’s sin was sexual. Biblical scholar Thomas Schmidt writes, “The second century BC Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs labels the Sodomites ‘sexually promiscuous’ (Testimony of Benjamin, 9:1) and refers to ‘Sodom, which departed from the order of nature’ (Testament of Naphtali, 3:4). From the same time period, Jubilees specifies that the Sodomites were ‘polluting themselves and fornicating in their flesh’ (16:5, compare 20:56). Both Philo and Josephus plainly name same-sex relations as the characteristic view of Sodom.”[54]
OBJECTION #3: The sin of Sodom was the fact that these men wanted to have sex with angels—not men.
Jude 7 states that the sin of Sodom was that the men went after “strange flesh” (cf. 2 Pet. 2:4-10). Some interpreters argue that this passage denounces humans trying to have sex with angels—not with men.
However, in response to this view, we should point out the obvious: The mob didn’t know that these men were angels! As is often the case with angelic visitation, the individuals don’t know that they are speaking with an angel (cf. Judg. 13:16; Heb. 13:2). Thus, the “strange flesh” refers to men attempting to have sex with other men. In Jude, the context is “gross immorality” (ekporneuō), so we know that the author has sexual immorality in mind. Moreover, just as the angels slept with human women (which was outside of their design), so too, the men of Sodom slept with other men (which was also outside of their design; Gen. 2:24).
Conclusion
Some interpreters argue that the sin of Sodom was sexual assault—not consensual sex. This is a valid point. Yet, we should point out that the violence and rape do not begin in the narrative until Lot calls their desire “wicked” (Gen. 19:7). Their attempt to “know” the men was not necessarily a request to sexually assault. It isn’t until Lot calls this “wicked” that the men begin to force down the door (v.9).
Yet, because of the ambiguity, we think it’s unwise to build a serious doctrine on this ambiguous passage. The sin could refer to either SSSA or gang rape (or both). Since other passages speak much more clearly about the subject of SSSA, we shouldn’t appeal to this passage in building our sexual ethics.
(19:14) So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry his daughters. He said, “Hurry and get out of this place, because the LORD is about to destroy the city!” But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.
“His sons-in-law thought he was joking.” Lot’s sons-in-law didn’t believe in God’s judgment, and Lot was so morally compromised that they couldn’t take him seriously.
(19:15-16) With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished.” 16 When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the LORD was merciful to them.
“When he hesitated.” Why on earth did Lot hesitate? A rape mob just attempted to sexually assault him and his family and friend. And if that wasn’t enough, the angels told him that they were going to judge the city. Why wouldn’t Lot jump at the chance of fleeing the city?
This is what materialism does to the human heart. Lot had invested his time, talent, and treasure in this city, and he didn’t want to leave this behind. As Jesus observed, “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Mt. 6:21). The angels needed to pull him along like a parent dragging her kids to the dentist.
(19:17-20) As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, “Flee for your lives! Don’t look back, and don’t stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!”
18 But Lot said to them, “No, my lords, please! 19 Your servant has found favor in your eyes, and you have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can’t flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I’ll die. 20 Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it—it is very small, isn’t it? Then my life will be spared.”
“No, my lords, please!” Lot bartered with the men of Sodom (v.6), and now, he barters with the angels who are saving his life. This scene shows how pathetic he has become—still bartering and arguing even though these angels are his only hope of survival.
“Don’t look back.” This is what we call foreshadowing (v.26).
“I can’t flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I’ll die.” This shows Lot’s lack of faith. God went out of his way to rescue Lot (even pulling him by the hand as he hesitated). But Lot is still unsure if God will protect him through this judgment. Kidner writes, “The warning to ‘remember Lot’s wife’ (Luke 17:32) gives us reason to see ourselves potentially in the lingering, quibbling Lot himself, wheedling a last concession as he is dragged to safety. Not even brimstone will make a pilgrim of him: he must have his little Sodom again if life is to be supportable.”[55]
“Here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small… It is very small, isn’t it?” Mathews writes, “His contention is that the angels can spare the little town for his sake, and they can still achieve their main objective.”[56] In the end, Lot was “afraid to stay in Zoar,” and he ended up going to the mountains anyhow (v.30).
(19:21-24) He said to him, “Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of. 22 But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it.” (That is why the town was called Zoar. ) 23 By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. 24 Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens.
Is there evidence that God really judged Sodom and Gomorrah with burning sulfur?
OPTION #1. Bab edh-Dhra is the modern cite of Sodom and Gomorrah. Archaeologist Bryant Wood is the biggest proponent of this view. This cite was settled from 3150 to 2200 BC, and it was excavated in the 1960s and 1970s. The city had a protective wall that was 23 feet thick, and it contained a cemetery outside with thousands of bodies. Kaiser notes, “What startled the excavators was the huge layers of ash reaching many feet in its depths. Moreover, so hot and intense had been the flames that destroyed this site that the bricks had turned red permanently from the intense heat.”[57]
These researchers noted that the houses burned from the top down, rather than from the bottom up. This would fit the biblical description that the burning sulfur came down onto the city. Archaeologist Bryant Wood writes, “What they discovered was that the fire started on the roof of the building, then the roof burned through, collapsed into the interior, and then the fire spread inside the building. And this was the case in every single charnel house that they excavated. Now this is something quite difficult to explain naturally…. How do you explain the burning of these charnel houses in a cemetery located some distance from the town?”[58]
Regarding the largest of these charnel houses (A-22), Wood notes that the houses burned “from the inside out.” He writes, “The roof, engulfed in flames, collapsed into the building and caused the interior burning…. The destruction of the charnel houses at Bab edh-Dhra was brought about by the roofs first being set on fire, then collapsing, causing the interiors of the buildings to burn. This is entirely consistent with the Biblical description of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, when ‘the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens’ (Gn 19:24).”[59]
OPTION #2. Tall el-Hammam is the modern cite of Sodom and Gomorrah. Archaeologist Steven Collins is the biggest proponent of this view. Collins argues that the location of Bab edh-Dhra doesn’t fit with the biblical indictors that Sodom was a part of the disk shaped (kikkar) plain that was east of Bethel and north of the Dead Sea (Gen. 10:19; 13:3-4, 19). Tall el-Hamman fits the biblical description better. It is on the eastern edge of the Jordan disk, and eight miles near the mouth of the Jordan. There are several reasons for holding this as the city of Sodom:[60]
First, this 85-acre city was unoccupied for several centuries (1800-1550 BC). This is “strange since it was located on a major trade route, had freshwater springs, possessed fortifications, and was located close to the Jordan River. Sodom had location, location, location!”[61] Furthermore, this timeframe fits with the centuries immediately after the time of Abraham and Lot.
Second, the city was destroyed by fire, and some parts have a one-meter ash layer. Holden and Geisler writes, “The site reveals extensive destruction by fire of architectural features such as roofs, dwellings, walls, fortification barriers, as well as personal items such as jewelry, tools, and pottery. In addition to these, one of the most sobering and striking features involves human remains that depict catastrophic astrophic destruction. It appears that many of the inhabitants’ bones are charred and distorted, like those pictured, and are situated in a way that indicates a violent high-heat heat flash event that may have thrown inhabitants to the western side of their dwellings, showing that the destruction could have originated from the east.”[62]
Third, the burned remains were due to “an extreme high-heat flash event.” Some of the pottery was turned to glass, requiring the heat to be several thousand degrees. Indeed, “only a temperature of thousands of degrees Fahrenheit (much hotter than kilns of that day could heat pottery) could achieve such a process. Related to this, samples of area soil and sand have been examined. These samples give evidence of a high-heat event that was hot enough to turn desert sand into ‘desert glass,’ a phenomenon more associated with lightning, airbursts, or atomic explosions in the deserts of New Mexico than the once fertile tile Jordan River valley.”[63]
(19:25-26) Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. 26 But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.
It’s quite possible that Lot’s wife was a local resident of Sodom before Lot married her—unless Lot brought her with him (Gen. 14:16).[64]
Why was Lot’s wife turned into salt? Waltke notes, “In the biblical world, a site was strewn with salt to condemn it to perpetual barrenness and desolation (e.g., Deut. 29:23; Judg. 9:45; Ps. 107:34; Jer. 17:6).”[65]
Jesus believed in this event. In speaking about the judgment of his Second Coming, Jesus said, “It was the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building; 29 but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day, the one who is on the housetop and whose goods are in the house must not go down to take them out; and likewise the one who is in the field must not turn back. 32 Remember Lot’s wife” (Lk. 17:28-32 NASB).
Lot’s wife isn’t even given a name (unlike Abraham’s wife, Sarah). What was Lot’s wife like? We have no idea. We’re not supposed to remember her name, age, ethnicity. Instead, we’re supposed to remember her mistake. Even though angels came to rescue her, her heart was still in the city.
Josephus claims to have seen Lot’s wife as a pillar of salt. He writes, “Lot’s wife continually turning back to view the city as she went from it, and being too nicely inquisitive what would become of it, although God had forbidden her so to do, was changed into a pillar of salt; for I have seen it, and it remains at this day” (Josephus, Antiquities, 1.203). However, we find this claim to be spurious. It’s rather hard to believe that a salt monument could last for two thousand years.
(19:27-29) Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the LORD. 28 He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace. 29 So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the cities where Lot had lived.
Abraham’s faith extended to his nephew Lot. This might explain why God was so merciful with him—despite his lack of faith.
God’s judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah
God’s judgment is a function of his perfect character. Imagine a ruler that never judges the corruption in his nation. We wouldn’t admire such a leader; we’d despise him. God is “righteous” or “right.” As a consequence, he has the “right” to judge because he’s in the “right.” Judgment doesn’t create problems, but solves them.
We don’t get to decide if God will judge. Our role isn’t to be the judge of the “Judge of all the Earth” (Gen. 18:25). Instead, our job is to get right with God before he brings a righteous judgment. Are you prepared for judgment day? The day God brought judgment, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah woke up, thinking that it was business as usual. But in reality, judgment was hanging over their heads.
Origin of the Moabites and Ammonites
(19:30-38) Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.” 33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. 36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father.
37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.
The Moabites and Ammonites later became antagonists with Israel in the following centuries. Kidner writes, “His legacy, Moab and Ammon (37f.), was destined to provide the worst carnal seduction in the history of Israel (that of Baal-Peor, Num. 25) and the cruellest religious perversion (that of Molech, Lev. 18:21).”[66]
The Moabites and Ammonites originated from this incestuous relationship between Lot and his two daughters. The daughters date-rape-drugged their father into sleeping with them, getting him so drunk that his inhibitions were lowered. Of course, Lot was not an innocent victim. If you get so drunk that you could sleep with your daughter, you are surely a guilty participant.
Lot’s daughters watched Lot’s compromise his whole life. So, they were compromised too. They learned this from their father’s example. No one is innocent in this family. They fell into worse and worse corruption in Sodom.
What do we learn from the life of Lot?
Lot (surprisingly!) sounds like he was a true believer. The NT calls Lot “righteous” (2 Pet. 2:8). This could either mean that he was relatively righteous (compared to the men of Sodom), or more likely that he was righteous because of his meager faith. In short, Lot was a carnal believer. Sadly, like many Christians today, Lot had split devotions between God and materialistic hedonism.
Lot longed for the materialistic hedonism of Sodom. Originally, he moved “near Sodom” (Gen. 13:12 NIV). But the next time we see him, he was “living in Sodom” (Gen. 14:12). Finally, in Genesis 19, he was “sitting in the gateway of the city” (Gen. 19:1). That is, he was one of the central leaders of Sodom! This is how materialism poisons the human heart.
Instead of having a “tent” like Abraham (Gen. 12:8), Lot had a “house” (Gen. 19:2). He was living in a settled lifestyle with the materialism and hedonism of Sodom. Lot thought that he had it all together.
He calls the men of Sodom his “friends” (Gen. 19:7). He identified with these people, rather than with the people of God. How on earth could you call a rape mob your “friends”? Lot’s culture poisoned his mind. This caused him to “hesitate” (v.16) and then barter with the angels before leaving (vv.17-21).
Lot didn’t have any impact on the world around him. He was too compromised to make an impact. Apparently, Lot “felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds” (2 Pet. 2:8). Yet, instead of taking a stand, he cowered in compromise.
Lot was unable to lead even his own family. He couldn’t even lead his wife and family. His wife looked back, longing for Sodom, and she faced judgment (Gen. 19:26). Furthermore, in a truly nauseating episode, Lot engaged in drunken incest with his daughters—only a further sign of his ungodly leadership in the home.
We might ask where Lot’s daughters created such a demented idea—to get their father so drunk that he would impregnate them. Lot’s compromised life taught them too well! They watched their morally compromised father for their entire lives, and when they saw an opportunity, they didn’t have a pang of conscience to stop them.
Lot’s life ended in one of the worst ways possible. No money. No home. He lost his wife and sons. He entered into a creepy, incestuous family instead. The Moabites and Ammonites turn into the some of the worst enemies to the nation of Israel. He stands in stark contrast to Abraham, who trusted God with his life and legacy.
Questions for Reflection
Are you taking your chances on what materialism and hedonism has to offer?
Do you have your own convictions?
Genesis 20 (Abraham’s cowardice is repeated with Abimelek)
Critical scholars believe that this chapter is a distorted repetition of chapter 12 (called a “doublet”). They argue that Abraham pawned off his wife Sarah as his sister to the king in both chapters. So, this serves as evidence that the final author-editor of Genesis was including two variations of the same tradition. This is fallacious. Knowing human nature goes a long way: Abraham could have committed such a cowardly sin twice. Indeed, our besetting sins continue to appear again and again—even years down the road. Moreover, “it is easier to be consistent in theory than under fear of death.”[67]
Cowardice and fear must have been something Abraham struggled with his entire life. Furthermore, Sailhamer[68] argues that the similarity of the accounts is to show “the promise in jeopardy.” And Kidner states that the purpose of this narrative is to show that “on the brink of Isaac’s birth-story here is the very Promise put in jeopardy, traded away for personal safety.”[69]
(20:1-2) Now Abraham moved on from there into the region of the Negev and lived between Kadesh and Shur. For a while he stayed in Gerar, 2 and there Abraham said of his wife Sarah, “She is my sister.” Then Abimelek king of Gerar sent for Sarah and took her.
“Gerar” is on the southern border of Canaan (Gen. 10:19), and it is “located in the western Negev near Gaza.”[70]
“Abimelek” could be “the throne name for the Gerarites,”[71] similar to how “Pharaoh” is a common title for the leader of Egypt. One reason to support this view is that the same name occurs in chapter 26.
Abraham lived in the land of the Philistines during this time (Gen. 21:34). Again, he presented Sarah as his sister, rather than his wife (Gen. 12:13). Sarah is 90 years old at this point (Gen. 17:17).
(20:3-7) But God came to Abimelek in a dream one night and said to him, “You are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman.”
4 Now Abimelek had not gone near her, so he said, “Lord, will you destroy an innocent nation? 5 Did he not say to me, ‘She is my sister,’ and didn’t she also say, ‘He is my brother’? I have done this with a clear conscience and clean hands.”
6 Then God said to him in the dream, “Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you touch her. 7 Now return the man’s wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live. But if you do not return her, you may be sure that you and all who belong to you will die.”
“He had not gone near her… I have kept you from sinning… I did not let you touch her.” Moses goes to great lengths to show that Abimelek didn’t sleep with Sarah. This shows that God is protecting his promise to Abraham. Abraham’s sin and lying couldn’t stop the unconditional promise of God, nor could the Philistine king.
Abraham is a “prophet” (nābîʾ). This is the first use of this term in the Bible, and Mathews observes that he is the first person to intercede in prayer for others (Gen. 18:22-32). Now, he will intercede for Abimelek.
(20:8-10) Early the next morning Abimelek summoned all his officials, and when he told them all that had happened, they were very much afraid. 9 Then Abimelek called Abraham in and said, “What have you done to us? How have I wronged you that you have brought such great guilt upon me and my kingdom? You have done things to me that should never be done.” 10 And Abimelek asked Abraham, “What was your reason for doing this?”
Abimelek brought the issue to Abraham. In reality, Abraham got into worse problems from his fearful lying
(20:11-13) Abraham replied, “I said to myself, ‘There is surely no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife.’ 12 Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife. 13 And when God had me wander from my father’s household, I said to her, ‘This is how you can show your love to me: Everywhere we go, say of me, “He is my brother.”’”
“She really is my sister.” Abraham justified his sin because Sarah was his half-sister. Of course, this is a half-truth that seeks exonerate Abraham—yet this is beside the point: Abraham was lying in order to avoid being killed. He neglected the fact that he was also married to Sarah.
Why was Abraham married to his half-sister? Of course, this is gross (!). But the laws against incest hadn’t been given yet in Israel’s history (Lev. 18:9, 11; Deut. 27:22; Ezek. 22:11).
(20:14-16) Then Abimelek brought sheep and cattle and male and female slaves and gave them to Abraham, and he returned Sarah his wife to him. 15 And Abimelek said, “My land is before you; live wherever you like.” 16 To Sarah he said, “I am giving your brother a thousand shekels of silver. This is to cover the offense against you before all who are with you; you are completely vindicated.”
Abimelek sends Abraham off with goods and land—most likely to smooth over what happened.
(20:17-18) Then Abraham prayed to God, and God healed Abimelek, his wife and his female slaves so they could have children again, 18 for the LORD had kept all the women in Abimelek’s household from conceiving because of Abraham’s wife Sarah.
Abraham is a “prophet” (v.7). So, he had special privileges to pray for healing.
Questions for Reflection
Abraham succumbed to fear by telling the authorities that Sarah was his wife. He did this twice (Gen. 12:13; 20:2). What do we learn about human nature from Abraham’s sinful example?
Read verse 13. What did Abraham do to convince Sarah to lie? In what way did he manipulate his wife into lying?
Read verses 3 to 7. What do we learn about God from his response to Abraham’s sinful response? Consider the words of the psalmist when he writes, “When I said, ‘My foot is slipping,’ your unfailing love, LORD, supported me” (Ps. 94:18).
Genesis 21 (The Birth of Isaac)
A year earlier, God promised Abraham, “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son” (Gen. 18:10). In chapter 21, we read about the fulfillment of this long-awaited promise. This joyous fulfillment stands in sharp contrast to God’s calling in chapter 22…
(21:1-8) Now the LORD was gracious to Sarah as he had said, and the LORD did for Sarah what he had promised. 2 Sarah became pregnant and bore a son to Abraham in his old age, at the very time God had promised him. 3 Abraham gave the name Isaac to the son Sarah bore him. 4 When his son Isaac was eight days old, Abraham circumcised him, as God commanded him. 5 Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him. 6 Sarah said, “God has brought me laughter, and everyone who hears about this will laugh with me.” 7 And she added, “Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse children? Yet I have borne him a son in his old age.” 8 The child grew and was weaned, and on the day Isaac was weaned Abraham held a great feast.
In the first two verses, Moses emphasizes that this was a fulfillment of God’s promise: “The LORD was gracious… as he had said… what he had promised… God had promised him.”
God called on Abraham to wait for 25 years to see the fulfillment of his promise about Isaac. He received the promise at age 75 (Gen. 12:4), and he saw the fulfillment at age 100 (Gen. 21:5).
Isaac (yiṣḥāq) literally means “he laughs, smiles.”[72] This is a case of wordplay on the fact that both Abraham and Sarah “laughed” (ṣĕḥōq) when they heard this promise (Gen. 17:17-18; 18:12-15). God turned Sarah’s incredulous laughter into joyful laughter (v.6). Isaac probably reached the age of three or so (v.8; see 2 Macc. 7:27). A child was weaned by the age of three years old.[73]
(21:9-10) But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, 10 and she said to Abraham, “Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”
Tensions arose between Ishmael and Isaac. The Hebrew word for “mocking” can also be rendered “laughter.” So, this might imply that Ishmael was laughing at this little toddler. Ishmael would’ve been 14 years old when Isaac was born (Gen. 16:16; 17:24), and a little older after Isaac was weaned (17 years old?). So, this grown teenager was mocking a little child. Paul called this “persecuting him who was born according to the Spirit” (Gal. 4:29).
“Get rid” (gārēš) is the same language that God used to evict Adam and Eve from the Garden (Gen. 3:24), as well as Cain (Gen. 4:14).
“Get rid of that slave woman and her son.” Sarah is obviously bitter. Not only is she willing to cast the single mother and son out of the clan, but she can’t even care Hagar by her name. Instead, she refers to her as “that slave woman.” This decision to kick them out was easy for Sarah to say. Ishmael wasn’t her son. But Abraham felt differently (v.11).
(21:11-13) The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son. 12 But God said to him, “Do not be so distressed about the boy and your slave woman. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. 13 I will make the son of the slave into a nation also, because he is your offspring.”
God promised to provide for Hagar and for Ishamel. He promised to make a nation out of Ishmael as well. This was what gave Abraham the fortitude to send Hagar and Ishmael away.
(21:14-16) Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off with the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the Desert of Beersheba. 15 When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the bushes. 16 Then she went off and sat down about a bowshot away, for she thought, “I cannot watch the boy die.” And as she sat there, she began to sob.
She thought that she and Ishmael were going to die of dehydration in the desert sun.
(21:17-21) God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, “What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there. 18 Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation.” 19 Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. So she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink. 20 God was with the boy as he grew up. He lived in the desert and became an archer. 21 While he was living in the Desert of Paran, his mother got a wife for him from Egypt.
God didn’t abandon this single mother. Instead, he “was with the boy as he grew up.”
(21:22-34) At that time Abimelek and Phicol the commander of his forces said to Abraham, “God is with you in everything you do. 23 Now swear to me here before God that you will not deal falsely with me or my children or my descendants. Show to me and the country where you now reside as a foreigner the same kindness I have shown to you.”
24 Abraham said, “I swear it.”
25 Then Abraham complained to Abimelek about a well of water that Abimelek’s servants had seized.
26 But Abimelek said, “I don’t know who has done this. You did not tell me, and I heard about it only today.”
27 So Abraham brought sheep and cattle and gave them to Abimelek, and the two men made a treaty. 28 Abraham set apart seven ewe lambs from the flock.
29 Abimelek asked Abraham, “What is the meaning of these seven ewe lambs you have set apart by themselves?” 30 He replied, “Accept these seven lambs from my hand as a witness that I dug this well.” 31 So that place was called Beersheba, because the two men swore an oath there. 32 After the treaty had been made at Beersheba, Abimelek and Phicol the commander of his forces returned to the land of the Philistines. 33 Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, and there he called on the name of the LORD, the Eternal God. 34 And Abraham stayed in the land of the Philistines for a long time.
Abimelek (from the last chapter) knew that Abraham was a true prophet of God (Gen. 20:7). Abimelek asked Abraham to swear that he would be honest with him. Abraham swore to this, but also mentioned that Abimelek’s men had seized a well he had dug. They made a covenant over the well. Abraham gave Abimelek seven lambs, and Abimelek promised that the well was Abraham’s. Abraham was the first Jewish man, but he lived as a foreigner in the land of the Philistines (v.34).
“Beersheba” means “well of oath.”[74]
(Gen. 21:32-34) Were the Philistines around at this time or not (c.f. Gen. 26:1-18)? The author of Genesis does not claim that the Philistine nation was large (as it was in the 12th century or later). Instead, the Philistines were most likely a small tribe at this time. We detect this from the text in Genesis 21:25, when the Philistine king (Abimelek) is intimidated by Abraham and his tribe of a couple hundred men! Moreover, these passages only mention Gerar, which was the smallest of the Philistine city-states. The bigger city-states are not mentioned (e.g. Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ekron, Gath, and Gaza—Josh. 13:3; 1 Sam. 6:17). Kitchen notes, “We know so little about the Aegean peoples as compared with those of the rest of the Ancient Near East in the second millennium BC, that it is premature to deny outright the possible existence of Philistines in the Aegean area before 1200 BC.”[75]
Questions for Reflection
Read verses 9-10. Paul references this historical event in the NT (read Gal. 4:28-30). In Paul’s day, he was battling legalistic false teachers who were emphasizing the need for works. Paul compares Ishmael to works and Isaac to faith. What other parallels does Paul see in this OT story? Why does he cite it?
Genesis 22 (Abraham sacrifices Isaac)
Abraham waited for 25 years to receive the promise of Isaac. Finally, God fulfilled his promise in chapter 21. Now, in chapter 22, God seems to be revoking the promise. Abraham must’ve been reeling from this turn of events.
(22:1) Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!”
“Here I am,” he replied.
(Gen. 22:1) Why would God test Abraham if he is all-knowing? Open theists argue that God doesn’t know the future; so, he tests humans precisely because he doesn’t know what they’re made of. But this doesn’t add up. For one, earlier, God promised that he would make an entire nation through Abraham (Gen. 12:2-3). This demonstrates that God’s plan was not contingent on Abraham’s faith. Moreover, Abraham believed that he would receive his son back—either through an intervention or a resurrection (Gen. 22:5; Heb. 11:17-19). Thus, both God and Abraham believed that Isaac’s life was not going to be taken permanently. Instead, God was testing Abraham so that he could build his faith. Finally, Sailhamer[76] argues that this opening line shows us that God never intended to take the life of Isaac, and that this was only a test.
(22:2) Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”
“Take your son, your only son, whom you love.” This is reminiscent of John 3:16. Furthermore, this is the first use of the word “love” in both Genesis and in John. And the love is between a father and a son.
“Sacrifice him.” Kidner writes, “Abraham’s trust was to be weighed in the balance against common sense, human affection, and lifelong ambition; in fact against everything earthly.”[77] This is a little reductionistic on Kidner’s behalf. After all, there was a moral and theological difficulty as well. However, his core point is correct: God was asking Abraham to trust him fully and exhaustively with the person Abraham valued most.
(Gen. 22:2) Why does Genesis 22 refer to Isaac as Abraham’s “only son”? In chapter 21, Ishmael and Hagar were legally separated from Abraham” (Gen. 21:10). Later, God told Abraham, “Through Isaac your descendants shall be named” (Gen. 21:12), and God promises to build a nation through Ishmael also (v.13). After being legally separated, Ishmael has no contact with Abraham until his burial in Genesis 25:5. Therefore, Isaac is the only son “who remains the potential heir.”[78] Furthermore, from God’s point of view, he had only provided one son for Abraham—not two. Ishmael was a creation of works—not faith.
“Moriah.” Jerusalem was later built here: “Solomon began to build the temple of the LORD in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah” (2 Chron. 3:1). This means that all of these events took place in the “region” where Jesus would later be crucified.
(Gen. 22:1-19) Why did God command a human sacrifice? This passage is odd because the Bible repeatedly condemns human sacrifice. In fact, both the Law and the Prophets banned this practice. The Law of Moses outlawed human sacrifice right from the beginning (Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5; Deut. 12:31) and the later prophets decried the practice, as well. For instance, human sacrifice was one of the reasons that Israel was exiled from their land (Ezek. 16:20-21). Later in Ezekiel, we read, “When you offer your gifts, when you cause your sons to pass through the fire, you are defiling yourselves with all your idols to this day” (Ezek. 20:31). In addition, the prophet Jeremiah writes, “They have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, and it did not come into My mind” (Jer. 7:31).
But, if God hated this practice, then why did he command it? For one, God never let Abraham hurt Isaac. Critics often overlook a very important fact in this story: Isaac was never harmed! It isn’t as though God commanded Abraham to kill Isaac, and he went through with it. Instead, God never allowed this to happen.
Second, Abraham knew that God had no intention of sacrificing Isaac. Abraham said, “I and the lad will go over there; and we will worship and return to you” (v.5). Clearly, Abraham believed that both of them would return unharmed. Abraham either believed that God would intervene to stop the knife, or he believed that God would raise Isaac from the dead. One of the main reasons why killing an innocent person is wrong is due to the fact that they will stay dead. However, Abraham believed that God would raise Isaac from the dead—in the event that a death took place (Heb. 11:19). Moreover, Abraham already had the promise that God would bless all nations through his seed (Gen. 12:1-3). Because Abraham had this promise, he knew that God would not terminate his line in this way.
Third, this divine drama had prophetic significance. This entire picture (i.e. a father sacrificing his son) demonstrated the great and terrible price that God would later pay on the Cross (i.e. the Father God sacrificing his son Jesus). Bible commentators have noticed similarities between Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac and God’s sacrifice of Jesus.
(22:3-5) Early the next morning Abraham got up and loaded his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. 4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. 5 He said to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.”
“On the third day.” Abraham considered his son to be as good as dead for these three days. Jesus was as good as dead for three days.
“We will worship and then we will come back to you.” Abraham knew Isaac would be spared or raised from the dead (Gen. 21:12; Heb. 11:17-19).
(22:6-8) Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, 7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, “Father?”
“Yes, my son?” Abraham replied.
“The fire and wood are here,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?”
8 Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went on together.
“Abraham took the wood… and placed it on his son Isaac.” Isaac carried his own wood for the sacrifice up the mountain. Jesus carried his Cross to Golgotha (Jn. 19:17).
“God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering.” From the start, Abraham trusted that God was going to provide for this. Incidentally, God provides a ram—not a lamb. The “lamb of God” wouldn’t come to that mountain for another 2,000 years (Jn. 1:29).
(22:9-10) When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.
“He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar.” Isaac must’ve willingly laid down on the altar (Jn. 10:17-18). After all, he was old enough and strong enough to carry the wood up the mountain, and Abraham was well over 100 years old at this point. This implies that Isaac could’ve refused if he chose to.
“Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.” This is unthinkable. How could a father sacrifice his son? 2,000 years later, God the Father allowed God the Son to be sacrificed.
(22:11-12) But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!”
“Here I am,” he replied.
12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”
“Now I know that you fear God.” This must be anthropomorphic language because God doesn’t gain new knowledge. It could also refer to experiential knowledge.
(22:13) Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son.
This is the language of substitution. The “ram” died so that Isaac wouldn’t need to. But whatever happened to the promise that God would provide a “lamb” for the offering? (v.8) God provided the “Lamb of God” through the person of Jesus (Jn. 1:29).
(22:14) So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided.”
This further shows that this is a prediction—not just typology. Abraham knew that God would provide something in the future on that specific mountain. As it turned out, Jesus was crucified to the north of Jerusalem on Mount Moriah.
(22:15-19) The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, “I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.” 19 Then Abraham returned to his servants, and they set off together for Beersheba. And Abraham stayed in Beersheba.
“Through your offspring [zeraʿ] all nations on earth will be blessed.” The repetition of the “offspring” (zeraʿ) or “seed” harkens back to the original promise to defeat the Serpent through the “seed” of Eve (Gen. 3:15). Now, that promise has become more specific: This Serpent-Crusher will come through the line of Abraham, who will be a “blessing to all nations” (Gen. 12:3). Peter cites this passage as referring to Jesus (Acts 3:25).
Because Abraham was willing to trust God, God was willing to bless Abraham. It’s hard to imagine trusting God to the point of handing your son’s life over to him—especially when this boy was someone you waited for God to provide for 25 years.
(22:20-24) Some time later Abraham was told, “Milkah is also a mother; she has borne sons to your brother Nahor: 21 Uz the firstborn, Buz his brother, Kemuel (the father of Aram), 22 Kesed, Hazo, Pildash, Jidlaph and Bethuel.” 23 Bethuel became the father of Rebekah. Milkah bore these eight sons to Abraham’s brother Nahor. 24 His concubine, whose name was Reumah, also had sons: Tebah, Gaham, Tahash and Maakah.
Why does Moses include Abraham’s extended family? Sailhamer[79] thinks that this is included to show how Isaac would get his wife, Rebekah, continuing the line of Abraham’s “seed.”
Questions for Reflection
Read verses 1-14. What parallels do you see between Isaac’s sacrifice and Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross? Do you consider this to be a strong predictive prophecy?
Read verses 2-6. Abraham doesn’t say a word in this section. What is the significance of his silence? What do you think he was thinking or feeling in this section?
Isaac was everything to Abraham. He waited 25 years to see this son born to him. With that in mind, why did God call on Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? And what application does that have for us today?
Scholar Derek Kidner writes, “Abraham’s trust was to be weighed in the balance against common sense, human affection, and lifelong ambition; in fact against everything earthly.”[80] What do you think of this quote? How does this differ from having blind faith?
Genesis 23 (Sarah dies)
Sarah died at the age of 127. This means that God gave her 37 years to be a mother to Isaac. Abraham didn’t own property to bury her, so he bought a cave site from the Hittites. The fact that he bought land in Canaan is quite significant. Mathews writes, “That Abraham secures a family plot in Canaan rather than returning to Haran conveys the man’s commitment to the land promised him… That the land motif is central to this account is shown by the repetition of the location (Canaan) in the beginning and end of the narrative.”[81]
(23:1-2) Sarah lived to be a hundred and twenty-seven years old. 2 She died at Kiriath Arba (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan, and Abraham went to mourn for Sarah and to weep over her.
(23:3) Then Abraham rose from beside his dead wife and spoke to the Hittites. He said, 4 “I am a foreigner and stranger among you. Sell me some property for a burial site here so I can bury my dead.”
Abraham didn’t own any property in the Promised Land. So, he needed to buy this off of the resident Hittites.
(23:5-6) The Hittites replied to Abraham, 6 “Sir, listen to us. You are a mighty prince among us. Bury your dead in the choicest of our tombs. None of us will refuse you his tomb for burying your dead.”
“Mighty prince.” Abraham must’ve been respected by the surrounding people.
Why were the Hittites insisting on giving the burial plot to Abraham? This could simply be that the Hittites were being generous. However, it could also be because they wanted to have the option of taking the land back. This is because “a gift or partial payment can be easily rescinded whereas ownership based on a fully paid purchase must be conceded.”[82] This explains why Abraham insists on paying for the land.
(23:7-9) Then Abraham rose and bowed down before the people of the land, the Hittites. 8 He said to them, “If you are willing to let me bury my dead, then listen to me and intercede with Ephron son of Zohar on my behalf 9 so he will sell me the cave of Machpelah, which belongs to him and is at the end of his field. Ask him to sell it to me for the full price as a burial site among you.”
(23:10-11) Ephron the Hittite was sitting among his people and he replied to Abraham in the hearing of all the Hittites who had come to the gate of his city. 11 “No, my lord,” he said. “Listen to me; I give you the field, and I give you the cave that is in it. I give it to you in the presence of my people. Bury your dead.”
(23:12-13) Again Abraham bowed down before the people of the land 13 and he said to Ephron in their hearing, “Listen to me, if you will. I will pay the price of the field. Accept it from me so I can bury my dead there.”
Why did Abraham insist on buying the field and the cave? Earlier, Abraham was averse to accepting money from the king of Sodom (Gen. 14:23). Perhaps Abraham didn’t want to get rich off of the people around him.
In our view, a better explanation is that Abraham wanted the legal right to own this cave and field. This was because this was a “down payment” on the fact that his descendants would later own the Promised Land. Sailhamer writes, “In this small purchase was embodied the hope in God’s promise that one day in the future it would all belong to him and his descendants.”[83] Later, he would be buried in this cave (Gen. 49:30-32), and then Isaac, Rebekah, Leah, and Jacob would be buried in this cave as well (Gen. 50:13).
(23:14-15) Ephron answered Abraham, 15 “Listen to me, my lord; the land is worth four hundred shekels of silver, but what is that between you and me? Bury your dead.”
(23:16) Abraham agreed to Ephron’s terms and weighed out for him the price he had named in the hearing of the Hittites: four hundred shekels of silver, according to the weight current among the merchants.
(23:17-18) So Ephron’s field in Machpelah near Mamre—both the field and the cave in it, and all the trees within the borders of the field—was deeded 18 to Abraham as his property in the presence of all the Hittites who had come to the gate of the city.
(23:19) Afterward Abraham buried his wife Sarah in the cave in the field of Machpelah near Mamre (which is at Hebron) in the land of Canaan. 20 So the field and the cave in it were deeded to Abraham by the Hittites as a burial site.
Questions for Reflection
God made a promise that Abraham’s descendants would inherit the Promised Land. In light of that promise, what is the significance in the fact that Abraham purchased this cave and field?
[1] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 11.
[2] Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 124.
[3] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 105.
[4] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 111-112.
[5] See footnote. K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 114.
[6] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 116.
[7] Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 125-126.
[8] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 115.
[9] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 120.
[10] Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 127.
[11] Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 128.
[12] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 126.
[13] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 118.
[14] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 119.
[15] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 136.
[16] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 136.
[17] Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 131.
[18] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 121.
[19] C. Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary, trans. J. Scullion (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985 [1981]), 230. Cited in K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 157.
[20] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 163.
[21] Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Third Edition. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1998), p.179.
[22] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 129.
[23] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 167.
[24] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 170.
[25] James B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p.532. Cited in John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 130.
[26] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 172-173.
[27] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 173.
[28] Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 136.
[29] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 175.
[30] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 184-185.
[31] Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2001), p.252.
[32] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 135.
[33] We shouldn’t place a lot of weight on this text because the Hebrew is very confusing. See Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16-50, vol. 2, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1994), 11.
[34] Jay D. Fawver & R. Larry Overstreet, “Moses and Preventative Medicine.” Bibliotheca Sacra July-September 1990. 276.
[35] Jay D. Fawver & R. Larry Overstreet, “Moses and Preventative Medicine.” Bibliotheca Sacra July-September 1990. 277.
[36] Jay D. Fawver & R. Larry Overstreet, “Moses and Preventative Medicine.” Bibliotheca Sacra July-September 1990. 278.
[37] Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2001), p.262.
[38] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 138.
[39] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27–50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 206.
[40] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 138-139.
[41] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27–50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 216.
[42] Sailhamer holds that all three men are physical manifestations of Yahweh. Yet, he doesn’t explain the crucial shift in language from Abraham talking to “Yahweh” (18:22) with the “two angels” leaving (19:1). John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 145-146.
[43] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 18-50, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 7.
[44] John D. Currid, A Study Commentary on Genesis: Genesis 1:1-25:18, vol. 1, EP Study Commentary (Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, n.d.), 324.
[45] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 144.
[46] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27–50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 218.
[47] Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 144.
[48] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27–50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 227.
[49] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27–50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 221.
[50] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 152.
[51] Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 144.
[52] Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 144.
[53] D. Sherwin Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (Longmans, 1955), 3-4.
[54] Thomas Schmidt, Straight and Narrow? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1995) 88-89.
[55] Derek Kidner, Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.145-146.
[56] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27–50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 240.
[57] Walter Kaiser, The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 92.
[58] Interview with Bryant Wood. Cited in Walter Kaiser, The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 93.
[59] Bryant Wood, “The Discovery of the Sin Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.” The Bible and Spade (Summer, 1999), 67-80.
[60] I am indebted to Holden and Geisler for this description. Holden was one of the archaeologists who personally investigated this cite. Joseph Holden and Norman Geisler, The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2013), 216.
[61] Joseph Holden and Norman Geisler, The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2013), 217.
[62] Joseph Holden and Norman Geisler, The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2013), 220.
[63] Joseph Holden and Norman Geisler, The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2013), 220.
[64] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27–50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 242.
[65] Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2001), p.279.
[66] Derek Kidner, Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.146.
[67] Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 148.
[68] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 163.
[69] Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 148.
[70] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27–50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 251.
[71] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27–50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 251.
[72] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27–50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 267.
[73] Waltke writes, “The Egyptian Instruction of Any (7.19), addressed to his disciple, speaks of ‘the mother’s breast in your mouth for three years.’” Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2001), p.293.
[74] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27–50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 281.
[75] See footnote in K.A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (London: Tyndale, 1966), 80.
[76] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 167.
[77] Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 154.
[78] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27–50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 284.
[79] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 171.
[80] Derek Kidner, Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.154.
[81] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27–50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 310.
[82] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27–50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 318.
[83] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 172-173.