Bible Commentaries
Genesis 12

Verses 1-3

XXI

THE COVENANTS WITH ABRAHAM (PART TWO)

Genesis 12:1-3; Genesis 15:1-21; Genesis 17:1-14; Genesis 22:1-19

One’s understanding of these covenants affects all of his theological and church relations. If he confounds them, or reckons them as identical, he never gets out of the Old Testament for a plan of salvation, system or doctrines, idea of the church, nature, objects, and subjects of church ordinances. Hence it is easy for him to drift into ritualism, accept the doctrine of union of church and state and coercion of conscience by the magistrate. If he regards them as distinct, one to replace the other, he finds in the New Testament a plan of salvation, system of doctrine, idea of the church, number, nature, object, and subjects of church ordinances. He naturally rejects union of church and state, believes in liberty of conscience, opposes all hierarchies, advocates congregational form of church organizations and their independence of each other.

The covenants have been a battleground between Baptists and pedobaptists throughout their history. A man’s views on the covenants easily locate him in one or the other rank. While multitudes of books have been written, the strongest pedobaptist argument in favor of their construction of the covenants is a brief statement by that eminent Presbyterian divine, Dr. N. L. Rice. The substance of his argument is this:

(1) "The covenant with Abraham is the covenant of grace, therefore it did not belong to the Jewish dispensation and did not pass away with it.

(2) The covenant confessedly embraced believers and their infant children, and since it remains unchanged it embraces them still.

(3) All who were in the covenant had a right to its seal, and those embraced in it now have the same right. And since professed believers and their infant children did receive the seal of the covenant by expressed command of God, the same characters must receive it still.

(4) As circumcision was the first seal, and was administered to professed believers and their infant children, so baptism is now the seal and must be administered to the same characters. Or (1) the Abrahamic covenant was and is the covenant of grace; and the church of God, as a people in covenant with him, was organized on this covenant. (2) As the church was organized on this covenant, it embraced in its membership all who were embraced in the covenant, namely, professed believers and their infant children. (3) The Christian church stands on the same covenant and is identical with the Abrahamic church, and embraces the same characters in its membership, viz.: professed believers and their infant children. (4) All embraced in the covenant and in the church membership are entitled to the initiatory rite, and since professed believers and their infant children did receive circumcision, the first initiatory rite, the same characters, being still embraced in the same covenant, have a right to baptism, which is now the initiatory rite."

To this very able statement of his case we submit the following reply: Dr. Rice assumes instead of proving his premises:

(1) He ignores the fact of two covenants with Abraham – the covenant of grace and the covenant of circumcision, which he blends with great confusion of thought.

(2) As the covenant of grace made with Abraham was but a continuation and enlargement of previous covenants and promises reaching back to the fall of Adam, any church argument based on this covenant should no more commence with Abraham than with Noah or Seth, why not commence with Adam?

(3) Neither the covenant of grace nor the covenant of circumcision "confessedly embraced believers and their infant children." Ishmael, the first descendant of Abraham who received the rite, was neither a believer nor an infant. The adult slaves of Abraham who received it at the same time were certainly not "infant children" of any believer, nor did the law require that they themselves be believers. They were circumcised because they were Abraham’s slaves, without any regard to age or personal faith. The law as to such subjects of circumcision was never changed.

So far as Abraham’s lineal descendants are concerned, on all millions of them, circumcision, if performed according to law, could never by any possibility be administered to a believer. The law requiring its performance when the subject was eight days old must be neglected or violated before a believer could have any chance to reach circumcision. By its own provisions of enforcement it perpetually excluded believers from its reception, just as infant baptism necessarily tends to drive believer’s baptism from the face of the earth. Dr. Rice’s plural, "believers," is an impossibility; therefore, under the regular workings of the law, Abraham would be only one. So much for Abraham’s fleshly descendants.

In the case of a proselyte from the Gentiles who voluntarily became a Jew, he need not be a believer in the New Testament sense, and no descendant of his till the judgment day could reach circumcision by faith. We thus see what becomes of the doctor’s fundamental premise: "Believers and their infant children."

(4) Dr. Rice makes an utterly unscriptural use of the word "seal." To Abraham personally, unto him alone, is circumcision declared to be a seal, a seal of his faith which he had before he was circumcised. It could never be this to any of his descendants under a proper enforcement of the law. To them it might be a sign. The Bible never calls baptism a seal in any sense. New Testament believers are sealed by the Holy Spirit, not by water.

(5) Dr. Rice assumes the identity of the Christian church with what he is pleased to call the "Abrahamic church." "The Abrahamic church" is too vague a term for such an important premise. It needs to be defined somewhat. The Christian church is a visible organization. The only visible Abrahamic organization is national Israel. Substitute "national Israel" for "Abrahamic church" in the premise, and the identity theory perishes by its own weight. You need not argue against it – it falls to pieces if you look at it!

(6) Dr. Rice assumes that baptism came in the place of circumcision, which is at war with both Scripture and history. If he means only that there is some analogy between the place occupied in the Christian system by baptism and the place occupied in the Jewish system by circumcision, this is cheerfully granted, but all the force of the analogy is against infant baptism, thus: Circumcision was administered to Abraham’s fleshly seed; baptism must be administered to Abraham’s spiritual seed.

It is well just here to fix carefully in our minds the elements of the law of circumcision. Circumcision was administered,

(1) to Abraham’s natural seed;

(2) and to their slaves;

(3) but to males only;

(4) when eight days old;

(5) was by obligation a family rite;

(6) could be legally performed by man or woman;

(7) it obligated to keep the whole Sinaitic law, with which it was incorporated, as a means of justification and life, under a covenant of works;

(8) is guaranteed by an earthly domain for a possession.

With these elements before us, it will be easy to show why baptism did not come into its place, and what did come into its place, and how the analogy between baptism and circumcision is destructive to infant membership. This may be made manifest under the following heads:

(1) Both are "shadows." A shadow cannot cast a shadow.

(2) Its antitype, regeneration, came in the place of circumcision.

(See Romans 2:28-29; Philippians 3:3; Colossians 2:11.)

(3) In the New Testament, the same people, if Jews, were baptized after being circumcised, as in the case of Jesus and his apostles, or were circumcised after baptism, as in the case of Timothy by Paul.

(4) The case in Acts 15:1-30, settles the question:

(a) The Judaizing teachers who tried to force circumcision on the baptized Gentiles at Antioch could not have understood that baptism was appointed to succeed circumcision;

(b) the apostles and elders at Jerusalem could not have so understood it either, for while the question was argued at length and exhaustively, no one referred to such a simple fact, which, if true, would have settled the whole controversy in a word. Their silence about it on this occasion was both inexcusable and criminal, if it were true.

(5) Utterly unlike circumcision, baptism is for Jew and Gentile, male and female, for believers, only, when they believe, without regard to age, is an ecclesiastical and not a family rite, is administered by special officers; as a mere memorial rite to the covenant of grace, it is in no sense essential to justification and life, and guarantees neither an earthly nor a heavenly Canaan.

(6) If baptism came in the place of circumcision, then it must be confined in its administration either to Abraham’s natural seed, or to his spiritual seed. If his natural seed only, that excludes the Gentile pedobaptists, as well as their children, and contradicts the Scriptures

(Matthew 3:7-9). If to his spiritual seed, that excludes their infants for whose benefits the argument is made and establishes the true scriptural position – baptism for believers only. (Compare Acts 8:12; Acts 8:37; Acts 16:33-34; Acts 18:8.)

The next point necessary in this argument is to show that circumcision was passed over to Moses and became an integral part of the covenant of Sinai. The proof is this: In Genesis 17, God proposes an everlasting covenant with Abraham and his natural seed after him. The stipulation on God’s part was to give them the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession. The stipulation on their part was to keep the ordinance of circumcision and all that is involved. Any male not circumcised was cut off from the people and the inheritance. In Exodus 4:24-26, we learn that God sought to slay Moses because, on account of his wife’s objection, his child had not been circumcised. Moses was not relieved from the hazard until his wife, Zipporah, to save the husband’s life, yielded, though reluctantly, and circumcised the child.

Moses was now the appointed deliverer to lead the children of Israel into the land which God, according to his stipulation of the covenant, was to give them (Exodus 6:4-8). Their final deliverance was accomplished by the Passover, which they were commanded to celebrate by a memorial feast. But no uncircumcised male was allowed to eat this feast (Exodus 12:44-48). Thus Moses gave them circumcision in a national and perpetual statute. Then the nation was organized at Sinai and the covenant re-enacted and the law given; circumcision was incorporated in it as an essential feature of it (Leviticus 12:3). Thus, according to our Lord, Moses gave them circumcision as a national statute, and not as originating it, but as a requirement from the fathers when the original covenant was established (John 7:22-23). So it is testified that all who went out of Egypt to seek the land promised were circumcised (Joshua 5:5). Again, when Joshua led them across the Jordan into the Promised Land, the Lord halted them at Gilgal until all born in the forty years of wanderings should be circumcised (Joshua 5:6). They could not secure title to the land until their stipulation was fulfilled.

Thus we see circumcision made an essential feature of the Sinai covenant, since that is only an enlargement of the original covenant of circumcision. The proof becomes conclusive when we consider the relation of circumcision to the Sinai law. This is set forth by Paul: "For circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou be a doer of the law; but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision" (Romans 2:25). "Behold, I, Paul, say unto you, that, if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing. Yea, I testify again to every man that receiveth circumcision that he is a debtor to do the whole law" (Galatians 5:2-3).

This Sinai covenant was strictly a covenant of works. It promised life solely on the condition of exact, implicit, and complete obedience to all its mandates. So testify the Scriptures: "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and mine ordinances; which if a man do, he shall live in them; I am Jehovah" (Leviticus 18:5). "For Moses writeth that the man that doeth the righteousness which is of the law shall live thereby" (Romans 5:5). "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou dost not commit adultery, but killest, thou art become a transgressor of the law" (James 2:10-11).

On this very account there could be no life by it. It gendered to bondage and was a yoke of bondage, which their fathers were unable to bear (Galatians 4:24; Galatians 5:1; Acts 15:10).

Their circumcision covenant said, "Do and live."

The grace covenant said, "Believe and live."

The clearest exhibition, perhaps, in the Bible of the contrast between this covenant and the covenant of grace made with Abraham, appears in Paul’s allegory (Galatians 4:21-31). Just here dates become very important. That you may for yourself compare the respective dates of the covenant of circumcision and the covenant of grace we submit the following orderly statement: Paul says (Galatians 3:17) that it preceded the law by 430 years. Reckoning back from the giving of the law, we have, first, the stay of the Israelites in Egypt 210 years, Second/Jacob was then 130 years old. Third, when Jacob was born Isaac was sixty years old. Fourth, the covenant of Acts 7:2-3, and Genesis 12:1-4, was thirty years old before the birth of Isaac, making exactly 430 years. Or Abraham was seventy years old when the covenant of grace was made with him (Acts 7:2-3; Genesis 12:1-4), which was thirty years before Isaac’s birth (Genesis 21:5; Genesis 25:26); Jacob was 130 when he entered Egypt (Genesis 47:9), accordingly, their stay in Egypt was 210 years. So 30, 60, 130 and 210 is 430. But the covenant of circumcision was twenty-nine years later, when Abraham was ninety-nine years old (Genesis 27:1-14). There is a great distinction in the law of descent between the two covenants; one national or fleshly, the other spiritual or supernatural.

QUESTIONS
1. How does one’s understanding of these covenants affect his theology and idea of the church?

2. What is the substance of N. L. Rice’s argument to prove that the church commenced with Abraham and that infants are members of it?

3. How does the expositor answer it?

4. What are the elements of the law of circumcision?

5. Show why baptism did not come in its place, what does come in its place, and how the analogy between baptism and circumcision destroys infant baptism.

6. Give Scripture proof that circumcision was passed over to Moses and became an integral part of the Sinaitic covenant,

7. What is the relation of circumcision to the Sinaitic law?

8. What did these covenants say respectively?

9. How does Paul get his 430 years of Galatians 3:17, and when was the covenant of circumcision given?

10. What New Testament allegory contrasts this covenant sharply with the covenant of grace?

11. What is the great distinction in the law of descent between the two covenants?

Verses 1-18

XIX

THE CALL AND MIGRATION OF ABRAHAM

Genesis 12-13

Stephen says, "the God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham." Jehovah is thus called in Psalms 29:3. In the Gospel of John the term is applied to the incarnate Word: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten of the father), full of grace and truth" (John 1:14). The manifestation must have been in some visible form and deeply impressive.

The terms of the call. It was from "thy country, thy kindred, and thy father’s house and to an unknown land."

The incentives. These were in the six fold promise: "And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and be thou a blessing; and I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed" (Genesis 12:2-3).

The object of the call: (a) his own salvation (Romans 4:1-3) ; (b) to make him the father of a nation to become a depository of the oracles of God (Romans 3:1-2; Romans 9:4); (c) to make him the father of a spiritual seed until the end of time; (d) the progenitor of the Redeemer in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed (Romans 9:5; Galatians 3:16).

The requirements of the call were faith and obedience.

These requirements were fully met. "By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed to go out unto a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing whither he went" (Hebrews 11:8). Two important matters will be considered later: (a) The steps of Abraham’s faith; (b) the covenants established with him.

THE MIGRATION
Ur of the Chaldees, while Semitic territory, was dominated by the Cushites, who were idolaters. There was no suitable environment among them for the upbuilding of a chosen nation. The objective point of the migration was the land of Canaan (Genesis 1:31) But the line of the movement was up the Euphrates, not because it was direct, but because it was the thoroughfare of travel, having an abundant supply of water and pasturage. There were many of these migrations from the same country toward Canaan, and the Euphrates route was the usual way of approach, thereby avoiding the intervening desert. At Haran the movement was checked on account of the aged father who died there. Nahor, the other brother, seems later to have followed to the same point and there permanently established himself. In Haran both Isaac and Jacob subsequently found wives among his descendants. The caravan from Haran was large. The principal parties were Abraham, Lot and their wives. But they had many servants and cattle and much substance.

FROM HARAN TO SHECHEM
The movement was steadily south and adjusted to the needs of their herds, lingering at pleasant stopping places while pasturage lasted. The tradition that he stopped a while in Damascus seems well founded, for there in his house was born his bond servant and steward, Eliezer of Damascus. (Compare Genesis 15:2-3.) Entering Canaan on the north, the movement progressed to Shechem, one of the most beautiful valleys in all the land, where was an already famous oak grove. Dr. Hackett thus describes the valley:

A few hours north of Bethel, a valley suddenly opens upon the traveller among the hills, which, though not so extensive as Esdraelon or Sharon, is yet unsurpassed in point of beauty and fertility, by any other region in the Holy Land. . . . It runs very nearly north and south, and may be ten or twelve miles in length and a mile and a half in breadth. . . . Toward the upper part of the plain the mountains which skirt its westward side fall apart, leaving a somewhat narrow defile between them, where stands Nablus, the ancient Shechem or Sychar. A more lovely spot than that which greets the eye it would be difficult to find in any land. Streams, which gush from perennial fountains, impart a bright and constant freshness to the vegetation." Concerning the same valley Mohammed says: "The land of Syria is beloved by Allah beyond all lands, and the part of Syria that he loveth most is the district of Jerusalem, and the place which he loveth most in the district of Jerusalem is the mountain of Nablus."

It was an ideal pastoral land, becoming yet more famous in after ages. Here the Lord appeared again to Abraham, and told him that this was the Promised Land. Abraham erected an altar in response to this intimation and the place became a permanent sanctuary. It was his way of setting up a standard to assert his title to the land yet in possession of the Canaanite. Under this famous oak in after times the grandson, Jacob, had serious trouble (Genesis 35:4). Moses, in Deuteronomy, refers to these oaks. And here Joshua assembled all Israel in the impressive scenes of the nation’s history: (a) when blessings and cursings were announced from the opposite summits of Ebal and Gerizim, and (b) when he delivers his farewell address long afterward (Joshua 24:2), and made a final covenant with the people and erected a memorial tablet (Genesis 24:25-28). Nearly two centuries later the pillar was standing and the place was sacred (Judges 5:6). Near the same place our Lord talked at the well with the woman of Samaria (John 4). We here note the fact that wherever Abram dwelt he erected an altar to God. Thus his whole life was a witness to that faith in the one God which is the groundwork in the civilization of our age, and is diffusing its blessings around the world.

BETHEL AND OTHER PLACES
From Shechem Abraham makes a short move to Bethel and erects another altar. This place also becomes famous in the subsequent history. The historian calls the place by its later name. The early name of the place was Luz. The name "Bethel" was conferred by the grandson, Jacob, when fleeing from Esau, in commemoration of his conversion there when be dreamed of the ladder which reached to heaven. Leaving Bethel, Abraham moved steadily south until he had thus traversed Palestine from north to south. God is showing him the country that shall one day be possessed by his descendants. There seems little probability in his day of the fulfillment of the promise. He and his children lived on faith concerning the country, and for themselves lifted up their eyes to its heavenly antitype. Thus testified Stephen: "And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: and he promised that he would give it to him in possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child" (Acts 7:5). But Paul is bolder: "By faith he became a sojourner in the land of promise, as in a land not his own, dwelling in tents, with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: for he looked for the city which hath the foundations whose builder and maker is God. . . . These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things make it manifest that they are seeking after a country of their own. And if indeed they had been mindful of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. But now they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly: wherefore, God is not ashamed of them, to be called their God; for he hath prepared for them a city" (Hebrews 11:9-10; Hebrews 11:13-16).

THE FAMINE
And now comes a calamity that sends Abraham out of the Promised Land. A long drought, followed by a famine, ensues. Pasturage, crops and water fail, a fearful trial to any cattleman, as we in Texas know by many experiences. There later, as here, oftentimes when surface water fails, the people resorted to well digging. Some wells then, as now, become not only famous, but the occasion of strife. But Abraham had not yet learned to find supplies of water under ground as later (Genesis 21:30; Genesis 26:15), and so taking counsel of fear rather than that of faith, he left the Promised Land for Egypt, even then the granary of the world. The whole expedition to Egypt seems to have been a mistake of human calculation, for in a similar experience in his son’s time Isaac was forbidden to go to Egypt (Genesis 26:1-2).

We now come to the one blot on the fair name of this great patriarch. It seems that when he first left Haran to go on the long wandering among strange people, his mind was disturbed by the fear that the stranger in the land, having the power, would rob him of his beautiful wife, and so he led Sarah into a compact of duplicity, even on his own statement of the case, which he makes to Abimelech: "And it came to pass when God caused me to wander from my father’s house, that I said unto her: This is thy kindness which thou shalt show unto me: at every place whither we shall come, say of him, He is my brother."

The example of the father was followed by Isaac, the son. The same principles apply to all three cases. We might as well dispose of all of them here. In reply to the question: What defense can be made of the duplicity of Abraham and Isaac, our answer is: It is difficult to make any defense of dissimulation. The most plausible explanation is thus made by Conant:

Censure would be just, if the object had been to deceive others to their injury. But the object was personal safety; and the injury to others arose from their own violation of the duties of hospitality and the rights of strangers. Persons traveling, or sojourning, where the full knowledge of their relations exposes them to dangers, are not bound to disclose all that concerns themselves, and in no way concerns others. This principle is often acted on, and without any violation of moral duty; but whether wisely and prudently, the circumstances of the case must decide. Abraham consulted his wife’s honour, no less than his own safety, in adopting this expedient. For if she had been deprived of him, her only protector, her fate would have been worse than his. But while he passed for her brother, none but honorable proposals would be made to her as his sister; and these could be evaded or postponed until they should remove to a place of safety. That she should be taken without consent, by royal authority, was a contingency not likely to be foreseen. But my own opinion is that this defense is specious, and hardly Justified by the facts, since the expedient was repeated by Abraham with Abimelech after its known failure in Egypt, and by Isaac later, with the double experience of Abraham before him. It would seem more consistent with dignity and morality, if both had implicitly trusted God and told the truth, thus saving themselves from being put to disadvantage by the just censure of unbelievers. The whole transaction is discreditable to Abraham, particularly his acceptance of gifts on account of his wife. Why, after this solemn lesson, it should have been repeated by both father and son is inexplicable.

The Scriptures themselves pass no express judgment on the duplicity of Abraham. They record the facts, whatever they may be. They anticipate Cromwell’s direction to the painter: "Paint me as I am. Leave out no scar or blemish." But the Lord did intervene for the protection of Abraham by sending plagues on Pharaoh as later for oppressing Abraham’s descendants. In that case, as this, the Egyptians were urgent to get them out of the land. It is customary for commentators to eulogize Pharaoh and Abimelech for their integrity in condemning Abraham’s duplicity, but observe that they showed no integrity until after the rebuke of God. Then all at once, they who had seized a woman by violence from the household of an inoffensive stranger, became very pious. To these incidents the psalmist refers:

When they were but a few men in number, Yea, very few, and sojourners in it, And they went about from nation to nation, From one kingdom to another people, He suffered no man to do them wrong; Yea, he reproved kings for their sakes, Saying, Touch not mine anointed ones, And do my prophets no harm. – Psalms 105:12-25

Indeed, it was the protecting care of God that made them friends in every place, and camped around them as a protecting army.

EGYPT
Observe the position already attained by Egypt, and that her rulers are styled Pharaohs. This was a title, not a name, sometimes used in connection with the name of the king, as Pharaoh Necho (2 Kings 23:29), and Pharaoh Hopra (Jeremiah 44:30). The discussion as to what dynasty in Egypt held rule in Abram’s time may be reserved for later investigation. Dr. Conant says:

There is reason to believe that the Pharaoh of this passage was not a native prince, but was one of the shepherd kings (Hyksos), who ruled over lower Egypt, bordering on Canaan, from about 2080 B.C., when the country was overrun by the incursion of the Arabian race, known in history as the Shepherds. The territory was nearly contiguous, known as the "south country" (Genesis 12:9), and the language of the dominant races was the same in both. On the eastern frontier, toward Canaan, was a royal residence for a portion of the year, the Zoan mentioned in Numbers 13:22, and referred to in Psalms 78:12; Psalms 78:43, as the scene of the plagues of Egypt.

It is evident that Abraham learned some things in Egypt. When he came out of the land the record says he had silver and gold, which is the first notice in the Bible of these precious metals as currency. He also brought out of Egypt a handmaiden for his wife, who will cause some trouble later. The thirteenth chapter gives an account of the transaction between Abraham and Lot, to which you are referred for the answers to the questions of this incident.

QUESTIONS
1. What was the nature of Abraham’s call?

2. What were the terms?

3. What were the incentives?

4. What were the objects?

5. What were the requirements, did Abraham meet them and what was the proof?

6. Why was Abraham called to leave his country?

7. What was the objective point, the route, and why?

8. Why the sojourn at Haran?

9. What direction did he take from Haran? Did he atop at Damascus and the proof?

10. What was the first stopping place in Canaan and Dr. Hackett’s description of it?

11. What events of later history make this place famous?

12. What did Abraham do here which was his custom ever afterward?

13. What was the next objective point, its two names, who gave it the second and why?

14. What course did he take from Bethel and what was the object?

15. What was Abraham’s relation to this country, and what the proof?

16. What calamity drives him from the country, was this a wise course and the proof?

17. What one blot on his fame?

18. What is the best that can be said of the duplicity of Abraham and Isaac in passing off the wife as a sister? (Conant.)

19. Show wherein this does not exculpate.

20. What is the explanation of their success under such circumstances?

21. Who was the ruler in Egypt at this time and what did Abraham bring out of Egypt with him?

22. Who accompanied Abraham from Haran through Canaan to Egypt and came out with him?

23. On leaving Egypt, what their objective point?

24. What trouble arose between Abraham and Lot and what was cause?

25. How was this difficulty settled and what the definite location of each after their separation?

26. After Lot was separated from Abraham what revelation did God make to him and where does he next pitch his tent?