Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Genesis 11:27

Now these [are] the generations of Terah: Terah begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begot Lot.

27 32. The Sons of Terah. (J and P.)

27. Now these are, &c.] The story of Abram commences here with the heading of a section from P. Cf. Gen 25:19, “And these are the generations of Isaac.”

Haran begat Lot ] Lot the nephew of Abram, and the traditional ancestor of the peoples east of the Dead Sea. It is natural to suppose that the name has some affinity with that of “Lotan,” a Horite family or tribe (Gen 36:20; Gen 36:29).

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

– Section X – Abraham

– XXXVI. The Father of Abram

27. lot, Lot, veil; verb: cover.

28. ‘ur, Ur, light, flame. kasdym, Kasdim, Cardi, Kurds, Kaldaioi. kesed, gain? Arabic. Ur Kasdim has been identified with Hur, now called Mugheir (the bitumened), a heap of ruins lying south of the Euphrates, nearly opposite its jucnction with the Shat el-Hie. Others place it at Edessa, now Orfa, a short way north of Carrhae.

29. saray, Sarai, strife; sarah strive, rule. mlkah Milkah, counsel, queen; verb: counsel, reign. ys^ekah, Jiskah, one who spies, looks out.

31. haran, Haran, burnt place. Charran, Karrai, a town on the Bilichus (Bililk), a tributary of the Frat, still called Harran. This has been identified by some with Harae, on the other side of the Frat, not far from Tadmor or Palmyra.

This passage forms the commencement of the sixth document, as is indicated by the customary phrase, These are the generations. The sense also clearly accords with this distinction; and it accounts for the repetition of the statement, Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Yet the scribe who finally arranged the text makes no account of this division; as he inserts neither the Hebrew letter (p) nor even the Hebrew letter (s) at its commencement, while he places the threefold (p), marking the end of a Sabbath lesson, at its close. We learn from this that the Jewish rabbis did not regard the opening phrase as a decided mark of a new beginning, or any indication of a new author. Nevertheless, this passage and the preceding one form the meet prelude to the history of Abram – the one tracing his genealogy from Shem and Heber, and the other detailing his relations with the family out of which he was called.

God has not forsaken the fallen race. On the contrary, he has once and again held out to them a general invitation to return, with a promise of pardon and acceptance. Many of the descendants of Noah have already forsaken him, and he foresees that all, if left to themselves, will sink into ungodliness. Notwithstanding all this, he calmly and resolutely proceeds with his purpose of mercy. In the accomplishment of this eternal purpose he moves with all the solemn grandeur of longsuffering patience. One day is with him as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Out of Adams three sons he selects one to be the progenitor of the seed of the woman; out of Noahs three sons he again selects one; and now out of Terahs three is one to be selected. Among the children of this one he will choose a second one, and among his a third one before he reaches the holy family. Doubtless this gradual mode of proceeding is in keeping with the hereditary training of the holy nation, and the due adjustment of all the divine measures for at length bringing the fullness of the Gentiles into the covenant of everlasting peace.

The history here given of the postdiluvians has a striking resemblance in structure to that of the antediluvians. The preservation of Noah from the waters of the flood, is the counterpart of the creation of Adam after the land had risen out of the roaring deep. The intoxication of Noah by the fruit of a tree corresponds with the fall of Adam by eating the fruit of a forbidden tree. The worldly policy of Nimrod and his builders is parallel with the city-building and many inventions of the Cainites. The pedigree of Abram the tenth from Shem, stands over against the pedigree of Noah the tenth from Adam; and the paragraph now before us bears some resemblance to what precedes the personal history of Noah. All this tends to strengthen the impression made by some other phenomena, already noticed, that the book of Genesis is the work of one author, and not a mere file of documents by different writers.

The present paragraph is of special interest for the coming history. Its opening word and intimates its close connection with the preceding document; and accordingly we observe that the one is merely introductory to the other. The various characters brought forward are all of moment. Terah is the patriarch and leader of the migration for part of the way. Abram is the subject of the following narrative. Nahor is the grandfathcr of Rebekah. Haran is the father of Lot the companion of Abram, of Milcah the wife of Nahor and grandmother of Rebekah, and of Iskah. Iskah alone seems to have no connection with the subsequent narrative. Josephus says Sarai and Milkah were the daughters of Haran, taking no notice of Iskah. He seems, therefore, to identify Sarai and Iskah. Jerome, after his Jewish teachers, does the same. Abram says of Sarai, She is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother Gen 20:12.

In Hebrew phrase the granddaughter is termed a daughter; and therefore this statement might be satisfied by her being the daughter of Haran. Lot is called the brothers son and the brother of Abram Gen 14:12, Gen 14:16. If Sarai be Harans daughter, Lot is Abrams brother-in-law. This identification would also explain the introduction of Iskah into the present passage. Still it must be admitted, on the other hand, that persons are sometimes incidentally introduced in a history of facts, without any express connection with the course of the narrative, as Naamah in the history of the Cainites. The studied silence of the sacred writer in regard to the parentage of Sarai, in the present connection, tells rather in favor of her being the actual daughter of Terah by another wife, and so strictly the half-sister of Abram. For the Mosaic law afterward expressly prohibited marriage with the daughter of a father Lev 18:9. And, lastly, the text does not state of Iskah, This is Sarai, which would accord with the manner of the sacred writer, and is actually done in the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan.

Gen 11:28

And Haran died in the presence of his father Terah. – There is reason to believe that Haran was the oldest son of Terah. Though mentioned in the third place, like Japheth the oldest son of Noah, yet, like Japheth, also, his descendants are recounted first. He is the father of Lot, Milkah, and Iskah. His brother Nahor marries his daughter Milkah. If Iskah be the same as Sarai, Haran her father must have been some years older than Abram, as Abram was only ten years older than Sarai; and hence her father, if younger than Abram, must have been only eight or nine when she was born, which is impossible. Hence, those who take Iskah to be Sarai, must regard Abram as younger than Haran.

In the land of his birth. – The migration of Terah, therefore, did not take place until after the death of Haran. At all events, his three grandchildren, Lot, Milkah, and Iskah, were born before he commenced his journey. Still further, Milkah was married to Nahor for some time before that event. Hence, allowing thirty years for a generation, we have a period of sixty years and upwards from the birth of Haran to the marriage of his daughter. But if we take seventy years for a generation, which is far below the average of the Samaritan or the Septuagint, we have one hundred and forty years, which will carry us beyond the death of Terah, whether we reckon his age at one hundred and forty-five with the Samaritan, or at two hundred and five with the other texts. This gives another presumption in favor of the Hebrew average for a generation.

In Ur of the Kasdim. – The Kasdim, Cardi, Kurds, or Chaldees are not to be found in the table of nations. They have been generally supposed to be Shemites. This is favored by the residence of Abram among them, by the name Kesed, being a family name among his kindred Gen 22:22, and by the language commonly called Chaldee, which is a species of Aramaic. But among the settlers of the country, the descendants of Ham probably prevailed in early times. Nimrod, the founder of the Babylonian Empire, was a Kushite. The ancient Babylonish language, Rawlinson (Chaldaea) finds to be a special dialect, having affinities with the Shemitic, Arian, Turanian, and Hamitic tongues. The Chaldees were spread over a great extent of surface; but their most celebrated seat was Chaldaea proper, or the land of Shinar. The inhabitants of this country seem to have been of mixed descent, being bound together by political rather than family ties.

Nimrod, their center of union, was a despot rather than a patriarch. The tongue of the Kaldees, whether pure or mixed, and whether Shemitic or not, is possibly distinct from the Aramaic, in which they addressed Nebuchadnezzar in the time of Daniel Dan 1:4; Dan 2:4. The Kaldin at length lost their nationality, and merged into the caste or class of learned men or astrologers, into which a man might be admitted, not merely by being a Kaldai by birth, but by acquiring the language and learning of the Kasdim Dan 1:4; Dan 5:11. The seats of Chaldee learning were Borsippa (Birs Nimrud), Ur, Babylon, and Sepharvaim (Sippara, Mosaib). Ur or Hur has been found by antiquarian research (see Rawlinsons Ancient Monarchies) in the heap of ruins called Mugheir, the bitumened. This site lies now on the right side of the Frat; but the territory to which it belongs is mainly on the left. And Abram coming from it would naturally cross into Mesopotamia on his way to Haran. Orfa, the other supposed site of Ur, seems to be too near Haran. It is not above twenty or twenty-five miles distant, which would not be more than one days journey.

Gen 11:29, Gen 11:30

But Sarai was barren. – From this statement it is evident that Abram had been married for some time before the migration took place. It is also probable that Milkah had begun to have a family; a circumstance which would render the barrenness of Sarai the more remarkable.

Gen 11:31, Gen 11:32

And Terah took Abram. – Terah takes the lead in this emigration, as the patriarch of the family. In the Samaritan Pentateuch Milkah is mentioned among the emigrants; and it is not improbable that Nahor and his family accompanied Terah, as we find them afterward at Haran, or the city of Nahor Gen 24:10. And they went forth with them. Terah and Abram went forth with Lot and the other companions of their journey. To go into the land of Kenaan. It was the design of Terah himself to settle in the land of Kenaan. The boundaries of this land are given in the table of nations Gen 10:19. The Kenaanites were therefore in possession of it when the table of nations was drawn up. It is certain, however, that there were other inhabitants, some of them Shemites probably, anterior to Kenaan, and subjected by his invading race. The prime motive to this change of abode was the call to Abram recorded in the next chapter. Moved by the call of God, Abram obeyed; and he went out not knowing whither he went Heb 11:8.

But Terah was influenced by other motives to put himself at the head of this movement. The death of Haran, his oldest son, loosened his attachment to the land of his birth. Besides, Abram and Sarai were no doubt especially dear to him, and he did not wish to lose their society. The inhabitants also of Ur had fallen into polytheism, or, if we may so speak, allotheism, the worship of other gods. Terah had himself been betrayed into compliance with this form of impiety. It is probable that the revelation Abram had received from heaven was the means of removing this cloud from his mind, and restoring in him the knowledge and worship of the true God. Hence, his desire to keep up his connection with Abram, who was called of God. Prayerful conversation with the true and living God, also, while it was fast waning in the land of the Kasdim, seems to have been still maintained in its ancient purity in some parts of the land of Kenaan and the adjacent countries. In the land of Uz, a Shemite, perhaps even at a later period, lived Job; and in the neighboring districts of Arabia were his several friends, all of whom acknowledged the true God. And in the land of Kenaan was Melkizedec, the king of Salem, and the priest of the Most High God. A priest implies a considerable body of true worshippers scattered over the country. Accordingly, the name of the true God was known and revered, at least in outward form, wherever Abram went, throughout the land. The report of this comparatively favorable state of things in the land of Kenaan would be an additional incentive to the newly enlightened family of Terah to accompany Abram in obedience to the divine call.

Terah set out on his journey, no doubt, as soon after the call of Abram as the preparatory arrangements could be made. Now the promise to Abram was four hundred and thirty years before the exodus of the children of Israel out of Egypt Exo 12:40. Of this long period his seed was to be a stranger in a land that was not theirs for four hundred years Gen 15:13. Hence, it follows that Isaac, his seed, was born thirty years after the call of Abram. Now Abram was one hundred years old when Isaac was born, and consequently the call was given when he was seventy years of age – about five years before he entered the land of Kenaan Gen 12:4. This whole calculation exactly agrees with the incidental statement of Paul to the Galatians Gal 3:17 that the law was four hundred and thirty years after the covenant of promise. Terah was accordingly two hundred years old when he undertook the long journey to the land of Kenaan; for he died at two hundred and five, when Abram was seventy-five. Though proceeding by easy stages, the aged patriarch seems to have been exhausted by the length and the difficulty of the way. They came to Haran and dwelt there. Broken down with fatigue, he halts for a season at Haran to recruit his wasted powers. Filial piety, no doubt, kept Abram watching over the last days of his venerable parents, who probably still cling to the fond hope of reaching the land of his adoption. Hence, they all abode in Haran for the remainder of the five years from the date of Abrams call to leave his native land. And Terah died in Haran. This intimates that he would have proceeded with the others to the land of Kenaan if his life had been prolonged, and likewise that they did not leave Haran until his death.

We have already seen that Abram was seventy-five years of age at the death of Terah. It follows that he was born when Terah was one hundred and thirty years old, and consequently sixty years after Haran. This is the reason why we have placed one hundred and thirty (seventy and sixty), in the genealogical table opposite Terah, because the line of descent is not traced through Haran, who was born when he was seventy, but through Abram, who by plain inference was born when he was one hundred and thirty years old. It will be observed, also, that we have set down seventy opposite Abram as the date of his call, from which is counted the definite period of four hundred and thirty years to the exodus. And as all our texts agree in the numbers here involved, it is obvious that the same adjustment of years has in this case to be made, whatever system of chronology is adopted. Hence, Abram is placed first in the list of Terahs sons, simply on account of his personal pre-eminence as the father of the faithful and the ancestor of the promised seed; he and his brother Nahor are both much younger than Haran, are married only after his death, and one of them to his grown-up daughter Milkah; and he and his nephew Lot are meet companions in age as well as in spirit.

Hence, also, Abram lingers in Haran, waiting to take his father with him to the land of promise, if he should revive so far as to be fit for the journey. But it was not the lot of Terah to enter the land, where he would only have been a stranger. He is removed to the better country, and by his departure contributes no doubt to deepen the faith of his son Abram, of his grandson Lot, and of his daughter-in-law Sarai. This explanation of the order of events is confirmed by the statement of Stephen: The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran. Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans and dwelt in Charran; and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell Act 7:2-4.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Gen 11:27-32

Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran

The dawn of Abrams history

Here we have the commencement of the sixth document, indicated by the usual preface, These are the generations.

This portion is intended to bring Abram before us, and therefore goes to the roots of his history, showing us from what a source so eminent an example of righteousness sprang. The history is brief, but it may be considered as a condensed outline of Abrahams life. Here we find him–

I. POSSESSED OF GREAT MORAL COURAGE. Terah, the father of Abram, was an idolator (Jos 24:2). Both himself and his children were ignorant of the true object of worship, or if they had any knowledge of this, they did not retain that knowledge, but suffered themselves to be led away by the impiety around them. Such is the hole of the pit from whence this sublime character was digged.

II. UNDER THE SHADOW OF FUTURE TRIAL (Gen 11:30). (T. H. Leale.)

Children dying before their parents

I. THAT HUMAN HAPPINESS IS NOT TO BE FOUND IN THE DEAREST OBJECTS OF NATURAL AFFECTION.

II. THAT THE NATURAL OBJECTS OF HUMAN CONFIDENCE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN US.

III. THAT CHILDREN SHOULD BE EDUCATED FOR THE SAKE OF THEIR NATURES RATHER THAN WITH A VIEW TO THEIR CALLING IN LIFE.

IV. THAT PREPARATION FOR ETERNITY IS AS URGENT FOR THE YOUNG AS FOR THE OLD. (Homilist.)

Death in the prime of life

I. DIVINE PROVIDENCE SO ORDERS DEATH THAT HUMAN CALCULATION CANNOT BE A FACTOR IN LIFE.

1. Youth is no security.

2. Health is no protection.

3. The order of nature is set at defiance.

4. No reliance can be placed on the distinctions of society–on the law of heredity, on favourable conditions.

II. GODS DESIGN IN ALL THIS IS TO TEACH MANKIND, from the cradle to the grave, THE UNCERTAINTY OF LIFE. Death is ever in our path. (The Homiletic Review.)

Death in the prime of life

I. FACTS.

1. Death is no respecter of persons.

2. No respecter of age.

3. No respecter of condition.

4. No respecter of character.

II. LESSONS:

1. To fully understand and accept these facts, and shape life by them.

2. To make our salvation the first and main duty of life.

3. In whatever state, condition, or period of life we are, to risk nothing on the contingent of living. (The Homiletic Review.)

Third age–patriarchal era

I. God trained him by separation; by a series of separations. This is the key thought of Abrahams life. We are accustomed to consider faith as the key to Abrahams life. Certainly it is; but did not his faith manifest itself in just this, that he was willing to separate himself from all for the Lords sake?

1. You find, him first called of God to leave his country and his fathers house.

2. The second separation is from his father Terah.

3. The next separation is from Canaan itself as a home.

4. Fourthly, separation from Egypt.

5. The next thing we read of is his separation from Lot.

6. After separation from Lot, comes separation from Ishmael.

7. Passing over what may be called Abrahams separation from himself, in the twentieth chapter, we come to his separation from Isaac.

8. The next thing we learn of Abraham is his separation from Sarah. And it came to pass after all these things that Sarah died.

9. Then, finally, we find Abraham separated from all.

In Gen 25:5, we are told that Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac. Abraham had been a rich man, but his heart had not been set on his riches, as was evident whenever questions of property came up.

II. This leads us to the second great subject: the gospel unto which Abraham was separated–the blessing of Abraham–the Abrahamie covenant of theology. It is, as already remarked, the same old covenant of grace, plus the idea of separation and consequent restriction. And here, as we are entering upon this period of restriction, this narrowing of the channel of blessing to the line of a single family first, and a single nation afterward, it is important for us to remember three things: In the first place this policy of restriction was not adopted until the offer of mercy had been thrice made to all mankind, and thrice rejected. In the second place, this restriction of the blessings of grace to a single family and a single nation was for the sake of all. It was the only way by which the blessing could be secured finally to all. Abraham was called, not for his own sake, nor for his descendants sake only, but for the worlds sake–In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed (Gen 12:3); and again (Gen 22:18): In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. There is no real narrowing. It is still, God so loved the world. In the third place, even though in the meantime the channel must be narrowed to a single family and nation, whosoever will may come. The door is open all the while. The sons of the stranger have simply to leave their country and their family, and come and join themselves to the family of Abraham, and to the nation of the Jew, and they are made welcome. (J. M.Gibson, D. D.)

Setting out, but stopping short of the promised land

How many are there who set out on the way to Canaan, but never reach that land of promise–who run well for a time, but are afterwards hindered! In the present life they obtain rest, in peace with God, in the exercise of the grace He ministers, and in a conscious sense of His approbation; and these first fruits of the Spirit are the earnest of the rich, everlasting harvest. Those only who enter by faith into the land of promise here shall be admitted into the Canaan above. But how many are there who seem to set out well, and even to make some progress, and yet die before they gain that happy reversion!

I. We ask, HOW FAR MEN MAY GO IN THE WAY TO CANAAN, AND YET, LIKE TERAH, DIE IN HARAN? in other words, How far they may proceed in the ways of religion, yet fall short of the kingdom of grace and glory?

1. We may be visited with many convictions, and even with great terrors, and yet fall short of a state of grace. Does conscience admonish you that you have been neglecting your duty to your God and your Saviour–your highest duties, your first interests, even the interests of your immortal souls? Does the fear of futurity sometimes visit you, urging you to say, What must I do? It may be well–it shall be well, if those alarms impel you to the Saviour. But rest not in convictions; for if these be the whole extent of your experience, you are still in Haran, separated by a wide boundary from the land of promise, the spiritual Canaan: and if you die in your present state, you are excluded from the Canaan that is above.

2. We may be conscious of tender religious emotions–sorrow, desire, joy–and yet fall short of real grace. Not only may the conscience beconvinced, but the heart may be in some measure softened, and yet remain unconverted; for it is deceitful above all things.

3. We may form many good resolutions, and yet be dwelling in Haran. Who is there that has not often formed these? In a season of conviction, in an hour of compunction, in a day of trial and adversity, we resolve to apply to the things that belong to our peace, to attend to the warnings of the word and providence of God, and to seek after that portion that is satisfying and abiding. But alas! the conviction wears off, the trial passes by, the danger is averted; and we forget all our purposes and resolutions. Or perhaps we set about fulfilling them, and adhere to them for a time; but, trusting in our own strength, we are overcome and brought again under the power of the enemy. What avail an army of good resolutions, unaccompanied by prayer, and unsupported by grace, against the subtlety and power of the enemy of souls? The way to hell, it has been emphatically said, is paved with good resolutions.

4. We may actually enter on the work of reformation, and proceed a certain length in it, and yet fall short. Herod not only feared John, but did many things. Thus are men often induced to abstain from particular transgressions, to exercise some degree of self-denial, to address themselves to various duties–things in themselves, no doubt, promising and right, but being done only from temporary impulse, or from selfish and slavish motives, consistent still with an unregenerate state, are usually as transient in their duration as defective in their principle. These facts are affecting, and even alarming. You are ready to say, If all the attainments you have mentioned are ineffective, what is there that will avail? My brethren, nothing will avail without a change of heart–a new heart must be given us, a new spirit put within us.

II. We proceed to ask, WHAT ARE THE OBSTACLES THAT INTERRUPT THE PROGRESS OF THOSE WHO SEEM TO SET OUT IN THE WAY TO CANAAN?

1. Here the analogy of a journey leads us to mention, first, sloth, spiritual sloth. Like a paralysis extending over our whole frame, it completely unfits us for prosecuting our journey.

2. We mention, as a second obstacle, the love of the world; a principle that entangles and enchains–that perverts the heart, and turns the feet out of the right path.

3. In fine, the grand obstacle is, an inward aversion to the ways of God, a dislike of serious religion.

III. We inquire, WHAT IS THE STATE AND PROSPECT OF THOSE WHO STOP SHORT OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD? Surely it may well awaken both sorrow and fear. Do you not lament the fate of a promising youth who, in the near prospect of succeeding to a large estate, is cut off by the hand of death? Do you not mourn when any object, exceedingly desirable, seems just ready to be attained, and is then unexpectedly snatched from us and lost forever? How deplorable! to have gone so far in the way to Canaan and yet to come short, to have approached so near the promised land, yet never to enter; to come to the gate of heaven, and to be cast down into hell!

1. Consider; those who stop short of the kingdom lose the benefit of all they have felt and done in the things of religion.

2. Nay, further, all that they have felt and done in religion will really serve to aggravate their guilt and imbitter their disappointment.

3. Once more; the conduct of such persons brings peculiar reproach upon religion. For they convey to others an injurious conception of it; they represent it as a system of restraints, of difficulties, and of dangers, without adequate reward. And now, in concluding, I address, first, those who have not yet set out on the way to Canaan–I intend careless sinners, who continue to this day, without fear or concern, in the broad way that leads to destruction. Has God no claims upon you? Has Christ no right to your regard? Has eternity no demands on your attention? Even in you there is a conscience that will speak if you will give it a hearing, and if not here, yet assuredly hereafter. Be persuaded to avert its overwhelming reproaches, yea, the more overwhelming frown of Him who is greater than conscience, by now making peace with Him through Jesus Christ. Secondly, I address those who have professedly set out on the way to Canaan–I mean those who profess that they have given themselves to Christ, to be saved and to be governed by Him. Remember, my beloved friends, you must endure to the end, if you would be saved. If a man enter the army, and follow his regiment a few marches, and then desert to the enemy, is he not accounted a traitor and a rebel? Such will your character be, if, having professed to give yourselves to Christ, you forsake Him and return to the world. (H. Gray, D. D.)

Stopping short

The simple fact, Terah died in Harsh, stands in the Scriptures as a monument, like the pillar of salt which uttered its warning to every passer by, Remember Lots wife. It exhibits an old man, after his many years spent in idolatry and ignorance, attempting in a late obedience to Divine commands to remove from his native condition and home, to the land of promise; but wasting in procrastination the time for his journey, and indolently staying upon the road over which he was required to pass to gain the end placed before his view; and finding all his efforts and plans to accomplish his purpose, to prove unavailing for his good. He never attained the inheritance for which he set out so late, and which he pursued so carelessly. Has this fact then no practical connection with ourselves? Does it not exhibit a striking illustration of the folly and danger of postponing until old age, our own commanded journey to the land of promise?

I. Let us consider THE WORK WHICH GOD REQUIRES SINFUL MAN TO UNDERTAKE. The call of Abraham from his country and home is frequently employed to illustrate the great duty which is required of every sinful man. Like him, everyone is commanded in the gospel to attain and exercise a simple controlling faith in the Divine promises; to follow in this spirit of faith the peculiar commands of God the Saviour; to go out, in its reliance upon Him, from a state of selfishness and idolatry, mans natural condition, to seek the better and heavenly country which is revealed in the gospel, and offered in Christ Jesus, to every believing soul. Such an exercise of faith developing itself in full and permanent obedience to the Divine commands, is the work which God requires of all who hear the gospel. But when is this great work to be undertaken? When shall man begin to subdue his rebellious heart into reconciliation to the will of God? May he select his own time for the work? Surely not. The Scriptures never intimate a moment beyond the time in which the command is actually given, as the time for mans obedience. The morrow is not given to man. Now, today, are the Divine designations of the proper time for mans submission. Whenever God speaks, it is that His will may be done at once. He who rejects and disobeys the commands of God in his youth, is exceedingly unlikely to find the opportunity or the disposition to obey in his subsequent years.

II. Let us consider THE COURSE WHICH MEN GENERALLY PURSUE IN REFERENCE TO THIS IMPORTANT MATTER. Do they, or do they not, generally obey at once? Do they, with Abraham, arise and go? or do they more commonly with Terah, procrastinate the enterprise until it is too late to accomplish it at all? Some few accept with gratitude the blessed invitations of the Saviour, and unite themselves unto Him, in a perpetual covenant, never to be forgotten. But what is the course pursued by the great majority of mankind? Do they not altogether drive away the convictions of this early period? They refuse to yield their hearts and characters, to be thus subjected by the Holy Spirit to the service of God. They bargain with their consciences, in order to silence their awakened demands, that at some future period they will attend to the duty required of them. Thus most frequently, they live and die in their chosen idolatry and guilt; always hearing the command, arise and go, and always determining that they will obey it; but never putting their resolution into effect. Like Torah, they die in Haran; they perish amidst unfulfilled vows and attempts of obedience to God, and under the guilt and burden of actual rebellion against Him.

III. Let us trace THE USUAL RESULT OF THIS COURSE OF PROCRASTINATION. It will be but tracing the history and experience of the great proportion of mankind. Twenty years of the sinners life go by. They are the most important, and in most cases the deciding period of his existence, in reference to his eternal welfare. But their close finds him still unrenewed in his character, and hardening his mind and conscience against the power of truth. In the wonderful forbearance of God, twenty years more are added to these, all of them crowned with privileges, and with invitations to a better land. But the lingering sinner still refuses to arise and go. By this time, he has seen and felt much of the folly of things temporal, and of the emptiness of the heart which depends upon them. But he is hardened through the deceitfulness of sin; and he is unwilling to make the decided and violent rupture which seems necessary if he would now effect his escape from an impending ruin. With more light in his conscience, he has more dulness and obduracy in his affections; and the work of true piety grows more and more difficult. If twenty years more bring him to the verge of feebleness and death, he is still found more deeply anxious to obtain the hope which he does not possess, and which he finds it more and more impossible to get. By this time, he is mourning over nearly all his joys as departed forever. Almost every monument of his life seems to be a tomb. Here lie the remains, is the inscription which he reads upon pleasures, and possessions, and hopes which are gone. And now, old age is looked for to effect that which youth and maturity have failed to accomplish. But here another disappointment comes. Old age also is very different in its character from its anticipated appearance. Man then awakes to the sorrowful conviction that he has been deluded through the whole of his course in life. He sees nothing of that spontaneous preparation for eternity, which he hoped to find in the later years of life. It is now harder, vastly harder, than it has ever been before, to lay hold of any adequate and abiding hope for a world to come. Lingering Terah sits down to measure up, in the sad calculation of his own experience, the folly by which he has been so long deceived. The love of the world and the pride of self have grown upon his heart.

IV. What now becomes THE RESULT OF THIS PROCRASTINATION? Generally one of two things. Either total, hardened, self-defending negligence; or a partial, constrained, and unsatisfying attention to the duties of religion. That is, Terah either positively refuses to obey the Divine command, and remains to die as he has lived, in Chaldea; or else, he unwillingly sets cut under the lashes of an awakened conscience, and goes as far as Haran, and dies there, in a new condition indeed, but with the same character. (S. H.Tyng, D. D.)

Lessons

1. God may make known His mind by the child unto the father; and call it before him (Act 7:2).

2. By revelation to a son, God may make parents willing to obey His call.

3. The Spirit giveth honour to parents, as leaders, when they follow the call of grace.

4. God points out by name such as He separates for His Church.

5. Faith puts all believers upon motion, when God calls them even from their native country.

6. Faith in God makes haste to depart from polluted places.

7. Faith intends to go as far as God calleth the soul. (G. Hughes, B. D.)

Sarai was barren; she had no child

Sarais barrenness

1. The subject spoken of, Sarai; she that was to be the mother of the Church, of whom, purposely, the Spirit writeth this which followeth to show forth the power of God.

2. The condition spoken of her–under two expressions.

(1) She was barren, i.e., naturally she was so, and that from her youth and first marriage–the fitter object for God to work upon by His power.

(2) To her was no child. That is, hitherto she had no child, when she was now taking her journey with her husband and grandfather. God records the trials of His saints, not for their reproach bat for His own glory. (G. Hughes, B. D.)

.

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Now these are the generations of Terah,…. Or the genealogy of his posterity, which is a very short one; for it only gives an account of his three sons as before,

Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran: and of three grand children, Lot, Milcah, and Iscah, the children of Haran; and chiefly for the sake of Abram it is given, and indeed the above genealogy of Shem, which ends with him; and of whom and whose posterity the remaining part of this book of Genesis treats:

and Haran begat Lot: of whom we have some further account in

Ge 13:1.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

The genealogical data in Gen 11:27-32 prepare the way for the history of the patriarchs. The heading, “ These are the generations of Terah, ” belongs not merely to Gen 11:27-32, but to the whole of the following account of Abram, since it corresponds to “the generations” of Ishmael and of Isaac in Gen 25:12 and Gen 25:19. Of the three sons of Terah, who are mentioned again in Gen 11:27 to complete the plan of the different Toledoth , such genealogical notices are given as are of importance to the history of Abram and his family. According to the regular plan of Genesis, the fact that Haran the youngest son of Terah begat Lot, is mentioned first of all, because the latter went with Abram to Canaan; and then the fact that he died before his father Terah, because the link which would have connected Lot with his native land was broken in consequence. “ Before his father,” lit., upon the face of his father, so that he saw and survived his death. Ur of the Chaldees is to be sought either in the “ Ur nomine persicum castellum ” of Ammian (25, 8), between Hatra and Nisibis, near Arrapachitis, or in Orhoi, Armenian Urrhai, the old name for Edessa, the modern Urfa. – Gen 11:29. Abram and Nahor took wives from their kindred. Abram married Sarai, his half-sister (Gen 20:12), of whom it is already related, in anticipation of what follows, that she was barren. Nahor married Milcah, the daughter of his brother Haran, who bore to him Bethuel, the father of Rebekah (Gen 22:22-23). The reason why Iscah is mentioned is doubtful. For the rabbinical notion, that Iscah is another name for Sarai, is irreconcilable with Gen 20:12, where Abram calls Sarai his sister, daughter of his father, though not of his mother; on the other hand, the circumstance that Sarai is introduced in Gen 11:31 merely as the daughter-in-law of Terah, may be explained on the ground that she left Ur, not as his daughter, but as the wife of his son Abram. A better hypothesis is that of Ewald, that Iscah is mentioned because she was the wife of Lot; but this is pure conjecture. According to Gen 11:31, Terah already prepared to leave Ur of the Chaldees with Abram and Lot, and to remove to Canaan. In the phrase “ they went forth with them, ” the subject cannot be the unmentioned members of the family, such as Nahor and his children; though Nahor must also have gone to Haran, since it is called in Gen 24:10 the city of Nahor. For if he accompanied them at this time, there is no perceptible reason why he should not have been mentioned along with the rest. The nominative to the verb must be Lot and Sarai, who went with Terah and Abram; so that although Terah is placed at the head, Abram must have taken an active part in the removal, or the resolution to remove. This does not, however, necessitate the conclusion, that he had already been called by God in Ur. Nor does Gen 15:7 require any such assumption. For it is not stated there that God called Abram in Ur, but only that He brought him out. But the simple fact of removing from Ur might also be called a leading out, as a work of divine superintendence and guidance, without a special call from God. It was in Haran that Abram first received the divine call to go to Canaan (Gen 12:1-4), when he left not only his country and kindred, but also his father’s house. Terah did not carry out his intention to proceed to Canaan, but remained in Haran, in his native country Mesopotamia, probably because he found there what he was going to look for in the land of Canaan. Haran, more properly Charan, , is a place in north-western Mesopotamia, the ruins of which may still be seen, a full day’s journey to the south of Edessa (Gr. , Lat. Carrae ), where Crassus fell when defeated by the Parthians. It was a leading settlement of the Ssabians, who had a temple there dedicated to the moon, which they traced back to Abraham. There Terah died at the age of 205, or sixty years after the departure of Abram for Canaan; for, according to Gen 11:26, Terah was seventy years old when Abram was born, and Abram was seventy-five years old when he arrived in Canaan. When Stephen, therefore, placed the removal of Abram from Haran to Canaan after the death of his father, he merely inferred this from the fact, that the call of Abram (Gen 12) was not mentioned till after the death of Terah had been noticed, taking the order of the narrative as the order of events; whereas, according to the plan of Genesis, the death of Terah is introduced here, because Abram never met with his father again after leaving Haran, and there was consequently nothing more to be related concerning him.

Character of the Patriarchal History

The dispersion of the descendants of the sons of Noah, who had now grown into numerous families, was necessarily followed on the one hand by the rise of a variety of nations, differing in language, manners, and customs, and more and more estranged from one another; and on the other by the expansion of the germs of idolatry, contained in the different attitudes of these nations towards God, into the polytheistic religions of heathenism, in which the glory of the immortal God was changed into an image made like to mortal man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things (Rom 1:23 cf. Wis. 13-15). If God therefore would fulfil His promise, no more to smite the earth with the curse of the destruction of every living thing because of the sin of man (Gen 8:21-22), and yet would prevent the moral corruption which worketh death from sweeping all before it; it was necessary that by the side of these self-formed nations He should form a nation for Himself, to be the recipient and preserver of His salvation, and that in opposition to the rising kingdoms of the world He should establish a kingdom for the living, saving fellowship of man with Himself. The foundation for this was laid by God in the call and separation of Abram from his people and his country, to make him, by special guidance, the father of a nation from which the salvation of the world should come. With the choice of Abram and revelation of God to man assumed a select character, inasmuch as God manifested Himself henceforth to Abram and his posterity alone as the author of salvation and the guide to true life; whilst other nations were left to follow their own course according to the powers conferred upon them, in order that they might learn that in their way, and without fellowship with the living God, it was impossible to find peace to the soul, and the true blessedness of life (cf. Act 17:27). But this exclusiveness contained from the very first the germ of universalism. Abram was called, that through him all the families of the earth might be blessed (Gen 12:1-3). Hence the new form which the divine guidance of the human race assumed in the call of Abram was connected with the general development of the world, – in the one hand, by the fact that Abram belonged to the family of Shem, which Jehovah had blessed, and on the other, by his not being called alone, but as a married man with his wife. But whilst, regarded in this light, the continuity of the divine revelation was guaranteed, as well as the plan of human development established in the creation itself, the call of Abram introduced so far the commencement of a new period, that to carry out the designs of God their very foundations required to be renewed. Although, for example, the knowledge and worship of the true God had been preserved in the families of Shem in a purer form than among the remaining descendants of Noah, even in the house of Terah and worship of God was corrupted by idolatry (Jos 24:2-3); and although Abram was to become the father of the nation which God was about to form, yet his wife was barren, and therefore, in the way of nature, a new family could not be expected to spring from him.

As a perfectly new beginning, therefore, the patriarchal history assumed the form of a family history, in which the grace of God prepared the ground for the coming Israel. For the nation was to grow out of the family, and in the lives of the patriarchs its character was to be determined and its development foreshadowed. The early history consists of three stages, which are indicated by the three patriarchs, peculiarly so called, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and in the sons of Jacob the unity of the chosen family was expanded into the twelve immediate fathers of the nation. In the triple number of the patriarchs, the divine election of the nation on the one hand, and the entire formation of the character and guidance of the life of Israel on the other, were to attain to their fullest typical manifestation. These two were the pivots, upon which all the divine revelations made to the patriarchs, and all the guidance they received, were made to turn. The revelations consisted almost exclusively of promises; and so far as these promises were fulfilled in the lives of the patriarchs, the fulfilments themselves were predictions and pledges of the ultimate and complete fulfilment, reserved for a distant, or for the most remote futurity. And the guidance vouchsafed had for its object the calling forth of faith in response to the promise, which should maintain itself amidst all the changes of this earthly life. “A faith, which laid hold of the word of promise, and on the strength of that word gave up the visible and present for the invisible and future, was the fundamental characteristic of the patriarchs” ( Delitzsch). This faith Abram manifested and sustained by great sacrifices, by enduring patience, and by self-denying by great sacrifices, by enduring patience, and by self-denying obedience of such a kind, that he thereby became the father of believers ( , Rom 4:11). Isaac also was strong in patience and hope; and Jacob wrestled in faith amidst painful circumstances of various kinds, until he had secured the blessing of the promise. “Abraham was a man of faith that works; Isaac, of faith that endures; Jacob, of faith that wrestles” ( Baumgarten). – Thus, walking in faith, the patriarchs were types of faith for all the families that should spring from them, and be blessed through them, and ancestors of a nation which God had resolved to form according to the election of His grace. For the election of God was not restricted to the separation of Abram from the family of Shem, to be the father of the nation which was destined to be the vehicle of salvation; it was also manifest in the exclusion of Ishmael, whom Abram had begotten by the will of man, through Hagar the handmaid of his wife, for the purpose of securing the promised seed, and in the new life imparted to the womb of the barren Sarai, and her consequent conception and birth of Isaac, the son of promise. And lastly, it appeared still more manifestly in the twin sons born by Rebekah to Isaac, of whom the first-born, Esau, was rejected, and the younger, Jacob, chosen to be the heir of the promise; and this choice, which was announced before their birth, was maintained in spite of Isaac’s plans, or that Jacob, and not Esau, received the blessing of the promise. – All this occurred as a type for the future, that Israel might know and lay to heart the fact, that bodily descent from Abraham did not make a man a child of God, but that they alone were children of God who laid hold of the divine promise in faith, and walked in the steps of their forefather’s faith (cf. Rom 9:6-13).

If we fix our eyes upon the method of the divine revelation, we find a new beginning in this respect, that as soon as Abram is called, we read of the appearing of God. It is true that from the very beginning God had manifested Himself visibly to men; but in the olden time we read nothing of appearances, because before the flood God had not withdrawn His presence from the earth. Even to Noah He revealed Himself before the flood as one who was present on the earth. But when He had established a covenant with him after the flood, and thereby had assured the continuance of the earth and of the human race, the direct manifestations ceased, for God withdrew His visible presence from the world; so that it was from heaven that the judgment fell upon the tower of Babel, and even the call to Abram in his home in Haran was issued through His word, that is to say, no doubt, through an inward monition. But as soon as Abram had gone to Canaan, in obedience to the call of God, Jehovah appeared to him there (Gen 12:7). These appearances, which were constantly repeated from that time forward, must have taken place from heaven; for we read that Jehovah, after speaking with Abram and the other patriarchs, “went away” (Gen 18:33), or “went up” (Gen 17:22; Gen 35:13); and the patriarchs saw them, sometimes while in a waking condition, in a form discernible to the bodily senses, sometimes in visions, in a state of mental ecstasy, and at other times in the form of a dream (Gen 28:12.). On the form in which God appeared, in most instances, nothing is related. But in Gen 18:1. it is stated that three men came to Abram, one of whom is introduced as Jehovah, whilst the other two are called angels (Gen 19:1). Beside this, we frequently read of appearances of the “angel of Jehovah ” (Gen 16:7; Gen 22:11, etc.), or of “ Elohim,” and the “angel of Elohim ” (Gen 21:17; Gen 31:11, etc.), which were repeated throughout the whole of the Old Testament, and even occurred, though only in vision, in the case of the prophet Zechariah. The appearances of the angel of Jehovah (or Elohim) cannot have been essentially different from those of Jehovah (or Elohim) Himself; for Jacob describes the appearances of Jehovah at Bethel (Gen 28:13.) as an appearance of “the angel of Elohim,” and of “the God of Bethel” (Gen 31:11, Gen 31:13); and in his blessing on the sons of Joseph (Gen 48:15-16), “The God ( Elohim) before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God ( Elohim) which fed me all my life long unto this day, the angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads,” he places the angel of God on a perfect equality with God, not only regarding Him as the Being to whom he has been indebted for protection all his life long, but entreating from Him a blessing upon his descendants.

The question arises, therefore, whether the angel of Jehovah, or of God, was God Himself in one particular phase of His self-manifestation, or a created angel of whom God made use as the organ of His self-revelation.

(Note: In the old Jewish synagogue the Angel of Jehovah was regarded as the Shechinah, the indwelling of God in the world, i.e., the only Mediator between God and the world, who bears in the Jewish theology the name Metatron. The early Church regarded Him as the Logos, the second person of the Deity; and only a few of the fathers, such as Augustine and Jerome, thought of a created angel (vid., Hengstenberg, Christol. vol. 3, app.). This view was adopted by many Romish theologians, by the Socinians, Arminians, and others, and has been defended recently by Hoffmann, whom Delitzsch, Kurtz, and others follow. But the opinion of the early Church has been vindicated most thoroughly by Hengstenberg in his Christology.)

The former appears to us to be the only scriptural view. For the essential unity of the Angel of Jehovah with Jehovah Himself follows indisputably from the following facts. In the first place, the Angel of God identifies Himself with Jehovah and Elohim, by attributing to Himself divine attributes and performing divine works: e.g., Gen 22:12, “Now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me ” (i.e., hast been willing to offer him up as a burnt sacrifice to God); again (to Hagar) Gen 16:10, “ I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude;” Gen 21, “ I will make him a great nation,”-the very words used by Elohim in Gen 17:20 with reference to Ishmael, and by Jehovah in Gen 13:16; Gen 15:4-5, with regard to Isaac; also Exo 3:6., “ I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob: I have surely seen the affliction of My people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry, and I am come down to deliver them” (cf. Jdg 2:1). In addition to this, He performs miracles, consuming with fire the offering placed before Him by Gideon, and the sacrifice prepared by Manoah, and ascending to haven in the flame of the burnt-offering (Jdg 6:21; Jdg 13:19-20).

Secondly, the Angel of God was recognised as God by those to whom He appeared, on the one hand by their addressing Him as Adonai (i.e., the Lord God; Jdg 6:15), declaring that they had seen God, and fearing that they should die (Gen 16:13; Exo 3:6; Jdg 6:22-23; Jdg 13:22), and on the other hand by their paying Him divine honour, offering sacrifices which He accepted, and worshipping Him (Jdg 6:20; Jdg 13:19-20, cf. Gen 2:5). The force of these facts has been met by the assertion, that the ambassador perfectly represents the person of the sender; and evidence of this is adduced not only from Grecian literature, but from the Old Testament also, where the addresses of the prophets often glide imperceptibly into the words of Jehovah, whose instrument they are. But even if the address in Gen 22:16, where the oath of the Angel of Jehovah is accompanied by the words, “saith the Lord,” and the words and deeds of the Angel of God in certain other cases, might be explained in this way, a created angel sent by God could never say, “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” or by the acceptance of sacrifices and adoration, encourage the presentation of divine honours to himself. How utterly irreconcilable this fact is with the opinion that the Angel of Jehovah was a created angel, is conclusively proved by Rev 22:9, which is generally regarded as perfectly corresponding to the account of the “Angel of Jehovah ” of the Old Testament. The angel of God, who shows the sacred seer the heavenly Jerusalem, and who is supposed to say, “Behold, I come quickly” (Rev 22:7), and “I am Alpha and Omega” (Rev 22:13), refuses in the most decided way the worship which John is about to present, and exclaims, “See I am thy fellow-servant: worship God.”

Thirdly, the Angel of Jehovah is also identified with Jehovah by the sacred writers themselves, who call the Angel Jehovah without the least reserve (cf. Exo 3:2 and Exo 3:4, Jdg 6:12 and Jdg 6:14-16, but especially Exo 14:19, where the Angel of Jehovah goes before the host of the Israelites, just as Jehovah is said to do in Exo 13:21). – On the other hand, the objection is raised, that in the New Testament, which is confessedly the Greek rendering of , is always a created angel, and for that reason cannot be the uncreated Logos or Son of God, since the latter could not possibly have announced His own birth to the shepherds at Bethlehem. But this important difference has been overlooked, that according to Greek usage, denotes an (any) angel of the Lord, whereas according to the rules of the Hebrew language means the angel of the Lord; that in the New Testament the angel who appears is always described as without the article, and the definite article is only introduced in the further course of the narrative to denote the angel whose appearance has been already mentioned, whereas in the Old Testament it is always “ the Angel of Jehovah ” who appears, and whenever the appearance of a created angel is referred to, he is introduced first of all as “an angel” (vid., 1Ki 19:5 and 1Ki 19:7).

(Note: The force of this difference cannot be set aside by the objection that the New Testament writers follow the usage of the Septuagint, where is rendered . For neither in the New Testament nor in the Alex. version of the Old is used as a proper name; it is a simple appellative, as is apparent from the fact that in every instance, in which further reference is made to an angel who has appeared, he is called , with or without . All that the Septuagint rendering proves, is that the translators supposed “the angel of the Lord” to be a created angel; but it by no means follows that their supposition is correct.)

At the same time, it does not follow from this use of the expression Maleach Jehovah, that the (particular) angel of Jehovah was essentially one with God, or that Maleach Jehovah always has the same signification; for in Mal 2:7 the priest is called Maleach Jehovah, i.e., the messenger of the Lord. Who the messenger or angel of Jehovah was, must be determined in each particular instance from the connection of the passage; and where the context furnishes no criterion, it must remain undecided. Consequently such passages as Psa 34:7; Psa 35:5-6, etc., where the angel of Jehovah is not more particularly described, or Num 20:16, where the general term angel is intentionally employed, or Act 7:30; Gal 3:19, and Heb 2:2, where the words are general and indefinite, furnish no evidence that the Angel of Jehovah, who proclaimed Himself in His appearances as one with God, was not in reality equal with God, unless we are to adopt as the rule for interpreting Scripture the inverted principle, that clear and definite statements are to be explained by those that are indefinite and obscure.

In attempting now to determine the connection between the appearance of the Angel of Jehovah (or Elohim) and the appearance of Jehovah or Elohim Himself, and to fix the precise meaning of the expression Maleach Jehovah, we cannot make use, as recent opponents of the old Church view have done, of the manifestation of God in Gen 18 and 19, and the allusion to the great prince Michael in Dan 10:13, Dan 10:21; Dan 12:1; just because neither the appearance of Jehovah in the former instance, nor that of the archangel Michael in the latter, is represented as an appearance of the Angel of Jehovah. We must confine ourselves to the passages in which “the Angel of Jehovah ” is actually referred to. We will examine these, first of all, for the purpose of obtaining a clear conception of the form in which the Angel of Jehovah appeared. Gen 16, where He is mentioned for the first time, contains no distinct statement as to His shape, but produces on the whole the impression that He appeared to Hagar in a human form, or one resembling that of man; since it was not till after His departure that she drew the inference from His words, that Jehovah had spoken with her. He came in the same form to Gideon, and sat under the terebinth at Ophrah with a staff in His hand (Jdg 6:11 and Jdg 6:21); also to Manoah’s wife, for she took Him to be a man of God, i.e., a prophet, whose appearance was like that of the Angel of Jehovah (Jdg 13:6); and lastly, to Manoah himself, who did not recognise Him at first, but discovered afterwards, from the miracle which He wrought before his eyes, and from His miraculous ascent in the flame of the altar, that He was the Angel of Jehovah (Jdg 13:9-20). In other cases He revealed Himself merely by calling and speaking from heaven, without those who heard His voice perceiving any form at all; e.g., to Hagar, in Gen 21:17., and to Abraham, Gen 22:11. On the other hand, He appeared to Moses (Exo 3:2) in a flame of fire, speaking to him from the burning bush, and to the people of Israel in a pillar of cloud and fire (Exo 14:19, cf. Exo 13:21.), without any angelic form being visible in either case. Balaam He met in a human or angelic form, with a drawn sword in His hand (Num 22:22-23). David saw Him by the threshing-floor of Araunah, standing between heaven and earth, with the sword drawn in His hand and stretched out over Jerusalem (1Ch 21:16); and He appeared to Zechariah in a vision as a rider upon a red horse (Zec 1:9.). – From these varying forms of appearance it is evident that the opinion that the Angel of the Lord was a real angel, a divine manifestation, “not in the disguise of angel, but through the actual appearance of an angel,” is not in harmony with all the statements of the Bible. The form of the Angel of Jehovah, which was discernible by the senses, varied according to the purpose of the appearance; and, apart from Gen 21:17 and Gen 22:11, we have a sufficient proof that it was not a real angelic appearance, or the appearance of a created angel, in the fact that in two instances it was not really an angel at all, but a flame of fire and a shining cloud which formed the earthly substratum of the revelation of God in the Angel of Jehovah (Exo 3:2; Exo 14:19), unless indeed we are to regard natural phenomena as angels, without any scriptural warrant for doing so.

(Note: The only passage that could be adduced in support of this, viz., Psa 104:4, does not prove that God makes natural objects, winds and flaming fire, into forms in which heavenly spirits appear, or that He creates spirits out of them. Even if we render this passage, with Delitzsch, “making His messengers of winds, His servants of flaming fire,” the allusion, as Delitzsch himself observes, is not to the creation of angels; nor can the meaning be, that God gives wind and fire to His angels as the material of their appearance, and as it were of their self-incorporation. For , constructed with two accusatives, the second of which expresses the materia ex qua , is never met with in this sense, not even in 2Ch 4:18-22. For the greater part of the temple furniture summed up in this passage, of which it is stated that Solomon made them of gold, was composed of pure gold; and if some of the things were merely covered with gold, the writer might easily apply the same expression to this, because he had already given a more minute account of their construction (e.g., Gen 3:7). But we neither regard this rendering of the psalm as in harmony with the context, nor assent to the assertion that with a double accusative, in the sense of making into anything, is ungrammatical.)

These earthly substrata of the manifestation of the “Angel of Jehovah ” perfectly suffice to establish the conclusion, that the Angel of Jehovah was only a peculiar form in which Jehovah Himself appeared, and which differed from the manifestations of God described as appearances of Jehovah simply in this, that in “the Angel of Jehovah,” God or Jehovah revealed Himself in a mode which was more easily discernible by human senses, and exhibited in a guise of symbolical significance the design of each particular manifestation. In the appearances of Jehovah no reference is made to any form visible to the bodily eye, unless they were through the medium of a vision or a dream, excepting in one instance (Gen 18), where Jehovah and two angels come to Abraham in the form of three men, and are entertained by him-a form of appearance perfectly resembling the appearances of the Angel of Jehovah, but which is not so described by the author, because in this case Jehovah does not appear alone, but in the company of two angels, that “the Angel of Jehovah ” might not be regarded as a created angel.

But although there was no essential difference, but only a formal one, between the appearing of Jehovah and the appearing of the Angel of Jehovah, the distinction between Jehovah and the Angel of Jehovah points to a distinction in the divine nature, to which even the Old Testament contains several obvious allusions. The very name indicates such a difference. (from to work, from which come the work, opus, and , lit., he through whom a work is executed, but in ordinary usage restricted to the idea of a messenger) denotes the person through whom God works and appears. Beside these passages which represent “the Angel of Jehovah ” as one with Jehovah, there are others in which the Angel distinguishes Himself from Jehovah; e.g., when He gives emphasis to the oath by Himself as an oath by Jehovah, by adding “said Jehovah ” (Gen 22:16); when He greets Gideon with the words, “ Jehovah with thee, thou brave hero” (Jdg 6:12); when He says to Manoah, “Though thou constrainedst me, I would not eat of thy food; but if thou wilt offer a burnt-offering to Jehovah, thou mayest offer it” (Jdg 13:16); for when He prays, in Zec 1:12, “ Jehovah Sabaoth, how long wilt Thou not have mercy on Jerusalem?” (Compare also Gen 19:24, where Jehovah is distinguished from Jehovah.) Just as in these passages the Angel of Jehovah distinguishes Himself personally from Jehovah, there are others in which a distinction is drawn between a self-revealing side of the divine nature, visible to men, and a hidden side, invisible to men, i.e., between the self-revealing and the hidden God. Thus, for example, not only does Jehovah say of the Angel, whom He sends before Israel in the pillar of cloud and fire, “My name is in Him,” i.e., he reveals My nature (Exo 23:21), but He also calls Him , “My face” (Exo 33:14); and in reply to Moses’ request to see His glory, He says “Thou canst not see My face, for there shall no man see Me and live,” and then causes His glory to pass by Moses in such a way that he only sees His back, but not His face (Exo 33:18-23). On the strength of these expression, He in whom Jehovah manifested Himself to His people as a Saviour is called in Isa 63:9, “the Angel of His face,” and all the guidance and protection of Israel are ascribed to Him. In accordance with this, Malachi, the last prophet of the Old Testament, proclaims to the people waiting for the manifestation of Jehovah, that is to say, for the appearance of the Messiah predicted by former prophets, that the Lord ( , i.e., God), the Angel of the covenant, will come to His temple (Gen 3:1). This “Angel of the covenant,” or “Angel of the face,” has appeared in Christ. The Angel of Jehovah, therefore, was no other than the Logos, which not only “was with God,” but “was God,” and in Jesus Christ “was made flesh” and “came unto His own” (Joh 1:1-2, Joh 1:11); the only-begotten Son of God, who was sent by the Father into the world, who, though one with the Father, prayed to the Father (John 17), and who is even called “the Apostle,” , in Heb 3:1. From all this it is sufficiently obvious, that neither the title Angel or Messenger of Jehovah, nor the fact that the Angel of Jehovah prayed to Jehovah Sabaoth, furnishes any evidence against His essential unity with Jehovah. That which is unfolded in perfect clearness in the New Testament through the incarnation of the Son of God, was still veiled in the Old Testament according to the wisdom apparent in the divine training. The difference between Jehovah and the Angel of Jehovah is generally hidden behind the unity of the two, and for the most part Jehovah is referred to as He who chose Israel as His nation and kingdom, and who would reveal Himself at some future time to His people in all His glory; so that in the New Testament nearly all the manifestations of Jehovah under the Old Covenant are referred to Christ, and regarded as fulfilled through Him.

(Note: This is not a mere accommodation of Scripture, but the correct interpretation of the obscure hints of the Old Testament by the light of the fulfilment of the New. For not only is the Maleach Jehovah the revealer of God, but Jehovah Himself is the revealed God and Saviour. Just as in the history of the Old Testament there are not only revelations of the Maleach Jehovah, but revelations of Jehovah also; so in the prophecies the announcement of the Messiah, the sprout of David and servant of Jehovah, is intermingled with the announcement of the coming of Jehovah to glorify His people and perfect His kingdom.)

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

The Generations of Terah.

B. C. 1921.

      27 Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.   28 And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.   29 And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor’s wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah.   30 But Sarai was barren; she had no child.   31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son’s son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram’s wife; and they went forth with them from Ur, of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.   32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.

      Here begins the story of Abram, whose name is famous, henceforward, in both Testaments. We have here,

      I. His country: Ur of the Chaldees. This was the land of his nativity, an idolatrous country, where even the children of Eber themselves had degenerated. Note, Those who are, through grace, heirs of the land of promise, ought to remember what was the land of their nativity, what was their corrupt and sinful state by nature, the rock out of which they were hewn.

      II. His relations, mentioned for his sake, and because of their interest in the following story. 1. His father was Terah, of whom it is said (Josh. xxiv. 2) that he served other gods, on the other side of the flood, so early did idolatry gain footing in the world, and so hard is it even for those that have some good principles to swim against the stream. Though it is said (v. 26) that when Terah was seventy years old he begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran (which seems to tell us that Abram was the eldest son of Terah, and was born in his seventieth year), yet, by comparing v. 32, which makes Terah to die in his 205th year, with Acts vii. 4 (where it is said that he was but seventy-five years old when he removed from Haran), it appears that he was born in the 130th year of Terah, and probably was his youngest son; for, in God’s choices, the last are often first and the first last. We have, 2. Some account of his brethren. (1.) Nahor, out of whose family both Isaac and Jacob had their wives. (2.) Haran, the father of Lot, of whom it is here said (v. 28) that he died before his father Terah. Note, Children cannot be sure that they shall survive their parents; for death does not go by seniority, taking the eldest first. The shadow of death is without any order, Job x. 22. It is likewise said that he died in Ur of the Chaldees, before the happy removal of the family out of that idolatrous country. Note, It concerns us to hasten out of our natural state, lest death surprise us in it. 3. His wife was Sarai, who some think, was the same with Iscah, the daughter of Haran. Abram himself says of her that she was the daughter of his father, but not the daughter of his mother, ch. xx. 12. She was ten years younger than Abram.

      III. His departure out of Ur of the Chaldees, with his father Terah, his nephew Lot, and the rest of his family, in obedience to the call of God, of which we shall read more, ch. xii. 1, c. This chapter leaves them in Haran, or Charran, a place about mid-way between Ur and Canaan, where they dwelt till Terah’s head was laid, probably because the old man was unable, through the infirmities of age, to proceed in his journey. Many reach to Charran, and yet fall short of Canaan they are not far from the kingdom of God, and yet never come thither.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Verses 27-32:

Terah, father of Abram, was apparently an idolater (Jos 24:2). Some describe him as a priest of the moon-goddess.

Abram was not the firstborn son of Terah, though he is listed first, in the genealogical table. Haran was the firstborn, and he died in the land of his birth.

Ur of the Chaldees was an important city about 140 miles southeast of the site of ancient Babylon. C. Leonard Woolley carried out extensive archaeological work in that area between 1922 and 1924. Ur was a seaport city, an important site of commerce and education. A large array of clay tablets discovered there reveal that students learned to write and read and do various fornis of arithmetic. Some of these tablets contain business transactions. And some have been found containing the name of Abram.

Terah took his two surviving sons, Abram and Nahor, and his grandson Lot who was the son of Haran, and migrated from Ur of Chaldea northward, into the rich Mesopotamia Valley between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. Abram had married his half-sister (Ge 20:12), Sarai, apparently quite some time before this migration. The ultimate destination was not Mesopotamia, but Canaan. How long Abram lived in Haran (apparently named for his brother) is unknown. He did not leave there until after the death of his father.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

27. Terah begat Abram. Here also Abram is placed first among his brethren, not (as I suppose) because he was the firstborn; but because Moses, intent on the scope of his history, was not very careful in the arrangement of the sons of Terah. It is also possible that he had other sons. For, the reason why Moses speaks especially of them is obvious; namely, on account of Lot, and of the wives of Isaac and Jacob. I will now briefly state why I think Abram was not the first born. Moses shortly afterwards says, that Haran died in his own country, before his father left Chaldea, and went to Charran. (332) But Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Charran to dwell in the land of Canaan. (333) And this number of seventy-five years is expressly given after the death of Terah. Now, if we suppose that Abram was born in his father’s seventieth year, we must also allow that we have lost sixty years of Terah’s age; which is most absurd. (334) The conjecture of Luther, that God buried that time in oblivion, in order to hide from us the end of the world, in the first place is frivolous, and in the next, may be refuted by solid and convincing arguments. Others violently wrest the words to apply them to a former egress; and think that he lived together with his father at Charran for sixty years; which is most improbable. For to what end should they have protracted their stay so long in the midst of their journey? But there is no need of labourious discussion. Moses is silent respecting the age of Abraham when he left his own country; but says, that in the seventy-fifth year of his age, he came into the land of Canaan, when his father, having reached the two hundredth and fifth year of his life, had died. Who will not hence infer that he was born when his father had attained his one hundredth and thirtieth year? (335) But he is named first among those sons whom Terah is said to have begotten, when he himself was seventy years old. I grant it; but this order of recital does nothing towards proving the order of birth, as we have already said. Nor, indeed, does Moses declare in what year of his life Terah begat sons; but only that he had passed the above age before he begat the three sons here mentioned. Therefore, the age of Abraham is to be ascertained by another mode of computation, namely, from the fact that Moses assigns to him the age of seventy-five when his father died, whose life had reached to two hundred and five years. A firm and valid argument is also deduced from the age of Sarai. It appears that she was not more than ten years younger than Abraham. If she was the daughter of his younger brother, she would necessarily have equalled her own father in age. (336) They who raise an objection, to the effect that she was the daughter-in-law, or only the adopted daughter of Nahor, produce nothing beyond a sheer cavil.

(332) There is evidently a mistake in the original, as it appears in the Amsterdam edition of 1671, and in the Berlin edition, by Hengstenberg, of 1838. Terah’s name is here put instead of Haran’s, thus, ‘ Thare paulo post dicet Moses in patria mortuum esse,’ etc. The Old English translation has kept the name, and made nonsense of the passage; but Calvin’s French version is right: ‘ Moyse dira un peu apres, que Haran mourut en sen pays, devant que Thare son pere s’en allast demeurer en Charran.’ — See Gen 11:28. — Ed.

(333) See Gen 12:4.

(334) Supposing Terah to be 70 years old at the birth of Abram, and Abram 75 at the death of Terah; it would make Terah 145 years old when he died instead of 205, which is a loss of 60 years. The inference, therefore, is that Abram was not the first-born of the sons mentioned. See also Patrick’s Commentary, who says, that Terah “was seventy years old before he had any children; and then had three sons one after another, who are not set down in the order wherein they were born. For Abraham’s being first named doth not prove him to have been the eldest son of Terah, no more than Shem’s being first named among Noah’s three sons proves him to have been the first-born. For there are good reasons to prove that Abraham was born sixty years after Haran, who was the eldest son; having two daughters married to his two brothers, Nahor and Abraham; who seems to have been the youngest though named first.” Le Clerc controverts this view, but it seems the most free from objections. See, however, his Commentary on Gen 12:1 and 12:4. — Ed.

(335) Another palpable numerical mistake in the Amsterdam edition, which is also perpetuated in that of Hengstenberg, is here corrected as the sense requires, and under the sanction of the French and Old English versions. In the Latin text it is: “ Quis non inde colliget natum fuisse quum pater centessimum annum attigisset ?” — Ed.

(336) Or at least nearly so. “ Ergo Haran (si junior fuisset Abrahamo) eam genuisset nondum deceni (imo nec octo) annos natus.” — Lightfoot et alii in Poli Synopsi. See, however, Lightfoot’s Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations upon the Acts, in his Works, vol. 2 p. 666. Fol. London 1684. — Ed.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

CRITICAL NOTES.

Gen. 11:28. Ur of the Chaldees] Ur in Heb. means light, and was probably so called from the Persian idolatry of fire worship, prevalent among this people. Abram was called by God out of this region of idolaters, to be a follower of the true God (Jacobus).

Gen. 11:29. The father of Iscah] This name is nowhere else mentioned. Jewish traditions consider it as identical with Sarai, one name having been borne before she left Chaldea, the other afterwards. Alford thinks that this view is inconsistent with what is stated in Gen. 17:17, and remarks that Marriage with near relatives was the practice of Terahs family (Gen. 24:3-4; Gen. 28:1-2).

Gen. 11:30. But Sarai was barren] Inserted as bearing upon the following history.

Gen. 11:31. And Terah took Abraham his son] Terah was an idolater (Jos. 24:2), so that this, his journey, can hardly be supposed to have been an obedience on his part to that Divine intimation which we learn from the subsequent Jehovist account, was made to his son (Alford).They came unto Haran] The Greek has Charran (Act. 7:2). Terah intended to go to Canaan, but stopped here, probably on account of increasing age and infirmity.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Gen. 11:27-32

THE DAWN OF ABRAMS HISTORY

Here we have the commencement of the sixth document, indicated by the usual preface, These are the generations. This portion is intended to bring Abram before us, and therefore goes to the roots of his history, showing us from what a source so eminent an example of righteousness sprung. The history is brief, but it may be considered as a condensed outline of Abrahams life. Here we find him

I. Possessed of great moral courage. Terah, the father of Abram, was an idolator (Jos. 24:2). Both himself and his children were ignorant of the true object of worship, or if they had any knowledge of this, they did not retain that knowledge, but suffered themselves to be led away by the impiety around them. Such is the hole of the pit from whence this sublime character was digged. Abram is the next great name in the sacred record to Noah, and their moral histories are very similar. Noah passed through the flood, and through an age of extraordinary wickedness to the victory of faith; and Abram passed through heathenism to become the chief example, in those early times, of belief in God. Abram had the moral courage to leave these idolatrous associations. In Gen. 11:31 Terah, his father, is represented as the leader of the migration to Canaan. But it is probable that the history in Genesis 12 is anticipated, and that Abram listening to the Divine call, persuaded his father also to obey. The courage of the father of the faithful influenced all his family, and they were ready to follow the leading of the Providence of God to better things. The great moral revolutions of the world have been brought about by the influence of men to whom God had spoken. By obeying the early suggestions of the Divine Spirit, men have been led on to glorious results, of which at the first they had no suspicion. Here also we find Abram

II. Under the shadow of a future trial. (Gen. 11:30.) Sarais barrenness was, no doubt, a great trial to him, in that early age when men naturally desired a numerous offspring. But in his subsequent history this circumstance was not only a natural cause of regret, but it raised a difficulty in the way of his faith. This fact stood in his way, and for long years he had to endure the conflict of hoping against hope. The shadow of a coming trial now rested upon Abraham in order that his faith might prove itself strong by encountering difficulties.

SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES

Gen. 11:27. The present paragraph is of special interest for the coming history. Its opening word and (A. V. now), intimates its close connection with the preceding document; and, accordingly, we observe that the one is merely introductory to the other. The various characters brought forward are all of moment. Terah is the patriarch and leader of the migration for part of the way. Abram is the subject of the following narrative. Nahor is the grandfather of Rebekah. Haran is the father of Lot, the companion of Abram, of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, and grandmother of Rebekah, and of Iskah. Iskah alone seems to have no connection with the subsequent narrative.(Murphy.)

Small hath the line of the Church been from the beginning, in comparison with the line of the world.(Hughes.)

If we seek for the origin of some of the greatest religious and social revolutions which the world has known, we often find it in a small group of men.

Gen. 11:28. Properly, in his presence, so that he must have seen it; it does not, therefore, mean simply in his life-time. The first case of a natural death of a son before the death of his father, is a new sign of increasing mortality.(Lange.)

Death is described as the land without any order, and truly without any order does he snatch away the sons of men. He strikes down the children before the face of their parents.
Providence ordaineth the land of the nativity of some to be the place of their expiring.(Hughes.)

Gen. 11:29. Sarai was, according to Gen. 20:12, the daughter of Terah by another wife than Abrams mother, and was ten years younger than her husband (Gen. 17:17).(Alford.)

Gen. 11:30.

1. The subject spoken of, Sarai; she that was to be the mother of the Church, of whom, purposely, the Spirit writeth this which followeth to show forth the power of God.

2. The condition spoken of herunder two expressions.
(1) She was barren, i.e., naturally she was so, and that from her youth and first marriagethe fitter object for God to work upon by His power.

(2) To her was no child. That is, hitherto she had no child, when she was now taking her journey with her husband and grandfather. God records the trials of His saints, not for their reproach but for His own glory.(Hughes.)

Long and silent trials are often the portion of the greatest saints.

Gen. 11:31. It is evident from Gen. 12:1, that this expedition was undertaken in consequence of the Divine call to Abraham to come out from a land of idolaters; but from the deference paid to the head of a family, Terah is here represented as chief in the movement, though really acting in obedience to the monitions of his son. Nahor and his wife Milcah, it would appear, were unwilling to go, at least at present; yet as we find them in the course of the history settled at Haran, and Abraham and Isaac sending to them for wives, we may conclude that they afterwards repented and went. Thus the whole of Terahs family, though they did not go to Canaan, yet were probably preserved from Chaldean idolatry, and fixing themselves in Haran, maintained for a considerable time the worship of the true God. The narrative suggests to us, that while the most exemplary marks of respect are due from children to parents, yet parents themselves may sometimes be called to follow their children as leaders, when they have obtained clearer light as to the path of duty, and go forth at the evident call of God. But even in such cases a proper spirit of filial reverence will give as much precedency as possible to parental actions.(Bush.)

A godly man in the performance of the highest duties will consider the claims of natural propriety. St. Paul does not scruple to refer the Corinthians to the teaching of nature, and to urge them to have regard to what is seemly.
Religious duty can be performed so as not to interfere with the claims of natural relationship.
Terahs migration to Canaan

(1) Its spirited beginning;
(2) its failure to go on. Abraham and his kinsmen
(1) He was probably the author of the movement;
(2) they, probably, the cause of his tarrying in Haran.(Lange.)

St. Paul tells us that Abraham went forth not knowing whither he went. Here it is stated that the land of Canaan was the object and purpose of this migration. So it was in the Divine destination, but not as a definite resolve of their own. The historian evidently writes from the standpoint of subsequent facts. They went forth under the leading of Providence, having just light enough for each successive portion of the journeythe end not yet revealed. Faith asks not to see the whole of its course spread before it, but only light enough to take the next step. He who gives that faith will take care of the whole course, and secure the success of the end.

They came to Haran, and dwelt there. Broken down with fatigue, he halts for a season at Haran to recruit his wasted powers. Filial piety, no doubt, kept Abram watching over the last days of his venerable parent, who, probably, still clung to the fond hope of reaching the land of his adoption. Hence, they all abode in Haran for the remainder of the five years from the date of Abrams call to leave his native land.(Murphy.)

Gen. 11:32. Time and place are appointed to die as to be born in. It is good to be ready in every place.(Hughes.)

Terah was two hundred and five years old. If Abram, therefore, was seventy-five years old when he migrated from Mesopotamia, and Terah was seventy-five years old at his birth, then must Abraham have set forth sixty years before the death of Terah. And this is very important. The migration had a religious motive which would not allow him to wait till the death of his father. As Delitzsch remarks, the manner of representation in Genesis disposes of the history of the less important personages before relating the main history. The Samaritan text has set the age of Terah at one hundred and forty-five, under the idea that Abraham did not set out on his migration until after the death of Haran. The representation of Stephen (Act. 7:4) connects itself with the general course of the narration.(Lange.)

Terah, like Moses, failed to enter the Land of Promise. God had provided for him a better country, where the purposes so incompletely fulfilled here will reach completion. There are no broken and rudimentary structures in the city of God.
We are forcibly reminded of our pilgrim state by the fact that many of Gods people have died on journeys. However imperfectly we may have realised our ideal of life, it is well to be prepared for that last solemn journey which we must take alone, and where no help can avail but the rod and staff of God.
The history here given of the post-diluvians has a striking resemblance in structure to that of the ante-diluvians. The preservation of Noah from the waters of the flood is the counterpart of the creation of Adam, after the land had risen out of the roaring deep. The intoxication of Noah by the fruit of a tree corresponds with the fall of Adam by eating the fruit of a forbidden tree. The worldly policy of Nimrod and his builders is parallel with the city-building and many inventions of the Cainites. The pedigree of Abram, the tenth from Shem, stands over against the pedigree of Noah, the tenth from Adam. And the paragraph now before us bears some resemblance to that which precedes the personal history of Noah. All this tends to strengthen the impression made by some other phenomena already noticed, that the book of Genesis is the work of one author, and not a mere pile of documents by different writers.(Murphy.)

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

PART TWENTY-FIVE:
THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH

(Gen. 11:27-32)

The Central Theme (Motif) of the Bible

The Bible is not, was never intended to be, a book of science, or a book of philosophy (which is exclusively human speculation), or even a history of the human race. It is, rather, the history of a single genealogical Line, the Line that flowered and terminated in the story of Messiah, the Redeemer. It is, therefore, preeminently the Book of Redemption: its content is the story of the progressive unfolding (actualization) of the divine Plan of Redemption. It is in fact the record of the actualization of Gods Cosmic Plan in its fulness, in which Redemption is revealed as the final phase of the Creation. As it is made clear in Biblical teaching throughout, our God, the living and true God, declares the end from the beginning (Isa. 46:9-11). It is His Will, His Eternal Purpose (Eph. 2:8-12) that the Cosmic Process, which began when He first spoke the Word, Light, be! shall attain fulfilment in the Last Judgment, at which time His saints, the Sheep of His Pasture (Psa. 79:13; Psa. 100:3) shall be presented as conformed to the image of His Son (Rom. 8:2-29) clothed in glory and honor and incorruption (Rom. 2:2-7; cf. Act. 17:31, Mat. 25:31-46, Rev. 20:11-15; Rev. 21:1-8; Rev. 22:1-5). As any plan is to be evaluated by its end product, the Divine Plan will be so evaluated in that last great Day, the time of the restoration of all things (Act. 3:21) by its end-product, the glorified saint. And even if it should turn out that only one redeemed soul, only one overcomer (Rev. 3:5; Rev. 3:12; Rev. 3:21, etc.), will be presented as having ultimately attained (Php. 2:10-15), the Cosmic Plan will be joyously acclaimed by all existing intelligences as victorious, indeed worth all it has cost Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not on the basis of the number redeemed, but on the ground of the ineffable quality of the redemption that shall be disclosed (Rom. 8:23, 1Th. 5:23). We are assured, however, by the word of our God that the number of the glorified shall not be small, but shall come out of every nation, and of all tribes and peoples and tongues (Rev. 7:9-10); and this is the Word that stands sure and stedfast (1Pe. 1:25, 2Pe. 1:19, 2Ti. 2:9, Luk. 21:33, etc.). These, we are told, the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven (Heb. 12:23), shall constitute the glorious citizenry of the City of God, New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2).

We must never lose sight of the awesome truth that eternity is timelessness: it has been rightly said that time is the narrow vale between the mountain-peaks of two eternities. It follows, therefore, although our poor minds are unable to grasp it, that God does not, in the strict sense of the term, foreknow: rather, He simply knows. The whole temporal process is but His single Thought. In God essence IS existence: the essence of our God is to be: He dwells always in the present tense; with Him it is always NOW (2Co. 6:2, Luk. 14:17; Isa. 49:8; Isa. 55:6; 2Pe. 3:8); hence, the great and incommunicable Name of our God is I AM, HE WHO IS (Exo. 3:13-14). He is the First and the Last, the Alpha and the Omega (Rev. 1:8; Rev. 1:17; Rev. 21:6; Rev. 22:13; cf. Isa. 41:4), the Beginning and the End, only in the sense that He is without beginning or end. This is not only the testimony of Scripture; it is that of reason as well. There must be back of all being, the very Creator and Preserver of it all, a Power that is without beginning or end; else our only alternative is the belief that sometime, somewhere, nothing created this vast something which we call the world, the cosmos, with its multifarious living creatures. Such a notion, however, is inconceivable: even the ancients were wise enough to know that ex nihilo, nihil fit. (Incidentally, the most ardent evolutionist, whether he admits it or not, cannot escape the fact that his theory is, after all, a theory of creation.) As Arthur Holly Compton, the eminent physicist and Nobel prize winner, once put it: A God who can control a universe like this is mighty beyond imagination.

All this boils down to the fact which we emphasize here, that Gods Cosmic Plan which had its beginning in the Paradise Lost of Genesis will have its fulfilmentby His own Eternal Purpose and Designin the Paradise Regained so wondrously portrayed for us in the book of Revelation. The essence of this Plan is the redemption of the Faithfulthe Overcomers (cf. Rev. 2:7; Rev. 2:17, etc.; 1Co. 15:58, Mat. 25:21; Mat. 25:23; 2Ti. 2:2; 2Ti. 4:7)in spirit and soul and body (1Th. 5:23). We find the first intimations of it in the opening chapters of Genesis. Thus we emphasize the fact again that the Bible as a whole, primarilyit would not be amiss to say, it is exclusivelythe Story of Redemption; and, as we shall now see, the motif of this entire story is set for us in the mysterious oracle of Gen. 3:15.

The Seed of the Woman

Gen. 3:15. The matter of supreme importance here is that of understanding what is implied in the phrase, the Womans Seed. Here we are told that, in the spiritual conflict of the ages, the Old Serpents seed shall bruise the heel of the Womans Seed, signifying a mean, insidious, vicious, generally unsuccessful warfare (the heel is not a particularly important part of the anatomy), a kind of guerilla warfare, let us say, whereas the Womans Seed shall ultimately crush the Serpent-seeds head (the ruling part of the person and personality), signifying, as we know in the light of the New Testament fulfilment, the complete victory of Messiah (Christ) over all evil (Rom. 16:20, 1Co. 15:25-26, Php. 2:9-11, Mat. 25:31-46, Rom. 2:4-11, 2Th. 1:7-10, 2Pe. 3:1-13, Jud. 1:6, Rev. 20:7-10, etc.). (See my Genesis, II, 150156).

The story of this age-old conflict is presented in Scripture in a series of progressive limitations of the meaning of the phrase, the Seed of the Woman, first from her generic seed, the whole human race as descended from Eve, the mother of all living (Gen. 3:20), to her divinely selected ethnic seed, the fleshly seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (the Children of Israel) to become the Old Covenant people of God. Little by little, however, as we read on through the testimony of the Hebrew prophets, the divinely intended limitation becomes clearer and clearer, until we finally realize that the Seed specifically designed to thwart, and ultimately to completely rout, Satan and his rebel host, is not a race nor a people, but a Person, the Person, Jesus, Messiah, Christ, Gods Only Begotten (Joh. 3:16). (Cf. 1Co. 15:20-28, Php. 2:7-10, Heb. 2:14-15). Moreover, because the Bible gives us the History of Redemption, it also identifies the genealogical Line through which this Plan of Redemption is effectuated, that is, the Line that culminates in Jesus the Messiah, commonly designated the Messianic Line. (Cf. Mat. 16:16, Joh. 19:30, Heb. 1:1-4). It should be recalled here that God literally separated the Hebrew people, the Children of Israel, from the rest of mankind and put them into the pulpit of the world to do five things: (1) to preserve the knowledge of the living and true God, (2) to preserve the knowledge of the moral law, Gal. 3:19, (3) to prepare the world for the advent and ministry of the Messiah, and (4) to build up a system of metaphor, type, allegory, and prophecy to identify Messiah at His appearance in the flesh, and (5) actually to give the MessiahProphet, Priest and Kingto the world.

Again, the progression of the spiritual conflictthe Great Controversywhich has been waged throughout time between the forces of evil, led by the Old Serpent, the Devil, and the forces of righteousness (redemption) under the leadership of the Seed of the Woman, the Son of God, has, generally speaking, paralleled the successive delimitations of the meaning of the phrase under consideration here. The oracle of Gen. 3:15 surely pointed forward to the successive phases of this Controversy, that is, the conflict (1) between the Devil and the whole human race (Joh. 14:30, 2Co. 4:4); (2) between the Devil and Gods Old Covenant people, the fleshly seed of Abraham (Job, chs. 1, 2; 1Ch. 21:1; Zec. 3:1-5); (3) between the Devil and the Messiah Himself (Mat. 4:1-11, Luk. 22:39-46, Joh. 8:44, Heb. 2:14-16); (4) and finally, between the Devil and the New Covenant elect, the spiritual seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:16-19; Gal. 3:27-29; Eph. 3:8-11; Eph. 6:10-18; Jas. 4:7, 1Pe. 5:8-9).

In the book of Genesis the Story of Redemption is carried forward in the following prophetic references to Messiah, as follows: (1) He would be the Seed of the Woman (Gen. 3:14-15, Mat. 1:18-23, Luk. 1:26-28, Gal. 4:4-5); (2) He would ultimately triumph over the Old Serpent, the Devil (Gen. 3:14-15, Heb. 2:14-15; Rev. 12:10-12; Rev. 20:7-10); (3) He would be of the Seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, respectively (Gen. 12:3; Gen. 18:18; Gen. 22:18; Gen. 26:24; Act. 3:25-26; Gal. 3:16; Heb. 11:17-18); (4) He would be of the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:10; Psa. 2:6-9; Psa. 60:7; Heb. 7:14, Rev. 5:5). The very heart of the Abrahamic Promise was the promise of the Reign of Messiah, the Redeemer.

Generations

We have noted previously (Vol. I, pp. 4647) that the book of Genesis divides readily into ten sections, each introduced by the word toledoth, translated generations. (It must be recalled that this introductory term generations, refers always to that which follows and never to that which precedes, in time.) These are as follows: (1) the generations of the heavens and of the earth (chs. Gen. 2:4 to Gen. 4:26); (2) the generations of Adam (chs. Gen. 5:1 to Gen. 6:8); (3) the generations of Noah (chs. Gen. 6:9 to Gen. 9:29); (4) the generations of the sons of Noah (chs. Gen. 10:1 to Gen. 11:9); (5) the generations of Shem (ch. Gen. 11:10-26); (6) the generations of Terah (chs. Gen. 11:27 to Gen. 25:11); (7) the generations of Ishmael (ch. Gen. 25:12-18); (8) the generations of Isaac (chs. Gen. 25:19 to Gen. 35:29); (9) the generations of Esau (ch. 36); (10) the generations of Jacob (chs. Gen. 37:2 to Gen. 50:26). It will be noted that according to this schema the story is carried forward to the account of the death and burial of Abraham. The reason for this is, no doubt, the fact that Abraham is the chief character throughout: all that is told us about Terah, Nahor, Haran, Lot (the son of Haran), and Rebekah (the granddaughter of Nahor), is recorded only as the events in which these persons were involved are of significance in relation to the life of Abraham. It should be noted that the genealogical progression here follows the pattern set for the Generations of Noah (Gen. 6:10), namely, that as the latter began with the naming of his sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, so the Generations of Terah are introduuced by the names of his three sons, Abram, Nahor, and Haran. There is a kind of symmetry about these genealogical tables that is most interesting. Furthermore, the Call of Abraham (Gen. 12:1) is related to the prophetic promise regarding Shem (Gen. 9:26); indeed it is the beginning of the fulfilment of that promise.

The Progeny of Eber

This name becomes rather important in relation to the Semitic genealogical table. Eber is presented therein as the great-grandson of Shem, who at the age of thirty-four became the father of Peleg (Gen. 11:16, cf. 1Ch. 1:18), and later of other sons and daughters, one of whom was Joktan (Gen. 10:21; Gen. 10:25). His total life span was 464 years (Gen. 11:16). It seems that Eber was the progenitor of a large segment of the Arabs of Arabia through Joktan (present-day Arabian tribes insist that pure Arabs descended from Joktan, and many are still known as children of Joktan), and of the Hebrews through Peleg (as the Table expressly asserts).

There can be little doubt, however, that some correlation exists between the name Eber and the word Hebrew, Eber means one who passes over. It is interesting to note that the name Habiru or Hapiru (those who cross over) is used, apparently, throughout the archeological archives of the ancient Near East to designate Semitic nomads. (Note that the name Arab apparently is a dialectical variant for Eber, and hence may have come to distinguish the wandering tribes who descended through Joktan from those who descended through Peleg and who lived semi-sedentary lives on irrigated lands). These Habiru or Hapiru appeared in various parts of the Fertile Crescent in the second millennium B.C. They appeared at Larsa, Babylon, Mari, Alalakh, Nuzi, Boghazkoy, Ugarit, and even at Amarna in Egypt. In these records they are almost uniformly described as restless nomadic people. At Mari they operated as bands of semi-nomads. In the Amarna letters they are portrayed as lawless gangs who were joined by oppressed urban peoples in attacks on the established cities. Some hold that the name Habiru may have designated a social caste rather than an ethnic group.

Be this as it may, the consensus is, overwhelmingly, that from the eponym Eber came the name Hebrew as used in the Bible as a patronymic for Abraham and his seed. In this connection an excellent discussion of the name Hebrew and its relation to the name Israelite may be found in Fairbairns Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. III, p. 66. The article is by Duncan H. Weir. It goes substantially as follows: Herbrew, according to this writer, was a name of wider import at least in its earlier use, Every Israelite was a Hebrew, but every Hebrew was not an Israelite. In Gen. 15:13 Abraham the Hebrew is mentioned along with Mamre the Amorite. In Gen. 39:14; Gen. 40:15; Gen. 41:12 Joseph is spoken of as a Hebrew and the land of Palestine as the land of the Hebrews. In Gen. 10:21, Shem is called the father of all the children of Eber or Hebrews. In Num. 24:24, it is not probable that by Eber, who is mentioned along with Asshur, the children of Israel, and they only, are meant. After the conquest of Palestine by the Israelites the name Hebrew was no longer used with its original latitude. When it is used in preference to Israelite, there is always a reference to the foreign relations of Israel. It is used (1) by foreigners (Exo. 1:16; Exo. 2:7; 1Sa. 4:6-9; 1Sa. 14:11, etc.); (2)by Israelites when addressing foreigners (Exo. 2:7; Exo. 3:18; Jon. 1:9); (3) when Israelites are opposed to foreign nations (Gen. 40:15; Gen. 43:32; Exo. 2:11; Exo. 21:2; Deu. 15:12; Jer. 34:9; Jer. 34:14). (1Sa. 13:3 seems to be an exception). Hebrew was the international designation, Israelite the local and domestic name, the family name, if we may so speak, surrounded with all the sacredness of home associations, and thus having attached to it a spiritual import which never was and never could be associated with the name Hebrew. Greek and Roman writers seem to have known nothing of the name Israelite. Hebrew and Jew are the names they employed. The name Hebrew is comparatively rare, even in the Old Testament, being found there only 32 times. The word never occurs in what we call Hebrew poetry. No Hebrew prophet ever prophecies of the Hebrews. (Found only in the story of Jon. 1:9 and in Jer. 34:9; Jer. 34:14, where the Pentateuch is quoted. Hebrew is not met with after the accession of David. The reason is obvious: Hebrew is the name which linked the descendants of Jacob with the nations; Israel the name which separated them from the nations. In latter times, about the beginning of the Christian era, the use of the name Hebrew as an ancient and venerable name was revived (Act. 6:2, 2Co. 11:22, Php. 3:5). There is disparity of this opinionthis author goes on to say-regarding the origin of the name Hebrew, whether as patronymic from Eber or Heber, or as an appellation from the term Hebrew as designating an immigrant from beyond, that is, from beyond the river Euphrates. The two opinions are not necessarily incompatible. Indeed the name may have been prophetic, thus including a pre-intimation of the migratory tendencies and life of his (Ebers) posterity.

Perhaps it should be noted here that the name Jew came to be used to designate an inhabitant of the kingdom and land of Judah. It seems to have originated during and after the Captivity. It was commonly used by non-Jews to refer to the Hebrews, or descendants of Abraham in general. In Jer. 34:9, Jew is used to explain Hebrew. (See Jeremiah, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Daniel). It is also used to describe the local Semitic dialect spoken in Judah (Jews language, 2Ki. 18:26; 2Ki. 18:28; Isa. 36:11; Isa. 36:13; Neh. 13:24). Similarly, in the A.V., Jewry stands for Judah (Dan. 5:13, Luk. 23:5, Joh. 7:1). By New Testament times the plural form Jews had become a familiar term for all Israelites. Note the feminine Jewess in 1Ch. 4:18; Act. 16:1; Act. 24:24; also the adjective Jewish in Gal. 2:14 (Gr.), Tit. 1:14.

The Patriarchal Dispensation

The name patriarch (from the Greek patriarches, father rule) occurs only in the New Testament, and is given only to the heads or princes of the family group, with reference particularly to those who lived before the time of Moses. The family included, as a rule, some three or four generations, and with increase in number gradually developed into the tribe. (The Apostles reference to the patriarch David (Act. 2:29) seems to be a recognition of Davids primacy as the head of the monarchy. The Davidic reign was always held by the people of Israel to be the most glorious period of their history. The city of Jerusalem is repeatedly designated the city of David in the Old Testament historical books: cf. 2Sa. 6:10, 1Ki. 2:10, 1Ch. 11:7, 2Ch. 9:31, etc., cf. Luk. 2:4; Luk. 2:11. Note also Psa. 48:2 and the Messianic prophecy, Isa. 9:6-7; also the words of Jesus, Mat. 5:35, nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.) (Note that Abraham, the patriarch is said to have paid tithes to Melchizedek, Heb. 7:4; also that the twelve patriarchs of Stephens apologia, were the progenitors of the twelve tribes of Jacob or Israel, Act. 7:8-9.)

The New Testament word dispensation (Gr. oikonomia, household management, whence our English term, economy) may also be rendered stewardship. (Eph. 1:10; Eph. 3:2; Col. 1:25). In these Scriptures it is God Himself who is regarded as Steward. Steward of what? Of the gracious favors which he bestows upon His people, the sheep of His pasture. (In 1Co. 9:17, the Apostle Paul, in defending his apostleship, declares Himself to have been entrusted with this Divine stewardship, the stewardship of the Gospel: cf. 1Co. 2:2, Gal. 1:6-17). The modus operandi (system) of this Divine stewardship has been actualized and revealed in three successive Dispensations. Hence, in harmony with the essential elements of Biblical religion (altar, sacrifice, and priesthood) it will be noted that Dispensations changed as the successive priesthoods were changed. The Patriarchal Dispensation, extending, from Adam to Moses, was the period in which the father acted as priest (mediator) for his entire household (his living progeny). Throughout this Dispensation, God revealed His laws, established His institutions, and dispensed the benefits and blessings of His grace, through the fathers or heads of families, who were known as patriarchs. When the respective families had grown into tribes, this Dispensation gave way to the Mosaic or Jewish Dispensation. This occurred with the giving of the Law at Sinai through the mediatorship of Moses. Here the Abrahamic Covenant was enlarged into the Sinaitic Covenant, the Patriarchal priesthood was abrogated and the Aaronic or Levitical priesthood was instituted. This, which was essentially a national covenant with a national priesthood, continued in force to the death of Christ at Calvary. By the shedding of His blood, He abrogated the Old Covenant and its Dispensations, and at the same time ratified the New Covenant and instituted the Christian Dispensation. At this time the old Levitical national priesthood gave way to the universal priesthood of the saints. Under this New Covenant all Christians are priests unto God and Christ Himself is their sole Mediator and High Priest. (Cf. Exo. chs. 28, 29, 30; Lev. chs. 8, 9; Heb. chs. 7, 8, 9, 10; Rom. 12:1, Heb. 13:15, 1Ti. 2:5; 1Pe. 2:5; 1Pe. 2:9; Rev. 1:6; Rev. 5:10; Rev. 20:6; Rev. 22:17, etc.) The Patriarchal Dispensation was essentially the age of the Father, the Jewish Dispensation the age of the Son, and the present Christian Dispensation is the age of the Spirit who came on Pentecost to incorporate the Body of Christ and to dwell therein unto the time of the Glorious Consummation (Joh. 7:39; Joh. 14:16-17; Joh. 15:26-27; Joh. 16:7-12, Act. 1:9-11, 1Th. 4:13-18, 2Th. 1:7-10, Php. 2:5-11, 1Co. 15:20-28, etc.)

The Generations of Terah (Gen. 11:27-32)

Let us keep in mind the fact that this introductory term, toledoth, generations, refers always to that which follows, and never to that which precedes, in time.

27 Now these are the generations of Terah. Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot. 28 And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees. 29 And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abrams wife was Sarai;and the name of Nahors wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah, 30 and Sarai was barren; she had no child. 31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran, his sons son, and Sarae his daughter-in-law, his son Abrams wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there. 32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.

The Migration From Ur to Haran

(1) Having traced the descendants of Eber down to Nahor, now the Messianic genealogy is narrowed down specifically from the generic to the ethnic (chosen) seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15), namely the posterity of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exo. 3:6; Exo. 15:16; Mat. 22:32, Mar. 12:26, Luk. 20:37; Act. 3:13; Act. 7:32). (Note Terahs name in the Lineage as given by Luke (Luk. 3:34). Note also that Matthew introduces the Line with Abraham, obviously because Matthews primary objective was to present Jesus as Messiah identified by Old Testament prophecy, hence his oft-recurring clause, that it might be fulfilled, as first used in Mat. 1:22-23). (2) It should be noted, too, that the Line is given in more detail at this point with the view to introducing the two parents, Abram and Sarai whose names are changed later to Abraham and Sarah (Gen. 17:5; Gen. 17:15from Abram, exalted father, to Abraham, father of a multitude; from Sarai, my princess, to Sarah, princess: according to Gesenius, whereas formerly she was Abrams princess only, she was now to become princess in a more exalted sense, princess of a people: the name indicates she was a woman of some social standing). EG, Vol. I, 399: Sarai, according to its root, cannot be the same as Sharra and so related to Sharratu, the goddess of Charran, the wife of the moon-god Sin. Such efforts to make historical personages identical with mythological figures degrade Biblical history. (3) This section also introduces Nahor (cf. 1Ch. 1:26), Rebekahs grandfather (Gen. 24:24), and Lot, the ancestor of the Moabites and the Ammonites (Gen. 19:30-31). (4) Note also Abrahams explanation (Gen. 20:12) that Sarah was his half-sister (his fathers daughter, but not the daughter of his mother). Despite some fantastic conjectures as to the meaning of this statement, the most likely explanation is that of the text itself, meaning that she was Terahs daughter by another wife than Abrahams mother. It should be noted that Milcah, the wife of Nahor and mother of Bethuel, was Nahors niece (Gen. 11:29; Gen. 22:20-23; Gen. 24:15; Gen. 24:24; Gen. 24:47). Again, if Sarai was daughter of the father of whom Abram was son, she could not have been identified with Iscah for the simple reason that Iscahs father, we are told expressly, was Haran. Marriage with a half-sister or niece was forbidden later by the Mosaic Code (Lev. 18:6-18). Leupold (EG, I, 399): We dare not judge relations such as thesewhich would now be properly termed incestuousaccording to the standards of the present time. As long as it pleased God to let the human race descend from one pair, it must be conceded that for a time marriage between brothers and sisters was a necessity. It may well have taken quite a time before a sense of the impropriety of such a relation arose (cf. Act. 17:30). (Father-daughter, mother-son, brother-sister sexual relationships are radically different from the type of affection on which the conjugal union is based, and hence can hardly become the bases on which domestic society is constructed. The overwhelming testimony of anthropology is that incest was frowned upon very early in the history of man, or even prohibited outright, by human societies generally, whether primitive, prehistoric, or historic.) It should be noted here that Iscah never appears again in the Biblical story.

(5) It is most significant that to Sarahs barrenness, which was to figure prominently in the story of the chosen seed, attention is drawn emphatically at this point, by the parallel statement, she had no children. This is the first intimation of the birth of the Child of Promise, which, like the conception and birth of Jesus from the virgin womb of Mary, was surely an event outside the course of what we call the operations of nature.

(6) Terah lived seventy years and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran. The order of the sons names as given here parallels that of the sons of Noah (Gen. 6:10). It is prophetic in the sense that it is not the order in time, but in the relative eminence to be accorded them in the history of redemption. From this latter point of view, the name of Abram necessarily came first because it was at this point that all facets of the Biblical motif converged upon him. That Haran was the eldest of the three sons seems evident from the fact that Nahor married his daughter. That Abram was the youngest seems equally obvious from the rather clear indication that he was born sixty years after the date given for the actualization of Terahs paternity (70 years), and that he was seventy-five years old when his father died in Haran at the age of 205. (Cf. Gen. 11:26, Gen. 11:32, Gen. 12:4). The problem involved here is that of determining whether Abram was born when Terah was 70 years old or when he was 130 years old.

(7) The first stage of the migrationthe pilgrimage to the Promised Landis described in the section quoted above (Gen. 11:27-32). This was the journey from Ur in Lower Mesopotamia, near the head of the Persian Gulf, northward about 600 miles through the Fertile Crescent to Haran (also known as Charran) in Northwest Mesopotamia, in the heart of what was at a later time the kingdom of the Mitanni (of the Hurrians or Biblical Horites, Gen. 14:6; Gen. 36:30). Haran was the chief city of the region which came to be known as Padan-Aram, the field of Aram (Gen. 25:20). Aram was the old name of Syria and, Mesopotamia; sometimes, however, the name was used for Syria alone (cf. Gen. 25:20; Gen. 28:5; Gen. 31:20; Gen. 31:24; Deu. 26:5; in all these passages the word Syrian as used in KJV and ASV is Aramean in the Hebrew, and is so rendered in the RSV). Cornfeld (AtD, 49): The general location of Haran has never been lost and a town by this name still exists on the Balikh, a tributary of the Euphrates. . . . Hebrew tradition considered Abrams kinsmen in Mesopotamia as nomadic Arameans. This is how they are called in the subsequent stories of Genesis and in Deu. 26:5.

(8) The chronological problem here is rather involved. Thus writes Speiser (ABG, 79): The Samaritan version gives Terah a total of only 145 years (cf. Act. 7:4). On this reckoning the year of Terahs death would be the same as that of Abrahams departure from Haran (cf. Gen. 12:4). Whitelaw presents the case with considerable clarity as follows (PCG, 175176): And they came into Haran . . . and dwelt there. Probably in consequence of the growing infirmity of Terah, the period of their sojourn being differently computed according as Abram is regarded as having been born in Terahs 70th or 130th year. . . . And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years So that if Abram was born in Terahs 70th year, Terah must have been 145 when Abram left Haran, and must have survived that departure sixty years (Kalisch, Dykes) ; whereas if Abram was born in his fathers 130th year, then Terah must have died before his sons departure from Haran, which agrees with Act. 7:4). Cf. Jamieson (CECG, 127): It appears that Terah did not acquire the paternal character till the reached the age of seventy, and that although in the enumeration of his sons, Abram, like Shem (ch. Gen. 5:32, Gen. 6:10, Gen. 7:13), is, from his great eminence, mentioned first, he was not the eldest of the family. That honor belonged not to him, but to Haran (Gen. 11:29) ; and Abram, who seems to have been the youngest son, was not born till sixty years after: for by comparing Gen. 11:32 with ch. Gen. 12:4, and subtracting 75 from 205, Terah must have been one hundred and thirty years old at Abrams birth. This is the explanation given by Chrysostom amongst the Fathers, Calvin and Musculus amongst the Reformers, Usher, Clinton, and others in later times, of a very perplexing difficulty; and it seems to be in accordance with the Scripture (see on Gen. 11:32), although it makes Abrams exclamation of surprise (ch. Gen. 17:17) at the announcement of his own paternity at a less advanced age than Terahs not a little remarkable. Again, on Gen. 11:32, Jamieson says: This has long been regarded as a difficulty, for the solution of which various explanations have been offered, but all of them are unsatisfactory; and certainly it would be an insuperable difficulty if Abram were the eldest son, born in his fathers seventieth year; for adding 70 to 75, Abrams age on his departure out of Haran, would make Terahs age only one hundred and forty-five years, the number assigned for it in the Samaritan Pentateuch. But according to the exposition given above of Gen. 11:26, together with the asserted brevity of the sojourn at Haran, which, though an hypothesis, meets all the conditions of the narrative, all difficulties are removed: for 130 plus 75 equals 205 years, Terahs age when he died. J. W. Charley (NBD, 1253): Terah emigrated from Ur of the Chaldees and settled in Harran, where he died long after Abrams departure (Act. 7:4 is an oral slip). (To the present author, this appears to be a very dogmatic statement and one without any supporting evidence: as a matter of fact, Stephens testimony in Act. 7:4 is not to be dismissed so lightly, for the simple reason that the teaching of the Bible as a whole, on any controverted question, is to be preferredon the ground of its greater reliabilityabove the exegesis of any particular section per se.) Again, as a matter of fact, Why should not the names of Shem and Abram appear first in these enumerations? Did they not play pre-eminent roles in the actualization of the Messianic Development, and hence of the Plan of Redemption? And is not this Development the over-all theme of the Bible from the beginning to the end? Note this comment from JB, p. 27, on Gen. 11:32, as to Terahs age at death: Only 145 according to the Samaritan Pentateuch; this would mean that Abraham left Haran only when his father died (cf. Gen. 11:26, Gen. 12:4, and Act. 7:4). Note this final summation to Haley (ADB, 392393): In the twenty-sixth verse Abraham may be mentioned first, simply on account of his theocratic importance; as Moses is usually named before Aaron, who was the elder. So that Abraham may have been the youngest son, born when Terah was 130 years old. It would then follow that Abraham left Haran at the age of 75, his father having previously died at the age of 205 years. This removes the difficulty. Some Jewish interpreters, however, think that Abraham actually left Haran sixty years before his fathers death. On this theory, Stephen, in asserting that Abraham left after his fathers death, simply followed the then commonly received, though inaccurate, chronology. So Ewald, Keil, Kurtz, Lange, Murphy, and others. The Graf-Wellhausen (Composite, Documentary) Theory of the Pentateuch would have us try to find the solution of these troublesome problems of time and place in the history of ancient Israel by attributing the verses and parts of verses involved to alleged different sources (Codes), intervening redactors, etc. Unfortunately, the result is what might properly be designated analytical chaos, a rather common phenomenon of the Teutonic mentality. The simple fact is that the critics are unable to reach any notable measure of agreement among themselves as to the identity and proper allocation of these alleged sources. This entire complex theory depends on internal evidence alone; it lacks any convincing measure of support by external evidence of any kind, and in the final analysis must be labeled a crazy quilt of academic conjecture.

(9) Eminent Jewish authorities inform us that tribal movements southward into Babylonia have always occurred annually and continue to do so in our own time. It is quite probable that Abrahams patriarchal ancestors followed the nomadic life and were themselves accustomed to making these migrations. Kraeling, for example, writes (BA, 5 556): Where the migration account begins in Gen. 11:31 f., we find Terah in the territory of Ur of the Chaldees or Chaldeans. Since all the family names point to Mesopotamia we may imagine Terah and his sons as nomads who had previously traveled to Chaldea from their northern home before the story of their further migrations opens. Such a southward movement of tribesmen from Mesopotamia to Babylonia takes place annually to this day. Mesopotamian winters are hard, and so the Bedouin go down to pasture their flocks in the Babylonian area during that season . . . In times when there was no strong government these nomads were wont to rob the farming population en route or levy on it at will. Again: The Terah clan was certainly only a sojourner in the Ur vicinity, lingering there by treaty or agreement with the local authorities. Their sheep or goats would not have been permitted to invade these well-irrigated, fertile lands on which the life of Ur depended. From afar these shepherds, however, could see the mighty ziggurat or tower of the citytoday the best-preserved ziggurat of Babylonialike a great landmark (cf. Gen. 11:3), and it may have made them feel at home that the god Nannar or Sin, the moon-god who was so prominently worshiped at Haran, was revered there also.

(10) What prompted Terah to make the movement northward? (a) Was it just the customary return to the north characteristic of the nomads? If so, it was only a return to familiar territory. Religiously both Ur and Haran had much in common, especially in the fact that both were centers of the worship of the moon-god Sin. It is significant, it would seem, that the descendants of Nahor, Abrahams brother, elected to settle permanently in Haran; that to this region Abraham later sent his servant Eliezer to seek a bride for his son Isaac; that here Jacob married Leah and Rachel, the daughters of Laban the Aramean, and that from this region he fled to escape the wrath of his brother Esau. (b) Or, was it the death of Haran in the territory of Ur that provided the impetus for this migration? (c) Or, was the first move made with the ultimate goal in mind of the journey all the way to the Land of Promise? This suggestion would necessarily imply that Terah was cognizant of the Call of Abram, and that this was the first step in the projected Abrahamic pilgrimage. Some authorities hold that Terah sought to make the long trek to the Promised Land in the anticipation of sharing the inheritance which had been promised to Abram and his seed: a point not beyond the range of probability. At any rate, the journey was interrupted for a time by the stop-over at Haran. As noted above, some authorities think that Terah died in Haran long after Abrams departure.

(11) The influence of paganism seems already to have corrupted Abrams ancestry. It is explicitly stated, on Divine authority, in Joshuas farewell address, that the fathersand Terah is mentioned specificallyserved other gods (Jos. 24:2). This fact is corroborated by the evidence that Laban was wont to make some ritual or magical use of teraphim (Gen. 31:19; Gen. 31:30-32). This passage indicates that these were small objects (figurines), but 1Sa. 19:13-16 suggests a life-size figure or bust (perhaps, however, Michal in this instance placed the teraphim beside rather than in the bed). (Corruption with paganism is also indicated by the pairing of the ephod and the teraphim in the idolatrous cult of Micah (Jdg. 18:14-20). At any rate, when these objects are mentioned they are always condemned (cf. Judg., chs. 17, 18; 1Sa. 15:23; 1Sa. 19:13-16; 2Ki. 23:24 [in this passage they are categorized as abominations]; Hos. 3:4). They are frequently directly associated with divination (by chance drawing from a quiver of arrows, belomanteia, or by hepatoscopy: see Eze. 21:21, Zec. 10:2, 2Ki. 23:24). Considering the environment in which they had been sojourning, one might well say, for centuries, no great difficulty is encountered in accepting as true the fact that Abrams ancestral family had drifted into the corruption of their original faith (monotheism) with pagan superstitions. History testifies to the fact that this deterioration of original idealism has repeated itself again and again on contact with degrading social pressures. It is a prime characteristic of our common human depravity. The wonder of it all is that out of the depth of this environmental background there emerged one who was destined to prove himself to be the Friend of God (2Ch. 20:7, Isa. 41:8, Jas. 2:23) and the Father of the Faithful (Gal. 3:9; Gal. 3:27-29; Rom. 5:16). (It should be noted here that sorcerydefined as the attempt to influence events and people by occult meanswas punishable by stoning to death under the Old Covenant (Exo. 22:18; Lev. 20:6; Lev. 20:27; Deu. 18:10; cf. Exo. 7:11, 1Sa. 28:3-19, Jer. 27:9-10 : under the New Covenant it is a sin that will damn the soul [1Co. 10:19-23, Gal. 5:20, Rev. 21:8; Rev. 22:15; cf. Luk. 16:27-31; Act. 13:8-12; Act. 16:16-18]. In fact, throughout the Bible, all forms of occultism are regarded as of diabolical origin.) This drift into pagan idolatry by Abrams ancestry becomes all the more understandable when we take into consideration the fact, abundantly proved by archeological discoveries, that both Haran and Ur were the prominent centers of the worship of the moon-god Sin. Simpson (IBG, 568): In the, pantheon of Haran, Sharratu was the title of the moon-goddess, the consort of Sin, Malkatu a title of Ishtar, also worshiped there. Under Ur, Wiseman writes (NBD, 1305): The history and economy of the city is well known from thousands of inscribed tablets and the many buildings found at the site. The principal deity was Nannar (Semitic Sin or Suen), who was also worshiped at Harran. Smith-Fields (OTH, 64) on Ur: While its culture was amazing, its religion had degenerated into the deepest idolatry and superstition. It was necessary that the chosen family should separate themselves from this contaminating environment until Gods provisions for the salvation of the whole world were ready to be proclaimed. To what extent Abram himself was affected by this pagan environment, and by the tendency of his forebears to yield to it, partially at least, we do not know. We feel justified, however, from the story of the life of Abraham as a whole, in believing that to this great man of faith it must have been irksome probably to the point of utter disgust.

(12) The Cult of Fertility. The teraphim mentioned above are said to have been small objects (figurines), probably images of gods or goddesses undoubtedly suggestive of the Cult of Fertility which dominated the religious theory and ritual of the ancient pagan world. This Cult was characterized by ritual prostitution, phallic worship, and all kinds of sex perversion. Nearly all of the non-Hebrew peoples made a fetish of any object that might represent the reproductive powers of living things. Permeating this Cult was the motifon the basis of sympathetic (homeopathic) magicthat human coition of male and female enhanced the fertility of the soil. (This explains why many of these practices are categorized as vegetative or agricultural rites and festivals). Hence the veneration given to bulls and snakes (species reputedly noted for their powers of procreation) in many areas, particularly in Crete. In recent times archaeologists have dug up in Mediterranean lands, and in Crete in particular, which seems to have been one of the chief centers of diffusion of this Fertility Cult, hundreds of so-called Venus figurines, figurines or idols of pregnant women. The most prominent feature of this Cult was the worship of the Earth-Mother, along with that of the Sun-Father: this practice seems to have been nearly universal, except of course among the Hebrews who were constantly exposed to it and finally in some measure succombed to it. In Babylonia, Terra Mater was known as Ishtar; in Egypt, her name was Isis; in Syria, Atargatis; in Phrygia, Cybele; among the Germanic tribes, Oestra; in Phoenicia, Astarte; in Canaan, Ashtoreth, etc. The Sun-Father in Egypt was at first the great god Re (at Heliopolis), and later Aton of the reformatory effort of the Pharaoh Ikhnaton; in the Sanskrit, he was known as Dyaus Pitar, that is, father of light; in Greece he became Zeus pater, and in Rome, Iuppiter. In every instance ritual prostitution in the name of religion was a prominent phase of the worship of these goddesses: in their temples thousands of priestesses were dedicated to this form of sanctified harlotry. Phallic worship (veneration of icons of the male reproductive organs) was equally widespread; in various localities, it was an integral part of the worship of Apollo, Artemis (the Roman Diana), Demeter, and especially of that of Dionysos (Bacchus, in Latin). In most of the festivals of ancient Greece, including even those of the athletic games, there was this undercurrent of eroticism present. Replicas of the phallus, even as late as the so-called Enlightenment, were carried through the streets of many of the Greek cities in solemn processions. As Dr. Will Durant has written: The phallus, symbol of fertility, was frankly honored by crowds of men and women. It is interesting to note also that, at the same time, homosexuality was rampant, in all circles of society. So-called orgiastic religion was invariably characterized by wanton dances, gross erotic practices, and all forms of sex perversion. (See the Bacchae of Euripides. Incidentally, this correlation of orgiastic religious frenzy with sexual excess is the element of truth in Sinclair Lewis novel, Elmer Gantry; Otherwise, the book is an utter travesty in its implied treatment of Biblical evangelism,) This Cult of Fertility became a prominent phase of the Roman state religion, with the coming in of the Empire: indeed the Saturnalia was a time of generally uninhibited sexual promiscuity. (Cf. Pauls enumeration of the vices and sins of the Gentile world, in Rom. 1:18-32; also the Old Testament story of the conflict between Jezebel and the prophet Elijah, in 1 Kings, chs. 18, 19, 21, and 2 Kings, ch. 2Ki. 9:30-37; cf. Rev. 2:20). (A word of caution at this point: as an established custom the year round there is no evidence that any people, primitive, prehistoric, or historic, ever practised complete sexual promiscuity.)

(13) Ur of the Chaldees (Gen. 11:28; Gen. 11:31). The text clearly indicates that the first stage of the migration was from Ur to Haran. It was in Haran that Terah died, and from Haran that Abraham went forth on his divinely commissioned pilgrimage (he went out, not knowing whither he went, Heb. 11:8). It was in Haran that Nahor settled, influenced probably by the fertility of the land and exercising the perogative of a first choice (cf. again Gen. 31:19; Gen. 31:30-32). And, as noted above, from Gen. 31:19; Gen. 31:30-32, we must conclude that his descendants perpetuated some of the idolatry to which Terah and his generation had become addicted (cf. Jos. 24:2). On Jos. 24:2, Lias (PCS, 349) comments as follows: The Rabbinic tradition has great probability in it, that Abraham was driven out of his native country for refusing to worship idols. . . . No doubt his great and pure soul had learned to abhor the idolatrous and cruel worship of his countrymen. By inward struggles, perhaps by the vague survival of the simpler and truer faith which has been held to underlie every polytheistic system, he had reached a purer air, and learned to adore the One True God. His family were led to embrace his doctrines, and they left their native land with him. But Haran, with its star-worship, was no resting-place for him, So he journeyed on westward, leaving the society of man, and preserving himself from temptation by his nomad life. No wandering Bedouin, as some would have us believe, but a prince, on equal terms with Abimelech and Pharaoh, and capable of overthrowing the mighty conqueror of Elam. Such an example might well be. brought to the memory of his descendants [that is, through Joshua], who were now to be sojourners in the land promised to their father. Guided by conscience alone, with every external influence against him, he had worshiped the true God in that land. No better argument could be offered to his descendants, when settled in that same land, and about to be bereft of that valuable support which they had derived from the life and influence of Joshua.

(14) Is there a time problem here, that is, in relation to the Mosaic authorship? It is said that the ancient and renowned city of Ur is never ascribed expressly, in the many thousands of cuneiform records from that site, to the Chaldean branch of the Aramean group, that, moreover, the Chaldeans were late arrivals in Mesopotamia, and could not possibly be dated before the end of the second millenium. (But, cf. Act. 7:4, Neh. 9:7, Gen. 15:7in this last-named reference it is Jehovah Himself who is represented as reemphasizing the fact, to Abraham, that He had brought the. patriarch out of Ur of the Chaldees.) As a matter of fact, no one seems to know precisely when the Aramean peoples began to penetrate the Mesopotamian, region. The question here is: Had the Chaldean branch come to be known as dwelling in the vicinity of Ur as far back as in the time of Moses. The best archaeological evidence seems to indicate that they were in possession of some parts of the land known as Lower Mesopotamia as early as 1200 or 1100 B.C., a date but little later than that indicated for the time of Moses. Moreover, the chronology of both the third and second millenniums of Mesopotamian history can hardly be described as more than approximate: its lack of preciseness certainly does not permit dogmatic conclusions. On this subject, Speiser writes as follows (ABG, 8081): How then did such an anachronism originate? Any explanation is bound to be tenuous and purely conjectural. With these reservations, the following possibility may be hazarded. Both Ur and Haran were centers of moon worship, unrivaled in this respect by any other Mesopotamian city. It is remotely possible, therefore, that this religious distinction, which was peculiar to Ur and Haran, caused the two cities to be bracketed together, and then to be telescoped in later versions, at a time when the Chaldeans had already gained prominence. At all events, the correction required affects only incidental passages that are not more than marginal footnotes to the history of the Patriarchs. That history starts at Haran (Gen. 12:5) as is evident from its very first episode. Murphy (MG, 256) writes as follows: In Ur of the Kasdim. The Kasdim, Cardi, Kurds, or Chaldees are not to be found in the table of nations. They have been generally supposed to be Shemites. This is favored by the residence of Abram among them, by the name Kesed, being a family name among his kindred (Gen. 22:22), and by the language commonly called Chaldee, which is a species of Aramaic. . . . The Chaldees were spread over a great extent of surface; but their most celebrated seat was Chaldea proper, or the land of Shinar. The inhabitants of the country seem to have been of mixed descent, being bound together by political rather than family ties. Nimrod, their centre of union, was a despot rather than a patriarch. The tongue of the Kaldees, whether pure or mixed, and whether Shemitic or not, is possibly distinct from the Aramaic, in which they addressed Nebuchadnezzar in the time of Daniel (Gen. 1:4, Gen. 2:4). The Kaldin at length lost their nationality, and merged into the caste or class of learned men or astrologers, into which a man might be admitted, not merely by being a Kaldai by birth, but by acquiring the language and learning of the Kasdim (Dan. 1:4, v:11). Cf. also Adam Clarke (CG, 39): The Chaldees mentioned here, had not this name in the time of which Moses speaks, but they were called so in the time in which Moses wrote. Chesed was the son of Nahor, the son of Terah, ch. Gen. 22:22. From Chesed descended the Chasdim, whose language was the same as that of the Amorites, Dan. 1:4; Dan. 2:4. These Chasdim, whence the Chaldaioi (Gr.), Chaldeans of the Septuagint, Vulgate, and all later versions, afterward settled on the south of the Euphrates. Those who dwelt in Ur were either priests or astronomers, Dan. 2:10, and also idolaters (Jos. 24:2-3; Jos. 24:14-15. And because they were much addicted to astronomy, and probably to judicial astrology, hence all astrologers were, in process of time, called Chaldeans (Dan. 2:2-5). There are others who think that the name Chaldea or Chaldee was applied to a people who were of a nomadic race originally, occupying the mountains where the Kurds are now found, and that the name was altered, through the interchange of letters, which was a common occurrence, into Chaldaioi by the Greeks. Rawlinson and others derive the name from Khaldi which in the old Armenian tongue denotes moon-worshipers. Ur of the Chaldees, then, they argue, was so named as a city dedicated to the moon (cf. Job. 31:26-28), in conformity with the Zabian idolatry that early prevailed in Chaldea.

It should be recalled, in this connection, that Mosaic authorship of Genesisand of the entire Pentateuchdoes not necessarily exclude (1) the use of both oral tradition and written sources by the great Lawgiver Himself (cf. Act. 7:22, Num. 21:14-15, Jos. 10:13, 2Sa. 1:18); (2) explanatory names, words, and phrases (interpolations) inserted by later scribes. To accept these statements as facts is not to downgrade in any respect the fundamental Mosaic origin and authority. It can hardly be denied that Moses was the one man of his own time most surely qualified to give us the greatest book of his time, that which we now recognize as the part of the Hebrew Scriptures which is designated the Torah. Nor is any necessity laid upon anyone to resort to a highly complex conjectural theory of Composite authorship, plus an undetermined number of unidentified and unidentifiable redactors to provide a solution for these problems. The problems themselves are relatively trivial, of the kind that usually attach to documents of historical interest extending into the ancient past. Cornfeld (AtD, 49) comments on this problem interestingly, as follows: Hebrew tradition does not ascribe a written record to Abraham but to Moses (we use the term tradition in the sense of what was handed down). It is fairly certain that the patriarchal narratives, for the most part, derive from oral traditions, many of which were written after the time of Moses. But such oral traditions of pre-literary times are not to be spurned. The reliability of transmission was assured by the incredible memories of the Orientals. Hermann Gunkel remarks that these traditions in Genesis break up into separate tales, each unit characterized by a few participants and the affairs of a few families, simple descriptions, laconic speech, all welded into big bold strokes of narration with artful use of suspense. This colorful and memorable mode of narration is a vehicle for family and tribal traditions especially suited to oral transmission. The extraordinary feature is that Hebrew memory had preserved such pre-literary traditions for more than a thousand years and set them down in writing so faithfully. (It will be noted that any special inspiration of the Spirit of God in the preservation and presentation of these traditions in the Old Testament Scriptures, is carefully ignored in the foregoing statements, even though repeatedly affirmed for these Scriptures by the Bible writers themselves; cf. 1Pe. 1:10-12, 2Pe. 1:21, 2Sa. 23:2, Act. 3:22-25). The whole Documentary Theory of the Pentateuch rests upon the basic assumption that the cultural background disclosed in the Biblical accounts of the Patriarchal Age reflect a milieu that would be appropriate only to a much later period, probably as much later as that of the Exile: as Wellhausen himself puts it: We attain to no historical knowledge of the patriarchs, but only of the time when the stories about them arose in the Israelite people; this latter age is here unconsciously projected, in its inner and in its outward features, into hoary antiquity, and is reflected there like a glorified image. This view is today thoroughly exploded by archeological evidence. For example, Muilenburg (IBG, 296) writes: Archaeology has revealed an extraordinary correspondence between the general social and cultural conditions portrayed in Genesis and those exposed by excavations. Discoveries from such sites as Nuzi, Mari, and elsewhere, provide the geographical, cultural, linguistic, and religious background against which the stories of the patriarchs are laid. (See my Genesis, Vol. I, pp. 5570).

The Patriarchal Narratives.

We have already taken note of Cornfelds suggestions as to the relation between the oral traditions of pre-literary times and the patriarchal narratives in Genesis. Several fantastic theories, conjectural to the point of absurdity, have been put forward in recent times as to the character of these narratives. Leupold (EG, 405409) has stated these views, and pointed up the fallacies in them with great clarity, as follows: Unfortunately, much confusion has been introduced into the subject of the lives of the patriarchs by certain untenable theories on the basis of which far-reaching reconstructions have been attempted. We shall list the major of these theories and indicate briefly how they do violence to the available evidence. . . . One more general mode of approach is that which roughly classifies all the historical material of Genesis as purely legendary. Dillman gives a somewhat naive statement of the case when he says: Nowadays, of course, everyone quite takes it for granted that all these tales about the fathers do not belong into the realm of strict history but into that of legend. Aside from the presumption which regards all the opponents of this view as nobodies, the Assumption prevails that Israel must in all respects be like other nations. If other nations had tales from their early history which were purely legendary, so must Israels record be, Aside from being a begging of the principle, critics of this stripe are ready to concede Israels distinct superiority in the :matter of religion. Why cannot the rest of the life of this people furnish material superior to that found in other nations.

One of the most popular methods of dealing with patriarchal history is to approach it on the basis of the so-called tribal theory (Stammtheorie). This theory assumes that the patriarchs were not actual historical characters but fictitious characters which are to serve to explain the origin of certain tribes. When Abram goes to Egypt, the tribe in reality went in its earlier days, etc. The patriarchs are eponymous characters to whom is ascribed what befell the tribe. The grain of truth involved in this theory is that, in reality, certain of the names mentioned in the Table of Nations, chapter ten, are tribal names and not names of persons. However, in such cases (Gen. 10:13-14; Gen. 10:16-18) tribal names are used (Amorite, Girgashite, etc.), and no attempt is made to make them appear as individuals. The claim by which the tribal theory is chiefly supported is that ethnology has no instances on record where nations descended from an individual, as, for example, Israel from Abram. However, on this score the Biblical records happen to have preserved facts which ethnology no longer has available. But how a nation may descend from an individual is traced step by step in the Biblical record.

Besides, the Genesis records in their detailed accounts bear too much of the stamp of records concerning characters of flesh and blood as we have it. Dillmann may make light of this fact and say: We need nowadays no longer prove that the wealth of picturesque details of the narrative is not in itself a proof of the historicity of the things narrated, but is, on the contrary; a characteristic mark of the legend. But though legends do usually abound in picturesque details, the things narrated in Genesis very evidently bear the stamp of sober truth. Christ and the apostles recognized the patriarchs as historical characters; cf. such remarks as Joh. 8:56 and the almost two dozen references of Christ to Abraham alone.

More farfetched than either of the two theories described thus far is the astral-myth theory. Briefly stated, it amounts to this: even as Greek mythology had certain tales by way of explanation of the origin of the signs of the zodiac, so did the Babylonians, and so, of necessity, must Israel. An illustration: Sarahs going down into Egypt as a sterile woman is the Israelitish way of stating the Babylonian myth of the descent of the goddess Ishtar into the underworld to receive the boon of fertility. Even though the story primarily tells of Abrams going into Egypt, and though Egypt has to be taken to signify the underworlda thing utterly without parallel in the Scripturesand even though Sarai must be interpreted to be an adaptation of the name of the Babylonian goddess Sharratu, the wife of the moon god, in spite of all these forms of unwarranted treatment of the text, the adherents of this theory fail to see its folly. We cannot but label such a theory as an attempt to discredit Scripture.

A fourth mode of misinterpreting the sacred narrative is the attempt to account for it on the basis of what we might term the Beduin-ideal theory. Briefly, this involves the notion that the writer or the writers of the patriarchal history were in reality setting forth the type of Beduin life as found in patriarchal times as an ideal for a later more civilized and more degenerate age. The writer is supposed to be enthusiastic for the Beduin type of life and to see in it the cure for the social ills of his time. So the Beduin religion is also set forth as an ideal of monotheistic religion. Incidentally, that utter simplicity supposed to be set forth by this type of life is hardly characteristic of the patriarchs, for already men like Abram are in possession of much goods and great wealth and are in a position to give rich gifts such as jewels to close friends or prospective wives.

In reading how Gunkel, an ardent advocate of the purely legendary or mythical theory, manipulates his theory, one is tempted to speak of still another theory, namely the theory which glorifies the clever pranks of the patriarchs. For in writing particularly of the devices employed by Jacob in taking advantage of Esau or of Laban, he writes as if the readers of these tales gloated over them as a humorous glorification of a crafty ancestor. On other occasions he writes with pitying disdain of the very crude and elementary conceptions of the deity held by these early writers. Again the effort to deflate the conception of the Scriptures is manifest, and a Biblical book is reduced to the level of a collection of amusing anecdotes.
(See my Genesis, Vol. I, pp. 5762, for a more detailed account of this academic nit-picking indulged by the analytical critics in their treatment of all ancient writings. As a matter of fact, archeology already has exploded these fabulous creationsmyths, if you pleaseof the seminarian mentality.)

Leupold goes on to discuss briefly erroneous conceptions of the patriarchal religion. He writes: Parallel with these faulty theories runs the erroneous conception of the patriarchal religion, Here again we may refer to prevalent theories. We shall do no more, however, than to list briefly the erroneous conceptions we are referring to. Prominent among these is the attitude which describes the early religion of Israel as totemism. This endeavors to prove that certain types of creatures were deemed sacred and were worshiped by certain tribes. Proof for this view is deduced, for example, in the case of Terah from the fact that his name may signify a type of mountain goat. This proof grows very top-heavy, when so elaborate a conclusion is built upon an accidental possibility.

A second equally grievous misconception is that which describes the religion of the patriarchs as ancestor worship. In proof of this, mention is made, for example, of the fact that certain graves are mentioned, like that of Deborah (Gen. 35:8) in connection with which an oak of weeping is referred to, or where, it is asserted, sacrifices to the dead were made. Nowhere are the statements found, however, that would actually prove that the spirits of the dead were thought of as gods. The whole conception is as shallow and as unscientific as it can be.

Then even fetishism has been attributed to the patriarchs. Israels religion is supposed to give indication that holy hills were reverenced as a fetish; so, too, fountains, trees, and stones. Yet even the unlearned will be able to detect quite readily that these strange reconstructions of the text must be read into the text in a manner which does violence to all sober and honest interpretation of the text. The thought lying behind all such attempts is, of course, this: since such lower levels of religion are seen on the part of many other nations, therefore they must be characteristic of Israels religion in its earlier stagesa faulty style of argument.

We may summarize all this, and refute forever the implications involved, by affirming the fact which the Biblical content emphasizes from beginning to end, namely, that God called the fleshly seed of Abraham out of the nations and put them in the pulpit of the world for the specific twofold purpose of preserving the knowledge of the living and true God and preparing mankind for the advent and ministry of His Son, Messiah. And even though they yielded at times to the temptation to adopt the coarse notions and licentious practices of their pagan neighbors, it must be admitted that they did accomplish the dual task to which God called them. Christians must never lose sight of the fact that their Godthe God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christis the very God who revealed Himself to Moses in the Sinai desert, and that for their knowledge of this Godthe one true Godthey are forever indebted to His ancient people, the Children of Israel. (Cf. Exo. 3:14, Deu. 6:4; Isa. 45:5; Isa. 46:9-11; Mat. 16:16; Joh. 3:16; Joh. 5:23; Eph. 1:3, 1Th. 1:9, etc.).

The Problem of Ur versus Haran

The fact has been emphasized in all three volumes of the present textbook on Genesis that any Scripture text must be interpreted, not only in relation to its immediate context, but also in its relation to the teaching of the Bible as a whole. Let it be emphasized again, at this point, that this is a norm which must be followed in order for one to arrive at any correct understanding of any segment of Scripture. In no area of the Biblical content is the application of this norm more necessary than in resolving the difficulty which commentators seem to manifest in trying to determine whether Gods call came to Abraham in Ur or in Haran: indeed some speculate that two calls may have been involved. Of course, the modus operandi of the analytical critics is to resort to the unproved hypothesis of separate Documentary sources. To the present writer, this seems wholly unnecessary, for the simple reason that other Scriptures alluding to the event resolve the apparent uncertainty. Clearly the Mosaic narrative does not even intimate the possibility of a call prior to that which is specified in Gen. 12:1. The entire Scripture tradition concurs in reporting that this first call came to Abraham in Ur. The language of Gen. 15:7 and Neh. 9:7 might be construed to be somewhat indefinite; however, all these passages certainly involve no disagreement with the positive statement of Stephen in Act. 7:2 to the effect that Gods first call to Abram came to him in Ur before he dwelt in Haran, and that pursuant to this call Abram came out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Haran, and from thence, when his father was dead, God removed him into this land wherein ye now dwell, that is, Canaan. It must be admitted that Stephens speech before the Sanhedrin bears the stamp of accuracy throughout. Of course there could have been a repetition of the Divine call in Haran after Terahs death, but any positive evidence of this is lacking in the Scripture story. It would seem that immediately after the death of Terah, Abram set forth on his long pilgrimage with his wife Sarai and his nephew Lot. The Divine call as stated in Gen. 12:1 was definitely a call to Abram to separate himself from his kindred, which may have had reference to Nahor or other members of Terahs household. Terah may well have had other offspring who are not mentioned because they had no subsequent interrelationships with Nahor, Bethuel and Laban, all three of whom are mentioned later in the patriarchal narratives (Gen. 22:20-23; Gen. 24:15; Gen. 25:20; Gen. 28:1-2). The Divine call was much more than a call to Abram to separate himself from his kindredit was a Divine call to separate himself from the idolatrous tendencies which had developed in Terahs household.

We may safely conclude, I think, that the Call to Abram for his pilgrimage of Faith was first made to him in Ur; that his father Terah and brother Nahor and their households, for whatever reason or reasons that may seem possible, accompanied him to Haran; that Abram lingered there until Terah died, at which time Nahor elected to remain in that region, but Abram set out for the Land of Promise with his wife Sarai and his nephew Lot. We are told explicitly that Abram was 75 years old when he entered upon this pilgrimage.

This was the second landmark in the progressive actualization of Gods Eternal Purpose, the first having been the pronouncement of the mysterious oracle of Gen. 3:15 in re the Seed of the Woman. It has been rightly stated that Abrams journey to the Promised Land was no routine expedition of several hundred miles, but the start of an epic voyage, of a quest that was to constitute the central theme of all biblical history. The third landmark in this actualization, as we know well, was the organization of the Israelite Theocracy at Sinai through the mediatorship of Moses (Joh. 1:17, Gal. 3:24-25, Col. 2:14, 2Co. 3:2-15, etc.).

REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PART TWENTY-FIVE

1.

What is the central theme of the Bible?

2.

How is redemption related to Gods Cosmic Plan?

3.

How and when will this Cosmic Plan be consummated ?

4.

What is the purpose of the Last Judgment?

5.

State the probable explanation of 1Co. 6:2-3.

6.

Explain in what sense Jesus is Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last.

7.

What do we mean by saying that God does not foreknow, but simply knows?

8.

Explain the mysterious oracle of Gen. 3:15.

9.

Show how the Scripture content is the record of the successive limitations of the meaning of the phrase, The Seed of the Woman.

10.

In whom is it finally and fully actualized?

11.

What significant role does the word generations have in the story of the patriarchs?

12.

What relation does this word have to the text material which follows it? What does it have to that which precedes it?

13.

What are the suggested origins of the word Hebrew?

14.

What are the suggested uses of the terms Hebrew and Israelite?

15.

What difference developed in the use of these terms in the later history of the Jews?

16.

How and when did the name Jew originate?

17.

Name the three Dispensations of Biblical history, and state the extent of each chronologically.

18.

By what were the changes of Dispensation determined?

19.

What is the meaning of the word dispensation?

20.

Summarize the generations of Terah as given in Gen. 11:27-32.

21.

How and when did the change from the generic seed to the ethnic seed of the Woman take place?

22.

What was the first stage of the pilgrimage to the Land of Promise?

23.

What type of pagan religion prevailed both in Ur and in Haran?

24.

What evidences do we have that Terahs house had become corrupted by pagan idolatry?

25.

What are our reasons for believing that Abram was Terahs yougest son?

26.

When and where did Haran die, in realtion to the migrations of Terah and Abram?

27.

What members of Terahs household remained in Haran and settled there?

28.

What was the region designated Padan-aram in Genesis?

29.

What subsequent events related in Genesis indicate continued intercourse between Abraham in Palestine and his relatives in the region of Haran?

30.

What kind of life did the members of Terahs house apparently live? Why are we justified in thinking that these patriarchs were accustomed to frequent migrations between Northern and Southern Mesopotamia?

31.

Explain the chief features of the ancient pagan Cult of Fertility.

32.

Where are the practices of this Cult alluded to especially in the New Testament?

33.

What was the name of the Earth-Mother in Babylon? In Phoenicia? In Syria? In Palestine? In Egypt?

34.

What was the principle of imitative magic which characterized this Cult?

35.

Explain the following practices: ritual prostitution, phallic worship, orgiastic religion, ecstatic religion.

36.

What was the Roman Saturnalia?

37.

What was the essential character of these ancient agricultural or fertility rites and festivals?

38.

What evidence do we have from archaeology that the cultural background portrayed in the book of Genesis, in the patriarchal narratives, is historically correct?

39.

Review the critical theories of the patriarchal narratives as given by Leupold and the objections to each of them.

40.

Discuss the chronological problem of the Abrahamic Pilgrimage in relation to the Mosaic authorship of the Torah. How may the problem be resolved?

41.

State clearly the problem of Ur and Haran in relation to the Call of Abram.

42.

For what especially are all Christians indebted to the ancient Children of Israel?

43.

How account for the fact that Children of Israel succeeded in large measure in resisting the inroads of the pagan Cult of Fertility?

44.

How old was Abram when he left Haran for the Land of Promise. Whom did he take with him?

PATRIARCHAL PERIODLIFE OF ABRAHAM TO AGE 99

THE LIFE AND JOURNEYS OF ABRAHAM

1.

Ur of the Chaldees; Gen. 11:27-31.

a.

Original call to Abram; Act. 7:2-3.

b.

Terahs migration; Gen. 11:27-31.

2.

Haran; Gen. 11:32 to Gen. 12:3.

a.

Death of Terah; Gen. 11:32.

b.

Second call to Abram; Gen. 12:1-3.

3.

Shechem; Gen. 12:4-7.

a.

First promise of land.

4.

Between Bethel and Ai; Gen. 12:8-9.

a.

Altar built.

5.

Egypt; Gen. 12:10-20.

a.

Lie about Sarai.

6.

Back at Bethel; Gen. 13:1-17.

a.

Separation from Lot.

7.

Hebron; Gen. 13:18 to Gen. 14:12.

a.

Invasion from the East.

8.

Dan; Gen. 14:13-16.

a.

Rescue of Lot.

9.

Returning to Hebron and at Hebron; Gen. 14:17 to Gen. 19:38.

a.

Meeting with King Sodom and Melchizedek; Gen. 14:17-24.

b.

Gods covenant with Abram; Ch. 15.

c.

Hagar and Ishmael; Ch. 16.

d.

Covenant of circumcision; Gen. 17:1-14.

e.

Promise of Isaac; Gen. 17:15-21.

f.

Circumcision of household; Gen. 17:22-27.

g.

Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; Chs. 1819.

10.

Gerar; Gen. 20:1 to Gen. 21:20.

a.

Lie about Sarah to Abimelech; Ch. 20.

b.

Birth of Isaac; Gen. 21:1-7.

c.

Removal of Hagar and Ishmael; Gen. 21:8-21.

11.

Beersheba; Gen. 21:22-34.

a.

Covenant of Abraham and Abimelech.

12.

Land of Moriah; Gen. 22:1-18.

a.

Offering of Isaac.

13.

Beersheba; Gen. 22:19-24.

a.

Abraham learns of Nahors family.

14.

Hebron; Ch. 23.

a.

Death and burial of Sarah.

15.

Beersheba; Gen. 24:1 to Gen. 25:8.

a.

Wife for Isaac; Ch. 24.

b.

Marriage to Keturah; Gen. 25:1-4.

c.

Last days of Abraham; Gen. 25:5-8.

16.

Hebron; Gen. 25:9-10.

a.

Burial of Abraham.

FAMILY OF TERAH

NOTES

a. The above information is taken from Gen. 11:27; Gen. 11:29; Gen. 19:37-38; Gen. 20:12; Gen. 22:20-24; Gen. 24:15; Gen. 28:2; Gen. 28:5.

b. A double line indicates a marriage.

c. Gen. 20:12 indicates that Sarai was half-sister to Abram. The language of this verse could indicate that she was Abrams niece, but the fact that there was but ten years difference between his age and hers (Gen. 17:17) renders this hypothesis less probable.

d. Tradition has identified Iscah with Sarai, Abrams wife, but there is no real basis for such a supposition.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

THE TLDTH TERAH.

(27) Now these are the generations.This tldth, which extends to Gen. 25:11, is one of the most interesting in the Book of Genesis, as it gives us the history of the patriarch Abraham, in whom God was pleased to lay the foundation of the interme diate dispensation and of the Jewish Church, by whose institutions and psalmists and prophets the light of true religion was to be maintained, and the way prepared for the coming of Christ. But though Abraham is the central figure, yet the narrative is called the Tldth Terah, just as the history of Joseph is called the Tldth Jacob (Gen. 37:2). The explanation of this is, not that we have in it the history of Lot, and of Moab and Ammon, which are mere subsidiary matters; but that it connects Abraham with the past, and shows that, through Terah and the tldth which ended in him, he was the representative of Shem.

Terah begat Abram.Commentators, in their endeavour to make St. Stephens assertion in Act. 7:4 agree with the numbers of the Hebrew text, have supposed that Abram was not the eldest son, and that the first place was given him because of his spiritual preeminence. But this is contrary to the rules of the Hebrew language, and the failure of the attempt to deprive Shem of his birthright by a mistranslation of Gen. 10:21 confirms Abrams claim to the same prerogative.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

Generations of Terah,

27. This heading is properly the beginning of the history of Abraham, which gives account also of the peoples most intimately related to the covenant people . The following plan shows the genealogy of the fathers and mothers of these patriarchal nations, or tribes, as far as it is given in the sacred record:

Thus from Terah sprang not only the Israelitish nation, but also the peoples with whom their history is most intimately blended in the patriarchal times: the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, and Ishmaelitish Arabs.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

The Call of Abram ( Gen 11:27 to Gen 12:9 )

Gen 11:27-29

‘Terah begat Abram, Nahor and Haran, and Haran begat Lot. And Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees. And Abram and Nahor took wives for themselves, the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor’s wife Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah and the father of Iscah.’

Like Noah (Gen 5:32),Terah has three sons, seen as a sign of completeness. The detailed information given in this section is typical of the Ancient Near East as introductory to the covenant that follows. It stresses the importance of Abram

Haran dies comparatively young, but before he dies Haran begets Lot. The mention of Lot here is because he represents Haran in the family. The seed has not died out. Haran’s daughter Milcah marries Nahor. We have no further mention of Iscah, but the mention here demonstrates a good knowledge of the family records.

The names of Terah, Abram, Nahor and Haran can all be paralleled in the area in the third and second millennium BC. (Not of course as representing these individuals but as typical names of the period).

It is quite clear that the family home is Ur of the Chaldees. The family are not just semi-nomads wandering from place to place, they are inhabitants of Ur, although probably even at this stage with large herds and flocks. Ur of the Chaldees was an important and highly sophisticated city of ancient origin, where the brothers would have access to a good education.

But they were probably not full city-dwellers as such. Ur’s principal deity was Nannar, the moon god, who was also worshipped at Haran, and probably worshipped by Terah. This worship in fact included a number of degrading elements which Abram would have found disturbing. The description ‘of the Chaldees’ was probably added much later to identify which Ur it was (there were a number of Urs – for Ur means ‘city’).

There is clear evidence that in Ur there was a belief in the afterlife. In the royal ‘death pits’ servants had gone into these royal burial places, had taken up their positions and had then drunk poison from cups, sometimes golden ones. This could only have been because they were expected to serve their masters in the life to come. But we must not read too much into this. We do not know what kind of ‘life’ they expected and there is no specific mention in the patriarchal narratives of such a belief.

It is interesting that details of Nahor’s wife’s relationship are given and not those of Sarai even though later she is described by Abraham as ‘the daughter of my father but not the daughter of my mother’ (Gen 20:12). This again may have been in order to emphasise that Haran was fruitful even though he died comparatively young. Or it may be because Sarai was barren. While it is clear later that Sarai is an outstandingly beautiful woman, she bears the shame of unfruitfulness. Rebecca, the later wife of Jacob, was descended from Milcah (Gen 22:20-24).

The inter-marrying suggests a sense of exclusiveness, confirmed when a wife is sought for Isaac from within the ‘family’. Sons of Terah could not just marry anybody. Such marriage practises are confirmed elsewhere.

Later narrative (Gen 31:53), where the God of Abraham is distinguished from the god of Nahor (Yahweh was not ‘the god of their father’), suggests that Nahor continued to worship his father’s gods (see also Jos 24:2). He was not affected by his brother’s conversion.

We note that Ur of the Chaldees was destroyed around 1950 BC. This therefore points to the fact that these events took place before then. Possibly God’s command to Abram was also a warning of what was to come on Ur.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Genealogy of Terah (and of Abraham) The genealogies of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have a common structure in that they open with God speaking to a patriarch and giving him a commission and a promise in which to believe. In each of these genealogies, the patriarch’s calling is to believe God’s promise, while this passage of Scripture serves as a witness to God’s faithfulness in fulfilling each promise. Only then does the genealogy come to a close.

Gen 11:27 to Gen 25:11 gives the account of the genealogy of Terah and his son Abraham. (Perhaps the reason this genealogy is not exclusively of Abraham, but rather of his father Terah, is because of the importance of Lot and the two tribes descended from him, the Moabites and the Ammonites, who will play a significant role in Israel’s redemptive history.) Heb 11:8-19 reveals the central message in this genealogy that stirs our faith in God when it describes Abraham’s acts of faith and obedience to God, culminating in the offering of his son Isaac on Mount Moriah. The genealogy of Abraham opens with God’s promise to him that if he would separate himself from his father and dwell in the land of Canaan, then God would make from him a great nation through his son (Gen 12:1-3), and it closes with God fulfilling His promise to Abraham by giving Him a son Isaac. However, this genealogy records Abraham’s spiritual journey to maturity in his faith in God, as is typical of each child of God. We find a summary of this genealogy in Heb 11:8-19. During the course of Abraham’s calling, God appeared to Abraham a number of times. God reappeared to him and told him that He would make his seed as numerous as the stars in the sky (Gen 15:5). God later appeared to Abraham and made the covenant of circumcision with him and said, “I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly.”(Gen 17:2) After Abraham offered Isaac his son upon the altar, God reconfirmed His promise that “That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies.” (Gen 22:17). The event on Mount Moriah serves as a testimony that Abraham fulfilled his part in believing that God would raise up a nation from Isaac, his son of promise. Thus, Abraham fulfilled his calling and destiny for his generation by dwelling in the land of Canaan and believing in God’s promise of the birth of his son Isaac. All of God’s promises to Abraham emphasized the birth of his one seed called Isaac. This genealogy testifies to God’s faithfulness to fulfill His promise of giving Abraham a son and of Abraham’s faith to believe in God’s promises. Rom 9:6-9 reflects the theme of Abraham’s genealogy in that it discusses the son of promise called Isaac.

Abraham’s Faith Perfected ( Jas 2:21-22 ) – Abraham had a promise from God that he would have a son by Sarai his wife. However, when we read the Scriptures in the book of Genesis where God gave Abraham this promise, we see that he did not immediately believe the promise from God (Gen 17:17-18).

Gen 17:17-18, “Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!”

Instead of agreeing with God’s promise, Abraham laughed and suggested that God use Ishmael to fulfill His promise. However, many years later, by the time God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, he was fully persuaded that God was able to use Isaac to make him a father of nations. We see Abraham’s faith when he told his son Isaac that God Himself was able to provide a sacrifice, because he knew that God would raise Isaac from the dead, if need be, in order to fulfill His promise (Gen 22:8).

Gen 22:8, “And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.”

Heb 11:17-19, “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.”

The best illustration of being fully persuaded is when Abraham believed that God would raise up Isaac from the dead in order to fulfill His promise. This is truly being fully persuaded and this is what Rom 4:21 is referring to.

What distinguished Abraham as a man of faith was not his somewhat initial weak reaction to the promises of God in Gen 17:17-18, but it was his daily obedience to God. Note a reference to Abraham’s daily obedience in Heb 11:8.

Heb 11:8, “By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed ; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.”

Abraham was righteous before God because he believed and obeyed God’s Words on a daily basis. A good illustration how God considers obedience as an act of righteousness is found in Genesis 19. Abraham had prayed for ten righteous people to deliver Sodom from destruction. The angels found only four people who hearkened to their words. These people were considered righteous in God’s eyes because they were obedient and left the city as they had been told to do by the angels.

Abraham’s ability to stagger not (Rom 4:20) and to be fully persuaded (Rom 4:21) came through time. As he was obedient to God, his faith in God’s promise began to take hold of his heart and grow, until he came to a place of conviction that circumstances no longer moved him. Abraham had to learn to be obedient to God when he did not understand the big picture. Rom 5:3-5 teaches us that tribulation produces patience, and patience produces experience, and experience hope. Abraham had to pass through these four phases of faith in order to develop strong faith that is no longer moved by circumstances.

Let us look at Abraham’s history of obedience to God. He had first been obedient to follow his father from Ur to Haran.

Gen 11:31, “And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son’s son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram’s wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.”

He was further obedient when he left Haran and went to a land that he did not know.

Gen 12:1, “Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee:”

He was further obedient for the next twenty-five years in this Promised Land, learning that God was his Shield and his Reward. Note:

Gen 15:1, “After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.”

God called Himself Abraham’s shield and reward because Abraham had come to know Him as a God who protects him and as a God who prospers him. Note that Abraham was living in a land where people believed in many gods, where people believed that there was a god for every area of their lives. God was teaching Abraham that He was an All-sufficient God. This was why God said to Abraham in Gen 17:1, “I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.” In other words, God was telling Abraham to be obedient. Abraham’s role in fulfilling this third promise was to be obedient, and to live a holy life. As Abraham did this, he began to know God as an Almighty God, a God who would be with him in every situation in life. As Abraham fulfilled his role, God fulfilled His divine role in Abraham’s life.

God would later test Abraham’s faith in Gen 22:1 to see if Abraham believed that God was Almighty.

Gen 22:1, “And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.”

God knew Abraham’s heart. However, Abraham was about to learn what was in his heart. For on Mount Moriah, Abraham’s heart was fully persuaded that God was able to raise Isaac from the dead in order to fulfill His promise:

Heb 11:19, “Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.”

Abraham had to die to his own ways of reasoning out God’s plan. He had taken Eliezer of Damascus as his heir as a result of God’s first promise. Then, he had conceived Ishmael in an attempt to fulfill God’s second promise. Now, Abraham was going to have to learn to totally depend upon God’s plan and learn to follow it.

The first promise to Abraham was made to him at the age of 75, when he first entered the Promised Land.

Gen 12:7, “And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.”

This first promise was simple, that God would give this land to Abraham’s seed. So, Abraham took Eliezer of Damascus as his heir. But the second promise was greater in magnitude and more specific.

Gen 15:4-5, “And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.

This next promise said that God would give Abraham this land to Abraham’s biological child and that his seed would proliferate and multiply as the stars of heaven. So, Abraham has a son, Ishmael, by Hagar, his handmaid in order to fulfill this promise.

The third promise, which came twenty-five years after the first promise, was greater than the first and second promises. God said that Abraham would become a father of many nations through Sarah, his wife. Abraham had seen God be his Shield and protect him from the Canaanites. He had seen God as his Reward, by increasing his wealth (Gen 15:1). But now, Abraham was to learn that God was Almighty (Gen 17:1), that with God, all things are possible.

It was on Mount Moriah that Abraham truly died to himself, and learned to live unto God. In the same way, it was at Peniel that Jacob died to his own self and learned to totally depend upon God. After Mount Moriah, Abraham stopped making foolish decisions. There is not a fault to find in Abraham after his experience of sacrificing his son. When Abraham was making wrong decisions, he had the wisdom to build an altar at every place he pitched his tent. It was at these altars that he dealt with his sins and wrong decisions.

At Peniel God called Jacob by the name Israel. Why would God give Jacob this name? Because Jacob must now learn to totally trust in God. His thigh was limp and his physical strength was gone. The only might that he will ever know the rest of his life will be the strength that he finds in trusting God. Jacob was about to meet his brother and for the first time in his life, he was facing a situation that he could not handle in his own strength and cunning. He has been able to get himself out of every other situation in his life, but this time, it was different. He was going to have to trust God or die, and Jacob knew this. His name was now Israel, a mighty one in God. Jacob would have to now find his strength in God, because he had no strength to fight in the flesh. Thus, his name showed him that he could look to God and prevail as a mighty one both with God and with man. After this night, the Scriptures never record a foolish decision that Jacob made. He began to learn how to totally rely upon the Lord as his father Abraham had learned.

After Mount Moriah and Peniel, we read no more of foolish decisions by Abraham and Jacob. We just see men broken to God’s will and humble before God’s mercy.

Obedience is the key, and total obedience is not learned quickly. I believe that it takes decades, as we see in the life of Abraham, to learn to be obedient to a God whom we know as Almighty. This is not learned over night.

Abraham had a word from God before he left Ur. When he reached Canaan, he received a promise from God. Don’t mess with a man and his promise. Pharaoh tried to mess with this man’s promise and God judged him. King Abimelech tried to take Abraham’s promise, but God judged him.

Like Abraham, we may start the journey making some poor judgments, but God is greater than our errors.

We will first know God as our shield and our reward. He will protect us throughout our ministry. He will reward us. He will prosper our ministry. As we learn to be obedient, we will come to know our God as the Almighty in a way that we have never known Him before.

Do not mess with a man who has laid Isaac on the altar. I have heard Gen 17:17 taught as the laugh of faith.

Gen 17:17-18, “Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!”

I see very little faith in Abraham’s words in these verses. On the other hand, I have heard other preachers criticize Abraham for his lack of faith at these times in his life; yet, I do not see God criticizing his faith. Abraham was not fully persuaded at this point, but he did not fail God. Abraham simply continued being obedient and living holy until the faith grew in his heart. Every wrong decision that Abraham made brought him that much closer to the right decision. We call this the school of hard knocks. As a result, faith continued to grow in his heart. By Genesis 22, Abraham was fully persuaded and strong in faith that God was Almighty.

Watch out, lest you criticize a man learning to walk in his promise. He may look foolish at times, but do not look on the outward appearance. You either run with him, or get out of the way, but don’t get in the way.

When I left Seminary and a Master’s degree, I was given a job driving a garbage truck while learning to pastor a Charismatic church. I was learning to walk in a promise from God. I will never forget riding on the back of these garbage trucks in my hometown, while the church members who had given money to send me to Seminary watched me in disbelief.

God does not measure a man by the size of his ministry, but by the size of his heart. When Jimmy Swaggart fell into sin, Alethia Fellowship Church was one of his partners, so this church was receiving his monthly ministry tapes during this period in his ministry. In a cassette tape immediately after his fall, he gave a testimony of how he told the Lord that he had failed. The Lord replied to him that he had not failed; rather the Lord had to get some things out of his life. [170] That word from God gave him the courage to go on in the midst of failure. You see, God was more pleased with Jimmy Swaggart living a godly life in fellowship with Him than preaching in great crusades while living in sin.

[170] Jimmy Swaggart, “Monthly Partner Cassette Tape,” (Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, February 1988), audiocassette.

Joyce Meyer said that if God measured our success by the way the world measured us, He would have called us “achievers” and not “believers.” [171] Abraham was justified by faith and not by his works. Our work is to believe, not to achieve.

[171] Joyce Meyer, Life in the Word (Fenton, Missouri: Joyce Meyer Ministries), on Trinity Broadcasting Network (Santa Ana, California), television program.

Many of my church friends and relatives criticized me as a failure. However, I knew somehow that the walk of faith was obedience to the Word of God, and not a walk of pleasing man. I obviously did not spend much time with people who thought that I was nuts. Instead, I spent so much time in my bedroom studying my Bible that I looked dysfunctional. Yet, the Lord strengthened me. I will never forget, after riding the garbage truck during the day, and hiding in God’s Word in the night. One night, I laid down about 1:00 a.m. and the glory of God filled my room until 5:00 a.m. in the morning. It was during these most difficult times that the Lord strengthened me the most.

The Lord strengthened Abraham in the midst of his questions and errors. If you will just stay obedient, God will see His Word come to pass through you, as did Abraham learn to see God as Almighty.

Gen 11:27  Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.

Gen 11:28  And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.

Gen 11:28 “Ur of the Chaldees” Comments – We can find some history of an individual named Ur in The Book of Jubilees, who built for himself a city named Ara of the Chaldees and named it after himself. Thus, we have a record of the origin of Ur of the Chaldees.

“And in the thirty-fifth jubilee, in the third week, in the first year [1681 A.M.] thereof, Reu took to himself a wife, and her name was ‘Ora, the daughter of ‘Ur, the son of Kesed, and she bare him a son, and he called his name Seroh, in the seventh year of this week in this jubilee. And ‘Ur, the son of Kesed, built the city of ‘Ara of the Chaldees, and called its name after his own name and the name of his father. And they made for themselves molten images, and they worshipped each the idol, the molten image which they had made for themselves, and they began to make graven images and unclean simulacra, and malignant spirits assisted and seduced (them) into committing transgression and uncleanness.” ( The Book of Jubilees 11.1-5)

Gen 11:29  And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor’s wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah.

Gen 11:29 “And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai” Comments – Sarah was Abraham’s half-sister (Gen 20:12).

Gen 20:12, “And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.”

Compare the comments in Gen 11:29 where Nahor, Abraham’s brother, took his niece, the daughter of Haran, as his wife.

Gen 11:29 “and the name of Nahor’s wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah” – Word Study on “Milcah” Gesenius tells us that by Chaldean usage the Hebrew name “Milcah” “Milkah” ( ) (H4435) means “counsel.” Strong tells us that the name means, “queen.” PTW tells us it means, “counsel.” She is daughter of Haran and sister to Lot and Iscah. She married her uncle named Nahor and bare him eight children. She is first mentioned in Gen 11:29 in the genealogy of Terah. She is mentioned a second time in Scripture Gen 22:20-24, where Nahor’s genealogy is given. Her name is mentioned on a third occasion in the chapter where Isaac takes Rebekah as his bride (Gen 24:15; Gen 24:24; Gen 24:47). She is mentioned no more in the Scriptures.

Word Study on “Iscah” Gesenius says the Hebrew name “Iscah” “Yickah” ( ) (H3252) means, “one who beholds, looks out” from ( ). Strong tells us that it comes from an unused word meaning “to watch.” PTW tells us it means, “Jehovah is looking” or “who looks.” Iscah was the sister to Milcah and Lot. Nothing more is mentioned of this person in the Scriptures, her significance being her relationship to her siblings, of whom Lot is the best known.

Gen 11:30  But Sarai was barren; she had no child.

Gen 11:30 Comments – When we see such close marriages with relatives within a clan, we can suggest that this may have been the cause of such infertility for this clan. We see this problem in the lives of Sarah, Rebekah and Rachel.

Gen 11:31  And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son’s son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram’s wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.

Gen 11:31 Comments – Terah intended to go to Canaan, but he did not make it. This is also stated in The Book of Jubilees that after Abraham destroyed the house of his father’s idols, Terah fled with his family with the intend of dwelling in the land of Canaan.

“And Terah went forth from Ur of the Chaldees, he and his sons, to go into the land of Lebanon and into the land of Canaan, and he dwelt in the land of Haran, and Abram dwelt with Terah his father in Haran two weeks of years.” ( The Book of Jubilees 12.15-16)

However, Act 7:1-4 says that it was Abraham who moved out from Ur due to a Word from the Lord.

Act 7:1-4, “Then said the high priest, Are these things so? And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran, And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee. Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell.”

Gen 11:31 Scripture References – Note:

Jos 24:2, “And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah , the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods.”

Gen 11:32  And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.

Gen 12:1-3 God’s Divine Calling to Abraham – Gen 2:4 to Gen 50:26 will place emphasis upon the second phase of God’s plan of redemption for mankind, which is His divine calling to fulfill His purpose of multiplying and filling the earth with righteousness. God will implement phase two of His divine plan of redemption by calling one man named Abraham to depart unto the Promised Land (Gen 12:1-3), and this calling was fulfilled by the patriarch. Isaac’s calling can also be found at the beginning of his genealogy, where God commands him to dwell in the Promised Land (Gen 26:1-6), and this calling was fulfilled by the patriarch Isaac. Jacob’s calling was fulfilled as he bore twelve sons and took them into Egypt where they multiplied into a nation. The opening passage of Jacob’s genealogy reveals that his destiny would be fulfilled through the dream of his son Joseph (Gen 37:1-11), which took place in the land of Egypt. Perhaps Jacob did not receive such a clear calling as Abraham and Isaac because his early life was one of deceit, rather than of righteousness obedience to God; so the Lord had to reveal His plan for Jacob through his righteous son Joseph. In a similar way, God spoke to righteous kings of Israel, and was silent to those who did not serve Him. Thus, the three patriarchs of Israel received a divine calling, which they fulfilled in order for the nation of Israel to become established in the land of Egypt. Perhaps the reason the Lord sent Jacob and the seventy souls into Egypt to multiply rather than leaving them in the Promised Land is that the Israelites would have intermarried with the cultic nations around them and failed to produce a nation of righteousness. God’s ways are always perfect.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Calling of the Patriarchs of Israel We can find two major divisions within the book of Genesis that reveal God’s foreknowledge in designing a plan of redemption to establish a righteous people upon earth. Paul reveals this four-fold plan in Rom 8:29-30: predestination, calling, justification, and glorification.

Rom 8:29-30, “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”

The book of Genesis will reflect the first two phase of redemption, which are predestination and calling. We find in the first division in Gen 1:1 to Gen 2:3 emphasizing predestination. The Creation Story gives us God’s predestined plan for mankind, which is to be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth with righteous offspring. The second major division is found in Gen 2:4 to Gen 50:25, which gives us ten genealogies, in which God calls men of righteousness to play a role in His divine plan of redemption.

The foundational theme of Gen 2:4 to Gen 11:26 is the divine calling for mankind to be fruitful and multiply, which commission was given to Adam prior to the Flood (Gen 1:28-29), and to Noah after the Flood (Gen 9:1). The establishment of the seventy nations prepares us for the calling out of Abraham and his sons, which story fills the rest of the book of Genesis. Thus, God’s calling through His divine foreknowledge (Gen 11:27 to Gen 50:26) will focus the calling of Abraham and his descendants to establish the nation of Israel. God will call the patriarchs to fulfill the original purpose and intent of creation, which is to multiply into a righteous nation, for which mankind was originally predestined to fulfill.

The generations of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob take up a large portion of the book of Genesis. These genealogies have a common structure in that they all begin with God revealing Himself to a patriarch and giving him a divine commission, and they close with God fulfilling His promise to each of them because of their faith in His promise. God promised Abraham a son through Sarah his wife that would multiply into a nation, and Abraham demonstrated his faith in this promise on Mount Moriah. God promised Isaac two sons, with the younger receiving the first-born blessing, and this was fulfilled when Jacob deceived his father and received the blessing above his brother Esau. Jacob’s son Joseph received two dreams of ruling over his brothers, and Jacob testified to his faith in this promise by following Joseph into the land of Egypt. Thus, these three genealogies emphasize God’s call and commission to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their response of faith in seeing God fulfill His word to each of them.

1. The Generations of Terah (& Abraham) Gen 11:27 to Gen 25:11

2. The Generations Ishmael Gen 25:12-18

3. The Generations of Isaac Gen 25:19 to Gen 35:29

4. The Generations of Esau Gen 36:1-43

5. The Generations of Jacob Gen 37:1 to Gen 50:26

The Origin of the Nation of Israel After Gen 1:1 to Gen 9:29 takes us through the origin of the heavens and the earth as we know them today, and Gen 10:1 to Gen 11:26 explains the origin of the seventy nations (Gen 10:1 to Gen 11:26), we see that the rest of the book of Genesis focuses upon the origin of the nation of Israel (Gen 11:27 to Gen 50:26). Thus, each of these major divisions serves as a foundation upon which the next division is built.

Paul the apostle reveals the four phases of God the Father’s plan of redemption for mankind through His divine foreknowledge of all things in Rom 8:29-30, “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” Predestination – Gen 1:1 to Gen 11:26 emphasizes the theme of God the Father’s predestined purpose of the earth, which was to serve mankind, and of mankind, which was to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth with righteousness. Calling – Gen 11:27 to Gen 50:26 will place emphasis upon the second phase of God’s plan of redemption for mankind, which is His divine calling to fulfill His purpose of multiplying and filling the earth with righteousness. (The additional two phases of Justification and Glorification will unfold within the rest of the books of the Pentateuch.) This second section of Genesis can be divided into five genealogies. The three genealogies of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob begin with a divine calling to a patriarch. The two shorter genealogies of Ishmael and Esau are given simply because they inherit a measure of divine blessings as descendants of Abraham, but they will not play a central role in God’s redemptive plan for mankind. God will implement phase two of His divine plan of redemption by calling one man named Abraham to depart unto the Promised Land (Gen 12:1-3), and this calling was fulfilled by the patriarch. Isaac’s calling can also be found at the beginning of his genealogy, where God commands him to dwell in the Promised Land (Gen 26:1-6), and this calling was fulfilled by the patriarch Isaac. Jacob’s calling was fulfilled as he bore twelve sons and took them into Egypt where they multiplied into a nation. The opening passage of Jacob’s genealogy reveals that his destiny would be fulfilled through the dream of his son Joseph (Gen 37:1-11), which took place in the land of Egypt. Perhaps Jacob did not receive such a clear calling as Abraham and Isaac because his early life was one of deceit, rather than of righteousness obedience to God; so the Lord had to reveal His plan for Jacob through his righteous son Joseph. In a similar way, God spoke to righteous kings of Israel, and was silent to those who did not serve Him. Thus, the three patriarchs of Israel received a divine calling, which they fulfilled in order for the nation of Israel to become established in the land of Egypt. Perhaps the reason the Lord sent the Jacob and the seventy souls into Egypt to multiply rather than leaving them in the Promised Land is that the Israelites would have intermarried the cultic nations around them and failed to produce a nation of righteousness. God’s ways are always perfect.

1. The Generations of Terah (& Abraham) Gen 11:27 to Gen 25:11

2. The Generations Ishmael Gen 25:12-18

3. The Generations of Isaac Gen 25:19 to Gen 35:29

4. The Generations of Esau Gen 36:1-43

5. The Generations of Jacob Gen 37:1 to Gen 50:26

Divine Miracles It is important to note that up until now the Scriptures record no miracles in the lives of men. Thus, we will observe that divine miracles begin with Abraham and the children of Israel. Testimonies reveal today that the Jews are still recipients of God’s miracles as He divinely intervenes in this nation to fulfill His purpose and plan for His people. Yes, God is working miracles through His New Testament Church, but miracles had their beginning with the nation of Israel.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Generations of Terah

v. 27. Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot. Haran may have been the oldest son, and his son Lot was nearer to Abraham’s age.

v. 28. And Haran died before, that is, during the lifetime of, his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees. This, then, was the ancestral home of this family of the descendants of Shem.

v. 29. And Abram and Nahor took them wives; the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor’s wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah. Marriages of comparatively close relatives were still the rule at that time, for Nahor married his niece, and Abram his half-sister, Gen 20:12.

v. 30. But Sarai was barren; she had no child, a fact which was, among the Jews, considered a great calamity, almost a curse, just as the fruitfulness of the mother was considered a great blessing.

v. 31. And Terah took Abram, his son, and Lot, the son of Haran, his son’s son, and Sarai, his daughter-in-law, his son Abram’s wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran and dwelt there. These all went forth together, or with one another, under the leadership of Terah and Abram. In the case of Abram, he had, even now, received God’s command to journey forth, Act 7:3, while in the case of Terah the migration was a part of God’s dispensation, the first step of the journey which would bring Abram to the land of his inheritance.

v. 32. And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years; and Terah died in Haran. This notice rounds out the story of Terah, for he evidently died after Abram had gone forth to Canaan. Thus the less important personage is disposed of before the main history proceeds. It is the story of Abraham which now follows, for it was his generation and people that the Lord chose for His own; and from the seed of Abraham, in the fullness of time, the salvation which had been promised to the patriarchs before the Flood was to come upon the whole world.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

PART III THE PATRIARCHAL AGE OF THE WORLD. CH. 11:27-50:26.

7. THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH (CH. 11:27-25:11).

Gen 11:27

Now (literally, and, intimating the close connection of the present with the preceding section) these are the generationsthe commencement of a new subdivision of the history (Keil), and neither the winding-up of the foregoing genealogy (‘Speaker’s Commentary’) nor the heading only of the brief paragraph in Gen 11:27-32 (Lange; vide Gen 2:4)of Terah. Not of Abram; partly because mainly occupied with the career not of Abram’s son, in which case “the generations of Abram” would have been appropriate, but of Abram himself, Terah’s son; and partly owing to the subsidiary design to indicate Nahor’s connection, through Rebekah, with the promised seed. Terah begat Abram, “Father of Elevation,” who is mentioned first not because he happened to be Terah’s eldest son (Keil), which he was not (vide Gen 11:26), or because Moses was indifferent to the order in which the sons of Terah were introduced (Calvin), but because of his spiritual preeminence as the head of the theocratic line (Wordsworth). Nahor, “Panting,” not to be confounded with his grandfather of the same name (Gen 11:25). Haran, “Tarrying,” the eldest son of Terah (Gen 11:26), and, along with Abram and Nahor, reintroduced into the narrative on account of his relationship to Lot and Milcah. That Terah had other sons (Calvin) does not appear probable, And Haran begat Lot. ; of uncertain etymology, but may be = , a concealed, i.e. obscure, low one, or perhaps a dark-colored one (Furst).

Gen 11:28

And Haran died before his father. Literally, upon the face of his father; (LXX); while his father was alive (Munster, Luther, Calvin, Rosenmller); perhaps also in his father’s presence (Keil, Lange), though the Jewish fable may be discarded that Terah, at this time an ‘idolater, accused his sons to Nimrod, who cast them into a furnace for refusing to worship the fire-god, and that ,Haran perished in the flames in his father’s sight. The decease of Haran is the first recorded instance of the natural death of a son before his father. In the land of his nativity. (LXX.). In Ur of the Chaldees. Ur Kasdim (Gen 11:31; Gen 15:7; Neh 9:7). The Kasdimformerly believed to have been Shemites on account of

(1) Abram’s settlement among them,

(2) the preservation of the name Kesed among his kindred (Gen 22:22),

(3) the close affinity to a Shemite tongue of the language known to modern philologists as Chaldee, an Arameean dialect differing but slightly from the Syriac (Heeren), and

(4) the supposed identity or intimate connection of the Babylonians with the Assyrians (Niebuhr)are now, with greater probability, and certainly with closer adherence to Biblical history (Gen 10:8-12), regarded as having been a Hamite race (Rawlinson, Smith); an opinion which receives confirmation from

(1) the statement of Homer (‘Odyss. ,’ 1.23, 24), that the Ethiopians were divided and dwelt at the ends of the earth, towards the setting and the rising sun, i.e; according to Strabo, on both sides of the Arabian Gulf;

(2) the primitive traditions

(a) of the Greeks, who regarded Memnon, King of Ethiopia, as the founder of Susa (Herod; 5:54), and the son of a Cissian woman (Strabo, 15.3, 2;

(b) of the Nilotic Ethiopians, who claimed him as one of their monarchs; and

(c) of the Egyptians, who identified him with their King Amunoph III; whose statue became known as the vocal Memnon;

(3) the testimony of Moses of Chorene (‘History of Armenia,’ Gen 1:6), who connects in the closest way Babylonia, Egypt, and Ethiopia Proper, identifying Belus, King of Babylon, with Nimrod, and making him the son of Mizraim, or the grandson of Cush; and

(4) the monumental history of Babylonia, which shows the language of the earliest inscriptions, according to Rawlinson “differing greatly from the later Babylonian,” to have been that of a Turanian people. The term Ur has been explained to be identical with It, a city (Rawlinson); the Zend Vare, a fortress (Gesenius); Ur, the light country, i.e. the land of the sun-rising (Furst); and even Ur, fire, with special reference to the legendary furnace already referred to (Talmudists). Whether a district (LXX; Lange, Kalisch) or a city (Josephus, Eusebius, Onkelos, Drnsius, Keil, Murphy, ‘Speaker’s Commentary’), its exact site is uncertain. Rival claimants for the honor of representing it have appeared in

(1) a Persian fortress (Persicum Castellum) of the name of Ur, mentioned by Ammianus Marcellinus as lying between Nisibis and the Tigris (Bochart, Michaelis, Rosenmller, Delitzsch);

(2) the modern Orfah, the Edsssa of the Greeks, situated “on one of the bare, rugged spurs which descend from the mountains of Armenia into the Assyrian plains” (Stanley’s ‘Jewish Church,’ 1.7); and

(3) Hur, the most important of the early capitals of Chaldaea, now the ruins of Mugheir, at no great distance from the mouth, and six miles to the west, of the Euphrates. Yet none of them is quite exempt from difficulty. A military fort, to take the first-named location, does not appear a suitable or likely place for a nomade horde to settle in; while the second has been reckoned too near Charran, the first place of encampment of the emigrants; and the third, besides being exceedingly remote from Charran, scarcely harmonises with Stephen’s speech before the Sanhedrim (Act 7:2). Unless, therefore, Stephen meant Chaldsea when he said Mesopotamia (Dykes), and Abraham could speak of Northern Mesopotamia as his country (Gen 24:4), when in reality he belonged to Southern Babylonia, the identification of Ur of the Chaldees with the Mugheir ruin though regarded with most favor by archaeologists, will continue to be doubtful; while, if the clan march commenced at Edessa, it will always require an effort to account for their coming to a halt so soon after starting and so near home; and the Nisibis station, though apparently more suitable than either in respect of distance, will remain encumbered with its own peculiar difficulties. It would seem, therefore, as if the exact situation of the patriarchal town or country must be left undetermined until further light can be obtained.

Gen 11:29

And Abram and Nahor took them wives (cf. Gen 6:2): the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai. “My princess,” from sarah, to rule (Gesenius, Lange); “Strife” (Kalisch, Murphy): “Jah is ruler” (Furst). The LXX. write , changing afterwards to to correspond with Sarah. That Sarai was Iscah has been inferred from Gen 20:12; but, though receiving apparent sanction from verse 31, this opinion “is not supported by any solid argument” (Rosenmller). And the name of Nahor’s wife, Milcah (Queen, or Counsel), the daughter of Haran, i.e. Nahor’s niece. Marriage with a half-sister or a niece was afterwards forbidden by the Mosaic code (Le Gen 18:9, Gen 18:14). The father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah, whose name “Seer” may have been introduced into the narrative like that of Naamah (Gen 4:22), as that of an eminent lady connected with the family (Murphy). Ewald’s hypothesis, that Iscah was Lot’s wife, is pure conjecture.

Gen 11:30

But Sarai was barren; she had no child. Perhaps in contrast to Milcah, who by this time had begun to have a family (Murphy).

Gen 11:31

And Terah tookan act of pure human volition on the part of Terah (Kalisch); under the guidance of God’s ordinary providence (Keil); but more probably, as Abram was called in Ur (vide infra), prompted by a knowledge of his son’s call, and a desire to participate in his son’s inheritance (Lange)Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son’s son, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram’s wife. The Samaritan reads, “and Milcah his daughter-in-law, the wives of Abram and Nahor his sons,” with an obvious intention to account for the appearance of Nahor as a settler in Charran (Gen 24:10); but it is better to understand the migration of Nahor and his family as having taken place subsequent to Terah’s departure. And they went forth with them. I.e. Lot and Sarai with Terah and Abram (Keil); or, better, Terah and Abram with Lot and Sarai (Jarchi, Rosenmller, Murphy, ‘Speaker’s Commentary); though best is the interpretation, “and they went forth with each other” (Lange, Kalisch). For the reflexive use of the personal pronoun vide Gen 3:7; Gen 22:3, and cf. Gesenius, ‘Gram.,’ 124. Other readings are, “and he led them forth” (Samaritan, LXX; Vulgate, Dathius), and “and they (the unnamed members of the family) went forth with those named” (Delitzsch). From Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan. Expressive of the Divine destination, rather than of the conscious intention of the travelers (Heb 11:8), though Canaan was not at this time unknown to the inhabitants of the Tigris and Euphrates valley (vide Gen 14:1-12). And they came into Haran. Charran, , Carrae, in northwest Mesopotamia, about twenty-five miles from Edessa, one of the supposed sites of Ur, and celebrated as the scene of the overthrow of Crassus by the Parthians (B.C. 53). And dwelt there. Probably in consequence of the growing infirmity of Terah, the period of their sojourn being differently computed according as Abram is regarded as having been born in Terah’s 70th or 130th year.

Gen 11:32

And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years. So that if Abram was born in Terah’s 70th year, Terah must have been 145 when Abram left Haran, and must have survived that departure sixty years (Kalisch, Dykes); whereas if Abram was born in his father’s 130th year, then Terah must have died before his son’s departure from Haran, which agrees with Act 7:4. And Terah died in Haran.

HOMILETICS

Gen 11:31

The migration of the Terachites.

I. THE DEPARTURE OF THE EMIGRANTS. The attendant circumstances of this migrationthe gathering of the clan, the mustering of the flocks, the farewells and benedictions exchanged with relatives and friends, the hopes and fears of the adventurous pilgrimsimagination may depict; the reasons which prompted it may be conjectured to have been

1. The spirit of emigration, which since the dispersion at Babel had been abroad among the primitive populations of mankind. The arms of a Trans-Euphratean state had already penetrated as far west as the circle of the Jordan, and it has been surmised that this Terachite removal from Chaldaea may have been connected with some larger movement in the same direction.

2. The oppression of the Hamites, who, besides being the most powerful and enterprising of the early tribes, and having seized upon the fattest settlements, such as Egypt, Canaan, and Chaldaea, had wandered farthest from the pure Noachic faith, and abandoned themselves to a degraded polytheism, based for the most part upon a study of the heavenly bodies. That the Cushite conquerors of Southern Babylonia were not only idolaters, but, like Nimrod, their leader, destroyers of the liberties of the subject populations, has at least the sanction of tradition.

3. The awakening of religious life in the breasts of the pilgrims. That Abram had by this time been called we are warranted on the authority of Stephen to hold, and though Terah is expressly said to have been an idolater in Ur, it is by no means improbable that he became a sharer in the pure faith of his distinguished son. At least it lends a special interest to this primitive migration to connect it with the call of Abram.

II. THE JOURNEY OF THE EMIGRANTS. Though upon the incidents and experiences of the way, as upon the circumstances and reasons of the departure, the inspired record is completely silent, yet the pilgrimage of the Chaldaean wanderers was

1. From an idolatrous land, which could not fail to secure, even had it not already received, the Divine approbation. Not that flight from heathen countries is always the clear path of duty, else how shall the world be converted? But where, as was probably the case with the Terachites, the likelihood of doing good to is less than that of receiving hurt from the inhabitants, it is plainly incumbent to withdraw from polluted and polluting lands.

2. By an unknown way. Almost certainly the road to Canaan was but little understood by the exiles, if even Canaan itself was not entirely a terra incognita. Yet in setting forth upon a path so uncertain they were only doing what mankind in general, and God’s people in particular, have always to do in life’s journey, viz; travel by a way that they know not; while for comfort they had the sweet assurance that their path was steadily conducting them from idols and oppression, and the certain knowledge that they were journeying beneath the watchful and loving superintendence of the invisible Supreme. Happy they whose path in life, though compassed by clouds and darkness, ever tends away from sin and slavery, and never lacks the guidance of Abram’s God!

3. To a better country. In comparison with the rich alluvial soil of Southern Babylonia, the land of Canaan might be only a bleak succession of barren hills; but, in respect of liberty to worship God, anywhere, in the eyes of men whose hearts were throbbing with new-found faith, would seem superior to idolatrous Chaldaea. Without endorsing Luther’s fancy, that Shem and his followers had already withdrawn to Palestine, and that Terah and his family were setting forth to place themselves beneath the patriarch’s rule, we may reasonably suppose that, like the Pilgrim Fathers of a later -age, they were seeking a new land where they might worship God in peace.

III. THE HALTING OF THE EMIGRANTS. In the absence of definite information as to the motives which induced it, this sudden stoppage of their journey at Haran is usually ascribed to either

1. The irresolution of Terah, who, having become wearied by the fatigues and perils of the way, and having found a comfortable location for himself and flocks, preferred to bring his wanderings to a close, as many a noble enterprise is wrecked through weak-kneed vacillation, and many a Christian pilgrimage broken short by faint-hearted indecision; or

2. The unbelief of Terah, who, in the first flush of excitement produced by Abram’s call, had started on the outward journey with strong faith and great zeal, but, as enthusiasm subsided and faith declined, was easily persuaded to halt at Haranan emblem of other pilgrims who begin their heavenward journey well, but pause in mid career through the cooling of their ardor and declining of their piety; or

3. The infirmity of Terah, who was now an old man, and unable further to prosecute his journey to the promised land, thus making the delay at Haran a beautiful act of filial piety on the part of Abram, and on that of Terah an imperious necessity.

See in this migration of, the Terachites

1. An emblem of the changefulness of life.

2. An illustration of God’s method of distributing mankind.

3. An example of the way in which an overruling Providence disseminates the truth.

4. A picture of many broken journeys on the face of earth.

HOMILIES BY W. ROBERTS

Gen 11:29, Gen 11:30

Two weddings.

I. THE TWO BRIDEGROOMSAbram and Nahor.

1. Younger sons in Terah’s family.

2. Eminent men in Ur of the Chaldees.

3. Favored saints in the Church of God. Marriage is honorable in all.

II. THE TWO BRIDESSarai and Milcah.

1. Near relations of their husbands. Though permissible at that early stage of the world’s history, the intermarriage of relatives so close as half-sister and niece is not now sanctioned by the law of God.

2. Attractive ladies in themselves. As much as this may be inferred from their names. It is both allowable and desirable to seek as wives women distinguished for beauty and intelligence, provided also they are noted for goodness and piety.

3. Descendants of the holy line. Doubtless this was one cause which led to the choice of Abram and Nahor. So Christians should not be unequally yoked with unbelievers.

III. THE TWO HOMES. Formed it might be at the same time, and under similar benignant auspices, they were yet divided.

1. And from the first in their constitutions. This was of necessity.

2. And afterwards in their fortunes. Sarai had no child; Milcah was the mother of a family. “Lo, children are the heritage of the Lord.”

3. And eventually in their locations. Nahor and Milcah remained in Ur, and ultimately moved to Haran; Abram and Sarai pitched their tent and established their home in Canaan. So God parts the families of earth.W.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Gen 11:27. These are the generations of Terah It may be proper to remark, that it appears, from this genealogy, that these patriarchs begat children about the age of thirty, which may therefore serve as a mean number in any calculation. When it is said, that Terah lived seventy years, and begat three sons, it means, that of these three the eldest was then first born; the same method of speaking is used with regard to Noah, ch. Gen 5:32. And as Shem is mentioned first, though youngest of the sons of Noah, so Abram is here mentioned first, though youngest of the sons of Terah; “who begat him,” says Mr. Locke, “at one hundred and thirty.” It was necessary to give this account of these three sons of Terah, as they are connected so much with the subsequent history; but it does not follow from this, that these were the only children Terah had: nay indeed, it appears to the contrary, Sarah having been his daughter by another wife, and so half-sister to her husband Abraham, see ch. Gen 20:12. The eastern writers unanimously agree, that Terah was a statuary, or carver of idols, which employment was judged a very honourable one among the Chaldaeans, the person who followed it being considered as a maker of gods. However it is added, that he was converted by his son Abraham, and by his persuasions prevailed upon to leave Ur. See Dr. Herbelot’s Bibl. Orientale. Josephus says, he quitted Chaldaea, not being able to endure the country after the loss of his son Haran.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Gen 11:27 Now these [are] the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.

Ver. 27. Terah begat Abram. ] Who whether he were Terah’s firstborn, is a great question; but, being an important man, he is first mentioned. (Abram was not Terah’s first born. Gen 11:32 ; Gen 12:4 This means that Terah was 130 years old when he begot Abram. Editor.)

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Gen 11:27-30

27Now these are the records of the generations of Terah. Terah became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran; and Haran became the father of Lot. 28Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his birth, in Ur of the Chaldeans. 29Abram and Nahor took wives for themselves. The name of Abram’s wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor’s wife was Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah and Iscah. 30Sarai was barren; she had no child.

Gen 11:27 Lot See BDB 532 II.

Gen 11:28 Haran died in the presence of his father Terah This is a Hebrew idiom for Haran dying before his father.

in Ur of the Chaldeans The Chaldean culture developed (i.e. built on the strengths of the Sumerian culture) and thrived after Abram’s day (BDB 505). See Special Topic: Chaldeans

Gen 11:29 Sarai See BDB 979.

Milcah See BDB 574.

and Iscah This person (BDB 414) and the reason for her presence in this verse is unknown. The rabbis (also Josephus, Jerome, and Augustine) say it is Sarai, but the text asserts that they have different fathers.

Gen 11:30 Sarai was barren The inability of Sarai, Rachel, and Rebecca to have children (BDB 785) was one of the ways God used to exhibit His power and control of human history and genealogy. Human sexual generation is not the key aspect to the lineage of the Messiah.

This same style of theological aspect to Israel’s history is also seen in the fact that the firstborn is not in the Messianic line. Culturally the firstborn was the head of the clan, but not so among YHWH’s people. It was His choice!

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

Generations of Terah. The centre of the eleven. See page 1 and App-29. Abram the youngest comes first (born 1996). Compare Shem (Gen 10:21), Jacob (Gen 25:23; Gen 27:15), Ephraim (Gen 48:20).

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Chapter 16

ABRAHAM

“And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.

Gen 11:27 to Gen 13:4

Throughout the Word of God Abraham is held before us as an example of faith. The Lord God called Abraham, My friend (Isa 41:8). He was the friend of God (Jas 2:23). When Paul wanted an illustration of the believers faith and justification, he selected Abraham as the example (Romans 4). When he wrote to the Galatians, who were Gentiles by nature, he declared that all who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ are the children of Abraham (v.7), and that we are blessed with faithful Abraham (v.9). If there is any man in the Bible who should be of interest to believers, that man is Abraham.

Thou art the Lord the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham; (8) And foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites, to give it, I say, to his seed, and hast performed thy words; for thou art righteous (Neh 9:6-9)

Consider what those Levites said about Abraham, as they sought to worship the God of Abraham. Thou didst choose Abraham. Abraham belonged to God by Gods choice in electing love and grace. And broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees. He was brought to believe God by Gods call, by effectual, irresistible grace. And gavest him the name Abraham. Abram, the pagan, was converted to Abraham, the believer, by a work of Gods mercy. And foundest his heart faithful. Gods grace in him made Abraham faithful unto death. He persevered in faith because he was preserved by grace. And madest a covenant with him. God blessed Abraham with the blessings of his covenant, a covenant which was typical of and a foreshadowing of the covenant of grace made with all Gods elect in Christ before the world began (Jer 31:31-34; Heb 8:1-13). Though this covenant was not fully revealed until the coming of Christ and the outpouring of his Spirit upon the Gentiles (Gal 3:13-29), it was made before the world began. The covenant of grace is that everlasting covenant, according to which all who are in Christ are blessed with all spiritual blessings from eternity (Eph 1:3-7).

Abraham stands before us as an example of faith. And Abraham stands before us as a picture of grace. Like us, Abraham was what he was by the grace of God. All that Abraham was, and all that he experienced throughout the days of his life show us the grace of God. Here are seven things revealed about Abraham in Gen 11:27 to Gen 13:4, which are true of all saved men and women. If we are believers, Abraham is our father; and if Abraham is our father, we will both do the works of Abraham and enjoy the privileges of Abraham.

Abraham was a chosen man (Gen 11:27 to Gen 12:1).

Terah was one man among many. He had many sons and daughters. There were a great many people living in Ur. But God chose Abraham. The Lord appeared to Abraham. He called Abraham. This was an act of free and sovereign grace. Gods choice of Abraham was the cause of Abrahams faith. The Lord God is found of them that seek him not. Gods election separated Abraham from other men (1Co 4:7). Electing love preserved Abraham until he was called (Jud 1:1). Electing grace retrieved Abraham from the idolatry of his fathers (1Th 2:10-14). Let every saved sinner unceasingly give thanks to God for electing love (Joh 15:16). Because he was a chosen man

Abraham was a called man (Gen 12:1-4; Gal 3:8).

The whole world around him was lying in wickedness. By this time in history idolatry had engulfed the world. The religion of Nimrod and Babel had become the religion of the world. There were few exceptions (Job and his friends, Melchizedek). Polytheism was rampant. They served other gods (Jos 24:2). The worship of saints was common (Job 5:1). Astrology was a part of everyday life. In short, the days of Abraham were much like the days in which we now live. Apparently, Abraham and his family, along with the rest of the world, were idolaters before the Lord appeared to him.

Then, suddenly, unexpectedly, the Lord God appeared to Abraham and called him. As the Lord appeared to Saul of Tarsus on the Damascus road, so the Lord took Abraham by surprise. The Lord God himself appeared to Abraham and preached the gospel to him, saying, In thee shall all nations blessed. Pauls inspired explanation of Abrahams call (Galatians 3) gives us the meaning of the word blessed, as it is used with reference to Abraham. The blessedness which God gave to Abraham, the blessedness to which he was called, was justification. Justification, free justification in Christ, without works, is the blessing of the gospel. With it comes all other blessings. Without it there is no blessedness.

When the God of glory appeared to Abraham, his life was radically changed forever. He was converted by a particular, distinguishing call. It was an irresistible, effectual call of almighty grace. The call by which God fetched Abraham (by which he fetches every object of his grace) to himself was an unconditional, irrevocable call. He said, I, who alone can bless, will bless thee! No wonder the psalmist sang, Blessed is the man whom thou choosest and causest to approach unto thee (Psa 65:4). Being called of God,

Abraham was a believing man (Gen 15:6).

When God called him, Abraham obeyed, because he believed God (Heb 11:8). He might have raised many questions. He might have said, How can these things be? How can I, a guilty sinner, be freely forgiven and justified? How can I know that the Word I have heard is indeed the Word of God? But he did not. He simply believed God. As he walked with God, he learned more of the details of Gods promise. But in the beginning, he simply believed what God had spoken (Gen 22:17-18). Later, God gave him a sign (Genesis 18). But in the beginning he had nothing but the bare Word of God. And he believed God. Can you do that? Will you believe God? Will you take God at his Word? If you do, your faith in Christ will be counted to you for righteousness (Rom 4:21-25). Believing God,

Abraham was a blessed man (Gen 12:2-3).

He was justified. He stood before God accepted in Christ, with the righteousness of Christ (the Object of his faith) imputed to him. Gad gave him a Son in whom all the nations of the world are blessed. That Son, who was only typified in Isaac, is Christ. Because of Gods grace upon him, Abraham was a blessing to all his house. God dealt with all men as they dealt with Abraham, the object of his mercy, grace, and love. All who believe are, like Abraham, blessed of God with all spiritual blessings (Eph 1:3). We are, in Christ, eternally, unconditionally, perpetually, universally blessed of God!

Abraham was a tried man.

As a believer, Abraham began his pilgrimage through this world, as all believers must. His faith was constantly tried and proved by many difficulties, as all true faith is. Sarah, his wife, was still barren. He had no idea where he was going (Heb 11:8-9). Moses tells us God had called him to the land of Canaan. But Abraham did not know it. He did not know where he was going, how he would get there, or what his place would be when he got there. Yet, Abraham never once asked God to show him these things. He simply committed everything to God. This was no small trial; but greater trials followed.

He had to break many earthly ties. He not only had to leave family and friends, he had to leave them in idolatry. When he got into the land of Canaan, new trials awaited him. Canaanites were everywhere, troops of idolaters. Abraham roamed about as a nomad, dwelling in tents. Still, he believed God (Gen 12:7). At last his daily bread began to fail him and he had to go down to Egypt (Gen 12:10). Then there was trouble with Lot (Gen 13:5-18). Later, he was required by his God to give up Hagar and his son, Ishmael, whom he dearly loved. Then, we are told, God did tempt (tried) Abraham (Gen 22:1-19). It is written, Many are the afflictions of the righteous. Trials always accompany faith (1Co 10:13; 2Co 4:17-18; Rom 8:7).

Abraham was a sinful man (Gen 12:10-13).

Without question, his temptation was a severe one. Yet, his actions betrayed a lack of confidence in God. In the face of great fear, this man of great faith displayed great unbelief, and was willing to sacrifice his wifes honor to save his own skin! His schemes gained him nothing, only shame.

Why is this great flaw in the life of this great man set before us, by God the Holy Spirit, without the slightest excuse? It is set before us to teach us and remind us that salvation is, in its totality, the work of Gods free and sovereign grace in Christ. Let us ever remember that the best of men are only men at best. True saints, all of them, are plagued with much sin as long as they live in this body of sin. There are no exceptions. It is not our faith that merits our justification, but Christ, the Object of our faith. Yet, though he was, like us, weak and sinful,

Abraham was a kept man (Gen 12:14 to Gen 13:4).

The Lord God would not deal with Abraham according to his sins. Instead, he interferes to deliver him. He not only kept Sarah from Pharaoh and Abraham from death, but also turned Abrahams evil into good (Psa 76:10). The fear of God came upon Pharaoh. Pharaoh and his house saw how blessed that man is who is blessed of God. Abraham came up out of Egypt a richer man. God is faithful. He will not lose his own. He will be gracious.

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

am 2008, bc 1996

Lot: Gen 11:31, Gen 12:4, Gen 13:1-11, Gen 14:12, Gen 19:1-29, 2Pe 2:7

Reciprocal: Gen 11:10 – General Gen 13:8 – brethren Gen 14:14 – his brother Gen 24:15 – Milcah 1Ch 1:27 – Abram

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

A Family for God’s Purpose

For the Savior to come to earth as the seed of woman and shed his blood, he had to be born. Such a birth would require a family, or lineage. Naturally, we would expect God to choose a righteous man of faith to the father from whom the Seed would eventually come.

Abram was the man of faith God chose. Stephen tells us God first called Abram when he was in Ur of the Chaldees ( Act 7:1-4 ). Perhaps, Terah, his father, moved because of his son’s suggestion, or urging ( Gen 11:27-32 ). However, he stopped in Charan, which, like Ur, was a center of moon worship. This may indicate he reverted to the worship of false gods, if indeed he ever changed to the worship of the true God ( Jos 24:2 ). Abram, on the other hand, obviously followed the true God.

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

Gen 11:27. Here begins the story of Abram. We have here, 1st, His country: Ur of the Chaldees An idolatrous country, where even the children of Eber themselves degenerated. 2d, His relations, mentioned for his sake, and because of their interest in the following story. His father was Terah, of whom it is said, Jos 24:2, that he served other gods on the other side the flood; so early did idolatry gain footing in the world. His brethren were, Nahor, out of whose family both Isaac and Jacob had their wives; and Haran, the father of Lot, of whom it is here said, Gen 11:28, that he died before his father Terah. It is likewise said that he died in Ur of the Chaldees, before that happy removal of the family out of that idolatrous country. His wife was Sarai, who, some think, was the same with Iscah, the daughter of Haran. Abram himself saith, she was the daughter of his father, but not the daughter of his mother, Gen 20:12. She was ten years younger than Abram. 3d, His departure out of Ur of the Chaldees, with his father Terah, and his nephew Lot, and the rest of his family, in obedience to the call of God. This chapter leaves them in Haran or Charran, a place about the midway between Ur and Canaan, where they dwelt till Terahs head was laid; probably because the old man was unable, through the infirmities of age, to proceed in his journey.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Gen 11:27-32. The Sons of Terah.Derived from P and J. Gen 11:27 and Gen 11:31 f. are clearly from P, Gen 11:28-30 probably from J (there are phraseological grounds), and Gen 22:20 (J) refers to Gen 11:29.

Gen 11:28. Ur of the Chaldees: Heb. Ur Kasdim, is generally identified with Uru, one of the most ancient cities of Babylonia, where the moon-god was worshipped, now Mugheir. The Chaldees (Ass. Kaldu) lived on the SE. of Babylonia round the Persian Gulf (pp. 58f.).

Gen 11:30. The childlessness of Sarah plays an important part in the sequel.

Gen 11:31. Read with Sam., LXX, Vulg. he brought them forth or with Syn he went out with them. They went out with him (so Ball) would be simpler still.unto Haran: Haran the place is not the same word as Haran the man; the initial letters are different in Heb. Haran was a very ancient and important city near Carchemish on the Belikh, a tributary of the Euphrates, and, like Ur, a seat of moon-god-worship.

Gen 11:32. Instead of 205 the Sam. gives 145 as the years of Terahs life. In that case Abraham leaves Haran just after his fathers death (so in Act 7:4) instead of sixty years before it. [Our narrative represents Abram as the earlier form of the name, but it is simplest to use the familiar form throughout.]

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

11:27 Now these [are] the generations of Terah: Terah begat {1} Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.

(1) He makes mention first of Abram, not because he was the first born, but for the history which properly belongs to him. Also Abram at the confusion of tongues was 43 years old, for in the destruction of Sodom he was 99 and it was destroyed 52 years after the confusion of tongues.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Abram’s ancestors 11:27-32

"The function of this genealogy is not so much to connect Abraham with the preceding events, as the previous genealogies have done, but to provide the reader with the necessary background for understanding the events in the life of Abraham. The list includes eight names. All the individuals named are relevant for understanding the events of the following narrative except ’Iscah’ (Gen 11:29). The inclusion of this otherwise insignificant name in the list suggests that the author is seeking to achieve a specific number of names. Thus far in the Book of Genesis, the author has followed a pattern of listing ten names between important individuals in the narrative. In this short list only eight names are given, hence if we are expecting ten names, the number of individuals in this list appears to be short by two names. By listing only eight names, the author leaves the reader uncertain who the ninth and, more importantly, the tenth name will be. It is only as the narrative unfolds that the ninth and tenth names are shown to be the two sons of Abraham, ’Ishmael’ (Gen 16:15) and ’Isaac’ (Gen 21:3)." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 109.]

Abram evidently grew up in the city of Ur. A few scholars believe that the Ur in view was located just east of Haran, near the top of the Fertile Crescent. [Note: E.g., Beitzel, pp. 80-81.] However most hold that it was the Ur in southern Mesopotamia. Since the Chaldeans later lived in southern Mesopotamia, this seems to be the correct site.

"Ur is well known as an important center in the land of Sumer; it reached its zenith under the kings of the third dynasty of Ur, who around 2060-1950 B.C. [Abram was born ca. 2166 B.C.] revived for the last time the ancient cultural traditions of the Sumerians. The names of several of Abram’s relatives are also the names of known cities: . . . Terah . . . Nahor . . . Serug . . . Haran . . . and Laban the Aramean, Jacob’s father-in-law, was from the city Haran in Paddan-aram. All these are places around the river Balih in northern Mesopotamia. Haran and Nahor are often mentioned in the Mari documents of the eighteenth century B.C., and cities named Tell-terah and Serug are known from later Assyrian sources." [Note: The Macmillan Bible Atlas, p. 28.]

A later writer probably added the reference to the Chaldeans in Gen 11:28 since the Chaldeans did not enter Babylonia until about 1,000 B.C. [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 272; Mathews, 11:27-50:26, p. 100.]

"The movement between Ur and Haran becomes easy to understand when we recall that Ur was the greatest commercial capital that the world had yet seen . . . ." [Note: W. F. Albright, "Abram the Hebrew: A New Archaeological Interpretation," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 163 (October 1961):44. See The Macmillan Bible Atlas, map 25.]

God first called Abram to leave his home when the patriarch still lived in Ur (Gen 12:1-3; cf. Gen 15:7; Neh 9:7; Act 7:2). Abram’s family members were polytheists (Jos 24:2).

"Several of Abram’s relations have names that suggest adherence to lunar worship (cf. Sarah, Milcah, Laban), a cult that was prominent in Ur and Harran [sic Haran]." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 252. Cf. Joshua 24:2.]

Abram married his half-sister, Sarai, which was not contrary to God’s will at this early date in history (cf. Lev 18:9; Lev 20:17; Deu 27:22). Endogamy is the practice of marrying within a family group. God’s call was pure grace; there is no evidence in the text that God chose Abram because he merited favor. God was beginning to form a family of faithful followers for Himself. He called them to leave this urban center in trust and obedience. Abram’s exodus from his homeland and Israel’s exodus from Egypt were two key events in the formation of national Israel.

Abram’s family stayed in Haran for some time (Gen 11:31-32).

"The difference between Terah and Abraham was one thing only: a response of faith to God’s call." [Note: George Van Pelt Campbell, "Refusing God’s Blessing: An Exposition of Genesis 11:27-32," Bibliotheca Sacra 165:659 (July-September 2008):282.]

When the patriarch Terah died, Abram continued his trek toward Canaan in obedience to God’s call.

"Like Nuzi, Haran was also part of the Hurrian Mitanni Empire whilst the Hurrians were at the height of their power, so that the tablets discovered at Nuzi would also reflect the way of life in Haran. In this manner, scholars have ascertained from a careful study of the Nuzi tablets that they are very helpful in explaining many of the Biblical episodes relating to the Patriarchs, which had hitherto been somewhat puzzling.

"Although the Bible indicates that Abram eventually left Haran (Gen 12:4), the Patriarchs nevertheless kept in close contact with that city. Abram sent his servant back to Aram-naharaim, the region in which Haran was situated, in order to find a wife for his son Isaac (Gen 24:2-10). Isaac later told his younger son Jacob to flee to his uncle Laban in Haran, in order to escape the wrath of his brother Esau, whom he had tricked out of his birthright blessing (Gen 27:43). Jacob indeed fled to Haran, subsequently marrying there his cousins Leah and Rachel (Gen 29:1-30).

"The influence of Hurrian society on the Patriarchs was undoubtedly very strong, not only because of the origins of Abram in Mesopotamia, but also because all the Patriarchs maintained contact with the area. This is borne out by the fact that many of the incidents in the Biblical narratives relating to the Patriarchs in reality reflect Hurrian social and legal customs, and prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Patriarchal way of life had its roots in Hurrian society." [Note: Stuart West, "The Nuzi Tablets," Bible and Spade 10:3-4 (Summer-Autumn 1981):66.]

Archaeologists have dated the Nuzi tablets four or five hundred years after the patriarchs, but they reflect customs that had been prevalent for centuries. [Note: See M. J. Selman, "The Social Environment of the Patriarchs," Tyndale Bulletin 27 (1976):114-36.] We should be careful not to overemphasize the influence of Hurrian civilization, however. [Note: Ephraim Speiser did this in his commentary on Genesis.]

"In the period (the first part of the Middle Bronze Age [ca. 2000-1750 B.C.]) Palestine was receiving an infusion of population as semi-nomadic groups infiltrated the land. . . .

"That these newcomers were ’Amorites,’ of the same Northwest-Semitic stock as those whom we have met in Mesopotamia, can scarcely be doubted. Their names, so far as these are known, point unanimously in that direction. Their mode of life is splendidly illustrated by the Tale of Sinuhe, but especially by the stories of Genesis-for it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the migration of Israel’s ancestors was a part of this very movement. These people brought to Palestine no fundamental ethnic change, for they were of the same general Northwest-Semitic stock as were the Canaanites." [Note: Bright, pp. 48-49.]

Major Historical Periods of the Promised Land

Stone (Neolithic) Age	to ca. 4000 BC (?)
Copper (Calcolithic) Age	ca. 4000-3150 BC (?)
Early Bronze Age I	3150-2850 BC
Early Bronze Age II	2850-2650 BC
Early Bronze Age III	2650-2350 BC
Early Bronze Age IV	2350-2200 BC
Middle Bronze Age I	2200-2000 BC
Middle Bronze Age IIA	2000-1750 BC
Middle Bronze Age IIB	1750-1630 BC
Middle Bronze Age IIC	1630-1550 BC
Late Bronze Age I	1550-1400 BC
Late Bronze Age IIA	1400-1300 BC
Late Bronze Age IIB	1300-1200 BC
Iron Age I	1200-1000 BC
Iron Age II	1000-586 BC
Babylonian/Persian Period	586-332 BC
Hellenistic Period I (Ptolemaic and Seleucid)	332-152 BC
Hellenistic Period II (Hasmonean)	152-37 BC
Roman Period I (Herodian)	37 BC-AD 70
Roman Period II	AD 70-180
Roman Period III	AD 180-324

Major Historical Periods of the Promised Land (cont.)

Byzantine Period (Christian)	AD 324-640
Arab Period (Moslem)	AD 640-1099
Crusader Period (Christian)	AD 1099-1291
Mameluk Period (Moslem)	AD 1291-1517
Turkish Period (Moslem)	AD 1517-1917
British Mandate Period (Christian)	AD 1917-1948
State of Israel Period (Jewish)	1948 – today

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

II. PATRIARCHAL NARRATIVES 11:27-50:26

One of the significant changes in the emphasis that occurs at this point in Genesis is from cursing in the primeval record to blessing in the patriarchal narratives. The Abrahamic Covenant is most important in this respect. How Abram’s family gained and provided these blessings unfolds. Israel could, and we can, identify with their experiences.

"Chapters 1-11 are set in Babylonia; chs. 12-36 are set in Palestine; chs. 37-50 are set in Egypt. (The same kind of tripartite geographical focus emerges from Exodus: [1] Exo 1:1 to Exo 12:36, in Egypt; [2] Exo 12:37 to Exo 18:27, to Sinai; [3] Exo 19:1 to Exo 40:38, at Sinai.) In other words, each part of the Mediterranean world is highlighted in some part of Genesis. The crucial center section of Genesis (chs. 12-36) is bracketed geographically by two sections of the Near Eastern world with whose history that of Israel would be constantly interlocked. . . .

"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.

"Genesis is moving us progressively from generation (chs. 1-2), to degeneration (chs. 3-11), to regeneration (chs. 12-50)." [Note: Hamilton, pp. 10, 11.]

Chapters 1-11 present a structural pattern that carries over into the rest of the Pentateuch.

"The importance of Genesis 1-11 for the rest of the Pentateuch can be seen in the fact that its narrative structure provides a pattern by which the author often shapes subsequent pentateuchal narratives. Thus the order and arrangement of the Creation accounts in Genesis 1-2 exhibit the same pattern as the description of the building of the tabernacle (Exodus 25-31); the tabernacle is portrayed as a return to the Garden of Eden. The instructions given to Noah for building the ark foreshadow those given to Moses for building the tabernacle. Furthermore, one can demonstrate that whole sections of laws in the Pentateuch have been grouped and arranged in patterns that parallel the narrative structure of Genesis 1-11." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 39.]

"The ancient oriental background to Genesis 1-11 shows it to be concerned with rather different issues from those that tend to preoccupy modern readers. It is affirming the unity of God in the face of polytheism, his justice rather than his caprice, his power as opposed to his impotence, his concern for mankind rather than his exploitation. And whereas Mesopotamia clung to the wisdom of primeval man, Genesis records his sinful disobedience. Because as Christians we tend to assume these points in our theology, we often fail to recognize the striking originality of the message of Genesis 1-11 and concentrate on subsidiary points that may well be of less moment." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. l.]

Some notable changes take place in the second part of Genesis, though both parts begin with a creation initiated by the word of God (Gen 1:1; Gen 12:1). Instead of the genealogies being prominent and the stories secondary, as in chapters 1-11, the reverse becomes true now. God retreats farther into the background of the events recorded than was the case earlier, and there is corresponding emphasis on the personalities of the patriarchs. The promises to the patriarchs form the central theme of this section, especially those concerning descendants, land, and divine blessing. There also seems to be increasing depth in the moral awareness of the patriarchs as generation follows generation from Abram to Joseph. [Note: Ibid., p. 258. See also Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 25]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

A. What became of Terah 11:27-25:11

This is the sixth and central (most important) of the 11 toledot sections in Genesis.

A major theme of the Pentateuch is the partial fulfillment of the promises to the patriarchs. The promises in Gen 12:1-3; Gen 12:7 are the fountainhead from which the rest of the Pentateuch flows. [Note: See Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 169.] Walter Kaiser labeled the three things promised Abram as an heir, a heritage, and an inheritance. [Note: Walter Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament Theology, pp. 35, 84-99.] David Clines called them posterity, relationship with God, and land. [Note: David Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch, pp. 29, 45-60.] J. Dwight Pentecost and Robert L. Saucy referred to them as seed, blessing, and land. [Note: J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, pp. 65-94; Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, p. 42.]

God progressively revealed more information about each of these promises. He gave more information about the land promise in Gen 13:15; Gen 13:17; Gen 15:7-8; Gen 15:18; Gen 17:8; Gen 24:7; Gen 26:3-4 (plural "lands"); Gen 28:4; Gen 28:13; Gen 35:12; Gen 48:4; and Gen 50:24. Repetition of the seed promise occurs in Gen 13:15-16; Gen 15:5; Gen 17:2; Gen 17:5-10; Gen 17:13; Gen 17:16; Gen 17:19-20; Gen 18:18; Gen 21:12; Gen 22:17-18; Gen 26:3-4; Gen 26:24; Gen 28:13-14; Gen 32:12; Gen 35:11-12; Gen 46:3; and Gen 48:4; Gen 48:16.

"A line of successive representative sons of the patriarchs who were regarded as one with the whole group they represented matched the seminal idea already advocated in Gen 3:15. Furthermore, in the concept of ’seed’ were the two aspects of the seed as a future benefit and the seed as the present beneficiaries of God’s temporal and spiritual gifts. Consequently, ’seed’ was always a collective singular noun; never did it appear as a plural noun (e.g., as in ’sons’). Thereby the ’seed’ was marked as a unit, yet with a flexibility of reference: now to the one person, now to the many descendants of that family. This interchange of reference with its implied corporate solidarity was more than a cultural phenomena [sic phenomenon] or an accident of careless editing; it was part and parcel of its doctrinal intention." [Note: Kaiser, Toward an . . ., pp. 88-89.]

The promise of universal blessing recurs in Gen 18:18; Gen 22:18 (to Abraham); Gen 26:4 (to Isaac); and Gen 28:14 (to Jacob). God reiterated His purpose with additional detail to Abraham in Gen 13:14-17; Gen 17:1-21; and Gen 22:15-18; to Isaac in Gen 26:3-5; Gen 26:24; and to Jacob in Gen 28:13-15; and Gen 35:9-12 (cf. Gen 46:1-4).

"While this promissory triad of blessing, seed, and land is the thematic cord binding the Book of Genesis, we find that the counterthemes of fratricide, violence, uncreation, and expulsion are the literary-theological foil for the promissory blessing." [Note: Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, p. 59.]

Genesis 12-50 focuses on the promise of posterity (an heir, seed), though the other promises receive much attention. Exodus and Leviticus deal more with the promise of worldwide influence (relationship with God, heritage, blessing), and Numbers and Deuteronomy emphasize the promise of real estate (land, inheritance, and rest).

In Genesis 12-25 the problems of possessing the land and obtaining an heir dominate the story of Abram’s life. How will Abram obtain the promised land, and who will be Abram’s promised heir? These are the great questions that the thoughtful reader continually asks as he reads the story of Abram. At least one of these questions is central in every incident in Abram’s life that God has chosen to record in Genesis. These questions form the unifying theme of the Abram narrative. [Note: See Larry Helyer, "The Separation of Abram and Lot: Its Significance in the Patriarchal Narratives," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 26 (June 1983):77-88; Claus Westermann, "Promises to the Patriarchs," Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible Supplement, pp. 690-93; Dixon Sutherland, "The Organization of the Abraham Promise Narrative," Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 95:3 (1983):337-43; Whybray, p. 55; and Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 262.]

One writer called the form in which Moses revealed Abram’s story an "obstacle story."

"Few literary techniques have enjoyed so universal and perennial a vogue as the obstacle story. It is found in ancient and modern literature from the Gilgamesh epic and the Odyssey to the Perils of Pauline and the latest novel. Its character is episodal in that it is not self-contained but finds its raison d’etre in its relation to the larger story or narrative of which it is a part. Its purpose is to arouse suspense and sustain interest by recounting episodes which threaten or retard the fulfillment of what the reader either suspects or hopes or knows to be the ending of the story." [Note: Peter E. Ellis, The Yahwist, the Bible’s First Theologian, p. 136.]

Twelve crises arise as the story of Abram’s life unfolds. Each of these must be overcome and is overcome by God who eventually does provide Abram’s descendants. Each of these problems constituted a challenge to Abram’s faith. Is God faithful and powerful enough to provide what He promised? In the end we can see that He is.

Each problem Abram encountered is typical of problems that every believer has to deal with in seeking to live by faith. Consequently each episode in Abram’s life teaches us something about God’s power and faithfulness and should enable us to live by faith more consistently. Moses originally recorded these lessons for Israel’s benefit so the Israelites would emulate Abram’s faith. Abram was not without his flaws, and his failings prove as instructive as his successes, as is true of all biblical characters.

The problems Abram’s faith encountered were these.

1.    Sarai was barren and incapable of producing an heir (Gen 11:30).

2.    Abram had to leave the Promised Land, which God had told him he would inherit (Gen 12:10).

3.    Abram’s life was in danger in Egypt (Gen 12:11-20).

4.    Abram’s nephew (heir?), Lot, strove with him over the land (ch. 13).

5.    Abram entered a war and could have died (Gen 14:1-16).

6.    Abram’s life was in danger from retaliation in the Promised Land (Gen 15:1).

7.    God ruled Eliezer out as Abram’s heir (Gen 15:2-3).

8.    Hagar, pregnant with Abram’s son (heir?), departed (Gen 16:6).

9.    Abimelech threatened Sarai’s reputation and child (heir?) in Gerar (ch. 20).

10.    Abram had two heirs (Gen 21:8-11).

11.    God commanded Abram to slay his heir (ch. 22).

12.    Abram could not find a proper wife for his heir (Gen 24:5).

". . . the narrator has skillfully woven this material together in such a way as to involve the reader/listener in a drama of increasing tension between, on the one hand, the promise of Yahweh that Abram would have an heir and, indeed, would become the father of many nations, and, on the other, the threat to the fulfillment of this promise by a series of crises." [Note: Helyer, p. 80. See Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 90, for a diagram of the chiastic structure of the Abraham narrative.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

1. Terah and Abram’s obedience 11:27-12:9

All that Moses wrote in this pericope (Gen 11:27 to Gen 12:9) deals with Abram and his future in the Promised Land. Abram obeyed the Lord’s command to relocate to a land that God would give to him and his descedants with the promise that he would become a blessing to the rest of the world. Abram’s example of obedience is a model for all believers to forsake all else to obtain the promised blessings of God and to serve Him by becoming a blessing to others.

"Within the book of Genesis no section is more significant than Gen 11:27 to Gen 12:9." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 281.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

THE CALL OF ABRAHAM

Gen 11:27-32; Gen 12:1-5

WITH Abraham there opens a new chapter in the history of the race; a chapter of the profoundest significance. The consequences of Abrahams movements and beliefs have been limitless and enduring. All succeeding time has been influenced by him. And yet there is in his life a remarkable simplicity, and an entire absence of such events as impress contemporaries. Among all the forgotten millions of his own time he stands alone a recognisable and memorable figure. But around his figure there gathers no throng of armed followers; with his name, no vast territorial dominion, no new legislation, not even any work of literature or art is associated. The significance of his life was not military, nor legislative, nor literary, but religious. To him must be carried back the belief in one God. We find him born and brought up among idolaters; and although it is certain there were others besides himself who here and there upon earth had dimly arrived at the same belief as he, yet it is certainly from him the Monotheistic belief has been diffused. Since his day the world has never been without its explicit advocacy. It is his belief in the true God, in a God who manifested His existence and His nature by responding to this belief, it is this belief and the place he gave it as the regulating principle of all his movements and thoughts, that have given him his everlasting influence.

With Abraham there is also introduced the first step in a new method adopted by God in the training of men. The dispersion of men and the divergence of their languages are now seen to have been the necessary preliminary to this new step in the education of the world-the fencing round of one people till they should learn to know God and understand and exemplify His government. It is true, God reveals Himself to all men and governs all; but by selecting one race with special adaptations, and by giving to it a special training, God might more securely and more rapidly reveal Himself to all. Each nation has certain characteristics, a national character which grows by seclusion from the influences which are forming other races. There is a certain mental and moral individuality stamped upon every separate people. Nothing is more certainly retained; nothing more certainly handed down from generation to generation. It would therefore be a good practical means of conserving and deepening the knowledge of God, if it were made the national interest of a people to preserve it, and if it were closely identified with the national characteristics. This was the method adopted by God. He meant to combine allegiance to Himself with national advantages, and spiritual with national character, and separation in belief with a distinctly outlined and defensible territory.

This method, in common with all Divine methods, was in strict keeping with the natural evolution of history. The migration of Abraham occurred in the epoch of migrations. But although for centuries before Abraham new nations had been forming, none of them had belief in God as its formative principle. Wave upon wave of warriors, shepherds, colonists have left the prolific plains of Mesopotamia. Swarm after swarm has left that busy hive, pushing one another further and further west and east, but all have been urged by natural impulses, by hunger, commerce, love of adventure and conquest. By natural likings and dislikings, by policy, and by dint of force the multitudinous tribes of men were finding their places in the world, the weaker being driven to the hills, and being schooled there by hard living till their descendants came down and conquered their conquerors. All this went on without regard to any very high motives. As it was with the Goths who invaded Italy for her wealth, as it is now with those who people America and Africa because there is land or room enough, so it was then. But at last God selects one man and says, “I will make of thee a great nation.” The origin of this nation is not facile love of change nor lust of territory, but belief in God. Without this belief this people had not been. No other account can be given of its origin. Abraham is himself already the member of a tribe, well-off and likely to be well-off; he has no large family to provide for, but he is separated from his kindred and country, and led out to be himself a new beginning, and this because, as he himself throughout his life said, he heard Gods call and responded to it.

The city which claims the distinction of being Abrahams birthplace, or at least of giving its name to the district where he was born, is now represented by a few mounds of ruins rising out of the flat marshy ground on the western bank of the Euphrates, not far above the point where it joins its waters to those of the Tigris and glides on to the Persian gulf. In the time of Abraham, Ur was the capital city which gave its name to one of the most populous and fertile regions of the earth. The whole land of Accad, which ran up from the sea-coast to Upper Mesopotamia (or Shinar), seems to have been known as Ur-ma, the land of Ur. This land was of no great extent, being little if at all larger than Scotland, but it was the richest of Asia. The high civilisation which this land enjoyed even in the time of Abraham has been disclosed in the abundant and multifarious Babylonian remains which have recently been brought to light.

What induced Terah to abandon so prosperous a land can only be conjectured. It is possible that the idolatrous customs of the inhabitants may have had something to do with his movements. For while the ancient Babylonian records reveal a civilisation surprisingly advanced, and a social order in some respects admirable, they also make disclosures regarding the worship of the gods which must shock even those who are familiar with the immoralities frequently fostered by heathen religions. The city of Ur was not only the capital, it was the holy city of the Chaldeans. In its northern quarter rose high above the surrounding buildings the successive stages of the temple of the moon-god, culminating in a platform on which the priests could both accurately observe the motions of the stars and hold their night-watches in honour of their god. In the courts of this temple might be heard breaking the silence of midnight one of those magnificent hymns, still preserved, in which idolatry is seen in its most attractive dress, and in which the Lord of Ur is invoked in terms not unworthy of the living God. But in these same temple-courts Abraham may have seen the firstborn led to the altar, the fruit of the body sacrificed to atone for the sin of the soul; and here too he must have seen other sights even more shocking and repulsive. Here he was no doubt taught that strangely mixed religion which clung for generations to some members of his family. Certainly he was taught in common with the whole community to rest on the seventh day; as he was trained to look to the stars with reverence and to the moon as something more than the light which was set to rule the night.

Possibly then Terah may have been induced to move northwards by a desire to shake himself free from customs he disapproved. The Hebrews themselves seem always to have considered that his migration had a religious motive. “This people,” says one of their old writings, “is descended from the Chaldeans, and they sojourned heretofore in Mesopotamia because they would not follow the gods of their fathers which were in the land of Chaldea. For they left the way of their ancestors and worshipped the God of heaven, the God whom they knew; so they cast them out from the face of their gods, and they fled into Mesopotamia and sojourned there many days. Then their God commanded them to depart from the place where they sojourned and to go into the land of Canaan.” But if this is a true account of the origin of the movement northwards, it must have been Abraham rather than his father who was the moving spirit of it; for it is certainly Abraham and not Terah who stands as the significant figure inaugurating the new era.

If doubt rests on the moving cause of the migration from Ur, none rests on that which prompted Abraham to leave Charran and journey towards Canaan. He did so in obedience to what he believed to be a Divine command, and in faith on what he understood to be a Divine promise. How he became aware that a Divine command thus lay upon him we do not know. Nothing could persuade him that he was not commanded. Day by day he heard in his soul what he recognised as a Divine voice, saying: “Get thee out of thy country and from thy kindred and from thy fathers house, unto a land that I will show thee!” This was Gods first revelation of Himself to Abraham. Up to this time Abraham to all appearance had no knowledge of any God but the deities worshipped by his fathers in Chaldea. Now, he finds within himself impulses which he cannot resist and which he is conscious he ought not to resist. He believes it to be his duty to adopt a course which may look foolish and which he can justify only by saying that his conscience bids him. He recognises, apparently for the first time, that through his conscience there speaks to him a God Who is supreme. In dependence on this God he gathered his possessions together and departed.

So far, one may be tempted to say, no very unusual faith was required. Many a poor girl has followed a weakly brother or a dissipated father to Australia or the wild west of America; many a lad has gone to the deadly west coast of Africa with no such prospects as Abraham. For Abraham had the double prospect which makes migration desirable. Assure the colonist that he will find land and have strong sons to till and hold and leave it to, and you give him all the motive he requires. These were the promises made to Abraham-a land and a seed. Neither was there at this period much difficulty in believing that both promises would be fulfilled. The land he no doubt expected to find in some unoccupied territory. And as regards the children, he had not yet faced the condition that only through Sarah was this part of the promise to be fulfilled.

But the peculiarity in Abrahams abandonment of present certainties for the sake of a future and unseen good is, that it was prompted not by family affection or greed or an adventurous disposition, but by faith in a God Whom no one but himself recognised. It was the first step in a life-long adherence to an Invisible, Spiritual Supreme. It was that first step which committed him to life-long dependence upon and intercourse with One Who had authority to regulate his movements and power to bless him. From this time forth all that he sought in life was the fulfilment of Gods promise. He staked his future upon Gods existence and faithfulness. Had Abraham abandoned Charran at the command of a widely ruling monarch who promised him ample compensation, no record would have been made of so ordinary a transaction. But this was an entirely new thing and well worth recording, that a man should leave country and kindred and seek an unknown land under the impression that thus he was obeying the command of the unseen God. While others worshipped sun, moon, and stars, and recognised the Divine in their brilliance and power, in their exaltation above earth and control of earth and its life, Abraham saw that there was something greater than the order of nature and more worthy of worship, even the still small voice that spoke within his own conscience of right and wrong in human conduct, and that told him how his own life must be ordered. While all around him were bowing down to the heavenly host and sacrificing to them the highest things in human nature, he heard a voice falling from these shining ministers of Gods will, which said to him, “See thou do it not, for we are thy fellow-servants; worship thou God!” This was the triumph of the spiritual over the material; the acknowledgment that in God there is something greater than can be found in nature; that man finds his true affinity not in the things that are seen but in the unseen Spirit that is over all. It is this that gives to the figure of Abraham its simple grandeur and its permanent significance.

Under the simple statement “The Lord said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country,” there are probably hidden years of questioning and meditation. Gods revelation of Himself to Abram in all probability did not take the determinate form of articulate command without having passed through many preliminary stages of surmise and doubt and mental conflict. But once assured that God is calling him, Abraham responds quickly and resolutely. The revelation has come to a mind in which it will not be lost. As one of the few theologians who have paid attention to the method of revelation has said: “A Divine revelation does not dispense with a certain character and certain qualities of mind in the person who is the instrument of it. A man who throws off the chains of authority and association must be a man of extraordinary independence and strength of mind, although he does so in obedience to a Divine revelation; because no miracle, no sign or wonder which accompanies a revelation can by its simple stroke force human nature from the innate hold of custom and the adhesion to and fear of established opinion: can enable it to confront the frowns of men, and take up truth opposed to general prejudice, except there is in the man himself, who is the recipient of the revelation, a certain strength of mind and independence which concurs with the Divine intention.”

That Abrahams faith triumphed over exceptional difficulties and enabled him to do what no other motive would have been strong enough to accomplish, there is therefore no call to assert. During his after-life his faith was severely tried, but the mere abandonment of his country in the hope of gaining a better was the ordinary motive of his day. It was the ground of this hope, the belief in God, which made Abrahams conduct original and fruitful. That sufficient inducement was presented to him is only to say that God is reasonable. There is always sufficient inducement to obey God; because life is reasonable. No man was ever commanded or required to do anything which it was not for his advantage to do. Sin is a mistake. But so weak are we, so liable to be moved by the things present to us and by the desire for immediate gratification, that it never ceases to be wonderful and admirable when a sense of duty enables a man to forego present advantage and to believe that present loss is the needful preliminary of eternal gain.

Abrahams faith is chosen by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews as an apt illustration of his definition of Faith, that it is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” One property of faith is that it gives to things future, and which are as yet only hoped for, all the reality of actual present existence. Future things may be said to have no existence for those who do not believe in them. They are not taken into account. Men do not shape their conduct with any reference to them. But when a man believes in certain events that are to be, this faith of his lends to these future things the reality, the “substance” which things actually existing in the present have. They have the same weight with him, the same influence upon his conduct.

Without some power to realise the future and to take account of what is to be as well as of what already is, we could not carry on the common affairs of life. And success in life very greatly depends on foresight, or the power to see clearly what is to be and give it due weight. The man who has no foresight makes his plans, but being unable to apprehend the future his plans are disconcerted. Indeed it is one of the most valuable gifts a man can have, to be able to say with tolerable accuracy what is to happen and what is not; to be able to sift rumours, common talk, popular impressions, probabilities, chances, and to be able to feel sure what the future will really be; to be able to weigh the character and commercial prospects of the men he deals with, so as to see what must be the issue of their operations and whom he may trust. Many of our most serious mistakes in life arise from our inability to imagine the consequences of our actions and to forefeel how these consequences will affect us.

Now faith largely supplies the want of this imaginative foresight. It lends substance to things future. It believes the account given of the future by a trustworthy authority. In many ordinary matters all men are dependent on the testimony of others for their knowledge of the result of certain operations. The astronomer, the physiologist, the navigator, each has his department within which his predictions are accepted as authoritative. But for what is beyond the ken of science no faith in our fellow-men avails. Feeling that if there is a life beyond the grave, it must have important bearings on the present, we have yet no data by which to calculate what will then be, or only data so difficult to use that our calculations are but guesswork. But faith accepts the testimony of God as unhesitatingly as that of man and gives reality to the future He describes and promises. It believes that the life God calls us to is a better life, and it enters upon it. It believes that there is a world to come in which all things are new and all things eternal; and, so believing, it cannot but feel less anxious to cling to this worlds goods. That which embitters all loss and deepens sorrow is the feeling that this world is all; but faith makes eternity as real as time and gives substantial existence to that new and limitless future in which we shall have time to forget the sorrows and live past the losses of this present world.

The radical elements of greatness are identical from age to age, and the primal duties which no good man can evade do not vary as the world grows older. What we admire in Abraham we feel to be incumbent on ourselves. Indeed the uniform call of Christ to all His followers is even in form almost identical with that which stirred Abraham, and made him the father of the faithful. “Follow Me,” says our Lord, “and every one that forsaketh houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for My names sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.” And there is something perennially edifying in the spectacle of a man who believes that God has a place and a use for him in the world, and who puts himself at Gods disposal; who enters upon life refusing to be bound by the circumstances of his upbringing, by the expectations of his friends, by prevailing customs, by prospect of gain and advancement among men; and resolved to listen to the highest voice of all, to discover what God has for him to do upon earth and where he is likely to find most of God; who virtually and with deepest sincerity says, Let God choose my destination: I have good land here, but if God wishes me elsewhere, elsewhere I go: who, in one word, believes in the call of God to himself, who admits it into the springs of his conduct, and recognises that for him also the highest life his conscience can suggest is the only life he can live, no matter how cumbrous and troublesome and expensive be the changes involved in entering it. Let the spectacle take hold of your imagination-the spectacle of a man believing that there is something more akin to himself and higher than the material life and the great laws that govern it, and going calmly and hopefully forward into the unknown, because he knows that God is with him, that in God is our true life, that man liveth not by bread only, but by every word that cometh out of the mouth of God.

Even thus then may we bring our faith to a true and reliable test. All men who have a confident expectation of future good make sacrifices or run risks to obtain it. Mercantile life proceeds on the understanding that such ventures are reasonable and will always be made. Men might if they liked spend their money on present pleasure, but they rarely do so. They prefer to put it into concerns or transactions from which they expect to reap large returns. They have faith, and as a necessary consequence they make ventures. So did these Hebrews-they ran a great risk, they gave up the sole means of livelihood they had any experience of and entered what they knew to be a bare desert, because they believed in the land that lay beyond and in Gods promise. What then has your faith done? What have you ventured that you would not have ventured but for Gods promise. Suppose Christs promise failed, in what would you be the losers? Of course you would lose what you call your hope of heaven-but what would you find you had lost in this world? When a merchants ships are wrecked or when his investment turns out bad, he loses not only the gain he hoped for, but the means he risked. Suppose then Christ were declared bankrupt, unable to fulfil your expectations, would you really find that you had ventured so much upon His promise that you are deeply involved in His bankruptcy, and are much worse off in this world and now than you would otherwise have been? Or may I not use the words of one of the most cautious and charitable of men, and say, “I really fear, when we come to examine, it will be found that there is nothing we resolve, nothing we do, nothing we do not do, nothing we avoid, nothing we choose, nothing we give up, nothing we pursue, which we should not resolve, and do, and not do, and avoid, and choose, and give up, and pursue, if Christ had not died and heaven were not promised us.” If this be the case-if you would be neither much better nor much worse though Christianity were a fable-if you have in nothing become poorer in this world that your reward in heaven may be greater, if you have made no investments and run no risks, then really the natural inference is that your faith in the future inheritance is small. Barnabas sold his Cyprus property because he believed heaven was his, and his bit of land suddenly became a small consideration; useful only in so far as he could with the mammon of unrighteousness make himself a mansion in heaven. Paul gave up his prospects of advancement in the nation, of which he would of course as certainly have become the leader and first man as he took that position in the Church, and plainly tells us that having made so large a venture on Christs word, he would if his word failed be a great loser, of all men most miserable because he had risked his all in this life on it. People sometimes take offence at Pauls plain way of speaking of the sacrifices he had made, and of Peters plain way of saying “we have left all and followed Thee, what shall we have therefore?” but when people have made sacrifices they know it and can specify them, and a faith that makes no sacrifices is no good either in this worlds affairs or in religion. Self-consciousness may not be a very good thing: but self-deception is a worse.

Here as elsewhere a clear hope sprang from faith. Recognising God, Abraham knew that there was for men a great future. He looked forward to a time when all men should believe as he did, and in him all families of the earth be blessed. No doubt in these early days, when all men were on the move and striving to make a name and a place for themselves, an onward look might be common. But the far-reaching extent, the certainty, and the definiteness of Abrahams view of the future were unexampled. There far back in the hazy dawn he stood while the morning mists hid the horizon from every other eye, and he alone discerns what is to be. One clear voice and one only rings out in unfaltering tones and from amidst the babel of voices that utter either amazing follies or misdirected yearnings, gives the one true forecast and direction-the one living word which has separated itself from and survived all the prognostications of Chaldean soothsayers and priests of Ur, because it has never ceased to give life to men. It has created for itself a channel and you can trace it through the centuries by the living green of its banks and the life it gives as it goes. For this hope of Abraham has been fulfilled; the creed and its accompanying blessing which that day lived in the heart of one man only has brought blessing to all the families of the earth.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary