And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.
22. God went up ] This expression, which occurs also in Gen 35:13 (P), means that God returned to His dwelling-place, which the Israelite believed to be above the Heavens.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 22. God went up from Abraham.] Ascended evidently before him, so that he had the fullest proof that it was no human being, no earthly angel or messenger, that talked with him; and the promise of a son in the course of a single year, at this set time in the next year, Ge 17:21, which had every human probability against it, was to be the sure token of the truth of all that had hitherto taken place, and the proof that all that was farther promised should be fulfilled in its due time. Was it not in nearly the same way in which the Lord went up from Abraham, that Jesus Christ ascended to heaven in the presence of his disciples? Lu 24:51.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
To heaven in a visible manner, as it seems he conversed with him in some visible shape. Compare Gen 35:13; Jdg 13:20.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And he left off talking; with him,…. After he had finished all he had to say to him at this time. It was great condescension in the divine Being to talk with a creature; it was wonderful grace and kindness to make such promises to him, as he did, and indulge him with answers of prayer and communion with him; but the highest enjoyments of God here are not lasting; uninterrupted communion with him is reserved for another world:
and God went up from Abraham; from the earth, where he had been with Abraham, and ascended above him up to heaven, in a visible, and very likely in an human form, in which he descended: the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan paraphrase it, “the glory of the Lord”, the glorious Shechinah, the Lord of life and glory.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
When God had finished His address and ascended again, Abraham immediately fulfilled the covenant duty enjoined upon him, by circumcision himself on that very day, along with all the male members of his house. Because Ishmael was 13 years old when he was circumcised, the Arabs even now defer circumcision to a much later period than the Jews, generally till between the ages of 5 and 13, and frequently even till the 13th year.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
22. God went up from Abraham This expression contains a profitable doctrine, namely, that Abraham certainly knew this vision to be from God; for the ascent here spoken implies as much. And it is necessary for the pious to be fully assured that what they hear proceeds from God, in order that they may not be carried hither and thither but may depend alone upon heaven. And whereas God now, when he has spoken to us, does not openly ascend to heaven before our eyes; this ought to diminish nothing from the certainty of our faith; because a full manifestation of Him has been made in Christ, with which it is right that we should be satisfied. Besides, although God does not daily ascend upwards in a visible form, yet, in this his majesty is not less resplendent, that he raises us upwards by transforming us into his own image. Further, he gives sufficient authority to his word, when he seals it upon our hearts by his spirit.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
5. Abrahams Obedience, Gen. 17:22-27
22 And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.
23 And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abrahams house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin, in the self-same day, as God had said unto him. 24 And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. 25 And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. 26 In the self-same day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son; 27 And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him.
The prompt obedience of Abraham is shown by his circumcising himself and all male members of his household without delay (in the selfsame day). The text indicates that Abraham performed the rite upon himself and upon Ishmael first, and then upon the men of his house, those born in the house and those bought with money of a foreigner. Abraham was 99 and Ishmael 13 years old when the circumcision was performed. (According to the testimony of Josephus, Ant. I. 12. 2, the Arabs delay circumcision until the 13th year. By Moslems Ishmael is hailed as an ancestor, buried with his mother in the Kaaba at Mecca.) Abrahams faith triumphed over his doubts. He responded to the covenant by circumcising himself and all his males. Thus he passed another crucial stage in his walk and experience with the covenant-keeping God! (HSB, 29). Note well, Gen. 17:27all the men of his house, those born in the house, and those bought with money of a foreigner, were circumcised with him. Jamieson (CECG, 154): Whatever had become the heathen version of this symbol, no one will deny that when the Hebrew patriarch circumcised the members of his household, he both acted with a definite purpose and was animated by a spirit thoroughly religious. The symbol was profoundly ethical, and was distinguished not only for its equal operation, but the grandeur of the end for which it was appointed. Translated into words, the meaning of it was, be ye holy, for I am holy. Outward in the flesh, and so, accordant with the sterner genius of the old economy, it imprinted on, the mind of every Hebrew the peculiar closeness of his own relations to the pure and perfect God, and the necessity therein implied of fearing and loving Him, and circumcising (Deu. 10:12-16) more and more the foreskin of the heart. The narrative describes the rite as performed upon every male in Abrahams house. Females had no equivalent for it. The absence of circumcision, however, did not convey the idea that the privileges of the covenant were not applicable to woman also, but that she was dependent, and that her position in the natural and covenant-life was not without the husband, but in and with himnot in her capacity as woman, but as wife (and mother). Woman was sanctified and set apart in and with man; in and with him she had part in the covenant, and so far as her nature and position demanded and admitted of it, she had to co-operate in the development of the covenant!
The Covenant, God repeated (Gen. 17:21) for emphasis no doubt, should be established with Isaac whom Sarah was to bear to Abraham at that very time in the following year. Since Ishmael therefore was excluded from participating in the covenant grace, which was ensured to Isaac alone; and yet Abraham was to become a multitude of nations, and that through Sarah, who was to become nations through the son she was to bear (Gen. 17:16); this multitude of nations could not include either the Ishmaelites or the tribes descended from the sons of Keturah (ch. Gen. 25:2 ff.), but the descendants of Isaac alone; and as one of Isaacs two sons received no part of the covenant promise, but only the descendants of Jacob alone. But the whole of the twelve sons of Jacob founded only the one nation of Israel, with which Jehovah established the covenant made with Abraham (Exo. chs. 6, 2024), so that Abraham became through Israel the lineal father of one nation only. From this it necessarily follows, that the posterity of Abraham, which was to expand into a multitude of nations, extends beyond this one lineal posterity, and embraces the spiritual posterity also, i.e., all nations who are grafted ex pisteos Abraam into the seed of Abraham, Rom. 4:11-12; Rom. 4:16-17). (KD, 226). By this enlargement it follows that in reality Abraham received the promise that he should be heir of the world (Rom. 4:13).
To summarize: The covenant plays an important role in Abrahams experience, Note the successive revelations of God after the initial promise to which Abraham responded in obedience. As God enlarged this promise, Abraham exercised faith which was reckoned to him as righteousness (Genesis 15). In this covenant the land of Canaan was specifically pledged to the descendants of Abraham. With the promise of the son, circumcision was made the sign of the covenant (Genesis 17). This covenant promise was finally sealed in Abrahams act of obedience when he demonstrated his willingness to sacrifice his only son Isaac (Genesis 22) (Schultz, OTS, 34).
FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING
The Two Covenants, or From Sinai to Calvary
Joh. 1:17, Gal. 3:23-29, Hebrews 8, 2 Corinthians 3.
Every student of the Bible knows that it consists of two general divisions or parts: what is known as the Old Testament or Covenant, and what is known as the New Testament or Covenant (the Testaments being the stereotyped records of the respective Covenants); what is known as the Law before the Cross, and what is known as the Gospel since the Cross; what is known as the letter on the other side of the Cross, and what is known as the spirit on this side; what is called the ministration of death on the other side, and what is called. the ministration of life on this side; what is known as the ministration of condemnation on the other side, and what is known as the ministration of righteousness on this side. Calvary is the dividing line. When Jesus died on the Cross, the Partition Veil, i.e., the curtain between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, of the Temple, was rent in twain (Mat. 27:51), thus, symbolizing the point of demarcation between the Covenants and signifying that for the first time since mans fall, the way into heaven itself, the Holy of Holies, was opened up; that humanity had unhindered access to the Throne of Grace, through Christ, and without the services of an officiating earthly priesthood. In brief the rent veil symbolized the abrogation of the Old Covenant and the ratification of the New.
The books of the Old Testament point forward in type, symbol, metaphor and prophecy, to Christ and His church as revealed in the New Testament. The subject-matter of the Old Testament is valuable to us historically, and in its delineation of human character and its treatment of the problems of everyday living, its ethical value is inestimable. Its evidential worth, in laying a proper foundation for the Christian system, is immeasurable. But the books of the Old Testament do not reveal the Christian religion. Though inspired by the Holy Spirit, they were for the fleshly seed of Abraham. Christianity is not revealed in the Old Testament, except in shadow, as a thing of the future, as a system yet to be instituted. In the words of the well-known couplet:
In the Old Testament we have the New Testament concealed,
In the New Testament we have the Old Testament revealed.
It should be understood also that the two Covenants are not identical; that is, that the New is not a continuation or enlargement of the Old, but a distinct and separate Covenant, enacted upon better promises and offering infinitely greater blessings and rewards (Heb. 8:6, Eph. 2:15-16). (Note the significance of the expression, one new man, as used in this connection).
It becomes exceedingly important that we know what belongs to the respective Covenants. (Cf. 2Ti. 2:15). Much confusion has resulted from the failure of theologians and preachers generally to make the proper distinctions. We hear it said even in our day of enlightenment that the whole Bible is binding upon Christians. Certainly those who make such assertions do not believe what they say, or, if they do, they do not practice what they preach. This writer does not know of a church group in all Christendom that even makes a pretense of perpetuating the laws and observances of the Old Covenant. For example, under the Old Covenant, God commanded the following: (1) that every male child should be circumcised on the eighth day, Gen. 7:9-14; (2) that many different kinds of animal sacrifices should be offered; Leviticus 23; (3) that the Passover should be kept annually Exodus 12; (4) that the seventh day should be set aside as the Sabbath, as a memorial of the deliverance of the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage, Exo. 16:21-30, Deu. 5:12-15; (5) that the people should allow their lands to rest every seventh year, Exo. 23:10-11; (6) that a distinction should be made between clean and unclean animals, Leviticus 11; (7) the Levitical priesthood, the tabernacle and its ritualism, the Day of Atonement, the many and varied solemn feasts and convocations, new moons and sabbaths, etc. Under the Old Covenant no one was permitted to kindle a fire on the Sabbath day, (Exo. 35:2-3). In Num. 15:23-26 there is an account of a violation of this command, and we read that the guilty man was taken outside the camp and stoned to death. Capital punishment was usually inflicted for an infraction of the Law of Moses; hence, the Apostle speaks of the Old Covenant as the ministration of death, 2Co. 3:7. The various Christian bodies make no pretense of maintaining these Mosaic laws and observances, and would indeed be foolish to do so, because they are not in any sense a part of the Christian Gospel or system. They were for the fleshly seed of Abraham only, and were abrogated along with the Mosaic Law at the death of Christ.
The distinctions between the Two Covenants may be listed briefly as follows:
1. The Old was made with the fleshly seed of Abraham only. It was first announced to Abraham himself, and was later enlarged into a national covenant at the time of the establishment of the Jewish theocracy under Moses, at Mount Sinai, Gen. 12:1-3; Gen. 17:1-8; Gen. 22:15-18; Deu. 5:2-5, Gal. 3:19. It is generally known as the Abrahamic Covenant. The New Covenant, on the other hand, is an overture to all mankind, although its blessings are confined to those who comply with its conditions of membership, Mat. 28:19-20, Act. 10:34-43; Act. 17:30-31; Rom. 10:9-10, Act. 2:38, Gal. 3:26-29.
2. Moses was the mediator of the Old Covenant, Jesus of the New (Deu. 5:5; Heb. 3:1-6; Heb. 8:6; Heb. 9:18-28; Heb. 12:24; 1Ti. 2:5).
3. The basis of membership in the Old Covenant was fleshly. The Covenant included those born in Abrahams house and those bought with Abrahams money, that is, those born of Hebrew parents and those retained as slaves in the Hebrew households, Gen. 17:12. Obviously, all such infants and heathen servants had to be taught to know Jehovah after they had been inducted into the Covenant by circumcision. But the basis of membership in the New Covenant is spiritual, Jer. 31:31-34, Joh. 3:1-6 : it depends not on earthly parentage, nor upon inclusion in any particular racial or ethnic group, but upon spiritual birth. (See Jer. 31:31-34, Joh. 3:1-6). Under the New, God must write His laws in our hearts, and we must all know Him, from the least unto the greatest of us, in order to be admitted into the Covenant. In a word, one of the things absolutely necessary to participation in the blessings of the New Covenant is that we know God by faith in Jesus Christ who came to reveal God to us (Joh. 14:1, Act. 16:31, Rom. 10:9-10, etc.). We know Him by faith, and we appropriate the blessings of the Covenant by obedience (Rom. 10:17, Heb. 11:6, Mat. 7:24-27, Joh. 15:14, Heb. 5:9, 2Th. 1:8, 1Pe. 1:22). This, of course, does not include the innocent and the irresponsible, such as infants, for whom Jesus atoned unconditionally when He died on the Cross. Those who die in infancy pass directly from the kingdom of innocence into the kingdom of glory (Rom. 5:19, 1Jn. 3:4, Mat. 19:14; Mat. 18:1-6, etc.)
4. The seal of the Old Covenant was fleshly circumcision (Gen. 17:9-14). The seal of the New Covenant is the indwelling Spirit of God (2Co. 1:22, Eph. 1:13; Eph. 4:30, etc.). This cutting off of the old sinful relationship and life by the entrance of the Holy Spirit into the obedient believers heart is spiritual circumcision (Act. 2:38-39, Rom. 2:28-29, Php. 3:3, Col. 2:9-12, Eph. 1:13-14).
5. The Old Covenant was national, confined to one people, the fleshly seed of Abraham, The Mosaic Code was a civil code for the government of the Theocracy of Israel. In this sense the Law of Moses might be said to correspond to the civil statutes of the United States of America, and the Decalogue, which was the core of the Mosaic Law, to our federal Constitution (Deu. 5:2-21). The tables of stone on which the Ten Commandments were engraved were known as the tables of testimony or tables of the Covenant (Exo. 24:12; Exo. 31:18; Exo. 32:15-16; Deu. 6:20-23; Deu. 4:13; Deu. 10:1-5). The New Covenant is for all mankind. It has no geographical or racial limitations. The Decalogue is Gods mandate to humanity, binding on ruled and ruler alike.
6. The Old Covenant was local i.e., adapted to a people living in a fairly warm climate. Its provisions pertained largely to matters of the flesh, meats and drinks and divers washings, carnal ordinances, imposed until a time of reformation (Heb. 9:10). How could any human being living in a cold climate obey the Old Covenant regulations governing the observance of the Sabbath, one of which was that no fire was to be kindled on that day? The commands of the New Covenant are, on the other hand, moral and spiritual in nature, and can be obeyed by all people in all parts of the world. This is not only true with respect to Christs ethical teaching, but equally so with respect to His positive ordinancesbaptism, the Lords Supper, and the Lords Day (Act. 2:38, Gal. 3:26-27; 1Co. 11:23-30; 1Co. 16:1-2). These ordinances can be observed anywhere regardless of circumstances, climate, or environment.
7. The penalty for violating the Old Covenant was in most cases physical death. The penalty for refusing the overtures of the New Covenant is spiritual death, eternal separation from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might (2Th. 1:8-9, Rev. 20:11-15). For example, under the Old Covenant adultery was a crime for which the death penalty was inflicted, usually by stoning; under the New, it is a sin which will damn the soul.
8. The New Covenant is a better Covenant because it has been enacted upon better promises (Heb. 8:6). Under the Old, for instance, there was no actual remission of sins, for the simple reason that animal sacrifices were not a sufficient atonement for the guilt of sin (Heb. 10:1-18). On each annual Day of Atonement the High Priest of Israel went into the Holy of Holies with the prescribed offerings for his own sins and for the sins of the people, in response to which God merely laid the guilt of their sins over to the next annual Day of Atonement, and so on throughout the entire Jewish Dispensation. There was never any actual remission of sins until the Son of God Himself made the sufficient Atonement once at the end of the ages . . . by the sacrifice of himself (Heb. 9:6-10; Heb. 9:23-28; Exo. 30:10, Leviticus 23). Under the New Covenant, however, remission of sins is one of the promises of the Gospel (Act. 2:38; Act. 10:43; Luk. 24:45-49). We have Gods promise that on condition of our own faith and continued obedience He will be merciful with respect to our iniquities and will remember our sins against us no more (Jer. 31:31-34, Heb. 8:10-12). And let us remember that when God forgives, He forgets (Psa. 103:12, Heb. 8:12).
9. Under the Old Covenant there was no distinct assurance of blessedness beyond the grave. Old Testament intimations of the future life are indefinite (cf. Job. 14:13-15; Job. 19:25-27; Psalms 23). But the Christian Scriptures speak with positiveness about Judgment, blessedness, Life Everlasting, immortality, etc. Jesus Himself spoke of the future life in such unmistakable terms as to leave no room for doubt, and the Apostles testify with no less finality about these matters in their own writings. (Joh. 11:25-26; Joh. 10:18;, Act. 2:36; Act. 17:31; Mat. 25:31-46; Rom. 6:28, Rom. 8:11; 2Co. 5:1-4, Php. 3:20-21, 1 Corinthians 15, etc.).
10. The Old Covenant was negative throughout, The Ten Commandments have been called the thou-shalt-nots of God. The contrast between the thunderings of Jehovah above Sinai announcing the prohibitions of the Decalogue, and the gentle accents of the Son of Man proclaiming the Beatitudes, in His Sermon on the Mount, is an analogy of the distinction between the Covenants. No wonder, then, that the New Covenant is called the royal law and the perfect law, the law of liberty (Jas. 2:8; Jas. 1:25).
11. The Decalogue was the foundation and the very heart, so to speak, of the Law of Moses. Yet the Ten Commandments were nailed to the Cross, along with the rest of the Law. They were not abolished, but were abrogated, i.e., set aside, then re-enacted, with but one exception, in the New Testament. We as Christians are subject to the provisions of the Decalogue only to the extent that is fundamental ethical principles, which are necessarily permanent, have been re-enacted as a part of the Christian System. When a man makes two wills, he may take certain provisions of the old will and re-incorporate them in the new; and they are binding, not because they were in the old, but because they are in the new. A careful survey of the apostolic writings reveals the fact that all the Ten Commandments, with but one exception, have been re-stated in the Christian Scriptures, with this fundamental difference: in the Old they are stated negatively, but in the New, positively. The Fourth Commandment is not re-enacted in the New Testament. There is no command in the apostolic writings that we as Christians should keep the Sabbath. There would be no reason for our keeping it, as it was a memorial to the fleshly seed of Abraham of their fathers deliverance from Egyptian bondage. It would be meaningless to a Gentile. Therefore, we as Christians are to keep the first day of the week, the Lords Day, instead of the seventh day. The Lords Day is a memorial of the resurrection of our Lord (Mar. 16:9, Act. 20:7, Rev. 1:10, Psa. 118:22-24, Act. 4:11-12). (Note the parallels: Exo. 20:3Act. 4:15; Act. 17:24-31; Exo. 20:4-6 –1Jn. 5:21; Exo. 20:7Jas. 5:12; Exo. 20:12Eph. 6:1-4; Exo. 20:13Rom. 13:9-10; Exo. 20:14Mat. 5:28, 1Co. 6:9-10; Exo. 20:15Eph. 4:28; Exo. 20:16Col. 3:9; Exo. 20:17Eph. 5:3.)
A great many persons seem to have the notionand it is one that should be correctedthat all they need to do to be saved is to keep the Ten Commandments. This is a false and misleading idea. Obeying the Ten Commandments will make a man a respectable citizen and keep him out of jail, but he might obey the Commandments consistently, even perfectly if that were possible, and still not be a Christian. (Cf. Mar. 10:17-22). There is nothing in the Decalogue about Christ and His church. We might keep the Commandments perfectly and never believe in Christ, never be baptized, never pray, never observe the Lords Supper, never attend a Christian worshiping assembly. The Decalogue is not the Gospel, nor is it any part of the Gospel. Though essential to good morals, it is a minor part of the Christian system of faith and worship. Moreover, Jesus made it quite clear that, spiritually, the Decalogue is inadequate, when, in answer to a question propounded by His critics, He pointed out the two greatest commandments in the Law, and neither of the two is found among the Ten Commandments (Mat. 22:35-40, Deu. 6:5, Lev. 19:18). In brief, we must keep the Ten Commandments to stay out of jail, but one might keep all of them and still fall far short of being a Christian.
Frequently we have been asked the question, Why can we not be saved as the penitent thief (on the Cross) was saved? The answer is obvious. As long as a will-maker (testator) lives, he dispenses his property as he sees fit personally; but when he dies, his property must be dispensed as directed in his last will and testament (cf. Heb. 9:16-17); and so, as long as our Lord was on earth in the flesh, it was His prerogative to dispense his gifts and graces as He saw fit (Luk. 23:39-43; Luk. 5:17-26). But when He returned to the Father, He left us His Last Will and Testament, the executors of which were the Apostles, by whom it was probated on the great Day of Pentecost; and so, throughout the present Dispensation His blessings are bestowed on the conditions specified in the New Covenant; these are the keys of the kingdom, and the terms of admission into the Church (Body) of Christ. These conditions are faith in Christ as the Son of the living God, repentance toward Christ, confession of Christ, and baptism into Christ (Mat. 16:18-20; Mat. 28:18-20; Act. 2:38; Act. 16:31-34; Rom. 10:9-10, Luk. 13:3, 2Co. 7:10, Mat. 10:32-33; Act. 8:34-39; Act. 22:16; Rom. 6:4-6, Gal. 3:26-29, Joh. 3:1-5, etc.). (The function of a key is to unlock a door; hence the keys of the kingdom are the requirements which open the door of the church to the obedient believer.)
12. The Law was a civil code for the government of the old Jewish theocracy. It was never intended to be a permanent and universal rule of religious faith and practice. It was added, the Apostle tells us, that is, added to the Abrahamic promise, because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made (Gal. 3:19). The tendency of the Children of Israel to drift into the customs and practices of their idolatrous heathen neighbors occasioned the giving of the Law. Under conscience alone the people became such habitual sinners that it became necessary to put them under a code of law, in order that they might know the eternal distinctions between good and bad, right and wrong. Such is the purpose of law, generally speaking: it is to define right and distinguish it from wrong. Law was never enacted to make people better, but for the purpose of restraining the lawless and protecting the weak from the strong. (Cf. Rom. 7:7-11; Rom. 3:19-20). Therefore, what the Law could not do for man, God did for him by a manifestation of His infinite grace in the person of His Only Begotten (Rom. 8:3-4).
13. To summarize: as stated above, God has made two wills. The first was made with respect to the fleshly seed of Abraham, through the mediation of Moses (Deuteronomy 5). The last is an overture to all mankind through the mediation of Jesus Christ. The Old was ratified by the blood of animals at Sinai: the New was ratified by the precious blood of Christ on Calvary. (Cf. Heb. 8:11-13) the death of our Lord abrogated the Old and ratified the New at the same time (Col. 2:13-15, Heb. 8:2328). He nailed the Law to His Cross and ushered in the universal reign of grace. God graciously permitted the Law to remain as a civil code for the Jewish people down to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, but its binding force was removed when Jesus was crucified. One of the elementary principles of law is that a new will automatically abrogates all prior testaments. We today are under the Last Will and Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We are not under Law, but under grace; not under the bond written in ordinances, but under the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. (Joh. 1:17, Jer. 31:31-34, Rom. 4:21-25, Gal. 3:15-29, 2Co. 3:1-11, Hebrews 8; Col. 2:8-17, etc.).
Circumcision of the Heart
Deu. 10:16; Deu. 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Jer. 9:25-26. Cf. Rom. 2:28-29, Php. 3:3, Act. 7:51, Gal. 3:27-28, 2Co. 3:2-6, Col. 2:9-13. The Scriptures teach expressly that there is such a thing as circumcision of the heart. But what does heart (Heb. leb, Gr. kardia) mean in Scripture? This we can determine by what the heart is said to do, to experience, to suffer, etc., namely, it thinks (Gen. 6:5, Deu. 15:9, Pro. 23:7, Mat. 9:4, Heb. 4:12); it reasons Mar. 2:8, Luk. 5:22); it understands (Mat. 13:15); it believes (Rom. 10:8-10); it loves (Mat. 22:37); it knows (Deu. 29:4); it breaks with sorrow (Jer. 8:18; Jer. 23:9); it can be grieved (Deu. 15:10); it can be troubled (Joh. 14:1); it can be fearful (Joh. 14:27); it rejoices (Psa. 16:9; Psa. 28:7; Act. 2:26); it can be comforted (Eph. 6:22); it wills, purposes, determines (Dan. 1:8, 2Co. 9:7, 1Co. 7:37); it can lust (Mat. 5:28, Rom. 8:6-7); it obeys (Rom. 6:17, Eph. 6:6); it approves and condemns (Rom. 2:14-16, Act. 2:37, 1Jn. 3:19-22). From all these texts we must conclude that the Scriptural heart includes intellect, feeling, conscience, and will. It is the entire inner man, everything that is not included in the phrase, flesh and blood (Joh. 3:6, 1Co. 15:50, 2Co. 4:16, Rom. 7:22, cf. 1Pe. 3:4the hidden man of the heart).
1. There is such a thing as spiritual circumcision, a circumcision not made with hands. The Bible leaves no room for doubt on this matter.
2. Fleshly (physical) circumcision of the Old Covenant was designed to be a type of spiritual circumcision under the New. Hence, as the circumcision ordained in the Old Testament was a seal stamped upon the flesh, it follows that the circumcision ordained in the New Testament must be a seal stamped on the mind or spirit of man, the true inner man (Cf. Joh. 3:1-8, Act. 2:38, Jer. 31:33, Eze. 11:19).
Whitelaw writes (PCG, 232) that fleshly circumcision was designed (1) to be a sign of the faith that Christ should be descended from Abraham, and (2) to be a symbolic representation of the putting away of the filth of the flesh and of sin in general; therefore, it served the following uses: (1) to distinguish the seed of Abraham from the Gentiles, (2) to perpetuate the memory of Jehovahs covenant, (3) to foster in the nation the hope of the Messiah, (4) to remind them of the duty of cultivating moral purity (Deu. 10:16), (5) to preach to them the gospel of a righteousness by faith (Rom. 4:11), (6) to suggest the idea of a holy or spiritual seed of Abram (Rom. 2:29) and (7) to foreshadow the Christian rite of baptism (Col. 2:11-12).
There can hardly be any disagreement about the first six of the uses of fleshly circumcision listed above. The one exception is the last-named. One of the errors that has caused untold confusion in Christian teaching and practice is this oft-recurring claim that fleshly circumcision of the Old Covenant was the type of which baptism is the antitype under the New Covenant. There is no Scripture warrant for this view.
There are many clergymen who still cling to the threadbare argument that baptism as spiritual circumcision under the New Covenant has taken the place of fleshly circumcision, the seal of the Old Covenant; hence, they contend, that as infants were inducted into the Old Covenant by fleshly circumcision (Gen. 17:9-14, cf. Jer. 31:31-34, Hebrews 8), so infants are to be inducted into the New Covenant by baptism (as a matter of fact, by sprinkling), which, according to the theory has taken the place of the old fleshly circumcision. Their errors are those of making baptism the seal of the New Covenant, and identifying baptism with spiritual circumcision. We reply to this argument as follows:
1. Baptism is not a seal. In New Testament teaching there is not the slightest intimation that baptism is the seal of anything. On the contrary, it is expressly stated that the seal of the New Covenant is the indwelling Holy Spirit (2Co. 1:22; Eph. 1:13-14; Eph. 4:30; Rom. 5:5; 1Co. 3:16-17; 1Co. 6:19-20; Rom. 8:14-17, etc.). True, the reception of the Holy Spirit by the repentant believer is connected in Scripture with baptism; however; it is not baptism. It is the Holy Spirit who seals us as members of the Covenant (Act. 2:38, Gal. 3:27, Tit. 3:5). If someone should ask, How can we know that the baptized believer is sealed by the Spirit? or, What is the certain proof? The answer is obvious, namely, the principle enunciated by Jesus Himself, each tree is known by its own fruit (Luk. 6:43-45), or by their fruits ye shall know them (Mat. 7:16-23). The baptized believer who is truly sealed by the Spirit will bring forth in his life the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-25; Jas. 1:22-27; Jas. 2:14-26; Mat. 7:11-27; Mat. 25:31-46).
2. Baptism is not spiritual circumcision. If baptism under the New Covenant has taken the place of fleshly circumcision of the Old Covenant, it follows that, since only male infants received fleshly circumcision under the Old (and that when eight days old, Gen. 17:12), so only male infants can be proper subjects for what the pedobaptists call baptism under the New Covenant. As stated above, there is such a thing as spiritual circumcision (Rom. 2:28-29, Php. 3:3, 2Co. 3:2-6, Col. 2:9-13), a circumcision not made with hands. Moreover, as the fleshly circumcision of the Old Covenant was designed to be a type of spiritual circumcision under the New, and hence, that as the circumcision ordained under the Old Covenant was a seal stamped on the flesh, so the circumcision ordained in the New Covenant must be a seal stamped upon the mind or spirit, the inner man.
3. Spiritual circumcision consists in the cutting offfrom the interior manof the body of the guilt of sin. Rom. 6:6our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away (1) This is done by the Spirit of God at the time of His entrance into the human heart to indwell and to sanctify it: although this occurs in connection with the penitent believers baptism into Christ, still it is not baptism itself. (Act. 2:38; Gal. 3:2; Gal. 5:16-26; Joh. 3:3-8, Tit. 3:4-7, etc.). The remedy for sin is the blood of Christ, and the place divinely appointed for the repentant believer to meet the efficacy of this blood is the grave of water (1Jn. 1:7, Rom. 6:1-10, Joh. 3:1-8, Col. 2:9-12): here divine grace and human faith meet, and the pardon, remission, justification, etc., takes place in the Mind of God; the entrance of the Holy Spirit at the same time cuts off the body of the guilt of past sin: this guilt will be put away as far as the east is from the west (Psa. 103:11-12, Rom. 6:6, Col. 2:9-12). (2) The Spirit of God, as He continues to indwell and to possess the heart of the true Christian as the Agent of the latters sanctification, is the seal of his participation in the privileges and responsibilities of the New Covenant, and is at the same time the earnest or pledge of his eternal inheritance, the rest that remaineth for the people of God (1Pe. 1:3-5, Eph. 1:13-14; Act. 20:32; Act. 26:18; Rom. 8:18-23; Col. 1:12; 2Co. 1:22; 2Co. 5:5; Heb. 4:9; Heb. 9:15; Heb. 11:13-16; Heb. 10:28-31; Rom. 5:5; Rom. 14:17; 1Th. 5:19). (3) In a word, spiritual circumcision is, in its essential nature, identical with regeneration, the process which begins with the reception of Christ into the human heart by faith (Gal. 4:19, Col. 1:27; Rom. 10:17; Rom. 8:1-11; 1Pe. 1:22-25, Jas. 1:18), and is consummated in the penitent believers birth from the water of his final act of primary obedience (conversion): John 3:37, Joh. 3:1-9; Tit. 3:5, Eph. 5:25-27; Act. 2:38; Act. 22:16; Heb. 10:22). (4) Thus it will be seen that baptism as the consummating act of the process variously designated, in Scripture as conversion, adoption, justification, regeneration, etc. (i.e., the consummating act on the human side) has associated with it the entrance of the Spirit into the obedient believers heart, to possess and to mould his inner spiritual life. (It must be emphasized here that only those who believe and repent are proper subjects for Christian baptism. What is commonly designated change of heart must precede baptism (Luk. 13:3, 1Co. 7:10, Act. 2:38, Act. 16:29-34; Rom. 10:9-10, Luk. 24:46-47). One who does not have this change of heart will go down into the baptistry a dry sinner and come up a wet sinner (Rom. 6:17). However, it is the indwelling Spirit, and not baptism, that is the seal of the Christian, stamping him as set apart for participation in the blessings and responsibilities of the New Covenant. And it is the operation by the Spirit of excising the body of the guilt of sin, at His entrance into the newly-made saints interior lifeand not baptismwhich is designated in Scripture spiritual circumcision. Baptism and spiritual circumcision are associated in Gods plan, but they are not identical (Col. 2:9-14). As a matter of fact, to identify baptism per se with spiritual circumcision is to vest the ordinance, that is to say, the water itself, with magical properties. Certainly, to present infantsor anyone incapable of faithfor such a rite as what is generally called infant baptism (sprinkling, pouring) is not only unscripturalit is antiscriptural. If there is any efficacy in such an act, obviously it cannot be in the state of the childs heart, but would have to be in the water: this would be sheer magic. There is no warrant in the New Testament for such an esoteric concept. Moreover, the attitude of the parents in such a practice cannot in any way affect the childs salvation. There is no such thing in Scripture as salvation by proxy.
But, someone may be asking, what about the salvation of infants? We answer as follows: (1) According to Scripture teaching, sin is a personal act, and responsibility for the guilt of sin is personal (Eze. 18:19-20 : here we have the doctrine of the guilt of sin, as distinguished from that of the consequences of sin as stated in Exo. 20:1-17; Pro. 24:12, Mat. 16:27, Rom. 2:6, 1Co. 3:13; 2Co. 5:10; 2Co. 11:15; Eph. 6:8, Col. 3:25; Rev. 2:23; Rev. 20:12; Rev. 22:12). As there is no such thing as salvation by proxy, so there is no such thing as sinning by proxy. Original sin, in the sense of original guilt, is just another fabrication of the theological mentality. True it is that the human race is suffering the consequences of Adams sin (of which the most frustrating is physical death, Gen. 3:17-19, Heb. 9:27) and of the sins of the fathers, but there is no evidence from Scripture, experience or common sense that any person will be held guilty before God for what Adam did or what his own forebears have done. Such a notion impugns the justice and goodness of the Heavenly Father. All this theological groundwork for the practice of what is called infant baptism (true infant baptism would be infant immersion) thus turns out to be nothing more than a house of cards. The infant does not sin for the simple reason that it can not sin; hence, said Jesus, to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven (Mat. 19:14). (2) Whatever the human race lost through the disobedience of the First Adam, it has regained through the obedience of the Second Adam (Rom. 5:19, 1Co. 15:45-49), regained unconditionally for the innocent and the irresponsible, but regained conditionally for all accountable human beings, that is, on the terms and conditions of the Last Will and Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ (the keys of the kingdom of heaven, Mat. 16:19, Act. 2:37-38). Our Lord atoned for the innocent unconditionally by His sacrifice of Himself on the Cross, the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world (John Gen. 1:29, 1Co. 5:7). The infant is in need of salvation from the consequences of sin only; it is in need only of the redemption of the body, that is, salvation from mortality itself (Rom. 8:22-23, 2Co. 5:4). The spiritual progression for accountable persons is from the Kingdom of Nature, through the Kingdom of Grace (Joh. 3:1-8), into the Kingdom of Glory (Rev. 20:11-14; Rev. 22:1-5). The spiritual progression for those who die in infancy, we may surely believe, is directly from the Kingdom of Nature, by means of the Covering of Grace, our Lords Vicarious Sacrifice, into the Kingdom of Glory (Rom. 8:29, 1Co. 15:20; 1Co. 15:23; Col. 1:18-23, Heb. 12:23).
(3) Infant sprinkling, pouring, christening, etc., reverses the order specified in the Great Commission (Mat. 28:18-20). The order demanded by the Commission is (a) go, (b) make disciples, that is, learners, believers; (c) baptize those who have been made disciples, believers, by the preaching of the facts, commands, and promises of the Gospel; (d) nurture those who have been baptized into Christ and have the right to wear the name Christian, that is, nurture them in the most holy faith, the Spiritual Life. The pedobaptist order is (a) go, (b) baptize, and then (c) teach, or make disciples; in a word, christen them in infancy and require confirmation at about the age of twelve. Those who practice this sequence are simply bringing over into the New Testament the sequence prescribed in the Old Testament. The Old Abrahamic Covenant took in those born in Abrahams house and those heathen servants bought with his money, all of whom had to be taught to know Jehovah after their induction into the Covenant by fleshly circumcision. But God states explicitly, with respect to the promised New Covenant, that they shall teach no more, every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, etc. The New Covenant is not a covenant of flesh, but a covenant of faith. Those who would enter the New Covenant must, as Jesus states expressly, be born anew, literally born from above, born of water and the Spirit, born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (Joh. 1:12-13; Joh. 3:3-5). Gods law is put in their inward parts, written in their hearts, in order for them to be born again, and so to enter the Covenant. (Cf. 2Co. 3:1-7). Suffice it to say that there can be no spiritual birth without a prior spiritual begetting, and there can be no spiritual begetting without faith. Infant christening, baptism, sprinkling, pouring, etc., ignores this teaching in toto; not only ignores it, but contradicts it in every particular. Infant christening, infant baptism, infant affusion, infant aspersion, infant dedication, infant church membership, etc., not one of these things, nor all of them together, can be substituted, in the Gospel Plan of Salvation, for spiritual birth (regeneration). These are all forms of so-called baptismal regeneration, a dogma which the present writer rejects flatly. Baptism is an act of faith, or it is nothing. My personal conviction is that the term kingdom (literally, reign) in Scripture is more comprehensive than the term church, in that it takes in all who, in the very nature of the case, cannot belong to the church; that is, infants and irresponsibles generally, and in all probability the elect of prior Dispensations. (Cf. Luk. 17:21, Mar. 10:24, Mat. 18:3, Mar. 10:15, Luk. 18:15-17, Mat. 21:43; Heb. 11:4-5; Heb. 11:7-16, etc.)
(4) Other objections to the pedobaptist practice of following the Old Covenant pattern are the following: It contradicts New Testament teaching regarding the design of baptism (1Pe. 3:21, Rom. 6:17). It belies the plain teaching of the New Testament that Christian baptism is more than a physical act. It tends to fill the church with unconverted, unregenerated persons; that is, with those who would make of their Christianity nothing but vain ritual observances. It ignores altogether mans God-given power of choice. Finally, it tends to obliterate the distinction between the church and the world, and the distinction between church and state as well. How many professing Christian parents use the practice of christening pretty largely for the credentials by which birth certification can be established? Moreover, so-called infant dedication is misleading: the popular tendency, so great is the general ignorance of the Bible, is to identify it with infant sprinkling. If the act is simply a dedication, why use water in the observance of it?
To summarize: the equating of Christian baptism with spiritual circumcision is one of the most egregious fallacies that has ever been perpetrated on the Christian world. We repeat that baptism is an act of faith, the appeal of a good conscience toward God (1Pe. 3:21)or it is nothing. Spiritual circumcision is the excision of the body of the guilt of sin by the entrance of the Spirit into the human heart to take possession of it and thus to make it, little by little, a partaker of the divine nature and meet for the inheritance of the saints in light (2Pe. 1:4, Col. 1:12, Heb. 9:11).
REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PART THIRTY
1.
Explain how the content of ch. 17 is an enlargement of the Abrahamic Covenant. Explain how it is more inclusive.
2.
How old was Abraham at the time when all the details of the Covenant were finally made known to him?
3.
By what name did God reveal Himself to Abraham here? What does this name mean?
4.
What is the significance of a new name in Scripture?
5. What changes were made at this time in the names of Abram and Sarai? What did the changes signify?
6.
Show how these changes served to elevate the moral and spiritual status of Abram and Sarai.
7.
What did the terms everlasting and forever signify with reference to the Covenant?
8.
What happened to the Abrahamic Covenant at Sinai? At Calvary?
9.
What two progenies (seeds) of Abraham are included in these promises?
10.
Explain how each of these promises had a twofold fulfillment (double reference).
11.
What was the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant?
12.
Give the two Greek words for covenant and explain the meaning of each. Which word is used in the New Testament?
13.
How is a covenant to be distinguished from a contract?
14.
Why was it necessary for God to specify the details of the Covenant?
15.
List these details.
16.
How are females dealt with in the details of the Covenant?
17.
What was the connection between the terms of the Old Covenant and the preservation of the family, and later that of the nation?
18.
Why were the details of the Covenant not revealed to Abraham at first?
19.
Discuss briefly the history of circumcision.
20.
Why cannot circumcision have been originally a test of endurance?
21.
Why cannot circumcision have originated on hygienic grounds?
22.
Why do we object to the view that circumcision originated to increase procreative powers?
23.
Why do we reject the notion that it originated for the purpose of getting rid of emanation from physical secretion connected with the physiology of the foreskin?
24.
Why can we not accept the view that circumcision originated as a phase of phallic worship?
25.
Why is it unlikely that it was originally of the nature of a sacrifice to deity?
26.
Why is it unlikely that it persisted as an attenuated survival of human sacrifice?
27.
Why do we reject the view that circumcision was in some manner related to the cult of reincarnation?
28.
Can it be proved that the spread of circumcision among ancient peoples was in any way connected with human sacrifice?
29.
On what ground does Lange affirm that circumcision did not come to Abraham as a custom of his ancestors?
30.
What was its special significance under patriarchal law?
31.
How does Lange explain its symbolic significance?
32.
How is the status of females to be explained under the covenant of circumcision?
33.
What specific requirement proves that circumcision was not a puberty rite?
34.
Explain the customs of sub-incision, introcision, and infibulation, as practiced by primitives? Do we find any of these practices in the history of the Israelites? What does all this prove with regard to the purity of Hebrew monotheism?
35.
What Old Testament incident shows that circumcision was not to be treated lightly by the Children of Israel? Explain.
36.
What reasons are suggested for the provision that circumcision of males should take place on the eighth day after birth?
37.
What provision shows us that the blessings of the Covenant were to be extended to others as well as those born in Abrahams household? To what others were these blessings extended?
38.
What was the penalty for disobedience to the law of circumcision? Did this penalty include anything beyond excommunication from the commonwealth?
39.
What was the design of the Covenant-Sign? How was it related to the Messianic hope?
40.
Who was now specified to become the Covenant-Heir? What significance in the change of Sarais name to Sarah?
41.
What are the various explanations of Abrahams laughter on receiving the promise of Isaacs birth?
42.
What does Cornfeld say about this? How does Murphy explain it? Speiser? Leupold? How do you explain it?
43.
Did Abrahams laughter differ from that of Sarah later? Explain.
44.
Can we say that Abraham was a man of faith who had moments of doubt? Can we say the same of ourselves?
45.
How does God reply to Abrahams intercession for Ishmael?
46.
What was Abrahams response to the law of circumcision? How old was he at the time? How old was Ishmael?
47.
State the successive steps in the progressive revelation of the Covenant.
48.
When and where was the Abrahamic Covenant enlarged into a national Covenant?
49.
Where in the Old Testament do we find references to circumcision of the heart?
50.
What is the fundamental difference between the Old Covenant and the New?
51.
When and where was the Old Covenant abrogated and the New Covenant ratified?
52.
Who was the mediator of the Old Covenant? The mediator of the New?
53.
Is the New Covenant an extension of the Old, or is it strictly a New Covenant? Explain.
54.
What was made the basis of membership in the Old Covenant and what is it in the New?
55.
Why do we say that the Old Covenant was local? How does the New Covenant differ on this point?
56.
What did fleshly circumcision of the Old Covenant point forward to in the New?
57.
What is meant by spiritual circumcision? What is it, according to New Testament teaching?
58.
Explain the fallacy of identifying Christian baptism and spiritual circumcision.
59.
What did the Old Covenant include as to membership? What does the New Covenant include?
60.
How is the New Covenant a better covenant enacted upon better promises?
61.
Are the Ten Commandments a part of the Gospel? Explain.
62.
Which of the Commandments are morally binding upon Christians, and why?
63.
Which one is not binding upon Christians? Explain.
64.
Why can we not be saved today as the penitent thief on the Cross was saved?
65.
What is the primary function of law in general? Does the Law have the power to regenerate and sanctify men?
66.
Can one keep the Ten Commandments and still not be a Christian? It it possible for any person to keep them perfectly?
67.
Explain the distinction between the Old Covenant as a Covenant of Law and the New Covenant as a Covenant of Grace.
68.
Does the New Testament teach that baptism is a seal of anything? Explain.
69.
What are the necessary conditions to baptism? What is meant by a change of heart?
70.
Is it possible Scripturally to baptize one who is not old enough to believe?
71.
In what way did our Lord provide for the salvation of the innocent and the irresponsible.
72.
Distinguish the import of Exo. 20:1-17 and Eze. 18:19-20.
73.
Do the Scriptures teach that we inherit the guilt of the sins committed by our ancestors or of that committed by Adam? Explain.
74.
Is the dogma of original sin warranted by Scripture teaching?
75.
Explain the statement that the innocent (infants) need to be redeemed only from the consequences of sin.
76.
Explain how and why so-called infant baptism is unscriptural?
77.
Why do we affirm that so called infant baptism is essentially a form of magic?
78.
What according to the New Testament is the necessary motivation for baptism?
79.
Show how infant baptism reverses the order laid down in the Great Commission.
80.
In what sense is infant baptism the appeal of a good conscience toward God?
81.
Explain how infant christening, infant baptism, etc. obliterates the distinction between the church and the world and between church and state.
82.
In what sense is the Kingdom probably more inclusive than the Church?
83.
What is the spiritual progression for accountable persons? What is it for the innocent (infants)?
84.
What fundamental error is involved in the pedobaptist procedure with respect to membership in the new Covenant?
85.
Where is the promise of the New Covenant found in the Old Testament? Explain how the language of this divine promise indicates the distinctions between the Covenants.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
22. God went up from Abraham These words imply some open epiphany . Probably the Angel of the Lord appearing and ascending, as in the case of Manoah . Jdg 13:20.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.’
The order in the second phrase suggests that the first phrase means it was God Who left off talking with Abraham. The covenant was complete. Its various ramifications had been explained. Now the theophany ceases.
“God went up —”. Compare 35:13; Jdg 13:20. This indicates the end of a theophany. God departs, but not to another place. He leaves this world for His own abode, away from this world. His activity in this world is over for the present. It reminds us that Abraham received more than messages in his heart. He experienced the visible, awe-inspiring presence of God.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Gen 17:22 And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.
Ver. 22. And he left off talking with him. ] As man with his friend. Such honour have all his saints. Oh, speak it when I am gone, and preach it at my funeral, God dealeth familiarly with man, said that heavenly spark, now ready to be extinct a St Paul calls prayer , an entreparlance with God, 1Ti 2:1 and , the confident interrogatory or rejoinder of a good conscience toward God. 1Pe 3:21 The Persian monarchs held it a piece of their silly glory to keep themselves from their greatest subjects. Est 4:11 And Jupiter’s image at Crete was made without ears. Plutarch gives the reason, Non enim convenit audiri ab eo quenquam, qui omnium rerum sit Dominus atqui princeps . A pretty plea for Baal! He is too great to talk with men. Our God thinks not himself so. He solicits suitors, and loves to be, interchangcably, solicited by them.
a Mr. John Holland, B.D. See my True Treas., p. 373.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Gen 17:22-27
22When He finished talking with him, God went up from Abraham. 23Then Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all the servants who were born in his house and all who were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s household, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the very same day, as God had said to him. 24Now Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. 25And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. 26In the very same day Abraham was circumcised, and Ishmael his son. 27All the men of his household, who were born in the house or bought with money from a foreigner, were circumcised with him.
Gen 17:22 “God went up” God acted in the way commensurate with how the people of that day expected Him to act (cf. Gen 11:5; Gen 35:13). To modern western people this phrase implies an ascension, but it could be an idiom for “left suddenly.”
Gen 17:23 “in the very same day, as God had said to him” This reflects Abraham’s obedience (cf. Gen 12:4; Gen 22:3).
Gen 17:25 “And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin” Circumcision is still a puberty rite for the Arabs, who perform it at age thirteen. This possibly reflects this biblical account. It needs to be noted that the Israelites circumcised at eight days old, which is a sign of the covenant relationship, not a sign of personal faith (modern denominations use this as analogous to infant baptism). Faith must come and be lived out in order for the covenant to be valid to each individual.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
This is a study guide commentary, which means that you are responsible for your own interpretation of the Bible. Each of us must walk in the light we have. You, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit are priority in interpretation. You must not relinquish this to a commentator.
These discussion questions are provided to help you think through the major issues of this section of the book. They are meant to be thought-provoking, not definitive.
1. How is Genesis 17 related to Genesis 12, 15?
2. Why are the names of the Patriarchs changed?
3. Is the Old Testament covenant conditional or unconditional?
4. Describe covenant and its responsibilities.
5. How is circumcision related or unrelated to the surrounding nations?
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Gen 17:3, Gen 18:33, Gen 35:9-15, Exo 20:22, Num 12:6-8, Deu 5:4, Jdg 6:21, Jdg 13:20, Joh 1:18, Joh 10:30
Reciprocal: Gen 18:1 – appeared Gen 35:13 – General Exo 33:9 – talked Num 11:17 – talk with Eze 11:24 – So
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
The writer’s use of the phrase "the very same day" (Gen 17:26) points to a momentous day, one of the most important days in human history (cf. Noah’s entry into the ark, Gen 7:13; and the Exodus, Exo 12:17; Exo 12:41; Exo 12:51).
This fifth revelation from God advanced God’s promises in six particulars.
1. Part of God’s blessing would depend on Abraham’s maintaining the covenant of circumcision, though the Abrahamic Covenant as a whole did not depend on this (Gen 17:1-2).
2. Many nations would come from Abraham (Gen 17:4-6).
3. The Abrahamic Covenant would be eternal (Gen 17:7-8).
4. God would be the God of Abraham’s descendants in a special relationship (Gen 17:7-8).
5. Sarah herself would bear the promised heir (Gen 17:16).
6. This is also the first time God identified the Promised Land as Canaan by name (Gen 17:8).
"Abraham’s experiences should teach us that natural law [barrenness] is no barrier to the purposes and plans for [sic] God." [Note: Davis, p. 193.]
"Thus Abraham and Noah are presented as examples of those who have lived in obedience to the covenant and are thus ’blameless’ before God, because both obeyed God ’as he commanded them’ (Gen 17:23; cf. Gen 6:22; Gen 7:5; Gen 7:9; Gen 7:16)." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 160.]
Blameless does not mean sinless but with integrity, wholeness of relationship (cf. Gen 6:9). God requires a sanctified life of those who anticipate His promised blessings.