Genesis 17

1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, "I am God Almighty [1] ; walk before me and be blameless.

1. "Thirteen years had passed and Abram felt he was living with a fulfilled promise because he had a son for those 13 years, for Ishmael was now 13. He was no longer praying for his wife to bear a child for him, for she was old, and it was laughable to expect her to get pregnant now. He was 75 when he left Haran and is 99 here, and so about 25 years have passed since he was first promised a child. God had spoken to him three times over the years. It was not a lot, but in comparison to others his life was lived with great revelation, but still mostly without any divine appearance." At this point he thought Ishmael was the child he had always waited for, and so he was not praying anymore for the promised baby. It seemed that he had his prayers answered. The 13 years of silence from God did not bother him, for he considered God's promise had been achieved. Calvin writes, "Abram being contented with his only son, ceased to desire any other seed. The want of offspring had previously excited him to constant prayers and sighings; for the promise of God was so fixed in his mind, that he was ardently carried forward to seek its fulfillment. And now, falsely supposing that he had obtained his wish, he is led away by the presence of his son according to the flesh, from the expectation of a spiritual seed."

2. God for the first time reveals his name as El-shaddai, which means the Almighty God. Abraham needed to hear this for God is going to promise again that he will have a child, and 99 year old man with a 90 year old wife needs to know God is almighty, for no one other than one who is all powerful could make this promise come true. In other word, we are dealing with the impossible that demands a miracle for fulfillment. God is assuring him that he is the God who is sufficient for the fulfillment of the promise. He is the God who is enough and more than enough to get the job done, for he is the all-sufficient one. Herbert Lockyer calls this name "one of the most potent and precious among divine names." The name "El-Shaddai" occurs 8 times in the Old Testament. The name "El" means "the Strong One," and sets forth God's almightiness. "Shaddai" means, "to be strong" and sets forth exhaustless bounty of His strength. Together they speak of One that is all-powerful and is able to do anything. Theologians have a term for God's power and it is omnipotent, meaning that there is nothing God can't do. He is the Almighty God. I think of the little song:

Got any rivers you think are uncrossable,

Got any mountains you cannot tunnel through;

God specializes in things thought impossible,

And He can do what no other power can do.

Because He is the Almighty God there is no person He can't save, no problem He can't solve, and no prayer He can't answer. He is a God with undeniable, unlimited and unmatched power.

A children's song puts it like this:

You gotta believe God can do anything, Anything He wants to do. He can paint the sky a bright, bright green And turn all the trees to blue. You gotta believe God can do anything, For everything is in His hands. Anything? Anything!! For everything is in His hands.

Now did you know, once God made the world? He formed it with His hands. He breathed into a lump of clay, And the clay became a man! He made every single animal. (Those yukky bugs and all!) He made the mountains, the oceans, the Grand Canyon And even Niagara Falls! We have a mighty great God. Now, we gotta believe He can do anything, anything He wants to do.

3. Derek Kidner says: "In Genesis this name for God tends to be matched to situations where God’s servants are hard-pressed and are needing assurance. That’s exactly where Abram is and the Lord comes to him and He says Abram, I am El Shaddai. Jim Boice tells of the letterhead of the Chinese evangelist Leland Wong. He had three Scripture verses on his letterhead in order to bear testimony to what he thought of his God. Let me read those Scripture verses to you. The first scripture verse says: "The sun stood still." Joshua 10:13. The second scripture verse was, "The iron did swim." 2 Kings 6:6. The third Scripture verse is Psalm 48:14: "This God is our God." Now Boice says, "By the juxtaposition of these verses, Leland Wong affirms that his God does the impossible." "The sun stood still." "The iron did swim." "This God is our God." That was his God. And that is precisely what God is saying to Abram. Abram, I can do anything."

4. Donald Aellen writes, "God’s special appearance, and his 5 speeches are an indication that the time is right for things to move along more quickly now. What’s the name of the California wine makers who claim that they will not sell a wine before its time? God’s like that. He will not begin to fulfill the promise until the time is right. In this revelation, God’s ready. In anticipation of it, God reveals another of his names: Vs.1 translated as ‘God Almighty’. We have never heard God talk about himself that way before in the Bible. This new name of God prepares us for the about-to-unfold-future. Actually God is on a real re-naming kick today. In order to prepare Abram and Sarai for the about-to-unfold-future he gives them new names too. Abram will be changed to Abraham. The new name means: father of a multitude of nations. The name embodies the promise. Sarai’s name will be changed to Sarah. Sarah means ‘princess’. The name embodies the promise, for God says she will be the mother of kings."

5. Pink point out an interesting parallel in the way God uses this new name of his. He writes, ""The second time that the Lord revealed Himself as El Shaddai was under circumstances very similar to those found in Genesis 17:1 and context. "And God appeared unto Jacob again, when he came out of

Padam aram, and blessed him. And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name; and He called his name Israel. And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins" (Gen. 35:9-11). It will be noted that when God revealed Himself as the Almighty to Abram, He changed his name from Abram to Abraham; so here, He changes the name of his grandson from Jacob to Israel. To Abram God said, "And I will make My covenant between Me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. . . . and thou shalt be a father of many nations" (Gen. 17:2, 4); to Jacob He said, "Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee" (Gen. 35:11). Again, we are told that God "appeared" to Abram (Gen. 17:1), literally "was seen to Abram," and here in Genesis 35:9 the same word is used—this is the more striking for, excepting Genesis 12:7, these are the only occasions in Genesis where we read of God "appearing" to the patriarchs, as though to emphasize the importance of this Divine title. Finally, in noting the parallelisms between Genesis 17 and 35, we may observe that at the close of this Divine interview we read "And He left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham" (Gen. 17:22) and in Genesis 35:13 we are told, "And God went up from him in the place where He talked with him."

6. It was a wise man who wrote, "You know we should never enter into the study of the Bible without going to the Bible with the express purpose of asking what does this teach me about my God? Jim Packer says that’s the secret of sole-fatting Bible study, but it’s more than that. If we don’t go to the Scriptures looking to see what they teach us first and foremost about our God, not whether they are relevant to us. Of course, they are relevant to us. Saying that the Scriptures are relevant to us is not saying too much, it’s saying too little. Saying that the Scriptures are relevant to us is like saying that gasoline is relevant to the running of a car. If I were to stand up here and give you a lecture about the relevancy of gas to the running of a car, you wouldn’t say how profound. You would ask if I were mentally retarded. Of course, it’s relevant to running a car. It can’t run without it. Of course the Bible is relevant to believers but more than simply looking to see how the scriptures apply to us in our particular situation, we ought first to go asking what do the scriptures teach me about my God? Because that, seeing the sight of our God and the covenant that He has made with us, is what strengthens our faith for the walk that God has called us to. God revives our faith by revealing Himself to us in His word. That’s the first thing that we see in this great passage."

7. There is another insight into the meaning of El-shaddai: ""This name is from the Hebrew name "El-Shaddai". It carries the idea of "Nourisher; Strengthener; Satisfier." It identifies God as being the "All-sufficient One". There is a tenderness in this name because the word "Shaddai" comes from the Hebrew word for "breast". Just as a baby receives strength and nourishment from its mother's breast, so the children of God receive all they need from the hand of the "Almighty God".

8. God is perfectly able to perform what he promises, but he also expects Abram to also be perfect in his obedience. He expect a lot when he asks that Abram walk before him and be blameless. Why not just ask him to fly and be able to leap over tall buildings? It seems like God is requiring Abram to be a superman. The first demand of walking before him is possible, for it means to live your life in the awareness of God's presence. It makes a world of difference how you live if you are conscious that you are in the presence of God. You know how you check your speed quickly when you see the presence of a patrol car. It makes you want to obey the law for there are consequences you want to avoid. So when we sense God's presence we will not be tempted to obey the voices that call us to do what he forbids. We will walk in a way that pleases our heavenly Father when we sense that he is watching us.

R.S. Candlish says: "To walk before God, is to walk or live as if in His sight, and under His special inspection; to realize, at all times, that His presence and His providence are there; to feel His open and unslumbering eye ever upon us. To walk thus before God is impossible if there be not redeeming love on his part, apprehended by faith on our part; to be perfect, guileless, and upright, is thus walking before God, it is the great duty of the believer and only the believer can discharge that duty." Spurgeon wrote, "Walk before me," by which I understand an habitual sense of the presence of God, or doing the right thing and shunning the wrong, out of respect to the will of God; a consideration of God in all actions, public and private. Brethren, I deeply regret when I see Christian men, even in religious societies, in their calculations leaving out the greatest item in the whole calculation—namely, the divine element, the divine power and faithfulness. Of the most of mankind I may say, without being censorious, that if there were no God their course of action would not be different from what it is, for they do not feel themselves either restrained or constrained by any sense of the divine presence. "The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes." But this is the mark of the truly sanctified man of God, that he lives in every place as standing in the presence chamber of the divine Majesty; he acts as knowing that the eye which never sleeps is always fixed on him."

9. Enoch walked with God and so pleased God that he took him to heaven without dying. It is possible to walk with God, or walk before him, as he here demands. It is that second command to be blameless that bothers us, for it is asking for perfection, and we are fully convinced that God is setting the bar way too high for those of us who live in this fallen world. Maybe God just missed a page and he was reading from his requirements for the Cherubim and Seraphim. They would not shudder at this for they lived in the very presence of God and had no temptation to ever disobey him. They would expect no less than perfection being required by their perfect God. We, on the other hand, could use a little slack here and get some sort of discount that fit our circumstances in a fallen world. Many try to give us this discount by saying the word here only means to be sincere, or some other watered down word that makes it possible to achieve it.

Pink makes it clear that there is no basis for any watering down of this word. He writes, ""Be thou perfect." The careful reader will notice that the words "upright" and "sincere" are supplied in the margin as alternatives for "perfect," but it seems to us there is no need for this, that the word in the text is a legitimate rendering of the Hebrew "tamin." The same word occurs in Psalm 19:7: "The Law (Word) of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul." It is the same word that is translated forty-four times "without blemish." Then, did God really say to Abram, "Be thou perfect?’ He certainly did. And how could He say anything less? What lower standard than that of perfection can the Perfect One set before His creatures? Only too often men whittle down the Word to make it square with their own conceptions. All through the Scriptures, the standard of perfection is set before us. The law required that Israel should love the Lord their God with all their hearts. The Lord Jesus bade His disciples, "Be ye therefore perfect as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" (Matthew 5:48). And the teaching of the Epistles is all summed up in that Word, "Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow His steps" (1 Pet. 2:21). Is not that the standard of perfection? Brethren, such is the standard set before us. This is that which we are constantly to strive after. With nothing short may we be satisfied. It is because such is the standard that none in the flesh have ever realized it, that each and all must say with the apostle, "Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect; but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I

press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 3:12-14). Yet, nevertheless, the Word to us today is the same as that to Abram of old: "Be thou perfect." Does some one murmur, "An impossible standard!" Then remember that it was El Shaddai who gave it. Who dares to talk of "impossibilities" when the Almighty is our God? Has He not said, "My grace is sufficient for thee"? Then, do not charge Him with setting before us an unattainable standard: rather let us charge ourselves with failure to rest upon His Almighty arm, and confess with shame that the blame is ours through not appropriating His all-sufficient grace."

10. When we come to the New Testament we see again that the standard is not lowered at all, and the requirement is still perfection. Christ commanded: "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt. 5:48). Pastor Adrian Dieleman points out that the world has this same standard in the world of sports. If you expect the highest medal you have to be perfect and not just good. He illustrates with this story: "In the 1976 Olympics in Montreal, a Japanese gymnast, Shun Fujimoto, was competing in the team competition. Somehow, during the floor exercises, he broke his right knee. It was obvious to all reasonable observers that he would be forced to withdraw from competition. But they did not reckon with the determination of a true competitor. On the following day, Fujimoto competed in his strongest event, the rings. His routine was excellent, but the critical point lay ahead -the dismount. Without hesitation, Fujimoto ended with a twisting, triple somersault. There was a moment of intense quiet as he landed with tremendous impact on his wounded knee. Imagine the commitment and the dedication this took – to do a twisting, triple somersault landing that would scrape bone against bone with the resulting pain exploding like a grenade in the skull. By the way, the routine with its landing did earn him an Olympic gold medal. Do you have this kind of commitment to God and His kingdom? Are you so consecrated to the Lord that you would be willing to endure this kind of pain?" Guzik says, "The word blameless literally means "whole." God wanted all of Abram, wanting a total commitment."

He gives another illustration of the commitment to perfection: "It is estimated that there are some sixty thousand serious mountain climbers in the United States. But in the upper echelon of serious climbers is a small elite group known as "hard men." For them climbing mountains and scaling sheer rock faces is a way of life. In many cases, climbing is a part of their whole commitment to life. And their ultimate experience is called free soloing: climbing with no equipment and no safety ropes. John Baker is considered by many to be the best of the hard men. He has free-soloed some of the most difficult rock faces in the United States with no safety rope and no climbing equipment of any kind. His skill has not come easily. It has been acquired through commitment, dedication and training. His wife says she can't believe his dedication. When John isn't climbing, he's often to be found in his California home hanging by his fingertips to strengthen his arms and hands. Where are the hard men and women for Jesus? Where are those who will bring all their energies to bear for the sake of Christ and the Gospel? Where are those who will consecrate themselves totally to the Lord? That's the kind of people God is looking for in His church and kingdom."

11. Even the world requires perfection, for anything short of it means disaster. John Maxwell shares these startling statistics from some of his research: "If 99.9 percent is good enough, then two million documents will be lost by the IRS this year; twenty-two thousand checks will be deducted from wrong bank accounts in the next sixty minutes; 1,314 telephone calls will be misplaced by Telecommunications Services every minute; twelve babies will be given to the wrong parents each day; 20,000 incorrect drug prescriptions will be written in the next twelve months, all if 99.9 percent is good enough." Someone else said, "The model, the example, that our heavenly Father has given us

is the perfect image of Christ. Perfection is what we are to wish for, pant after, and shall at last obtain in glory. We do not and we can not and we must not have the Law and standards of God toned down because of our weakness." Another wrote, "The Lord teaches us through the apostle Paul in PHI 3:13-14: "Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." What is the prize? What is the mark toward which he was pressing? It was perfection. Does that mean we can attain it and walk in a presumptuous way in this life? No. We strive for perfection. We do not slight the least of His commandments because that slights the Lawgiver and the authority by which that commandment was given."

The fact is, most can never be perfect in any sport, and that is why most never get the highest medals, but they are never going to lower the standard so that more can win. When you see contests of all kinds you do not see the judges lowering the standards and rules of the contest so that weaker performers can still win. Perfection will always be demanded of winners. Why should God settle for less and lower his standard and say just be good most of the time and keep at least 8 of my ten commandments on a consistent basis? That is not going to happen. Perfection may be impossible for most people, but that is still the goal. Thank God that he is a forgiving father when we fail to reach that level, but we should never think he would lower his demand. But he is able to help us live on this level of perfection, for he is almighty. He enabled Abram and Sarai to have a child when it was humanly impossible, and the point is, he is able to help us live on the highest level of which we are capable. People who win gold medals are only the best of their time, but the next time someone will break their record and show they were not perfect. Nobody is perfect in any ultimate sense. That distinction belongs to Jesus Christ alone. Each of us can be perfect according to the gifts and abilities that we now possess. As we grow we will be perfect on a higher level, and all of us will be perfect on different levels. Each of us can be the best of who we are right now, however, and even God does not demand of us more than the best of what we are now. He does demand that we grow and become more and more of what we can be, but all he demands now is that we live the best that we know now according to our knowledge of his will. Because God is able, it makes it possible for us to walk before him and be blameless. It means that all of us can live without knowingly defying God's will as we know it. We still have many imperfections, but we can be blameless as far as living in willful disobedience to God's revealed will. This is not sinless perfection, for we all sin in many ways of which we are unaware. We have the sins of omission of which we don't even realize we are guilty. We are far from the finished product that God has in mind for eternity, but we can live in full obedience to all we know of God's will. This is the commitment of the unknown author who wrote the following paragraph.

"I am part of the "Fellowship of the Unashamed." I have Holy Spirit power. The die has been cast.

I've stepped over the line. The decision has been made. I am a disciple of His. I won't look back, let up, slow down, back away, or be still. My past is redeemed, my present makes sense, and my future is secure. I am finished and done with low living, sight walking, small planning, smooth knees, colorless dreams, tame visions, mundane talking, chintzy giving, and dwarfed goals! I no longer need preeminence, prosperity, position, promotions, plaudits, or popularity. I don't have to be right, first, tops, recognized, praised, regarded, or rewarded. I now live by presence, learn by faith, love by patience, live by prayer, and labor by power. My face is set, my gait is fast, my goal is heaven, my road is narrow, my way is rough, my companions few, my guide reliable, my mission clear. I cannot be bought, compromised, detoured, lured away, turned back, diluted, or delayed. I will not flinch in

the face of sacrifice, hesitate in the presence of adversity, negotiate at the table of the enemy, ponder at the pool of popularity, or meander in the maze of mediocrity. I won't give up, shut up, let go, or slow up until I've preached up, prayed up, paid up, stored up, and stayed up for the cause of Christ. I am a disciple of Jesus. I must go till He comes, give till I drop, preach till all know, and work till He stops. And when He comes to get His own, He'll have no problems recognizing me. My colors will be clear."

12. Pink has an interesting study on the various uses of the word walk. He writes, "And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before Me, and be thou perfect" (Gen. 17:1). We would call attention to four passages that refer to the walk of the Lord’s people in which a different preposition is used. Here in Genesis 17:1 Abram is bidden to "walk before" Almighty God. The children of Israel were exhorted to "walk after" the Lord: "Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear Him, and keep His commandments" (Deut. 13:4). Of Enoch and Noah it is witnessed that they "walked with God" (Gen. 5:24; 6:9). But of those who are members of the Body of Christ the word is, "As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in Him" (Col. 2:6). To walk before is suggestive of a child running ahead and playing in the presence of his father, conscious of his perfect security because he is just behind. To walk after becomes a servant following his master. To walk with indicates fellowship and friendship. To walk in denotes union. As to how we are to walk in Christ, the Holy Spirit tells us in the words which immediately follow the exhortation: "Rooted and built up in Him" (Col. 2:7). We might summarize these varied aspects of the believer’s walk as intimated by the four different prepositions thus: we walk "before" God as children; we walk "after" Him as servants; we walk "with" Him as His friends; we walk "in" Him as members of His body."

13. I have no idea who put this study together, but it is an excellent study on the key people who literally walked with God.

"He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God" Micah 6:8.

God's desire is that we might "walk with Him". Many times people think that to be a Christian means that "God walks with me" - in other words, wherever I go, God goes. But we are called to align our lives to the life of God, not the other way around. We walk with God (Amos 3:3).

Three Examples

The Bible provides many examples of those who walked with God (read 1 Cor.10:11; Heb.11). We study their lives, not just as history lessons, but also to understand the secret of their walk with God (Hebrew 6:12). Three men in the Bible are actually identified as specifically having "walked with God": Enoch, Noah and Abraham.

Enoch's Walk

"When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. And after he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked with God 300 years. Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away" Gen. 5:21-24.

Something happened to Enoch when Methuselah was born. Up until that time, Enoch had probably

believed in God, but had not walked with God. What happened to change all this?

Methuselah became the oldest man to ever live (969 years) and the year he died God sent the Flood in judgment against a wicked world. It seems that God had revealed to Enoch that his son was the "time-clock" for God's judgment. In fact, Enoch saw beyond even the Flood to the Second Coming of Christ.

"Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him" Jude 14-15.

This revelation of judgment launched Enoch into a close walk with God. Enoch's fellowship with God was so close that God caught him straight up to heaven to be with Him, without Enoch having to taste of death first (Genesis 5:24). This is a picture of what it will be like for Christians alive when Jesus returns (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).

"By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased

God" Hebrews 11:5.

Noah's Walk

Noah was one of a handful of men that impressed the heart of God (Ezekiel 14:12-20). Like Enoch, he is described as a man who "walked with God".

"Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God" Genesis 6:9 (see also 7:1).

In the midst of this corrupt generation, Noah was special, because of his attitude (read Genesis 6:5-12, 22; 7:1). He was blameless in his generation.

Noah saw things unseen

"By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family." Hebrews 11:7.

The Bible talks about two "worlds" - the seen world and the unseen world (2 Cor.4:18; Heb.11:1). Noah's eyes were fixed on the unseen world and this affected his walk on the earth.

Noah condemned his generation

"...By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith" Hebrews 11:7.

Noah was a "preacher of righteousness" (2 Peter 2:5), but it wasn't his words that condemned the world, but his life. Through his life, Noah proved that it was possible not to walk a way of violence and depravity, thus leaving his generation with no excuse for their condition (Romans 1:18-20).

Saved from a corrupt generation

In Matt.24:37-39, Jesus said that the generation alive at the time of His return would be just like that of Noah's generation. Noah's generation was judged because of its violence and corruption, not because they were "eating and drinking.". Their daily lives numbed them to the reality of their evil condition. Our generation is no different.

"With many other words he warned them; and pleaded with them, 'Save yourselves from this corrupt

generation'" Acts 2:40.

Our salvation does not just mean we are rescued from an eternity in hell (the future). Our salvation extends into the here and now.

Abraham's Walk

"...the Lord appeared to [Abram] and said, 'I am God Almighty, walk before me and be blameless'" Genesis 17:1.

Like Enoch and Noah, Abraham walked with God (Genesis 24:40). But the New Testament describes the walk of Abraham in a way different from Enoch and Noah.

"...'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,' and he was called God's

friend " James 2:23.

Abraham's fellowship with the Lord was so great that he was called the "friend" of God (2 Chronicles 20:7). This did not just mean that God was Abraham's friend. Even more than that, Abraham was God's friend. God felt He could share the depths of His heart with Abraham, just as two friends might do. God is looking for the same kind of deep friendship with you (John 15:13-15; Proverbs 17:17).

Like Enoch, Noah and Abraham, each of us has a choice between two walks - between walking with the world or walking with God (James 4:4; 1 John 2:15-16), between the seen world and the unseen world of God's promises (2 Corinthians 5:7). The choice we make will determine how we live - our outlook, our values, our lifestyle (Hebrews 11:32-12:2).

2 I will confirm my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers."

1.It has been 13 years of silence and anybody would be wondering about the promise at this point. God knew that and so he appeared to confirm what he had said earlier and give Abram some peace of mind and assurance that everything was still on track. There is no way to know why God would be delaying progress on his promise, and so he comes to give Abram a booster shot of hope and confidence that he has not been forgotten. Gill writes, "Abram's seed by Sarai is intended, which should be exceeding exceedingly, or in great abundance multiplied; and especially as this may include both his natural seed by her, and his spiritual seed among all nations, who are of the same faith with him...."

3 Abram fell facedown, and God said to him,

1. This is the falling chapter for Abram, for he falls twice. He falls here and again in verse 17. There are strong emotions affecting him as God confronts him in person. Falling is quite common for people who meet God. In fact, falling down with one's face to the ground, or falling on one's knees is one of the most common experiences in the Bible for those who sense the presence of God. The fact that we seldom to never fall down would indicate that we also seldom experience a close encounter with God. I have collected the places where people in the Old Testament did this, and where those experiencing the presence of Christ did it, plus those in heaven before the throne of God. It is an impressive list that makes it clear that the fall of man is not always a bad thing, for all of this falling is an expression of reverence and honor to God. Here is a whole new slant on the fall of man, for it can be an act of worship.

Leviticus 9:24 Fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed the burnt offering and the fat portions on the altar. And when all the people saw it, they shouted for joy and fell facedown.

Numbers 14:5 Then Moses and Aaron fell facedown in front of the whole Israelite assembly gathered there.

Numbers 16:4 When Moses heard this, he fell facedown.

Numbers 16:22 But Moses and Aaron fell facedown and cried out, "O God, God of the spirits of all mankind, will you be angry with the entire assembly when only one man sins?"

Numbers 16:45 "Get away from this assembly so I can put an end to them at once." And they fell facedown.

Numbers 20:6 Moses and Aaron went from the assembly to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and fell facedown, and the glory of the LORD appeared to them.

Numbers 22:31 Then the LORD opened Balaam's eyes, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the road with his sword drawn. So he bowed low and fell facedown.

Joshua 5:14 "Neither," he replied, "but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come." Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, "What message does my Lord [ Or lord ] have for his servant?"

Joshua 7:6 Then Joshua tore his clothes and fell facedown to the ground before the ark of the LORD, remaining there till evening. The elders of Israel did the same, and sprinkled dust on their heads.

Judges 13:20 As the flame blazed up from the altar toward heaven, the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame. Seeing this, Manoah and his wife fell with their faces to the ground.

1 Kings 18:39 When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, "The LORD -he is God! The LORD -he is God!"

1 Chronicles 21:16 David looked up and saw the angel of the LORD standing between heaven and earth, with a drawn sword in his hand extended over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders, clothed in sackcloth, fell facedown.

2 Chronicles 20:18 Jehoshaphat bowed with his face to the ground, and all the people of Judah and Jerusalem fell down in worship before the LORD.

Ezra 9:5 Then, at the evening sacrifice, I rose from my self-abasement, with my tunic and cloak torn, and fell on my knees with my hands spread out to the LORD my God

Job 1:20 At this, Job got up and tore his robe and shaved his head. Then he fell to the ground in worship

Ezekiel 1:28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. When I saw it, I fell facedown, and I heard the voice of one speaking.

Ezekiel 3:23 So I got up and went out to the plain. And the glory of the LORD was standing there, like the glory I had seen by the Kebar River, and I fell facedown.

Ezekiel 9:8 While they were killing and I was left alone, I fell facedown, crying out, "Ah, Sovereign LORD! Are you going to destroy the entire remnant of Israel in this outpouring of your wrath on Jerusalem?"

Ezekiel 11:13 Now as I was prophesying, Pelatiah son of Benaiah died. Then I fell facedown and cried out in a loud voice, "Ah, Sovereign LORD! Will you completely destroy the remnant of Israel?"

Ezekiel 43:3 The vision I saw was like the vision I had seen when he [ Some Hebrew manuscripts and Vulgate; most Hebrew manuscripts ] came to destroy the city and like the visions I had seen by the Kebar River, and I fell facedown.

Ezekiel 44:4 Then the man brought me by way of the north gate to the front of the temple. I looked and saw the glory of the LORD filling the temple of the LORD, and I fell facedown.

Matt. 17:4-7 Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah." 5While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!" 6When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. 7But Jesus came and touched them. "Get up," he said. "Don't be afraid." 8When they looked up,

they saw no one except Jesus.

Matthew 26:39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."

Mark 5:6 When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him.

Mark 5:22 Then one of the synagogue rulers, named Jairus, came there. Seeing Jesus, he fell at his feet

Mark 5:33 Then the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell at his feet and, trembling with fear, told him the whole truth.

Mark 7:25 In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an evil [ Greek unclean] spirit came and fell at his feet.

Mark 10:17 [ The Rich Young Man ] As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

Mark 14:35 Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him.

Luke 5:8 When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, "Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!"

Luke 5:12 [ The Man With Leprosy ] While Jesus was in one of the towns, a man came along who was covered with leprosy. [ The Greek word was used for various diseases affecting the skin—not necessarily leprosy.] When he saw Jesus, he fell with his face to the ground and begged him, "Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean."

Luke 8:28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out and fell at his feet, shouting at the top of his voice, "What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, don't torture me!"

Luke 8:41 Then a man named Jairus, a ruler of the synagogue, came and fell at Jesus' feet, pleading with him to come to his house

Luke 8:47 Then the woman, seeing that she could not go unnoticed, came trembling and fell at his feet. In the presence of all the people, she told why she had touched him and how she had been instantly healed.

John 11:32 When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died."

John 18:6 "I am he," Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) When Jesus said, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground.

Revelation 5:8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

Revelation 5:14 The four living creatures said, "Amen," and the elders fell down and worshiped.

Revelation 11:16 And the twenty-four elders, who were seated on their thrones before God, fell on their faces and worshiped God,

Revelation 16:21 From the sky huge hailstones of about a hundred pounds each fell upon men. And they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so terrible.

Revelation 19:4 The twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God, who was seated on the throne. And they cried: "Amen, Hallelujah!"

Revelation 19:10 At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."

Revelation 22:8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me.

Revelation 7:11 All the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell down on their faces before the throne and worshiped God,

2. This falling on his face by Abram is the first recorded instance of someone falling like this before God. Falling on one's face is a posture of adoration. There are a number of texts where this same posture is taken in the presence of a king or some other person to be greatly honored and respected. It expresses both humility and reverence. Gill writes, "And Abram fell on his face,.... At the sight of so glorious a Person that appeared to him, and in reverence of his majesty, and as sensible of his unworthiness of such a visit, and of having such favors bestowed upon him; and not because he was not as yet circumcised, as the Targum of Jonathan expresses it; and so other Jewish writers observe, that before he was circumcised he fell, when God spoke to him, but afterwards he sat and stood, Gen_18:1; but it may be observed, that not only uncircumcised persons, as Balaam, Num_22:31, in whom Jarchi instances, but circumcised ones, as Ezekiel, Eze_1:28, Joshua, Jos_5:14, and others, have fallen on their faces at a divine appearance:"

4 "As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations.

1. Each of his sons became separate nations and that would make 8 nations. Ishmael had 12 sons and that then comes to 20, and then add the 12 sons of Jacob and you have 32. Then add his sons by Keturah and you are up into the 40's. And beyond this we have no record, but what we have recorded alone equals what we can rightly call many nations. There is no other man who has had so many nations claiming him as their father. Three times a day the traditional liturgy of the Jews ends with, ""Sovereign who helps, saves and protects--Blessed are you Lord God, the Shield of Abraham." No other person, not even Moses, plays such an honored role in traditional Judaism. God's promise and covenant with Abraham has been more than fulfilled in that all three of the great monotheistic religions of the world claim him as their father. No person can ever surpass Abraham as the father of many nations.

2. John Piper writes, " Who are the heirs of the promises made to Abraham and to his seed? Who are the beneficiaries of the blessing of Abraham? In Genesis 17:4 God says, "Behold, my covenant is with you and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations." This seems to say that the seed of Abraham will not be restricted to the Jewish nation. He will father descendants who belong to many nations (cf. Rom 4:17). This is probably the way Genesis 12:3 will be fulfilled: "In you all the families of the earth will be blessed" (cf. Gal. 3:8). In other words, it is the seed of Abraham that will inherit his blessing (Gen. 17:7); the seed will include many nations (Gen. 17:4); and therefore, many nations or families will be blessed through Abraham (Gen. 12:3); many nations will be the heirs of his promises.

When we turn to the New Testament things that were only hinted at in the Old Testament became very clear. Paul is confronted with the agonizing situation that many of his Jewish kinsmen have rejected Christ and are accursed under God's condemnation for unbelief. Yet these are the seed, the physical descendants, of Abraham. How can this be? Has the word of promise to Israel fallen? He gives his answer in Romans 9:6-8: "It is not as though the word of God has fallen. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel; and not all are children of Abraham just because they are his descendants; but through Isaac shall your descendants be named.' This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants. Paul's answer is that God's promises to the descendants of Abraham have not failed, even though many Jews are unbelieving and therefore accursed, because the promises were never made to every physical descendant of Abraham. Just as Isaac, not Ishmael, was the child of promise, and Jacob, not Esau, was the child of promise, so also throughout Israel's history there has been a true remnant within Israel who are the heirs of the full covenant blessings. The rest are not the seed of Abraham because, even though they trace their physical descent to him, they do not share his faith and obedience. That is why John the Baptist said to the unrepentant Jews, "Do not say, 'We have Abraham as our father!' (Matt. 3:9), and Jesus said to the Jews who rejected him, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did" (John 8:39). In other words, many Israelites (most Israelites) are not the seed of Abraham, which will inherit the promises.

That did not make Paul happy. He loved his kinsmen, as we should. But Paul saw God's hand in it all: the unbelief of Israel meant the gateway into the covenant blessings was swung wide to the nations (Rom. 11:12). And God granted to Paul to understand and make explicit what was hinted at in those chapters in Genesis. This is what Paul taught in Galatians 3:

The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, 'In you shall all the nations be blessed!' So then, those who have faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. (vv. 8-9) … In Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham comes upon the gentiles that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith (v.14) … There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring (seed), heirs according to the promise (vv.28,29).

Who then are the heirs of the precious and very great promises made to Abraham and to his seed? You are. To whom can it be said: Your sins are forgiven; God is for you, with all his power, goodness and mercy will pursue you all your life and you will rise from the dead; your name will be great; your assembly as the stars of the heavens; you will possess the gates of your enemies, and the land of Israel and all the earth will be your inheritance; and you will fill the new world with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord? To whom can all this be said? To you, the children of Abraham through faith in Christ. "For all things are yours … whether the world or life or death or the present or the future, all (the promises!) are yours, for you are Christ's and Christ (the seed of Abraham) is God's (1 Cor. 3:21-23). Amen."

5 No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations.

1. What a burden it had to be to Abram to have a name that meant exalted father and for years not to have any children at all in a culture where most people were popping out a baby every year. It must have been a laughing matter to neighbors to call Abram big daddy when he was childless. Now he is to be called Abraham, which expands his fatherhood image to multitudes and even nations, and he still has only one child. The world was full of people who had five, ten and even 12 kids in the family, and God chooses a man like Abraham to populate a great nation. God just does not conform to our idea of the logical way of doing things. God wants to bless the whole world through this man, and he does it, but most of us would have chosen a more fertile couple with a good start on a large family already. We need to accept the fact that God does not always do things the way we would. In fact, it is likely that God will do things in the way that we wouldn't. It should never surprise us when God makes choices that would never get the popular vote. We do not see much difference between Abram and Abraham. It is really only one letter added, but this one letter adds a multitude to the meaning. Clark writes, "Hottinger, in his Smegma Orientale, supposes the word to be derived from the Arabic root [Arabic] rahama, which signifies to be very numerous. Hence [Arabic] ab raham would signify a copious father or father of a multitude. This makes a very good sense, and agrees well with the context. Either this etymology or that which supposes the inserted he to be an abbreviation of the word hamon, multitude, is the most likely to be the true one." He also adds this note on the name change of Sarai: "Now as the only change in each name is made by the insertion of a single letter, and that letter the same in both names, I cannot help concluding that some mystery was designed by its insertion; and therefore the opinion of Clarius and some others is not to be disregarded, which supposes that God shows he had conferred a peculiar dignity on both, by adding to their names one of the letters of his own: a name by which his eternal power and Godhead are peculiarly pointed out."

2. Someone wrote, "Think of the irony in these new names. Two old people, childless and beyond

their childbearing years, will now call each other by names that indicate they are the parents of a host of heirs. How do you think Hagar and Ishmael and the other servants reacted when they heard Sarai call her husband Abraham, and when they heard him call her Sarah? I am sure they were snickering and smiling and laughing behind their backs! I am sure they thought Abraham and Sarah were old fools in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's." We see God's sense of humor in the way he goes about this whole plan of blessing the world through this one in a billion couple. Any committee in the world would have started this process with a vibrant young couple in their sexual prime, but not El-shaddai. Because he is all-powerful he starts with an aged couple whose clock is not ticking, but has long stopped. He does it this way because he can, and thereby demonstrates his sovereignty. Dr. Revis writes, "It must have been a strange experience for Abram to start sporting this new name, "Super-Dad, Father of a Zillion Kids" with only one son to his credit, and that with Hagar, the slave woman who isn't his wife. Don't you know people could barely hold back the chuckles when they heard his name! Of course, Abraham, before his life is over, will have the last laugh! Maclaren writes about this new name, "How often Canaanites and his own household would smile as they used it! What a piece of senile presumption it would seem to them! How often Abram himself would be tempted to think his new name a farce rather than a sign! But he took it humbly from God, and he wore it, whether it brought ridicule from others or assurance in his own heart. It takes some courage for any of us to call ourselves by names that rest on God's promise and seem to have little vindication in present facts. The world is fond of laughing at saints, but Christians should familiarize themselves with the lofty designations which God gives His children, and see in them not only a summons to life corresponding, but a pledge and prophecy of the final possession of all which these imply. God calls things that are not, as though they were; and it is wisdom, faith, and humility not presumption which accepts the names as omens of what shall one day be."

3. Leslie Flynn wrote, "Living on the caravan route that carried much of the commerce of the ancient world between Egypt and the north and east, Abram met many merchants. When a trader introduced himself, Abram was compelled to give his name, which means high father, or father of many. Dr. Barnhouse suggests, it must have happened a hundred times, and each time more galling than the time before. Oh, Father of many! Congratulations! And how many sons do you have? And the answer was so humiliating to Abram: None. And many a time there must have been the half-concealed snort of humor at the incongruity of the name and the fact that there were no children to back up such a name. Some time after Ishmael was born, God changed his name to Abraham, which means father of a multitude (Genesis 17:5). Dr. Barnhouse comments: There are some things in the Bible that cause me to chuckle and there is a thought in connection with this verse that always has had that effect on me. I cannot help but think of what must have happened when Abraham broke the news to his family and servants that he was now changing his name . . . Were there some who said to themselves with a laugh, The old man couldn't take it. It got under his skin after all these years. After all, to be father of nobody for eighty-six years and then to be the father of only one, with a name like he has . . . must have its rough moments. So he is going to change his name. I wonder what it will be. And then the old man spoke. I am to be known as Abraham father of a multitude. We can almost hear the silence of the stunned moment as the truth breaks upon them. Father of a multitude. Then the laughter broke forth behind the scenes. Father of a multitude! Was there anything more ridiculous for a man of his age?"

4. When God changes a persons name it means there are going to be some radical changes in the direction of their life. The long time of waiting for Abram and Sarai is coming to an end, and the miracle child is on the horizon. The real beginning of the people of God is about to begin, and it is to

be a people with a spiritual heritage that will be a blessing to all mankind. Abraham had eight children before he died and each of them went on to become nations in that part of the world, and so the plural of nations fits the future of his children. The primary focus, however, is the nation of Israel through whom the messiah will come who will be the Savior, not just of the Jews, but of the entire Gentile world as well. There have been many blessings to the world that came through his other children who formed the Arab world of nations, but the greatest blessing of all came through his son Isaac and grandson Jacob.

5. People change there names yet today, but sometimes they are not an improvement. A man came before the judge to get his name changed and the judge said, "I can understand why you want to change your name Joe Stinks. What do you want to change it too?" Joe said, "I want to change it to Bill Stinks. I am so sick of people saying hello Joe what do you know." Some see it as funny here too that God would change the name of the first Jew to end in ham, and then forbid pork to be eaten.

6. Sometimes people get a change of name because of some dramatic event in their lives that puts a label on them as a nickname. For example: "At the first battle of Bull Run in 1861, a fierce Union charge caused confusion in the Confederate ranks. Confederate General Barnard Bee rode up to General Thomas Jackson and reported, "General, they are beating us back." Jackson shouted, "Give them the bayonet.” General Bee galloped back to his men and yelled, "There is Jackson standing like a stone wall! Rally behind the Virginians!" The Confederates rallied and that day a new name was born for General Thomas Jackson. He would henceforth be known as General "Stonewall" Jackson." However, in the case of Abram and Sarai it is totally the sovereign choice of God to change their names, for they have done nothing to make a difference, and no special event has taken place to warrant a name change.

7.Who is the seed and who are these many nations? The following paragraphs by an unknown author give us the New Testament answers.

"First, if you would turn with me Galatians, chapter 3. When we read in Genesis 17:7 that the covenant was with Abraham and with his seed, we naturally think of all those who follow in the faith of Abraham. And we’re not incorrect to do that, but the apostle Paul draws us to very sharp, theological point that he wants to drive home in Galatians, chapter 3 and especially verse 16. Look at it here. Galatians 3, verse 16: "Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to His seed. He does not say ‘and to seeds’ as referring to many, but rather to one, ‘and to your seed,’ that is, Christ. Do you realize what Paul is telling you there? That all the promises that God made to Abraham and to his seed are found and summed up and possessed by and fulfilled in Jesus Christ. He alone is the inheritor of the promises of Abraham. And so, if I can say this reverently, if you want a piece of that pie, you must be in Christ. You must be united with Him, you must be identified with Him, you must have trusted in Him and rested in Him alone because all of these promises that we have just enumerated belong to Christ, and they are only enjoyed by those who trust in Him. That’s the first glorious theological point that Paul draws from Genesis 17.

There’s another one if you turn back to Romans, chapter 4. We ask the question, who is Abram’s seed? And Paul tells us unequivocally Christ. That is Abram’s seed. And so we ask another question as we look at Genesis 17. We ask, well, who are the nations? Who are these nations that God has promised Abram to be a father of? Paul gives us an answer in Romans, chapter 4, beginning in verse 14. He’s talking about those who are heirs of the promises, and he says in Romans 4, verse 14: "If

those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, neither is there violation. For this reason, it is by faith that it might be in accordance with grace, in order that the promise may be certain to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, (as it is written, ‘A Father of many nations I have made you’) in the sight of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist. In hope against hope he believed, in order that he might become a father of many nations, according to that which had been spoken, ‘So shall your descendants be.’"

And so in this passage God renames Abram. He calls him Abraham, which means the father of many nations. I wonder what Abraham looked forward to when he was given that title the father of many nations? The New Testament tells us that, too. Turn with me to the book of Revelation, chapter 7. Revelation 7 and verse 9. "And after these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude, which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands."

Can you imagine Abram walking back to the tents that night? For seventy some odd years he had borne the name and reproach of Abram, exalted father. For thirteen years he had found some relief that he had one son. Now he goes back to his tent to announce to his servants and to his family, friends, family, God has changed my name. I mean you can imagine the reaction of the family. They would be thinking well perhaps the Lord gave him a little more appropriate name. I mean one son, after all. He said, yeah, the name that he has given to me is the father of many nations."

6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you.

1. God cannot say it in enough ways that Abraham will become legendary due to the number of people that will live in the future because of his fathering a child from Sarah. Not only will there be masses of people, but there will be kings as well. He will not just have a multitude of common people, but also a host of royal highnesses who rule over the masses. In other word, whole nations with their population and their rulers will come from his loins. "You are going to be famous Abraham," is the bottom line of what God is communicating. "Common shepherds will sit around the campfire at night and tell stories about you Abraham, and kings from their thrones will rehearse the same stories to their royal families, and the dukes and princes of their kingdoms. You will be, not just the talk of the town, but the talk of the world." This promise has been fully fulfilled, for Abraham is actually one of, if not the most, famous persons in the world. He is the only person in history who most highly honored in all three of the great monotheistic religions of the world, which are Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The whole history of kings in Israel came from his seed, and all the kings of Ishmael's tribes were from his seed. It is harder to trace any kings in Christian history to Abraham, but those who were Christian kings are considered a part of the seed of Abraham. All of Abraham's eight children became heads of nations, and their large families multiplied so that even before he died there were a great many people in the world because of him. Some of the nations with kings were Israel, Judah, Midianites, Edomites, Arabs, Saracens and Turks.

7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you.

1. God is making a commitment here that has some amazing implications. He is saying that he will be the God of Abraham's descendants. Now if this refers only to the descendants who became the Jewish nation, then he is the God of Israel only, and all the other 7 kids whom he fathered are not included and have to find their own God. That could be argued because only those in the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were in the line of those who were under the covenant. On the other hand, his other children were already taught to worship the God of Abraham would not just to off and forget all that they learned while growing up with Abraham. So the issue here is God saying that he will be the God of all Abraham's descendants, or just the line through Isaac? This is not an easy question to answer, but we will try to gather evidence for one way or the other as we continue to study this everlasting covenant. If you take it as literal and at face value, it is saying that all who come from Abraham are included, and God promises to be their God forever.

2. Henry writes, "Here is the continuance of the covenant, intimated in three things:-- 1. It is established; not to be altered nor revoked. It is fixed, it is ratified, it is made as firm as the divine power and truth can make it. 2. It is entailed; it is a covenant, not with Abraham only (then it would die with him), but with his seed after him, not only his seed after the flesh, but his spiritual seed. 3. It is everlasting in the evangelical sense and meaning of it. The covenant of grace is everlasting. It is from everlasting in the counsels of it, and to everlasting in the consequences of it; and the external administration of it is transmitted with the seal of it to the seed of believers, and the internal administration of it by the Spirit of Christ's seed in every age."

3. Pink writes, "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all" (Rom. 4:16). How is Abraham the "father" of us all? In what sense is he such? Not, of course, literally, by procreation, but figuratively, by typification. Just as naturally the son inherits certain traits from his father, just as there is a resemblance between them, just as Adam "begat a son in his own likeness, after his image" (Gen. 5:3), so there is a resemblance and likeness between Abraham and those who are "Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:29). In a word, Abraham is to be regarded as a sample believer. Thus there will be a close correspondence, in the broad outline, between Abraham’s history and ours."

Pink goes on to show the faith and unbelief of Abraham and illustrates how it is all of faith and God's grace and not works or the greatness of the individual.

"Probably it is no exaggeration to say that Abraham’s faith was tried more severely, more repeatedly, and more varisomely than that of any other human being. First, he was called upon to leave the land

of his birth, to separate himself from home and kindred, and to set out on a long journey unto a land which God promised to "show" him, and, we are told, "he went out not knowing whither he went." After his arrival in the new land he did not enter into occupation of it, but instead, sojourned there as a stranger and pilgrim. All that he ever owned in it was a burying-place. Dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, he remained there well nigh a century. Again, his faith was tested in connection with God’s promise to give him a son by Sarah. His own body "dead," and his wife long past the age of child-bearing, nevertheless "he staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; and being fully persuaded that, what He had promised, He was able also to perform"(Rom. 4:20, 21). Finally, the supreme test came when he was bidden to offer up his son Isaac, but, "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son. . . . accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead" (Heb. 11:17, 19).

But did Abraham’s faith never waiver? Alas, it did. He was a man of like passions to ourselves, and in him, too, there was an evil heart of unbelief. The Spirit of God has faithfully portrayed the dark as well as the fair side, and were it not that we are painfully conscious of the tragic history of our own spiritual lives, we might well marvel at the strange mingling of faith and unbelief, obedience and disobedience. By faith Abraham obeyed when God called him to leave Chaldea; yes, but by unbelief he disobeyed in that his father and nephew accompanied him in direct contravention of Jehovah’s express command. By faith he left Chaldea, but by unbelief he stopped short at Haran (Gen. 11:31). By faith he entered the land of promise, but as soon as a famine arose he forsook it and went down to Egypt (Gen. 12:10). By faith he returned and sojourned in the land of promise, but by unbelief he took to himself the maid Hagar rather than wait for God to put forth His power and give him a son by Sarah. By faith he went forth against Chedorlaomer and his armies to rescue Lot, but later, by unbelief he lied to Abimelech about his wife (Gen. 20:21). What a sad exemplification is all this of the two natures in the believer!

How terribly inconsistent are the lives of God’s saints! By faith Israel crossed the Red Sea, but a little later, in unbelief, they feared they had been brought into the wilderness to perish from hunger. With heart stayed upon the Lord, David feared not to engage the mighty Goliath, yet the time came when he fled from Saul. Filled with confidence in Jehovah, Elijah, single-handed, faced the four hundred prophets of Baal, but within a few hours he ran in terror from an angry woman. Peter was not afraid to step out on to the sea, nor was he intimated in the presence of the Roman soldiers, but drew his sword and smote off the ear of the high priest’s servant; yet, the same night, he trembled before a maid and dared not to confess his Lord. Oh! the God dishonoring ways of unbelief! Unbelief! Surely this is the sin, which doth so easily beset us.

Do not the above histories and their sequels bring out the marvelous and gracious long-suffering of Him with whom we have to do? How patiently God deals with His people! Israel did not perish with hunger in the wilderness, even though they murmured against God; instead, they were fed with "angel’s food" (Ps. 78:25)! David was not slain by Saul, even though he did flee from him; instead, he was afterwards exalted to the throne of Israel! Elijah did not fall a victim to the wrath of Jezebel, though his faith did fail him; instead, he was afterwards taken to heaven without seeing death at all! Peter was not disowned because he denied his Lord, nay, after his restoration, he had the signal honor of opening the door of the kingdom both to the Jews and to the Gentiles! So it was with Abraham. God did not abandon him when his faith faltered, but dealt gently and patiently with him, leading him on step by step, disciplining him in the school of experience, until by wondrous grace He enabled

him to do by faith on Mount Moriah that which was a type of Calvary itself!

The divine dealings with Abraham wonderfully demonstrated God’s Sovereignty. A unique honor was conferred upon our patriarch, for he was chosen by God to be the father of the chosen nation, that nation from which, according to the flesh, Christ was to come. And mark how God’s Sovereignty was displayed in the character of the one selected by Him. There was nothing in Abraham by nature to commend him to Jehovah. By descent he belonged to a family of idolaters. Ere he left Chaldea, in response to God’s call, he entered into an evil compact with his wife (Gen. 12:7). As though to give special emphasis to their unworthiness, God said to Israel, "Look unto Abraham, your father, and unto Sarah that bore you: for I called him alone—look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the

hole of the pit whence ye are digged" (Isa. 51:2,1). And Abraham, the father of us all, was a pattern or sample case. God’s choice before the foundation of the world was not determined by any good or merit foreseen in us. Election itself is of "grace" (Rom. 11:5). It is all of grace from beginning to end, sovereign grace, gratuitous grace, matchless grace."

4. Donald Aellen wrote, "This is the primary way God relates with his people. God covenants with his people. A covenant is very one-sided. God is the one who initiates it. God is the one who invests his all into it. But God is not the one who benefits from it. It’s all giving for God. How much it costs God to be in relationship with his people is realized by looking at the Son of God sacrificed on the cross bearing the sins of the people with whom God wants to be in relationship. Listen when we pray the prayer of Thanksgiving where Jesus talks about the new covenant he establishes with his people, all at his expense. And it’s all getting for the people with whom God covenants. Neither is this a temporary covenant, one based on our good behavior or our moral worthiness. Repeated in these speeches of God is the phrase ‘everlasting covenant’. Forever is forever. God will always be committed to his people, devoted to fulfilling his promises of giving them a place, an importance, creating a people who are one family bound up in their unity to God whatever language they speak, in whatever historical period they live.

One of the signs by which Abraham will know that God is with him is the reiterated promise of descendants. The language trips over itself in this passage. Repetition upon repetition of the words ‘offspring, nations, generations, multitudes’. And these are not offspring who are shoved into the back drawer of history, an unwashed rabble. These descendants will be kings and princes, people with sovereignty, who will take part in the international scene, who hold immense dignity. And in this passage we hear the means by which Abraham will have descendants. God gets really clear that it is Sarah who will bear a son for Abraham. No other child will do. The people of God are to know and see that that they are really people of God. Its not like Abraham is some Middle Eastern sheik whose virility is legendary, and who thinks himself God-like because of all the kids he could sire. How God will fulfill his promise of descendants is beyond human logic and human telling or human ingenuity. It’s beyond biology. It can only be God that does this. God is making a very special people. Miraculous birth is a theme of the scripture from here on in. It culminates in Jesus. Only God could have pulled that pregnancy off. And because of Jesus, we are made a special people, God’s own people."

8 The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I

will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God."

1. This promise of land to be the home of God's people has been an issue of controversy from the beginning. Just what was the whole land of Canaan is the first question of dispute, and second is the concept of the everlasting possession. Does this mean that Canaan will be a part of the eternal kingdom we call heaven? Does this mean there will be a new Jerusalem in heaven and the old Jerusalem on earth for all eternity? And if so, who gets to live where, and based on what? Does this land promise apply only to the line of Isaac, of is there a place for any of the other kids in this land? You can see that there is much to wrestle with in this promise of God to Abraham.

2.This land was first called just "this land" in 12:7; then later God said, "..all the land which you see." in 13:15; and still later it gets more specific with borders, "from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates." in 15:18."

3. The promise has no condition to it, but the fact is, when the people became disobedient to the law of God they were taken captive out of the land and did not any longer possess it. It was a conditional promise and the Jews failed to keep the condition. In the next verses God says one of the conditions they have to fulfill is circumcision. It is not this condition and any failure to keep it, however, which led to them losing the land. The word “perpetual” does not mean they would never be removed from the land. There was a 70-year exile when the Jews were taken away to Mesopotamia. And also the 1900-year exile from the fall of Jerusalem (AD 70) to their return in 1948.

9 Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come.

1. In verse 4 God says, "As for me," and now he says, "As for you." God has a part in the covenant and that is to make and keep his promise. But it is two sided, and man has a part to do and keep as well. God will only keep his part of the covenant if Abraham and his descendants will keep their part, and the sign that they are keeping their part is circumcision. You cannot have a one sided relationship, for both partners need to have some responsibility in maintaining the relationship. God is responsible to keep his promise, but people are responsible to do the things that motivate God to do so. If they fail, and instead of pleasing God become rebels who refuse to do what pleases him, then he has no obligation to keep his side of the bargain. It can be assumed that Abraham taught this to all of his family and made it clear that this was to be an obligation for all time for all of his descendants.

2. Derek Kidner writes: "The striking feature of the stipulations in this passage is their lack of detail. To be committed was everything. Circumcision was God’s brand; the moral implications could be left

unwritten until Sinai, for Abraham was pledged to a Master, and only secondarily to a way of life." God is calling on Abraham simply to be absolutely committed to Him in this relationship: ‘Abraham, stick with Me, stay with Me, trust Me, Abraham, be committed, be loyal to Me.’ That’s the nature of the covenant relationship, isn’t it? Loyalty, faith and commitment despite all evidence to the contrary that the promises will be fulfilled. And so God calls Abram to keep the covenant and the joyful response of the believer to that call of God’s grace is of course to continue in commitment and in loyalty, in trust and in faith."

3. Steven R. Key writes, "IF YOU GO TO THE DICTIONARY TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE WORD "COVENANT" YOU WILL FIND THAT A COVENANT IS DEFINED AS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PERSONS TO DO SOMETHING SPECIFIED.

In that sense men often enter into covenants. A man and woman enter a covenant in marriage. An employer and an employee make a covenant in which the employee agrees to give his services and talents in return for a certain wage. A government forms covenants with its citizens, an agreement in which the citizens receive certain privileges and services in return for obligations which they must meet. And so examples could be multiplied of such agreements, although we are not so accustomed to using the term "covenant" to describe them.

This view of earthly covenants has certainly played a large part in how God's covenant has been defined and described in Reformed theology. The doctrine of the covenant has always had an important place, and especially since the theological development of the 16th through the 18th centuries, and then again in the past century. But although the doctrine of the covenant has an extremely prominent place in Scripture and has had an important place in Reformed theology, there is no unanimity of opinion regarding the question, what is the covenant?

There have been different ideas and views expressed concerning God's covenant, but at the heart of most of them is this thought that it is an agreement, a contract between God and His people. According to that contract or agreement, God agrees to save His people and to bestow upon them all the blessings of grace and salvation; while, on the other hand, that promise of salvation must be received by the people of God in faith. And that faith is a condition. God agrees to save you, only if you fulfill your condition to that salvation, which is your act of believing.

There are also those who make the covenant a promise. According to them, the promise of God is the essence and the idea of the covenant. According to this conception, the promise of God is for all who are outwardly received in the church through baptism, without exception. So that when I baptize any child, I say to that child, "John, Mary, God promises you that you shall be saved." But, you understand, such an idea of God's covenant necessarily is conditional. So that the promise really is, "I promise you salvation, if you believe." Such a concept of the covenant leaves salvation to that individual child and to his own act of believing. Else it is a lie, of course. For it becomes obvious that not every baptized child receives salvation, as is supposedly promised here. There are many other erroneous views of the covenant, views that lead into other erroneous positions. But all these views stumble over the truth of Scripture and fail to grasp the beauty of God's covenant.

10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after

you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised.

1. Here we have one of the mysteries of God's plan, for this sign of the covenant can only be obeyed by males, and so the females of Abraham's descendants cannot in any way, form or fashion enter into this covenant. God has discriminated against the female descendants by choosing a sign that only males can participate in. Female circumcision is practiced in some cultures, but it is an anti-female thing and has no connection with this sign of the covenant. This covenant is sealed with blood, but only the blood of males, and so why did God choose a sign limited to one sex? Several suggestions are that because the male is the head of the home, his circumcision includes the women in the home under him. Another suggestion is that it looks forward to the shed blood of Jesus, which was male blood and sufficient for the atonement of all people both males and females.

2. Before we try to grasp what circumcision is all about, it is of interest to quote a study of what it is not about. I have found such a study by an author not known who wrote, "What is the sign not? This sign of circumcision, by the way circumcision was commonly done in the near East. The Israelites were not the only ones who circumcise. Many of the nations, including Egypt, circumcised. Did you know that? The only nation in the near vicinity of Israel that didn’t circumcise was Philistia, and hence when David is mocking Goliath, he calls him an uncircumcised Philistine: "You uncircumcised Philistine." So all of the nations were accustomed to applying the sign of circumcision, but most of them used it as either a mark of priesthood or of a sign of entrance into manhood. Here God takes a common sign and He devotes it to a special use and that special use is to mark and to assure Abraham of His promises. So the covenant sign is not a sign of entrance into manhood. In fact, it is explicitly said to be given, it must be given to male children eight days old. So it’s not a mark of entrance into manhood. The Jewish thought did not have some distinctive view of when you entered into manhood, for example, eight days old. No, it’s not a sign of entrance into manhood.

It is not a sign of Jewish ethnicity. Here in Genesis 17:9-14, it is made clear that even if you were a foreigner bought with money by the master of your house, you are to be circumcised. And that idea of that ethic fluidity of Israel obtained throughout the history of Israel in the Old Testament. If you’ll turn with me to Esther 8, I’ll prove that. In Esther 8, if you remember the context, the Jews have been singled out for destruction. Haman has tried to get a decree passed that will allow people to basically have free reign on the Jews and to wipe them out. Mordecai has spoiled that plot, and because the king can’t revoke his previous ordinance to allow people to attack the Jews, what he has to do is to enact a new ordinance that allows the Jews to defend themselves and to plunder anyone’s inheritance that they defeat. So here’s the rule: ‘Okay, you can have a free day on the Jews. You can attack them. But if you attack them and they defend themselves and they defeat you, they get to have your entire family’s inheritance and they get to plunder you to their heart’s content.’ And so we read this in Esther 8. "And in each and every province," verse 17, "and in each and every city wherever the king’s commandment and his decree arrived there was gladness and joy for the Jews, a feast and a holiday. And many among the peoples of the land became Jews, for the dread of the Jews had fallen on them." Oh, indeed, indeed. Many of the peoples of the land became Jews? Yes, they converted, receiving the sign of circumcision and being drawn in. Because the sign of circumcision is not a sign of Jewish ethnicity, it’s a sign of membership in the covenant."

3. Brian Morgan writes, "The covenant sign was to be taken very seriously. When someone refuses to wear their wedding ring in public, that small act reveals much about the fidelity of the heart. In the same way, if a male in Israel would not submit to the wounds of the knife, God said he would be” cut off" from the covenant family. The knife is inevitable. The only question is whether we submit to it now or later. One operation is painful, the other unimaginable. It is like a doctor telling a woman with breast cancer she must submit to the knife or she will die. In God's covenant, self-effort is a cancer that must be rooted out in order to save our souls."

4. In a search for the meaning of this circumcision requirement there is much speculation. I have done some myself and share my rambling. Why in the world would God link the organ of sex with the plan of salvation? What is the connection of sex with salvation? The Savior who came through the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did come down through a long line of people who by having sex kept the line going. In the end, however, the Savior was virgin born without sex. Could God be saying that I am not limited by the sexuality of man. I use the sex organ of man often to accomplish my will in history, but I want you to cut a part of it off as a reminder that I am not dependant upon it to achieve my purpose. Abraham had sex with Hagar and tried to bring about my promise by the use of his sex organ. He was being typical of man thinking that it is all up to him and his virility to get the will of God accomplished. It is not so, and this cutting of part of the sex organ will remind you that your trust is to be in me and not your sexuality. When the time comes I will fulfill all my promise to Abraham to bless the whole world without the use of any male organ. I use them, but I don't need them, and so live in humble dependence upon me and my promises, and lean not on your own understanding and powers. Circumcision is God saying, "It is not about you, but about me." The male organ will produce the seed that is a multitude of nations, but only my spirit will produce the seed that blesses the whole world.

5. Guzik writes, "Why did God command the circumcision of children to take place on the eighth day? Probably because this is the day when an infant's immune system is at the optimum level for such a procedure. McMillen also notes newborn children have a peculiar susceptibility to bleeding between the second and fifth days of life; it seems an important blood-clotting agent, vitamin K, is not formed in the normal amount until the fifth to seventh day of life. Another blood clotting agent, prothrombin, is at its highest levels in infants on precisely the eighth day of life, making the eighth day the safest, earliest day to circumcise an infant."

6. "The rite means nothing in itself, unless the life behind the rite reflects the sign of circumcision, that is, unless the life is lived in obedience to God. It is really circumcision of the heart (so to speak) that is important to God, the inward manifestation of the outward sign of circumcision. God said in the Law: "Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer" (Deut. 10:16); and "Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, circumcise your hearts, you men of Judah and people of Jerusalem" (Jeremiah 4:4). Christians have been given a similar rite: baptism. Baptism symbolizes the death of the old self and rebirth into the kingdom of God. As Paul says: "We were...buried with [Christ] through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life" (Rom. 6:4)."

7. Donald Aellen writes, "Abraham’s speech has to do with circumcision. A huge chunk of the story is devoted to this. God does all the giving in the covenant. But their needs to be a token giving on our part. Being circumcised is a peculiar thing to do that marks Abraham’s people off from all the other cultures. It is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual reality. It is a demonstration of

willingness to give something of oneself, something of pain, of blood, which shows that Abraham accepts God’s claim on him. It’s a willingness to be seen as belonging to God, right down to the most private of our parts. But note that that what God asks for is a body part that is expendable. Abraham was not asked to castrate himself, or chop off a hand. Foreskin plays no critical biological or reproductive role. Compared with what God asks of Himself, what he asks from his chosen people is negligible. Nevertheless it is something. Jesus never asked us to be circumcised, as least on our privates. St. Paul talks instead that we must ‘circumcise our hearts’ instead. It’s about giving ourselves body, mind and heart to God, in response to what he does for us."

8. Spurgeon wrote, "It is often said that the ordinance of baptism is analogous to the ordinance of circumcision. I will not controvert that point, although the statement may be questioned. But supposing it to be, let me urge upon every believer here to see to it that in his own soul he realizes the spiritual meaning both of circumcision and baptism, and then consider the outward rites; for the thing signified is vastly more important than the sign. Baptism sets forth far more than circumcision. Circumcision is putting away of the filth of the flesh, but baptism is the burial of the flesh altogether. Baptism does not say, "Here is something to be taken away," but everything is dead, and must be buried with Christ in his tomb, and the man must rise anew with Christ. Baptism teaches us that by death we pass into the new life. As Noah's ark, passing through the death of the old world, emerged into a new world, even so, by a like figure, baptism sets forth our salvation by the resurrection of Christ: a baptism of which Peter says, it is "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God." In baptism, the man avows to himself and others that he comes by death into newness of life, according to the words of the Holy Spirit, "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." The most valuable point is the spiritual meaning, and on that we experience what it is to be dead to the world, to be dead and buried with Christ, and then to be risen with him. Still, brethren, Abraham was not allowed to say, "If I get the spiritual meaning, I can do without the outward rite." He might have objected to that rite on a thousand grounds a great deal more strong than any which the hesitating have urged against baptism, but he first accepted the rite, as well as the thing which it intended, and straightway was circumcised; and so I exhort you, men and brethren, to be obedient to the precept upon baptism, as well as attentive to the truth which it signifies. If you be indeed buried with Christ, and risen with him, despise not the outward and instructive sign by which this is set forth."

9. DR. Ray Pritchard wrote, " Why did God choose a sign that applied only to the men? I think the

answer is that God was reminding Abraham that he was the head of his own household, and as such he had to answer to God for what happened in his own family. Circumcision meant accepting your place God’s appointed spiritual leader in your own family. It’s like a father giving his daughter away at a wedding. He stands and speaks on behalf of the whole family. The circumcised man was saying to God, “I accept the covenant you have made.” In Joshua 24:15 we have this idea expressed in a very similar fashion when Joshua exclaims, “As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”

"As for why he chose this particular cultural symbol, we cannot say for sure, but it may bethat God chose a sign that involved the reproductive organs of the male because, at their verycore, the promises to God were about a promise of descendants and, ultimately, about a promisedseed who would eventually fulfill the words prophetically spoken to Eve in Genesis 3. And sothat idea may have been there, along with the idea of the taking away of flesh - whichrepresented the taking away of the fleshly - that is, the sinful, nature."

10. "Though the incidence of male circumcision has decreased from 90% in 1979 to 60% in 1996, it is still the most common surgical operation in the United States. Circumcision rates are much lower for the rest of the industrialized world. In Britain, it is only done for religious practices or to correct a specific medical condition of the penis. With these factors in mind, the American Academy of Pediatrics has issued a policy statement that states though there is existing scientific evidence that indicates the medical benefits of circumcision aren't strong enough to recommended circumcision as a routine practice. Modern Jewish authors are also recommending that circumcision be no longer a common practice for Jews."

11. There is a circumcision that is always of value, however, and Macintosh writes of it and says, "The seal with which the believer is now sealed is not a mark in the flesh, but "that Holy Spirit of promise, whereby he is sealed unto the day of redemption." This is founded upon his everlasting connection with Christ, and his perfect identification with Him, in death and resurrection; as we read, in Colossians 2:11f, "And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power. In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ; buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him, through the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses." This is a most glorious passage, unfolding to us the true idea of what circumcision was meant to typify. Every believer belongs to "the circumcision" in virtue of his living association with Him who, by His cross, has forever abolished everything that stood in the way of His Church's perfect justification. There was not a speck of sin on the conscience, nor a principle of sin in the nature of His people, for which Christ was not judged on the cross; and they are now looked upon as having died with Christ, lain in the grave with Christ, been raised with Christ, perfectly accepted in Him — their sins, their iniquities, their transgressions, their enmity, their uncircumcision, having been entirely put away by the cross. The sentence of death has been written on the flesh; but the believer is in possession of a new life, in union with His risen Head in glory." " For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision means anything, but a new creation. (Gal 6:15)"

12. Don Fortner has some strong opinions about the relationship of circumcision and baptism. He writes, "The Old Testament rite of circumcision has absolutely nothing to do with the New Testament ordinance of believer's baptism. There is not a single passage of Scripture in which the two are connected. Circumcision, as it is explained in the New Testament, pointed to the work of God the Holy Spirit in the hearts of chosen redeemed sinners. It was a picture of the new birth. As circumcision was the seal of God's covenant with Abraham to his children, so the coming of the Holy Spirit in his saving operations of grace is the seal of the new covenant to God's elect, Abraham's true children (Eph. 1:13-14; 4:30). Circumcision is a picture of regeneration. Believer's baptism is a picture of redemption (Rom. 6:3-6). Circumcision in the flesh meant exactly the same thing to Abraham and his descendants that the new birth means to us. It was a mark by which God's covenant was sealed to his people (Eph. 1:14; 4:30). It was a mark distinguishing God's people from the rest of the world. It was a painful mark. – The experience of grace is painful to the flesh. It was a purifying mark (Acts 15:9-11; 1 John 3:3). It was a permanent mark. It could not be reversed (Rom. 11:29; Ecc. 3:14)."

13. God says he and his seed are to keep the covenant, and that means it is a conditional covenant. John Piper has some interesting words on this matter that resolves the paradox of it being an eternal

covenant and yet conditional where it could end by not being kept. He writes, "What were the conditions of the promises to Abraham? There is a good deal of confusion over this matter of whether the Abrahamic covenant is conditional or not. But the confusion is not necessary and arises from a false assumption, namely that if a covenant is conditional it cannot be certain of fulfillment. Or to put it another way, if a person must meet certain conditions in order to benefit from God's promises, then the fulfillment of those promises cannot be irrevocable and sure. But that is not true. It is a false assumption based squarely on the conviction that man is autonomous and self-determining. But if, as Ezekiel 36:27 says, God puts his Spirit in man and causes him to walk in his statutes (and thus fulfill the conditions of the covenant), then a promise can be both conditional and certain of fulfillment. If God commits himself to work so that Abraham fulfills the conditions of the covenant promises, then there is no inconsistency in saying that the promises are sure, steadfast, irrevocable and conditional.

This is exactly what we find in Genesis. First, in Genesis 12:1-3 and 15:4,5 the promises are made without any conditions being mentioned. They appear to be absolute and certain of fulfillment. But in Genesis 22:16-18 we read that the fulfillment of the promises is conditional upon Abraham's obedience. He has just obeyed God in offering Isaac to him on the altar. The angel of the Lord stopped his hand and said, "'By myself I have sworn,' says the Lord, 'because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies and by your descendants shall all of the nations bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice." The promises will be fulfilled because Abraham obeyed God. Therefore, the fulfillment of the promises was conditional upon Abraham's obedience.

Another crucial text in this regard is Genesis 18:19 where God says, " I have chosen Abraham that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice so that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has promised him." If the promises made to Abraham and his seed are to be fulfilled, then his household must keep the way of the Lord. The promises are conditional. But they are not uncertain. They were stated absolutely in Genesis 12:1-3 and 15:4,5. And here in Genesis 18:19 the point is that God chose Abraham to charge his household in such a way that they will fulfill the conditions of the promises. The promises are both conditional and sure.

And no one should jump to the conclusion that this makes the covenant of Abraham a covenant of works. Works are deeds done in self-reliance to earn God's favor by showing oneself meritorious. But the obedience which Abraham had (though not perfect) was the inevitable outcome of his faith in God's gracious promise. He obeyed God and offered his only son Isaac on the altar not to earn God's favor, but because he was so confident in God's promise to give him posterity through Isaac (Gen. 21:12; Heb. 11:17-19) in spite of everything. Obedience is the necessary outcome of truly trusting in God's promises, and so obedience is made a condition of inheriting God's promises, which are granted by grace and through faith. This means that the covenant of Abraham is just like the new covenant under which we live. For it too is conditional -- not on works, but on the obedience of faith. John 3:36 says: "He who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him"; and Hebrews 5:9, "Christ became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him." The Covenant of Abraham and the New Covenant under which we live today are one covenant of grace, because in both, gracious promises are made to sinners who receive them through faith -- a faith which banks so completely on the wisdom and power and love of God that it inevitably obeys his commands.

11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you.

1. It is a sign of the covenant. It points to the covenant, but it is not the covenant itself. Most everyone is agreed that it is such a strange choice of God to make this a sign of his covenant. Nobody has a really solid answer as to why this was chosen. Calvin is typical of those who strive to come up with some reasonable reason for it. He writes:"Ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin." Very strange and unaccountable would this command at first sight appear. The subject treated of, is the sacred covenant, in which righteousness, salvation, and happiness are promised; whereby the seed of Abraham is distinguished from other nations, in order that it may be holy and blessed; and who can say that it is reasonable for the sign of so great a mystery to consist in circumcision? But as it was necessary for Abraham to become a fool, in order to prove himself obedient to God; so whosoever is wise, will both soberly and reverently receive what God seems to us foolishly to have commanded. And yet we must inquire, whether any analogy is here apparent between the visible sign, and the thing signified. For the signs which God has appointed to assist our infirmity, should be accommodated to the measure of our capacity, or they would be unprofitable. Moreover, it is probable that the Lord commanded circumcision for two reasons; first, to show that whatever is born of man is polluted; then, that salvation would proceed from the blessed seed of Abraham. In the first place, therefore, whatever men have peculiar to themselves, by generation, God has condemned, in the appointment of circumcision; in order that the corruption of nature being manifest, he might induce them to mortify their flesh. Whence also it follows, that circumcision was a sign of repentance. Yet, at the same time, the blessing, which was promised in the seed of Abraham, was thereby marked and attested. If then it seem absurd to any one, that the token of a favor so excellent and so singular, was given in that part of the body, let him become ashamed of own salvation, which flowed from the loins of Abraham; but it has pleased God thus to confound the wisdom of the world, that he may the more completely abase the pride of the flesh. And hence we now learn, in the second place, how the reconciliation between God and men, which was exhibited in Christ, was testified by this sign. For which reason it is styled by Paul a seal of the righteousness of faith. (Rom. 4: 11.) Let it suffice thus briefly to have touched upon the analogy between the thing signified and the sign."

2. The vast majority of commentators say it was a sign to the surrounding nations that set the Jews apart from them. This is so weak a reason, for all of the Arab tribes surrounding them also practices circumcision, and even if they did not, how often do the surrounding nations get to see the Jews naked and take notice of their difference? It is not an answer but a dodge of the issue. George H. Birkett writes, "Our all knowing God doesn't need circumcision to identify his chosen people. It might make sense if it was is done so God's chosen people could recognize God's chosen people. They can drop their pants and say, "see, I'm a good guy. If you don't look like me you're a bad guy." That only worked for a while. Some of the good guys turned bad and some of the bad guys carved themselves up to look like good guys."

3. Stedmen writes, "What a strange thing this is -- the removal of the foreskin of the male procreative organ -- literally carving in the flesh the sign of God's Lordship! This is the great sign of Jewry, intended by God to be the mark of his possession, that they were God's instrument to use for blessing

among the nations. It was placed upon this particular part of the body to indicate that they were to be physically separate from the other nations. The very organ by which that separation could be violated, bore upon it the mark of God's ownership.

As we read the course of Jewish history, we see how this mark, intended to be the sign of humility and instrumentality, became perverted into a mark of superiority and favoritism. Those who bore it began to look on others as "Gentile dogs" and to be self-righteous and proud over their supposed favored position before God. Thus the spirit of anti-Semitism, which troubles the world so today, was born of the spirit of anti-Gentilism, which preceded it. This does not justify either, of course.

Many scholars feel that circumcision was the origin of the wedding ring. The act of circumcision was performed by a metal or stone knife, which cut around the foreskin leaving a circular scar. So a man and woman, standing before someone who represents God, place a metal and/or stone ring upon each other's fingers, indicating that two hearts are giving themselves to each other.

This is the meaning of heart circumcision: The believer's heart is totally Christ's, to use as he wills --all his emotions, mind, intellect, and will are dedicated and available, ready at the command of Jesus Christ to be used for his purposes. Paul says to the Philippians, "We are the circumcision, who worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh," (Philippians 3:3 KJV). We are to have no reliance upon ourselves, but rely totally upon him. Every thought, every imagination, is brought into captivity to Christ. That is the circumcised life."

4. The following paragraph shows how strongly some feel that circumcision and baptism play the same role in terms of symbolism. An unknown author writes, "Now the Scriptures very clearly teach that baptism in the New Testament has the same significance as circumcision did in the Old. Baptism, as we saw from Romans 6, is also an outward sign of inward cleansing. It also speaks of the taking away of the heart of sin and the creation of a new heart that is filled with the life of Christ. And although there are other passages that also show us this truth, as we read earlier there is one passage in particular that literally speaks of the fact that baptism has taken the place of circumcision inasmuch as the outward sign of circumcision was fulfilled in the blood of the cross of Jesus Christ. That passage is Colossians 2:11,12: "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath

raised him from the dead." It cannot be denied that baptism has taken the place of circumcision as the sign of the one covenant, which God establishes with His people throughout all time. Baptism with water signifies the same washing away of the sin of the heart by the blood of Jesus Christ and by His Holy Spirit. In Christ and through the shedding of His blood and the washing away of our sins, God establishes His covenant with believers and their seed, the spiritual children of Abraham."

12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner--

those who are not your offspring.

1. This means that non-Jews were also circumcised and became a part of the covenant people by this act. So there were people of many nations incorporated into Judaism by this means, and the blood line of the Jews had many people intermingling with it, and we see it in the blood line to Jesus, for not all were Jews in that blood line, at least not until the converted and became Jews. Calvin wrote, "We know that formerly slaves were scarcely reckoned among the number of men. But God, out of regard to his servant Abraham, adopts them as his own sons: to this mercy nothing whatever can be added. The pride also of the flesh is cast down; because God, without respect of persons, gathers together both freemen and slaves. But in the person of Abraham, he has prescribed it as a law to all his servants, that they should endeavor to bring all who are subject to them, into the samesociety of faith with themselves. For every family of the pious ought to be a church. Therefore, it we desire to prove our piety, we must laborthat every one of us may have his house ordered in obedience to God. And Abraham is not only commanded to dedicate and to offer unto God thoseborn in his house, but whomsoever he might afterwards obtain."

2. Gill wrote, "A son or infant of eight days old; it might not be circumcised before, but for some reasons might be deferred longer. The reasons why this rite was ordered to be performed in infancy, according to Maimonides {d}, were, because if it had been deferred to riper age it might have been neglected, and never performed; and because at such an age the pain is not so sensibly felt, by reason of the tenderness of the skin, and the weakness of the imagination; as also because the affections of parents are not then so strong as they are when one year, and especially three or four years old; and particularly it was ordered on the eighth day, because all animals, as soon as born, on account of their great humidity, are very weak, and scarce any other than they were in their mother's womb, until the end of seven days, after which they begin to be reckoned among those that perceive the air of this world; and so he remarks the same is to be observed in beasts, that seven days they were to be with their dam, Ex 22:30. According to the Jewish canon."

3. Gill also deals with some exceptions and rules. "An infant might be circumcised on the eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth, neither less nor more; (not less than eight days, nor more than twelve {f};) according to the usual custom on the eighth; if he was born between the two evenings, he is circumcised on the ninth; if between the two evenings of the evening of the Sabbath, he is circumcised on the tenth; if on a festival day, after the Sabbath, he is circumcised on the eleventh; if on the two days of the beginning of the year, he is circumcised on the twelfth: an infant that is sick, they do not circumcise it until it is well.'' Which sickness they interpret not of sore eyes, and the like, but of an ague or fever; and when a child on the eighth day is red or yellow, or a woman has lost her children through circumcision, two or three one after another, then it is deferred; and they reckon seven days from a child's recovery from sickness, and then circumcise it {g}; but circumcision on the eighth day was always reckoned most valid and authentic, and according to rule, See Gill on "Php 3:5"; and the Jews were careful to do it on the eighth day as soon as they could, though only when and while it was day. "They do not circumcise until the sun shines out on the eighth day of a child's birth, and all the day is fit for circumcision; but they that are prepared hasten to the commandment, and circumcise immediately in the morning; and indeed circumcision, which is not in its proper time, is never performed but in the day:''

Maimonides gives these rules,” a servant is born in the power of an Israelite, and another that is taken from Heathens, the master is bound to circumcise them; but he that is born in the house is circumcised on the eighth day; and he that is bought with money is circumcised on the day that he is received, even if he received him on the day he is born, he is circumcised on that day; if he receives a grown servant of Heathens, and the servant is not willing to be circumcised, he bears with him a whole year, but more than that it is forbidden to keep him, seeing he is uncircumcised, but he must send him again to the Heathens.'' No man was to be forced to embrace the true religion, or obliged against his will to submit to its ordinances."

Clarke writes, "Because previously to this they were considered unclean, Leviticus 12:2,3, and circumcision was ever understood as a consecration of the person to God. Neither calf, lamb, nor kid, was offered to God till it was eight days old for the same reason, Leviticus 22:27."

4. "Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. For me to write the same things to you {is} not tedious, but for you {it is} safe. (2) Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation! (3) For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh, (4) though I also might have confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: (5) circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, {of} the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; (6) concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. (7) But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. (8) But indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ (9) and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which {is} from the law, but that which {is} through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; (10) that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, (11) if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead."

5. It seems strange, but the fact is, in our modern day many Jews are opposed to circumcision. In the 144-page book titled Questioning Circumcision, Dr. Ronald Goldman has written about a Jewish perspective on this issue. This book is endorsed by five rabbis and reveals that circumcision is not universal among Jews. A male child born to a Jewish mother is a Jew, whether he is circumcised or not. Many Jews reject infant circumcision because the pain and trauma of it are not worth the small values that are gained by it, and so it has no health value that makes it worth it. The book has stimulated much controversy among Jewish people. From the Christian point of view circumcision has no value either as a health matter or a ritual matter with religious meaning, although many Christian people still have their babies circumcised out of tradition and the belief it is a good thing to do.

13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant.

1. Even slaves who were bought were to be circumcised. No male who was a part of the Jewish community was to go uncircumcised, and so even non-Jews were to carry this mark of the covenant.

2. Calvin argues that this everlasting covenant is not everlasting, but is done away with in Christ. He writes, " The meaning of this expression may be twofold: either that God promises that his grace, of which circumcision was a sign and pledge, should be eternal; or that he intended the sign itself to be perpetually observed. Indeed, I have no doubt that this perpetuity ought to be referred to the visible sign. But they, who hence infer, that the use of it ought to flourish among the Jews even of the present time, are (in my opinion) deceived. For they swerve from that axiom which we ought to regard as fixed; that since Christ is the end of the law, the perpetuity that is ascribed to the ceremonies of the law, was terminated as soon as Christ appeared. The temple was the perpetual habitation of God, according to that declaration, "This is my rest forever, here will I dwell," (Ps. 132: 14.) The Sabbath indicated not a temporal but a perpetual sanctification of the people. Nevertheless, it is not to be denied, that Christ brought them both to an end. In the same way must we also think of circumcision. If the Jews object, that in this manner, the law was violated by Christ; the answer is easy; that the external use of the law was so abrogated, as to establish its truth. For, at length, by the coming of Christ, circumcision was substantially confirmed, so that it should endure forever, and that the covenant which God had before made, should be ratified. Moreover, lest the changing of the visible sign should perplex any one, let that renovation of the world, of which I have spoken, be kept in mind; which renovation--notwithstanding some interposed variety--has perpetuated those things which would otherwise have been fading. Therefore, although the use of circumcision has ceased; yet it does not cerise to be an everlasting, or perpetual covenant, if only Christ be regarded as the Mediator; who, though the sign be changed, has confirmed the truth. And that, by the coming of Christ, external circumcision ceased, is plain from the words of Paul; who not only teaches that we are circumcised by the death of Christ spiritually, and not through the carnal sign: but who expressly substitutes baptism for circumcision; (Col. 2: 11;) and truly baptism could not succeed circumcision, without taking it away. Therefore in the next chapter he denies that there is any difference between circumcision and uncircumcision, because, at that time, the thing was indifferent, and of no importance. Whence we refute the error of those, who think that circumcision is still in force among the Jews, as if it were a peculiar symbol of the nation, which never ought to be abrogated. I acknowledge, indeed, that it was permitted to them for a time, until the liberty obtained by Christ should be better known; but though permitted, it by no means retained its original force. For it would be absurd to be initiated into the Church by two different signs; of which the one should testify and affirm that Christ was come, and the other should shadow him forth as absent.

3. "When Christ was circumcised on the eighth day, He took it upon Himself to become a debtor to do the whole law for His church. We see this in GAL 5:2-3: "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. [Why? You are abolishing the circumcision of Christ on your behalf.] For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." When Christ became circumcised, He became a debtor to do the whole law, and He did it for His church. It is by the circumcision of Christ that we are circumcised, i.e., it is His pledge to keep the whole law with perfect obedience, which is imputed unto us. COL 2:10-11 says, "And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised...by the circumcision of Christ." Why is circumcision still preached? GAL 5:11 says, "And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? Then is the offence of the cross ceased.”? Why?

It is because we have nullified the circumcision of Christ in our behalf. We must not look to ourselves being circumcised because we then become a debtor to do the whole law. We have to look to the imputed righteousness of Christ. We have to see that it was that precious circumcision of Christ in whom we are circumcised in the circumcision made without hands and the putting off of the body of sins of the flesh.

We also need Christ’s baptism. The one is co-essential with the other. We need His baptism where He stepped under the wrath of the Father. He stepped into death. When Christ was baptized, He was marked for death to be immersed in the Father’s wrath upon sin for His church. This is what was pledged in the burnt offerings. Christ was raised again for the justification of His church. COL 2:12-13 says, "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses." See where forgiveness fits in. Forgiveness must come before reconciliation is final. Reconciliation requires two things: perfect obedience must be restored and the penalty paid for past transgressions."

14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

1. This was serious business with God, and those who did not feel obligated to conform by cutting a part of themselves off were to be cut off completely from the people of God. It means exclusion from the people and not a death sentence, but the fact is, to be excluded from the tribe could very well lead to death, for there would be no support and no resources, and you would be on your own in a hostile world. Gill writes, "...that soul shall be cut off from his people; which Jarchi interprets of his being childless, and dying before his time; and which, according to some in Aben Ezra, is, when a man dies before he is fifty two years of age; and some erroneous persons, as the same writer calls them, thought that if a child died, and was not circumcised, it had no part in the world to come. The simplest and plainest meaning of the phrase seems to be, that such should be cut off, and deprived of all civil and religious privileges with the Israelites in the land of Canaan, and be reckoned as Heathens."

2. It was to be universal with no exceptions allowed. Even Moses came under the wrath of God for neglecting the circumcision of his child in Ex. 4:24-5. God did make an exception for this radical rule during the time of the exodus when the people were traveling through the wilderness. Joshua then had to reinstate circumcision when they arrived in the Promised Land. We read about this exception in Joshua 5:2-8, "At that time the LORD said to Joshua, "Make flint knives and circumcise the Israelites again." 3 So Joshua made flint knives and circumcised the Israelites at Gibeath Haaraloth. 4 Now this is why he did so: All those who came out of Egypt—all the men of military age—died in the desert on the way after leaving Egypt. 5 All the people that came out had been circumcised, but all the people born in the desert during the journey from Egypt had not. 6 The Israelites had moved about in the desert forty years until all the men who were of military age when they left Egypt had died, since they had not obeyed the LORD. For the LORD had sworn to them that they would not see

the land that he had solemnly promised their fathers to give us, a land flowing with milk and honey. 7 So he raised up their sons in their place, and these were the ones Joshua circumcised. They were still uncircumcised because they had not been circumcised on the way. 8 And after the whole nation had been circumcised, they remained where they were in camp until they were healed.

God was not going to permit the people to enter the Promised Land until they were committed to the covenant and in full conformity to his will on this issue. All had to be circumcised also to participate in the Passover festival, even Gentiles-Exodus 12:44,48. Circumcision was a witness to the fact that people were committed to obey God's will. When they did not and went after other gods it was called an uncircumcised heart in Lev. 26:41. When people repented and forsook their sin and returned to God it was called having a circumcised heart in Deut. 10:16 and 30:6.

3. God does clearly punish those who break his covenant by disobedience, but he does not break his side of it. Psa. 89:30-36, "If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; 31 If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments; 32 Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. 33 Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him,

nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. 34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. 35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. 36 His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me."

4. David Blewett has an interesting couple of paragraphs dealing with the present reality of the Abrahamic Covenant. He writes, "The study of covenants is a fascinating study, to some Christians it is the very foundation upon which all theological understanding is built. "Covenant" in religious terms refers to an agreement made by God with human beings. The idea that the Almighty and Eternal God would make covenants with mortal human beings is a profound theological concept. It infers that God maintains a relationship with human beings and is willing to be bound in some way to the terms expressed in the covenants.

The doctrine of covenants has led to what Walter Eichrodt has called "the factual nature of the divine relation." In other words, God's existence and character are not grasped through speculation or mystical contemplation, they are disclosed through the overwhelming events of history. The mighty acts of God in bringing the people out of Egypt to Mount Sinai, to Eretz Yisrael and eventually to the Temple and now back into the land are confirmations of the covenant that the Almighty had made with Abraham. That is why Eichrodt's theology has been referred to as one of "recital." All prior history is seen as leading up to the moment of covenant and all subsequent history is interpreted in its light. The great anxieties of ancient man resulted from their understanding of the gods as capricious, subject to the same whims and passing fancies that people are subject to. The idea of the covenant created a sense of trust and security for Israelite life, even when they were faced with tremendous crises. Their Lord was a Lord characterized by chesed ("covenant loyalty").

The Abrahamic covenant is not the first of God's covenants, but it is the first one given to a specific people. All previous covenants are universal, whereas this covenant is given to a specific man and his family. Such a personal covenant is unique; there are no parallels to this covenant among other ancient covenant treaties. The first mention of Abraham's covenant is a broad outline (Gen. 12:1-3), it is later confirmed in more detail (Gen. 13:14-17; 15:1-7, 18-21; 17:1-8, 19-22) and finally, lest there be any confusion, the covenant is reconfirmed with Abraham's descendants Isaac (Gen. 17:18-21; 26:3-5) and Jacob (Gen. 28:12-16). Today the relevancy of this covenant is coming under attack – how can

we, 21st century thoughtful people, possibly believe that a conversation, or a dream, that some guy said he had with God over 4,000 years ago be relevant today? There are even those today who speak for or against the current Middle East peace process based on the covenant God gave to Abraham. For many modern minds this seems beyond credible and causes most people to shake their heads in bewilderment."

5. An unknown author wrote, "When Samson and David called the Philistines "uncircumcised," it was not a mere medical description — it was an ethnic, earthy insult. It was probably impolite then, just as it is impolite today, to make references someone's sexual organ. But this use of the term illustrates how definitive the practice of circumcision was for Israelite self-identity, and the depth of emotion involved in this ethnic tradition. The prophets used the term "uncircumcised" as a synonym for gentiles (Isaiah 52:1). When Ezekiel predicted death for the ruler of Tyre and the Pharaoh of Egypt, he said they would die the death of the uncircumcised and be buried among the uncircumcised (Ezekiel 28:10; 31:18). This conveyed not only a gentile death, but also a death in opposition to God; the connotation was that these rulers were ungodly. This was developed further in Ezekiel's lament for Pharaoh in Ezekiel 32. In verses 19-32, Pharaoh was said to have his fate with other uncircumcised soldiers who are now buried. Throughout, the implication is that they were all enemies of God. Ezekiel criticized those who permitted uncircumcised people into the temple (Ezekiel 44:7). The prophets elaborated on the spirit of circumcision, too. Jeremiah exhorted his people, who presumably were already physically circumcised, to circumcise their hearts (Jeremiah 4:4). It was a metaphor for repentance. Indeed, God said he would punish both Israelites and gentiles who are circumcised in the flesh only and not in the heart (Jeremiah 9:25-26). Physical circumcision was not enough; spiritual circumcision was also necessary. Ezekiel also prophesied that only people who were circumcised in both the flesh and the heart could worship properly (Ezekiel 44:9)."

15 God also said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah.

1. God finally gets specific on Sarah as being the women who would bring the promised son into the world. Before this the promise was general and open to interpretation, and this is what led them to try and get the promised child through Hagar. Lest they try in again with another slave, God gets direct and says Sarah is the one who will have this baby. It is almost as if God wanted them to experiment in order to make possible the whole Arab people that he so blest, even though the became great enemies of his people. It is as if he wanted enemies of his people to make sure they would not become proud and think they could make it on their own without his providence.

2. Sarai means my princess, and Sarah means princess of multitudes. It was a great expansion of her name by one letter, and it was the same letter that was used to change the name of Abram. God includes Sarah in the promise to Abraham even though he could have waited until he married Keturah and had the promised son through her and left Sarah out of the picture altogether. He did not and reveals that he did not hold it against her for choosing to give Hagar to Abraham to have a baby through her. Gill writes, "God said, “Don’t worry Sarah. I’m going to bless you in spite of yourself.” That’s often what God does, isn’t it? He blesses us in spite of ourselves."

3. Brian Morgan writes, "The etymology of Sarai is uncertain, but it seems probable that both terms have the same meaning ("princess"), with "Sarah" being the newer rendering of the more ancient spelling. The significance of the new name is that God is emphasizing that a new thing is happening; something as magnificent as a "new creation," and it is to be remembered even in the most casual utterance of Sarah's name. She shall be called "Princess" (every Jewish girl's dream) since she will be the mother of kings, nations and peoples. "Significantly, Sara is the only woman in the Bible to have her name changed by God." So the kingdom will not advance until Abraham realizes that his wife is an equal heir to these promises. Sarah is not just a biological channel for his blessing; she is to fully share in the blessing as her husband's spiritual equal. Peter uses the same reasoning to remind husbands to give their wives this honor as equals, lest their prayers be hindered (1 Pet 3:7).

4. To help us see the enormous role that Sarah played in God's plan I want to share a sermon I preached on her many years ago.

SARAH THE MOTHER OF NATIONS Based on Gen. 17:15-22By Pastor Glenn Pease

An Indian chief's daughter by the name of Shell Flowers came to appreciate the ways of the white man. She learned English, and then took for herself the Christian name of Sarah. She was fortunate to come under the influence of General Howard, the commanding officer of Fort Lynn, for he loved minorities and fought for their rights. He was a hero of the Civil War who had fought for the rights of blacks, and now he was trying to be a peacemaker between the Indians and the whites.

When the Indians of Idaho went on the warpath, Sarah risked her own life by finding their camp and rescuing 75 of her own people. Then she rode on horseback for 223 miles in three days to get General Howard. He was able, because of her information, to put down the uprising and prevent widespread blood shed. General Howard wrote a book titled Famous Indian Chiefs I have known. In this book he wrote this of Sarah Winnemucca: "If I could tell you but a tenth part of all she willingly did to help the white settlers and her own people to live peaceably together, you would think as I do that the name of Sarah should have a place beside the name of Pocahontas in the history of our country."

Most people are not aware of this Sarah who played a major role in part of our countries history, nor are they aware of the thousands of Sarah's all over the world who have made this an honorable name by their achievements. We have such women as Sarah Caldwell, the only woman who has ever conducted at the Metropolitan Opera in New York. Many are the famous and ordinary people who proudly wear the name Sarah. It has been a popular name all through history because of the first woman to ever wear that name, which was Sarah the wife of Abraham. She is the only woman I am aware of who had her name changed by God, like many of the famous men in the Bible.

The name Sarah means princess, and it was given to her directly by God. Sarah could not imagine that her name would become so famous for all the rest of human history. After all, she was 89 years old and barren, so the future looked very bleak as far as posterity goes, and any chance of making her name of any significance in history. Yet, out of these extremely limiting circumstances Sarah became one of the most famous mothers in all of history. It is hard to find anyone who can come close to matching Sarah in the fame she achieved in a world notorious for putting women down.

As Abraham is the father of Judaism, so Sarah is the mother of Judaism. These two were Gentiles who married each other in the pagan culture of Ur of the Chaldees, and they became the first two Jews in history. What a paradox that Judaism started with Ma and Pa Gentile. No wonder God says of Sarah in verse 16, "I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her." No other mother in history has been so honored by so many nations. The Jewish nation, the Christian nations, the Mohammedan nations, all trace the origin of their faith to father Abraham and mother Sarah.

They are the only couple in the Bible who are both referred to in the great faith chapter of Heb. 11. They are the only parents in the Old Testament who are promised by God that their seed would be a blessing to every family on earth. They are the only couple in biblical history whose tomb is still a place of honor in the world today. The only burial of a woman recorded in the Bible is that of Sarah. She is the only woman in the Bible whose age at the time of death is recorded. She was 127 years old. She and Abraham had over a 100 years of married life together, and she had 37 years of being a mother in spite of her late start at age 90.

Sarah is the first woman in the Bible to have the journey of her life recorded. More is more recorded about Abraham and Sarah than the entire human race up to their time. Certainly God intended us to learn something about motherhood from this most unique of all mothers. The first thing the record compels us to examine is-

I. HER MISSED MOTHERHOOD.

There are few people who know both sides of the story like Sarah. She knew by experience the full impact of non-motherhood. It seemed strange, but the most famous mother in history is also the leading authority of what it is like not to be able to be a mother. Many have gone years before they could conceive a child, and many have never been able to conceive, but there is no record of anyone ever living 90 years with near 70 of them in trying to conceive. This most successful mother of nations holds the record for failure to become a mother. Most of the non-mothers of history have not lived motherless as long as Sarah did.

She knew what it was like to spend her entire youthful state of life listening to other mothers talk about babies, and not have one of her own to talk about. She experienced all of the social and culture agony of having no fruit of the womb. She could have written the book on the misery of denied motherhood. Even though she finally conceived, the fact is, she lived the entire period of her childbearing years barren and childless. She is the only mother we know of who experienced so completely the life of missed motherhood. This is not without great significance, for it reveals that Sarah could live a life pleasing to God as a good wife and godly person without motherhood. If she had not been a good wife to Abraham, and a woman faithful to God through all of those years of barrenness, God never would have chosen her to be the mother of nations. But if God had never chosen her, her life would still have been one pleasing to Him.

The point is, her life as a non-mother was a beautiful life and worthy of honor. Motherhood is not what made Sarah a beautiful person. She was beautiful as a non-mother, and is thus, a great example to the non-mothers of history. She was a faithful loving wife for near 70 years before she bore Abraham a son. She proved you can have a satisfying and fulfilling married life even without a child.

Most of the Bible couples were parents, and their lives revolved around their children, but Abraham and Sarah were husband and wife, and their lives revolved around each other. They developed a high esteem for each other as mates. Sarah was so deeply loved by Abraham that had she never bore him a child there is not the slightest hint that he would have left her for a woman who could. We need to remember that Hagar was Sarah's idea and not Abraham's. She was more to him than a baby maker. Sarah was first of all a good wife, and that is the primary responsibility of one who wants to be a good mother. Next we see-

II. HER MIRACULOUS MOTHERHOOD.

Her story puts the typical change of life baby story into the shadows by comparison. I have known women who have conceived in their 50's, but to give birth at age 90 is beyond anyone's experience. This is like having a delivery room at the nursing home. It is obvious that by this miraculous conception God is calling attention to the fact that He is doing a special work in history through this mother. There is no history at all without mothers. Had Eve not become a mother history would have ended with the first couple.

Motherhood is God's means of making any history at all. But God's plan is for a history within history that fulfills His purpose, and it is to be carried out by means of miraculous motherhood. The final fulfillment of this plan was the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, but the start of this chain of events was the miraculous motherhood of Sarah. Her womb was dead, but out of that dead womb God brought forth life, and Sarah became the first biblical illustration of the resurrection and God's power to bring life out of death. She produced history's first miracle baby. Next we want to consider-

III. HER MINI MOTHERHOOD.

Sarah did not raise a number of children, but only one. Isaac was her only child, and that would certainly be enough for a woman her age. The point is, you do not have to have a large family to be a great mother. Sarah became a mother of nations, and her single experience of giving birth was all it took for her to start the chain of events that changed all of history, and led to the Messiah, who changed all of eternity as well.

Never put down or minimize an only child, for that is how God started the most important family that ever lived, for by means of it every family on earth has been blest. With God one is always adequate to achieve His purpose for all. He only has one Son Himself, and He was adequate to redeem the world. Being a good mother to one child is in God's eyes a marvelous achievement, and no one has ever been more honored for doing it than Sarah. She was a good wife to one man, and a good mother to one child.

Her only son Isaac was not one of the most exciting characters of the Bible, but he is one of the best. He had his flaws, but there is no major sin in his life that is recorded. The record reveals that he was just a good and godly man. Men like Isaac often trace their goodness back to the influence of their mother. Edward Everett Hail, the distinguished Boston pastor and author of The Man Without A Country, tells of bringing his report card home from school. It should he was 9th in a class of 15. He was depressed about it and felt ashamed. His mother could see this, and so with tenderness and understanding she said, "Never mind, Edward, I notice that in your report you are first in good

behavior, and son, that means more to me than to have you the head of the class and not behave well."

Hail wrote in his dairy: "That was one of the most stirring and heartening experiences of my life. My mother's understanding and sympathy, making me see that behavior was more important than high grades, gave me courage such as nothing else on earth ever gave me. I might never become a great scholar, but I could always be a good boy and a good man. That was within the reach of my abilities, and I thereupon resolved that, what ever else I might become, I would always see to it that my behavior record was high." He was good and godly because of his mother's influence.

A mini-mother gets only one chance with only one child, but that is all they need for success. Sarah became the greatest mother in history as a mini-mother with one good and godly child. God works from quality to quantity, and from this one good child all the families of the earth were blest, and Sarah by her mini-motherhood became the mother of nations. Next we look at-

IV. HER MEMORABLE MOTHERHOOD.

There is not a great deal said about this mother of nations as far as her mothering goes, but the little hints we have tell us she was a marvelous mother who left behind precious memories. Abraham so loved Sarah that the entire 23rd chapter of Genesis is devoted to her loving concern for her burial, and his purchase of a cave from the Hittites in which to bury her. There is only verse that refers to Isaac's response to his mother's death. In Gen. 24:67 it says that Isaac brought his new wife Rebekah into his mother's tent, and it closes with-"and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death." A husband and son deeply moved by the loss of this memorable mother.

She did, of course, have this advantage-she died before she became a mother-in-law. Otherwise she may have left other than pleasant memories. She did not have to past this test. Other Sarahs have been so tested and failed. Sarah Delano, for example, the mother of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the man who spent more years as president of the United States than other man. She was a very dominant mother, and Franklin was never out of her sight for more than hour for the first 14 years of his life. Even when he was asked to run for public office he said he would have to ask his mother first.

She postponed his wedding with Elenor for a year, and after they got married it was a constant battle for who was to be in control. These two women could not be in the same room for half an hour without an argument. Elenor forbid her children to drive, and so grandma Sarah bought them each a car for their birthdays. She left behind her many memories that her loved ones would wish to forget. Certainly one of the goals of mothering is to leave your family with memories of good times in sharing love and fun, and not times of tension and frustration. These come to all, and are an inevitable part of life, but these will all fade from the memory if mother's dominant characteristics are positive.

Millions have stories like Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, a professor of church history and theology at Andrews University in Michigan. He is convinced that mothers are better equipped to instill self-confidence and self worth in children than are their fathers. He remembers when he failed an exam in 5th grade in Italy. His father was ready to take him out of academic studies and put him into vocational school. But his mother knew he could make it, and she encouraged him, and she got him special help so that he did make it. He writes, "Truly I would have never become a minister and a

teacher were it not for my mother's vision that saw in me what others failed to see and instilled in me a sense of self worth and of mission." His memories of his mother were a precious heritage.

Rosemary Ruether is another contemporary professor of history and theology at Garrett Evangelical Seminary in Chicago. She says that she is what she is because of her mother who gave her a strong sense of self-esteem. She taught her to care about her own rights as well as the rights of others. As she got older and discovered that the God of the Bible was also concerned about the rights of others, and that He was for the oppressed and against the oppressor, she wanted to be a theologian and fight injustice with the Word of God. Her memory of her mother is a precious heritage.

There are many other testimonies that confirm the picture of the ideal mother in Prov. 31 where verse 28 says, "Her children arise and call her blessed." Such was the lot of Sarah, and such should be the goal of every mother. The child may fail to follow the way a mother teaches, but that is not the failure of her motherhood. The test is, does even a failing child look back and say, my mother should me a better way? Some of the worse children had great mothers, and they gave testimony to this fact by expressing the same positives as successful children.

Tom Bell robbed the first stagecoach in American history on August 11, 1856. A posse went after him, but he escaped. They went to the home of his girl friend and waited for three days, and finally he came and was caught. He was marched to a tree, and there at age 26 he was hanged. He was allowed to write a letter to his mother first. This is what he wrote: "Dear Mother; I am about to make my exist to another country. I take this opportunity to write you a few lines. Probably you may never hear from me again. If not, I hope we may meet where parting is no more. In my prodigal career in this country I have always recollected your fond admonitions and, if I had lived up to them probably I would not be in my present condition: But dear mother, though my fate has been a cruel one, yet I have no one to blame but myself. Give my respects to all of old and youthful friends. Tell them to beware of bad associations and never to enter into any gambling saloon, for that has been my ruin. I bit you farewell forever. Your only boy, Tom."

His mother did not fail him. She was a success, for she gave him an alternative, and he was free to choose it, but did not. God did not fail Israel because she went astray. He gave them the wise alternative, but they would not submit. A memorable mother is one which makes children look back from their success or folly and say, mother pointed me in the right direction. She gave me choices that were good, and whether I took them or not they bare witness that she was a good mother. Sarah was such a mother, and her son Isaac was a good and godly man who looked back at his mother's life with precious memories.

One of the memories everybody had of Sarah was of her laughter. Abraham and Sarah are the only couple in the Bible who are both in great chapter of faith of Heb. 11, and they are the only couple who are both portrayed as laughing. It was a joke to both of them that they would have a child in their old age, and they laughed at the very idea. It was so funny that their laughter became a lasting memory, for they named their miracle baby Isaac, which means laughter. Children are richer forever who have memories of a mother who could laugh and enjoy the humorous side of life.

Norman Vincent Peale loves to recall his mother's sense of humor and laughter. He remembers once when he sat with her at a funeral, and something the preacher said set her off. She was fighting desperately to hold it back. She took his hand and whispered, "For heaven's sake, stop me from

laughing." Peale say, "I gave her a stern look which slowed her down somewhat but I could still feel her shaking." He says he remembered that incident at her own funeral, and the memory greatly comforted him. Her laughter made her memory very positive.

Ruth Graham, wife of Billy Graham, and mother of his children, is remembered for her sense of humor. She was going to meet Billy once in a Southern town that she told him was full of hill billys. She pulled down her long dark hair and blocked out a tooth, and she took off her shoes and walked barefoot to meet him. She had disguised herself so good that Billy went right past her and didn't even notice it was her. She once felt the family did not give prayer attention to the importance of Thanksgiving, and so she put shaving cream instead of whipped cream on the pumpkin pie. She got their attention, and after that they became more aware of the need to be grateful.

She once served tadpole soup with the tadpoles swimming around to a man who was forever boasting of himself and bragging of his achievements. When he looked at the strange contents of his bowl he remained silent the rest of the evening. She had a very unique way of using humor to change situations, and she will be remembered for this sense of humor.

It is a good question for a mother to ask herself often-what will my children remember? Is my motherhood memorable, or will they prefer to forget? Phyllis C. Michael put it in poetry:

What will my boys remember? When they've grown old and gray?The pants knees oft were full of holes? Or the trout we caught that day?

Just what will they remember most? Two little beds unmade?Or the fun they had at hide-and-seek The days that Mother played?

What matter if my ironing waits? While I smooth out their troublesTake time to kiss those briar-scratched hands, And start them blowing bubbles?

Will they remember mud-tracked floors? When they've grown old and gray?What care they if each room is dusted? If I'm too tired to play?

God chose only one mother to be the mother of nations, but every mother is called to so live with and love their children that they will want to love Jesus and know God's will for their life. This is a memory that none will forget, and so on Mother's Day let us commit ourselves anew to be memorable mothers for the glory of God.

16 I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her."

1. Sarah suffered for two and a half decades trying to have a baby, and it all seemed so futile for she could never get pregnant. Now God promises her that she will be the mother of nations, and kings of peoples will come from her. It was a long wait, but well worth the wait, for she was one of the most blest of women. God is often slow in fulfilling his promises, but he is gloriously generous when he does. Now for the first time the promised child is specifically said to be coming into the world through Sarah. There was doubt before this as to whether it would be through Hagar or Sarah, but now it is made clear, and Sarah will be the mother of the promised son of the covenant. She is an example of the reality that there is never a time of being too old to be used of God.

2. Great kings like David and Solomon will come from her, and greater yet the King of Kings. Clarke writes, “Sarah certainly stands at the head of all the women of the Old Testament, on account of her extraordinary privileges. I am quite of Calmet's opinion that Sarah was a type of the blessed Virgin. St. Paul considers her a type of the New Testament and heavenly Jerusalem; and as all true believers are considered as the children of Abraham, so all faithful holy women are considered the daughters of Sarah, Galatians 4:22,24,26. See also ; 1 Peter 3:6."

3. Peoples is in the plural, and yet she was the mother of Israel only as far as the record goes, and yet both she and Abram are to be mother and father of many nations. There is the paradox of the promises being both limited and specific, and at the same time being universal and all encompassing of many nations. Keil deals with this issue of the one nation and the many nations. He writes, "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); the “multitude of nations” could not include either the Ishmaelites or the tribes descended from the sons of Keturah (Gen_25:2.), but the descendants of Isaac alone; and as one of Isaac's two sons received no part of the covenant promise, 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 (Ex 6 and 20-24), 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 ε�κ πίστεως Α�βραάµ into the seed of Abraham (Rom_4:11-12, and Rom_4:16, Rom_4:17). Moreover, the fact that the seed of Abraham was not to be restricted to his lineal descendants, is evident from the fact, that circumcision as the covenant sign was not confined to them, but extended to all the inmates of his house, so that these strangers were received into the fellowship of the covenant, and reckoned as part of the promised seed. Now, if the whole land of Canaan was promised to this posterity, which was to increase into a multitude of nations (Gen_17:8), it is perfectly evident, from what has just been said, that the sum and substance of the promise was not exhausted by the gift of the land, whose boundaries are described in Gen_15:18-21, as a possession to the nation of Israel, but that the extension of the idea of the lineal posterity, “Israel after the flesh,” to the spiritual posterity, “Israel after the spirit,” requires the expansion of the idea and extent of the earthly Canaan to the full extent

of the spiritual Canaan, whose boundaries reach as widely as the multitude of nations having Abraham as father; and, therefore, that in reality Abraham received the promise “that he should be the heir of the world” (Rom_4:13)."

(Note: What stands out clearly in this promise-viz., the fact that the expressions “seed of Abraham” (people of Israel) and “land of Canaan” are not exhausted in the physical Israel and earthly Canaan, but are to be understood spiritually, Israel and Canaan acquiring the typical significance of the people of God and land of the Lord - is still further expanded by the prophets, and most distinctly expressed in the New Testament by Christ and the apostles. This scriptural and spiritual interpretation of the Old Testament is entirely overlooked by those who, like Auberlen, restrict all the promises of God and the prophetic proclamations of salvation to the physical Israel, and reduce the application of them to the “Israel after the spirit,” i.e., to believing Christendom, to a mere accommodation.)

17 Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, "Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?"

Many actions of people in the Bible are subject to subjective interpretation, and this laugh is a good example, for commentators and preachers see it from more than one point of view.

1. It would appear that Abraham had his face on the ground and laughed to himself, for he was not speaking out loud to God, but was saying in his mind or under his breath that this is ridiculous to expect a hundred year old man to have a child with a 90 year old woman. He is not bursting out laughing in the face of God, but he is chuckling to himself that God would make such a ludicrous promise. It was the laugh of unbelief, for he was tickled by what he thought was God being silly. The fact is, God was expressing his sense of humor by choosing to bring the promised child into the world by means of this elderly couple who were physically far beyond their child bearing days. You can't really blame Abraham here for it was laughable that God would choose such an unlikely couple to become parents. Abraham is thinking this must be a joke, and God is just playing with me and kidding around. "You have got to be kidding!" is what his laugh represents.

2. GUZIK "Abraham's laugh doesn't seem to be one of cynical doubt, but of rejoicing in something he knew was impossible by all outward appearance, but God could perform. He knew both he and Sarah were well past the time people normally have children. Yet, in the presence of Him whom he believed; God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did; who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, "So shall your descendants be." And not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah's womb. He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. (Romans

4:17-21)."

3. Donald Aellen comments, "Abraham laughs. He thinks that God is completely ludicrous. He completely doubts that God can do this. Abraham the father of our faith is presented as an unfaithful mocker and doubter of God. Abraham is unable to buy it. That’s because Abraham is thinking of God as a super-charged human. What is limited here is not God, however. What is limited is Abraham’s appreciation of God. Abraham limits God by putting on God his own limitations. This is what we do. We only know our weakness and can’t possibly think God is strong. We know only our inability to forgive, and can’t possibly think that God is forgiving. We know only our mortality, and can’t possibly think that God will raise us from the dead.

4. An unknown author says, " I do not view this as the laugh of delight, but of disbelief. The impossibility of such a thing taking place was the cause of Abraham’s outburst. Lest we be too pious about this matter, I suspect Abraham’s response is just about what we would have done. At the same time, I do not want to suggest total unbelief on Abraham’s part. The promise was an incredible one—too much to take in one dose. Laughter is often the response to things which catch us off guard."

5. Keil wrote, “The promise was so immensely great, that he sank in adoration to the ground, and so immensely paradoxical, that he could not help laughing” (Del.). “Not that he either ridiculed the promise of God, or treated it as a fable, or rejected it altogether; but, as often happens when things occur which are least expected, partly lifted up with joy, partly carried out of himself with wonder, he burst out into laughter”

6. Another unknown author wrote, "Abraham's joyful, thankful, entertainment of this gracious promise, v. 17. Upon this occasion he expressed, 1. Great humility: He fell on his face. Note, The more honors and favors God confers upon us the lower we should be in our own eyes, and the more reverent and submissive before God. 2. Great joy: He laughed. It was a laughter of delight, not of distrust. Note, Even the promises of a holy God, as well as his performances, are the joys of holy souls; there is the joy of faith as well as the joy of fruition. Now it was that Abraham rejoiced to see Christ's day. Now he saw it and was glad (John viii. 56); for, as he saw heaven in the promise of Canaan, so he saw Christ in the promise of Isaac. 3. Great admiration: Shall a child be born to him

that is a hundred years old? He does not here speak of it as at all doubtful (for we are sure that he

staggered not at the promise, Rom. iv. 20), but as very wonderful and that which could not be effected but by the almighty power of God, and as very kind, and a favor which was the more affecting and obliging for this, that it was extremely surprising, Ps. cxxvi. 1, 2."

7. Barnes adds his view, “Abraham fell upon his face and laughed.” From the reverential attitude assumed by Abraham we infer that his laughter sprang from joyful and grateful surprise. “Said in his heart.” The following questions of wonder are not addressed to God; they merely agitate the breast of the astonished patriarch. Hence, his irrepressible smile arises not from any doubt of the fulfillment of the promise, but from surprise at the unexpected mode in which it is to be fulfilled. Laughing in Scripture expresses joy in the countenance, as dancing does in the whole body."

8. JFB commentary says, "Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed--It was not the sneer of unbelief, but a smile of delight at the improbability of the event (Ro 4:20).

9. Still another unknown author writes, "Abraham simply fell on his face and laughed at God and at the absurdity at what God had just told him. This simply tells us that Abraham hasn’t really believed very deeply in the promise during these 24 years or this new affirmation would not have come as such an absurdity to him. And now faced with overwhelming circumstances that provided evidence to him that it could not happen, Abraham had simply abandoned the promise as a cruel joke! Could a child be born to a man who is 100 years old? Could Sarah really have a child at 90? He really thought that God had missed his chance 20 years earlier, and there really was no future now."

10. The text does not tell us if Abram was embarrassed or not, but laughter at the wrong time can lead to much embarrassment as Pastor John Bush tells in his personal testimony. He writes, "Have you ever had the embarrassing experience of laughing out loud at just the wrong time, or in some utterly inappropriate place? I have. Maybe several times, but the one I remember most clearly happened when I was a teenager. It happened in church, and it was one of my most embarrassing moments.

It started innocently enough. My friend Joe came hobbling into church on crutches that day. He had fallen on Saturday night and broken his leg, and as we walked into church together he was telling me how it happened. We decided to sit together, and he wanted to sit by the aisle so he could have more room to keep his leg straight. It was communion Sunday, and the service proceeded in its accustomed solemnity. It did, that is, until the tray of bread was passed to the couple just behind us. As the man took the bread, his stomach growled audibly enough for us to hear it in the next pew. We began to chuckle, and I just couldn't swallow the giggles before they became laughs. I decided is would be best if I just left, but in the process of getting out to the aisle I tripped over Joe's crutches -- sending one of them sliding down the sloped floor, completely down to the front of the church. By then, we had the undivided attention of every person in church that day. I never did live that down for as long as I was in that church."

Abraham's laughter brings me a tremendous sense of relief as I read this story. We so often treat the people we meet in the Bible as if they were "characters" -- you know: "Bible characters" -- rather than like the real live human beings they were. And this guffaw looks to me as if it might contain some substantial, and very understandable, doubt about the mental stability of God the Father Almighty. "You've got to be kidding!" Abraham is not just amazed; he is dismayed.

Or, perhaps, Paul reads this business about Abraham's laughter differently -- not as a denial but as an affirmation. After all, "you've got to be kidding" can mean "no way" -- or it might mean "Hey, isn't that something!" At any rate, God moves right through Abraham's objection, and in the process shows God's own sense of humor. He insists that Sarah is going to bear a son, and stipulates that the boy's name is to be Isaac. The word "Isaac" means "laughter." Abraham's laughter is a perfectly natural response to what seems to be an obvious impossibility. But, as a matter of fact, God has taken hold of the future and has incorporated Abraham and Sarah into God's holy covenant to make a new people."

11. Steve Zeisler says both Abram and Sarah laughed for the same reason. He writes, "He knew God would do something, and he refused to take any steps to act in God's stead. But hope and expectancy were drained from him to the extent that when God said Sarah would have a son, his incredulity dropped him to the ground in laughter. Shortly before he had fallen on his face in worship because God Almighty had spoken to him. This time he fell because he was laughing so hard.

Genesis18:12 reveals: "Sarah laughed to herself, saying, 'After I have become old, shall I have pleasure, my lord also being old?'" When Sarah heard the promise of God, her reaction was interesting. Her question suggests that the two had even given up physical intimacy on a regular basis.

Abraham had lived with the burden of not having a son so long that he could not imagine how it would happen. In fact, he had stopped expecting it to happen. I think he had imagined God would somehow reconstitute Ishmael in some miraculous way so that he could in fact be the son of Abraham and Sarah through whom the promises would be given ("Oh, that Ishmael might live before Thee!"). Abraham expected God to do a miracle, but he thought he would somehow grant life through Ishmael. Clearly, he refused to disbelieve. Disbelief would issue in either despair or fleshly self-effort. Abraham refused both of these. But I also think he had stopped living with any expectancy of Sarah being able to bear his son.

Thus, he fell down in laughter and God ministered to him. There was no rebuke of Abraham. In fact, God answered his prayer, "Yes, indeed, Ishmael will live before me. Ishmael in his own right will be a great man, but this time next year Sarah will have a son." It was a beautiful, loving irony that his son would be named Isaac, "Laughter." Both father and mother laughed incredulously at the announcement of his coming.

12. As Fredrick Buechner describes it, “two old crocks laughing” as their hope of all hope was coming true. Sarai would bear her son, and they and their nations of descendants would have a special relationship in which God who would love them and bring them into the land of Canaan. It was absurd. Illogical, ill-timed, unbelievable, beyond human hope, but it was. What is it they say about humor? The best humor comes from the absurdity of the truth. And that is exactly what we have here. Abraham laughed -- laughed that pain-filled, true, faith-restoring laugh that would ring in their ears until the birth of their son, whom God told them to name Isaac which itself means “laughter. “

13. Henry wrote, "Abraham's joyful, thankful, entertainment of this gracious promise, v. 17. Upon this occasion he expressed, 1. Great humility: He fell on his face. Note, The more honors and favors God confers upon us the lower we should be in our own eyes, and the more reverent and submissive before God. 2. Great joy: He laughed. It was a laughter of delight, not of distrust. Note, Even the promises of a holy God, as well as his performances, are the joys of holy souls; there is the joy of faith as well as the joy of fruition. Now it was that Abraham rejoiced to see Christ's day. Now he saw it and was glad (John viii. 56); for, as he saw heaven in the promise of Canaan, so he saw Christ in the promise of Isaac."

14. Deffinbaugh writes, "Personally, I do not view this as the laugh of delight, but of disbelief. The impossibility of such a thing taking place was the cause of Abraham’s outburst. Lest we be too pious about this matter, I suspect Abraham’s response is just about what we would have done. At the same time, I do not want to suggest total unbelief on Abraham’s part. The promise was an incredible one—too much to take in one dose. Laughter is often the response to things which catch us off guard."

15. GILL wrote, "Ver. 17. Then Abraham fell upon his face,.... In reverence of the divine Being, and as amazed at what was told him: and laughed; not through distrust and diffidence of the promise, as Sarah did, for he staggered not at that through unbelief, but for joy at such good news; and so Onkelos renders it, "and he rejoiced", with the joy of faith; it may be our Lord refers to this in Joh 8:56; he saw Christ in the promise of Isaac, and rejoiced that he should spring from his seed: the

Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem paraphrase it, "and he wondered"; he was amazed at the grace of God that gave him such a promise, and he was astonished at the power of God that must be exerted in the fulfillment of it:"

16. CALVIN wrote, "And Abraham fell upon his face." This was in token, not only of his reverence, but also of his faith. For Abraham not only adores God, but in giving him thanks, testifies that he receives and embraces what was promised concerning a son. Hence also we infer that he laughed, notbecause he either despised, or regarded as fabulous, or rejected, the promise of God; but, as is commonly wont to happen in things which are least expected, partly exulting with joy, and partly being carried beyond himself in admiration, he breaks forth into laughter. For I do not assent to the opinion of those who suppose, that this laughter flowed solely from joy; but I rather think that Abraham was as one astonished; which his next interrogation also confirms, "shall a child be born to him that is an hundred years old?" For although he does not reject as vain what had been said by the angel, he yet shows that he was no otherwise affected, than as if he had received some incredible tidings. The novelty of the thing so strikes him, that for a short time he is confounded; yet he humbles himself before God, and with confused mind, prostrating himself on the earth, he, by faith, adores the power of God. For, that this was not the language of one who doubts, Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, is a witness, (4: 19,) who denies that Abraham considered his body now dead, or the barren womb of Sarah, or that he staggered through unbelief; but declares that he believed in hope against hope.

17. Dr. Ray Pritchard writes, "It’s interesting and instructive to see how Abraham responded to these incredible promises. The Bible says he laughed. In fact, he fell down on the ground either in total shock or because he was laughing so hard. He didn’t believe it! He said to himself, “Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?” (v. 17). Good questions. Generally speaking the answer is no. I can tell you for an absolute fact that this has only happened once in human history—and that took place 4000 years ago. So Abraham is on good grounds to doubt God—at least from a statistical point of view. That’s why he brings up Ishmael. I think he’s worried that maybe God has gotten himself in over his head. After all, it’s been 24 years and Ishmael is his only son."

"I find this whole story tremendously comforting because it drives home the point that God is never early and never late. He’s always right on time. As I thought about it, I was reminded of that famous line from the old television program Candid Camera. “Somewhere, sometime, when you least expect it, someone will say, ‘Smile, you’re on Candid Camera.’” God often seems to work on Candid Camera principle. When you least expect it, and often when you’ve given up all hope, God comes through just in the nick of time."

18. An unknown author writes, "Abraham simply fell on his face and laughed at God and at the absurdity at what God had just told him. This simply tells us that Abraham hasn’t really believed very deeply in the promise during these 24 years or this new affirmation would not have come as such an absurdity to him. And now faced with overwhelming circumstances that provided evidence to him that it could not happen, Abraham had simply abandoned the promise as a cruel joke! Could a child be born to a man who is 100 years old? Could Sarah really have a child at 90? He really thought that God had missed his chance 20 years earlier, and there really was no future now."

19. Another unknown writes, " In those passages we see recorded for us Abraham’s struggle to

believe. In fact, we see the laughter of unbelief displayed. Perhaps as you remember being taught the book of Genesis, you remember the incident in Genesis 18 and Sarah’s laughter as being the first indication of unbelief in the story of Genesis and Abraham and Isaac. But Abraham was actually the first couple, member of that couple, to utter a laugh at God’s promises. Even saving faith has its struggles. That’s the lesson we learn here in verses 17 and 18. Even saving faith has its struggles. When God announces to Abraham that he’s going to have a son by Sarah, Abraham’s instinctive response is incredulity. He just can’t believe it. This is unbelievable. He falls on his face and he laughs. He can’t quite fathom it. He can’t quite take it in. Now I want to note that this is not cynical laughter. Abram was not hard of heart. We’ll see that in a few moments. But Abraham is having a hard time believing what God has said. Now Paul makes it clear in Romans 4:20 that Abraham never grew hard-hearted. But his faith is definitely struggling here when God gives him this explicit promise. And this passage is very important for us. When we realize how the father of faith and the father of the faithful struggled, it somehow helps us in our own fight of faith. Abraham wrestled to believe what God was promising.

20. Clarke in his commentary is amazed that the previous idea could ever be thought to be true. He writes, "I am astonished to find learned and pious men considering this as a token of Abraham's weakness of faith or unbelief, when they have the most positive assurance from the Spirit of God himself that Abraham was not weak but strong in the faith; that he staggered not at the promise through unbelief, but gave glory to God, Romans 4:19,20. It is true the same word is used, Genesis 18:12, concerning Sarah, in whom it was certainly a sign of doubtfulness, though mixed with pleasure at the thought of the possibility of her becoming a mother; but we know how possible it is to express both faith and unbelief in the same way, and even pleasure and disdain have been expressed by a smile or laugh. By laughing Abraham undoubtedly expressed his joy at the prospect of the fulfillment of so glorious a promise; and from this very circumstance Isaac had his name. yitschak, which we change into Isaac, signifies laughter; and it is the same word which is used in the verse before us: Abraham fell on his face, vaiyitschak, and he laughed; and to the joy which he felt on this occasion our Lord evidently alludes, John 8:56: Your father Abraham REJOICED to see my day; and he saw it, and was GLAD. And to commemorate this joy he called his son's name Isaac."

Either way, God responds with a sense of humor too, and he says the name of the child will be laughter. Your laugh of unbelief or laugh of amazement is going to be remembered for the rest of your life, for your promised child will be named after this event.

21. Dr. Revis writes with a combination idea of both belief and unbelief, "When Abraham hears this promise, it's just too much for him. The idea that he, a 99-year-old man, and Sarah, a 90-year-old woman with a shriveled womb, will give birth to a son causes him to fall down laughing. Literally. It's one of the coolest scenes in the whole Bible. There are different ideas about what this laughter means. It's not a mocking laugh, as if Abraham is doubting God's promise as absurd. It's more the laughter, which has something of surprise about the oddity of all of this, coupled with hope and joy! I take it in a positive way, much like the reaction we give when a magician performs a sleight of hand! This laughter expresses wonder! Surprise! Delight! And, fun. All rolled into one. Perhaps it's a simultaneous expression of belief and unbelief. "I can't believe it; I just won a million dollars!" We respond to surprising circumstances like this all the time! It's a very human moment. Well, God doesn't show any displeasure at Abraham's laughter. Otherwise, I don't think He would have marked the moment as He does with the peculiar name He gives the child. He names the child who will be born "Isaac." It can mean, "may God laugh" which signifies divine approval. Or, it can mean, "the

father laughs."

18 And Abraham said to God, "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!"

1. Abraham recovers from his giggles and says it is time to really get serious about the future. He pleads with God to give up on the promise of a child through Sarah. Abraham wants this living son before him to be his heir and not some unknown child yet to be. Someone put it this way, "Trying to recover his composure, Abraham offers God what seems to him a more feasible alternative. "Look, God, we've been down this road before. Sarah is barren -- and it's not just because she is old. Remember? I already have a son, Ishmael, by my mistress Hagar. Remember, you promised me a son once before, and it didn't happen. Sarah was barren, and besides, she was getting too old to bear children, so she and I hatched this plan -- remember? She and I agreed that I would go to Hagar, and I did and Hagar and I have a son. That was fourteen years ago, remember? So why don't you just accept things as they are and give your blessing to my son Ishmael." You know how you fall in love with a child, and Abraham had lived with his son Ishmael until he was a teenager. He could not bear thinking that his son would not be blest.

If God would have heeded him completely all would be changed and the Arabs would be the chosen people. We do not know why God chose the Jews to be his special people through whom he would bless the whole world, but it was his sovereign choice, and there is no challenging of what God chooses, nor is there any reason to challenge it, as the Arabs do. The Jews are chosen not so that anyone else can be excluded, but just the opposite. God focused on the Jews so he could bring his Son into the world to die for the sins of the world so that all Gentiles, which includes the Arabs, can have their sins forgiven and receive the promise of eternal life in Christ. In other words, the promise to all mankind is far greater than the promise to Israel. They are a unique people loved and blest and used by God in a special way, but they have no exclusive right to the good news that is for all mankind. They were the agents that brought that good news for everyone, but they have no monopoly on it, but just the opposite. Most Jews did not accept their Messiah Jesus, but the majority who did were Gentiles, and a great many of the Gentiles were Arabs. They became a major factor in the growth of Christianity for centuries. If you are going to go by numbers there have been far greater numbers of Arabs who have entered heaven by faith in Jesus Christ than there have been Jews to do so.

2. Abraham has had 13 years of living with Ishmael and he has grown to love this lad. He does not need another kid, for he has a perfectly good one already and he wants God to bless him. He is saying we don't have to start all over again, for you can use this boy I have to fulfill your promises to me. It is easy and logical to just use Ishmael is the point. Abraham knew that if God gave Sarah a baby boy that he would become the child of favor, and he did not want this boy he loved so much to be excluded. He knew that eventually he would have to see Ishmael leave his home, and it was a painful thought because of his love for him. He was right, or course, for all of Abraham's children were sent away except for Isaac who inherited all that Abraham had.

3. "El" was in the first Arab's name, Ishma-EL, and only a few of the patriarchs of Israel, such as Eli,

Elijah. Elisha, and Samu-el, could boast of that distinction.

4. Alexander Maclaren has an unusually harsh attitude toward this prayer of Abraham. He writes, "But if that be anything like an account of the temper expressed by this saying, is it not strange that murmuring against God takes the shape of praying? Ah! there is a great deal of ‘prayer’ as it calls itself, which is just molded upon this petulant word of Abraham’s momentarily failing faith and submission. How many people think that to pray means to bring their wishes to God, and try to coax Him to make them His wishes! Why, half the shallow skeptical talk of this generation about the worthlessness of prayer goes upon that fundamental fallacy that the notion of prayer is to dictate terms to God; and that unless a man gets his wishes answered he has no right to suppose that his prayers are answered. But it is not so. Prayer is not after the type of ‘O that Ishmael might live before Thee!’ That is a poor kind of prayer of which the inmost spirit is resistance to a clear dictate of the divine will; but the true prayer is, ‘O that I may be willing to take what Thou art willing, in Thy mercy and love, to send!’

I believe in importunate prayer, but I believe also that a great deal of what calls itself importunate prayer is nothing more than an obstinate determination not to be satisfied with what satisfies God. If a man has been bringing his wishes—and he cannot but have such—continuously to God, with regard to any outward things, and these have not been answered, he needs to look very carefully into his own temper and heart in order to make sure that what seems to be waiting upon God in importunate petition is not pestering Him with refused desires. To make a prayer out of my rebellion against His will is surely the greatest abuse of prayer that can be conceived. And when Abraham said, ‘O that Ishmael might live before Thee!’ if he said it in the spirit in which I think he did, he was not praying, but he was grumbling. Abraham’s passionate cry was so much empty wind, and was like a straw laid across the course of an express train, in so far as its power to modify the gracious purpose of God already declared was concerned. And would it not be a miserable thing if we could deflect the solemn, loving march of the divine Providence by these hot, foolish, purblind wishes of ours, that see only the nearer end of things, and have no notion of where their further end may go, or what it may be?"

Maclaren is one of the greatest preachers in history, but on this matter he seems to be grinding an axe and expressing a prejudice that will not be supported by the text. God did not take this prayer as grumbling or folly of any kind, but just made it clear that he would not change his plan to make Isaac the child of his covenant. He responded very favorably to the prayer and promised to bless Ishamael enormously, which history shows that he did. I share this just to show that even the best of expositors can read their own personal subjective feelings into a text that are not there to the objective reader. There is no reason to fault Abraham for his great love he had toward his teenage son Ishmael, and for his desire that he be the object of God's blessing. If Abraham had as bad an attitude as Maclaren suggests it is surprising that God did not pick up on that and give him a scolding himself. It is amazing how men can sometimes detect things that God misses.

Another author wrote, "Abraham’s problem was his God was too small. And God is saying, ‘Abraham, My plan is far better than the plan that you have decided I was going to fulfill. And you’re going to need to adjust your sights in order to see the greatness of the grace that I have for you.’ Now Abraham explains to the Lord what the real desires of his heart are in verse 18. He says to the Lord in a prayer, "Oh, that Ishmael might live before You." Abraham is verbalizing his desire that Ishmael would be the covenant bearer, and that he would walk before the face of God. Isn’t it interesting how we all become comfortable with our substitutes for God’s plan for our lives? We like the idea of

planning our own lives out and then simply asking God to put His rubber stamp on our vision. Now Abraham had done this before. You’ll remember in Genesis 15 when God had come to reiterate to him His promises, he said to the Lord, "Lord, the heir of my house is going to be Eliezer of Damascus, a servant born amongst my people." That’s going to be my heir. And the Lord said, "No, a son is going to be your heir."

5. Another great commentator looks at the same verse and sees only a positive spirit in Abraham. Calvin writes, "And Abraham said unto God." Abraham does not now wonder silently within himself, but pours forth his wish and prayer. His language, however, is that of a mind still perturbed and vacillating, "O that (or I wish that) Ishmael might live!" For, as if he did not dare to hope for all that God promises, he fixes his mind upon the son already born; not because he would reject the promise of fresh offspring, but because he was contented with the favor already received, provided the liberality of God should not extend further. He does not, then, reject what the Lord offers; but while he is prepared to embrace it, the expression, "O that Ishmael!" yet flows from him through the weakness of his flesh. Some think that Abraham spoke thus, because he was afraid for his firstborn. But there is no reason why we should suppose that Abraham was smitten with any such fear, as that God, in giving him another son, would take away the former, or as if the latter favor should absorb that which had preceded. The answer of God, which follows shortly after, refutes thisinterpretation. What I have said is more certain; namely, that Abraham prayed that the grace of God, in which he acquiesced, might be ratified and confirmed to him. Moreover, without reflection, he breaks forth into this wish, when, for very joy, he could scarcely believe what he had heard from the mouth of God. 'To live before Jehovah' is as much as, to be preserved in safety under his protection, or to be blessed by Him. Abraham therefore desires of the Lord that he will preserve the life which he has given to Ishmael."

6. Brian Morgan writes, "God is very sensitive to Abraham's affections. He doesn't write them off as having no value. Rather, he wants to create new affections within him that will expand the horizons of his world and place him right at the center of God's eternal kingdom." ....God does not dismiss Abraham's affections as illegitimate. He is delighted to honor the patriarch's request. He plays on the meaning of the name: "As for Ishmael ("God hears"), I have heard you." How gracious is our God! He wants to be generous to all. He cares deeply about the things we care about, so he guarantees Ishmael the blessing of fertility. Through him God will create a great nation. In fact, on the surface the nation will bear quite a resemblance to his brother, Israel. Israel's twelve tribes will find a mirror of themselves in the Arabian desert, where twelve princes will live in their shadow."

7. Henry writes, "Abraham's prayer for Ishmael: O that Ishmael might live before thee! v. 18. This he speaks, not as desiring that Ishmael might be preferred before the son he should have by Sarah; but, dreading lest he should be abandoned and forsaken of God, he puts up this petition on his behalf. Now that God is talking with him he thinks he has a very fair opportunity to speak a good word for Ishmael, and he will not let it slip. Note, 1. Though we ought not to prescribe to God, yet he gives us leave, in prayer, to be humbly free with him, and particular in making known our requests, Phil. iv. 6. Whatever is the matter of our care and fear should be spread before God in prayer. 2. It is the duty of parents to pray for their children, for all their children, as Job, who offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all, Job i. 5. Abraham would not have it thought that, when God promised him a son by Sarah, which he so much desired, then his son by Hagar was forgotten; no, still he bears him upon his heart, and shows a concern for him. The prospect of further favors must not make us unmindful of former favors. 3. The great thing we should desire of God for our children is that they

may live before him, that is, that they may be kept in covenant with him, and may have grace to walk before him in their uprightness. Spiritual blessings are the best blessings, and those for which we should be most earnest with God, both for ourselves and others. Those live well that live before God."

"Then Abraham says to God: "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!" Despite God's purpose, Abraham still desires Ishmael to be the child of promise. There are at least three reasons that Abraham desired that Ishmael be the child of blessing. First, Abraham undoubtedly loved Ishmael very much. In fact, he most likely thought that Ishmael was the child of the promise for these thirteen years. Second, Abraham was probably weary. To make Ishmael the child of the promise would have been easier for Abraham. He would not have to go to the trouble of raising another child. We prefer to maintain the status quo. We like things as they are. God comes to us with His plan, and we reply, "Well, aren't things fine the way they are?" But God has better things planned. Yes, His work will require effort. We will have to stir ourselves up from the sofa. But, in God's work, the effort is always worth it. Third, Abraham still desired to exalt his own work, his work of the flesh. Ishmael was the product of Sarah's and Abraham's worldly plan to fulfill God's promise. But God wanted the child of promise to be clearly seen as His work, not the world's. Salvation is the work of God, not the world."

8. John Bush comments, "Trying to recover his composure, Abraham offers God what seems to him a more feasible alternative. "Look, God, we've been down this road before. Sarah is barren -- and it's not just because she is old. Remember? I already have a son, Ishmael, by my mistress Hagar. Remember, you promised me a son once before, and it didn't happen. Sarah was barren, and besides, she was getting too old to bear children, so she and I hatched this plan -- remember? She and I agreed that I would go to Hagar, and I did and Hagar and I have a son. That was fourteen years ago, remember? So why don't you just accept things as they are and give your blessing to my son Ishmael."

How like us! We always have an alternative plan to offer God, don't we? Look God, why don't you do things my way instead of me doing them yours? How often we set out to solve life's problems by leaving God out of the equation. It is not only engineers who are prone to think they can set the world straight by doing things their own way!

"OK" says God. "If it will make you happy I will bless Ishmael -- but now will you please stop trying to change the subject. Sarah is going to have a son, because I intend to create a new future, something far beyond anything you may imagine or think." And at that point, what seemed impossible became a case study in new possibilities. Abraham and Sarah became models for those who have the audacity to believe that God can create a future that is not derived from the present -- for those who dare to believe that the future can be ever so much more than a straight line projection of what is. As Paul puts it in Romans, "God calls into existence the things that do not now exist."

19 Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after

him.

1. The first word of God to Abraham's prayer is "Yes." God heard and gave a positive response to his concern for his son Ishmael. It was a yes, but, however, for he goes on to say that Isaac will be the child who will have a special blessing that will not go to Ishmael..

2. Abraham may have been laughing under his breath but nothing gets by God unnoticed, and so he says to Abraham that the child to be born to Sarah is to be named Laughter. You laugh at my promise to do the impossible, and so you name the child Laughter to be a perpetual reminder that when you laugh at God's promises the last laugh will be on you. God picks up on the humorous response of Abraham and makes it a part of his plan. God loves a good laugh as much as anyone, and here he incorporates it into his plan for the promised child. Children were often named after events that surround their birth, and the main thing surrounding the birth of Isaac was the absurdity of it that produced laughter. God agrees that what he is doing is funny, and so lets keep the laughter going by naming the child Laughter. If you think God does not have a sense of humor, you are not paying attention.

3. Brian Morgan writes with great theological insight here, "So God will care for this boy and his descendants. But, make no mistake about it; Ishmael will not be the line through which the world finds salvation. That will come through Isaac, whose birth will become the paradigm for how God imparts spiritual life to the human soul. If Ishmael had been the promised seed, our theology would have been: "God helps those who help themselves." But through Isaac our theology becomes: "God helps those in whom there is no hope, and who have long since given up hope. Life comes to them. It is pure gift, and rings out with inexpressible laughter and joy." When was the last time you were, in the words of C. S. Lewis, surprised by joy, and you collapsed in holy laughter? As children of Abraham, laughter is our legacy."

4. Derek Kidner says this: "The name Isaac is of a pattern common at the time. If Isaac meant may He smile upon him; to those who were in on the secret it spoke of Abraham’s laugh. The promise and the miracle that made his birth unique and the covenant predestined beyond all doubt." Now we can imagine again the word spreading around that Abram was telling all the folks in the tent that he was going to have a son by Sarah. Well what are you going to call him, Abraham? Well, I’m going to call him Isaac. And for everyone in the know, the immediate response would be, well, that name means laughter, and it sure is laughable that a ninety year old Sarah and a hundred year old Abraham are going to have a child. That is laughable. Yet, God has the last laugh.

5. Someone wrote, "A final irony here reveals a delightfully playful aspect of the narrative. And it also reveals a tender conception of God with a touch of humor and irony that serves to drive home an important lesson. Picking up on Abraham’s laughter at the absurdity of the promise, God told Abraham to name the child Isaac, "laughter." And yet once again, the promise is reaffirmed but with an important added dimension. While the first promise was very unspecified, across the past 25 years God had gradually unfolded more narrowly focused dimensions of the promise. It was narrowed from "great name" to children to Abraham’s own children and then to Abraham and Sarah’s children. And now for the first time in the narrative, there was a time frame placed on the promise (v. 21): "My covenant I will establish with Isaac whom Sarah shall bear to you at this season next year." For the first time in 25 years God left Abraham with a specific promise with a specific time frame of one

year."

20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.

1. Criswell points out that though Ishmael and his posterity did not get included in the line to the Messiah, they did get a much greater fruitfulness as far as material wealth and territory. He writes, "To the descendants of Ishmael, God gave the huge territory (about 1,200,000 square miles, much of which includes vast oil fields which the western industrialized world is highly dependent upon) all around the land of Israel, while to the descendants of Isaac, God gave the relatively tiny land of Israel - from Dan to Beersheba, and from The Jordan River to The Mediterranean Sea (approximately 8,000 square miles, only about 1/150th of the area given to the descendants of Ishmael)." There could only be one line to the Messiah and Isaac was the chosen one for that blessing that would be a blessing to the whole world. The line of Ishmael could not have that spiritual blessing, but, as if to make up for this loss, God made sure they would have much to be grateful for in his providential guidance to great power and wealth. God guided the people of Ishmael to dwell in that part of the world where he had placed great reservoir of oil that would make them rich beyond their wildest dreams.Criswell put it this way, " And in the development and the fulfillment of that promise, without firing a shot, without flying a plane, without rolling a tank, without dropping a bomb, the children of Ishmael have found themselves in possession of the greatest wealth and treasures the world has ever known—and a treasure that is vital to the very existence of the industrialized nations of the world, whether they’re in the East, like Japan, or in the West, like Europe and America. God did that—the blessing of Ishmael."

2. Someone gave this account of what we owe the Ishmaelites. "This was the math base for the recent industrial and computer revolution. The Arabs were great artists when the greatest art talent of the white race was snorting sour beer in Bavaria. The great Jewish writers of the Middle Ages who lived in Spain wrote in Arabic because it was the language of culture in Spain. The Jewish scholar, Moses Maimonides, did most of his writing in Arabic. The Arabs brought the world coffee, and God gave them 70% of the world's oil. Is it not peculiar how the world consumes and begs for their oil while they gripe about the Arabs getting rich off of them? White supremacists just cannot bear to enrich these fruitful Ishmaelites.

Dr. Fakouri, Director of the International Institute in Detroit, had prepared for me a grand tour of the Arab community one day, and what hospitality her people showed to me! She pointed out that the zero did not exist in the world until the Arabs developed it. Without the zero, modern math would be impossible, and the lack of binary math would totally prevent the use of the computer. We Americans could not all live in debt if we had no zero to tell us when we had crossed from credit to a debit, right? Also, we would never get a rocket to the moon. 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1- ?? Twelve princes shall he beget" The twelve princes of Ishmael balance the twelve sons of Jacob. Family wise, neither Arab nor Jew is superior, and it is obvious that God did this on purpose. The covenant of God for the Jews is not

because of them, rather; it is in spite of them and because they were a small people (Deuteronomy 7:7). Several of Ishmael's twelve princes are with us to this day in tribal and place names in northern Arabia. It is peculiar how people both love and hate the Arabs. These wild people from Arabia can put a theatre patron into a goggle-eyed swoon when the plot involves Arab sheiks on swift camels rescuing fair damsels. The rider less camel goes from ugly to romantic if an Arab is perched on top. So, there is something very uncivilized about two Massachusetts Liberals discussing how to control the Middle East while they sip Arab coffee and stand on an imported Arab rug.

Thanks to the Arabs we do not need to use the Roman numerals in our math.

The great Jewish writers of the Middle Ages who lived in Spain wrote in Arabic because it was the language of culture in Spain. The Jewish scholar, Moses Maimonides, did most of his writing in Arabic.

3. God answered the prayer of Abraham and he blest Ishmael and made him fruitful and greatly increased his numbers. This threefold blessing plus the 12 rulers to come from him follows the same pattern of blest numbers we see all through the Bible with 3 and 12.

4. Common blessings are secured to Ishmael (Genesis 17:20: As for Ishmael, whom thou art in so much care about, I have heard thee; he shall find favor for thy sake; I have blessed him, that is, I have many blessings in store for him. (1.) His posterity shall be numerous: I will multiply him exceedingly, more than his neighbors. This is the fruit of the blessing, as that, Genesis 1:28. (2.) They shall be considerable: Twelve princes shall he beget. We may charitably hope that spiritual blessings also were bestowed upon him, though the visible church was not brought out of his loins and the covenant was not lodged in his family. Note, Great plenty of outward good things is often given to those children of godly parents who are born after the flesh, for their parents' sake.

5. Covenant blessings are reserved for Isaac, and appropriated to him, Genesis 17:19,21. If Abraham, in his prayer for Ishmael, meant that he would have the covenant made with him, and the promised seed to come from him, then God did not answer him in the letter, but in that which was equivalent, nay, which was every way better. (1.) God repeats to him the promise of a son by Sarah: She shall bear thee a son indeed. Note, Even true believers need to have God's promises doubled and repeated to them, that they may have strong consolation, Hebrews 6:18. Again, Children of the promise are children indeed. (2.) He names that child--calls him Isaac, laughter, because Abraham rejoiced in spirit when this son was promised him. Note, If God's promises be our joy, his mercies promised shall in due time be our exceeding joy. Christ will be laughter to those that look for him; those that now rejoice in hope shall shortly rejoice in having that which they hope for: this is laughter that is not mad. (3.) He entails the covenant upon that child: I will establish my covenant with him. Note, God takes whom he pleases into covenant with himself, according to the good pleasure of his will. See Romans 9:8,18. Thus was the covenant settled between God and Abraham, with its several limitations and remainders, and then the conference ended: God left off talking with him, and the vision disappeared, God went up from Abraham. Note, Our communion with God here is broken and interrupted; in heaven it will be a continual and everlasting feast.

21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year.

1. Finally God put a time limit on the promise and made it something they could put on the calendar. It had been so general before and they had no idea when it would happen, but now it is established that Sarah will soon get pregnant, for she will bear a child in a year. This baby named Isaac was to be the one that would be the covenant child and through him to his posterity. It was only this line that was given the promise of the land of Israel.

22 When he had finished speaking with Abraham, God went up from him.

1. The implication is that God was visible in some form, for he could be seen going up into heaven. It was likely that he was in the form of a man, and that it was the Angel of the Lord, who was Jesus in his pre-incarnate state. In this state Jesus would appear to men and communicate, but he would not stay and live with men. He would appear only for a brief time to communicate a message and then disappear. This made it obvious that it was God and not some clever human trick to deceive a person. When you see a man ascend up into heaven you are sure beyond a doubt that he is supernatural and not just a man.

23 On that very day Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household, and circumcised them, as God told him.

1. Abraham wasted no time in responding. He did not take a day to plan how it was to be carried out. He did not say, "I want to think about this before I rush into it." He just got down to business and did what God required that very day. The speed with which he acted would give you the impression that he was racing toward a great pleasure rather than a great pain. He was going to suffer from this mutilation of part of his body, and cause all the males in his household to suffer the same, and yet he did not delay obedience for even a day. It was not a happy day for the males, but we can assume that the females were having a day of thanksgiving for being females, and being left out of this time of suffering. When Abraham gathered all the males and announced what the activity of the day would be, some suggest that maybe a few slipped out of the pack and joined another family. We have no record of their response, but praise the Lord was not likely what you would have heard had you been standing there with them. Stunned silence would be more likely.

2. There was a price to pay to have a covenant relationship with God, and to live in obedience to God called for some degree of suffering. Commitment to any goal calls for some degree of suffering. "In July of 1991 Beth Anne DeCiantis's attempted to qualify for the 1992 Olympic Trials marathon. Female contenders were required to complete the course (26 miles and 385 yards) in less than two hours, forty-five minutes to compete at the Olympic Trials. Beth started strong but began having trouble around mile 23. She reached the final straightaway at 2:43, with just two minutes left to qualify. Two hundred yards from the finish, she stumbled and fell. Dazed, she stayed down for twenty seconds. The crowd yelled, "Get up!" The clock was ticking-2:44, less than a minute to go. Beth Anne staggered to her feet and began walking. Five yards short of the finish, with ten seconds to go, she fell again. She began to crawl. The crowd cheered her on as she crossed the finish line on her hands and knees. Her time? Two hours, 44 minutes, 57 seconds. That's persistence, and good example of the commitment we need for walking before the Lord on a daily basis."

3. Abraham did not debate the issue or even ask why God would require this suffering. He just obeyed because God asked it of him. Henry says there were good reasons to object to this painful wounding. He writes, "Abraham did this though much might be objected against it. Though circumcision was painful,--though to grown men it was shameful,--though, while they were sore and unfit for action, their enemies might take advantage against them, as Simeon and Levi did against the Shechemites,--though Abraham was ninety-nine years old, and had been justified and accepted of God long since,--though so strange a thing done religiously might be turned to his reproach by the Canaanite and the Perizzite that dwelt then in the land,--yet God's command was sufficient to answer these and a thousand such objections: what God requires we must do, not conferring with flesh and blood."

4. Clarke comments, "Had not Abraham, his son, (who was of age to judge for himself,) and all the family, been fully convinced that this thing was of God, they could not have submitted to it. A rite so painful, so repugnant to every feeling of delicacy, and every way revolting to nature, could never have sprung up in the imagination of man. To this day the Jews practice it as a Divine ordinance; and all the Arabians do the same. As a distinction between them and other people it never could have been designed, because it was a sign that was never to appear. The individual alone knew that he bore in his flesh this sign of the covenant, and he bore it by the order of God, and he knew it was a sign and seal of spiritual blessings, and not the blessings themselves, though a proof that these blessings were promised, and that he had a right to them."

5. The number of males circumcised is not revealed, but we know Abraham had a large number in his household. We read in Gen. 14:14 that there were 318 people, and that was a long time back. He was wealthy and no doubt had purchased a large number of servants, plus those who were given to him by the Pharaoh. It was a sizeable number who were circumcised. Calvin struggles with the question of why Ishmael was among those circumcised and why much is made of it. He had what I think are some strange thoughts. He wrote, "Yet it may seem absurd, that God should command Ishmael, whom he deprives of his grace, to be circumcised. I answer; although the Lord constitutes Isaac the firstborn and the head, from whom he intends the covenant of salvation to flow, he still does not entirely exclude Ishmael, but rather, in adopting the whole family of Abraham, joins Ishmael to his brother Isaac as an inferior member, until Ishmael cut himself off from his father's house, and his brother's society. Therefore his circumcision was not useless, until he apostatized from the covenant: for although it was not deposited with him, he might, nevertheless, participate in it, with his brother Isaac. In short, the Lord intends nothing else, by these words, than that Isaac should be the legitimate

heir of the promised benediction." Ishmael seems to be an embarrassment to most Christian commentators, for they just don't know what to make of God's blessing on him and his posterity. Calvin here suggests that Ishmael was a part of the covenant with Isaac but that he apostatized. There is no record of Ishmael doing any such thing. He was told, along with his mother, to leave the house of Abraham. There is no record of his leaving his faith in the God of Abraham, or in his denying that God chose Isaac as the one through whom he would bless the whole world. There is a clear prejudice toward Ishmael that is quite common among Christian commentators. It is based on negative attitudes toward his posterity who became the Arabs who have often been troublemakers in history. But there is no basis for it based on the Word of God. God blessed Ishmael in ways that no other person in history has been blest.

6. Here we have a picture of Abraham at his best, for he was fully committed to the word of God and obeyed without question when it was a painful decision to obey. Abraham is like all of us in that he can be so fully on target one day and the next day are missing the mark by a mile. I lost the name of the preacher who spoke the following words, but I quote them as an excellent description of this great hero of the faith who could also be such an excellent example of what not to do.

"It's funny how the Bible is positively schizophrenic in its portrayal of the people of God. One minute Abraham is the great patriarch of Israel, the next minute he is trying to pass his wife off as his sister, even to the point of letting her sleep with another man; all because he is afraid that someone will kill him to take his wife. He actually makes this mistake twice! But the next minute he is once again the paragon of faith. And the next minute he is laughing at God. "Can a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Can Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?" Then he is the patriarch again. Then he decides God can't possibly fulfill the promise of fathering a great nation through Sarah, so he fathers a child with her maid. Good old father Abraham. Genesis is so schizophrenic that scholars have postulated that two different authors must have been edited into the one book of Genesis. One of the authors is writing a children's book about the great patriarchs of Israel, noble paragons of faith. The other one is writing a book about how God can use sinners and jerks and morons to fulfill his purposes.

Of course that theory doesn't explain the same schizophrenia in the rest of the Bible. One minute David is the greatest king Israel has ever known; the next minute he is an adulterer. One minute Peter is the Rock on which the church will be built, the next minute he is denying Jesus. One minute Paul is persecuting the Church, the next minute he is leading it into the Gentile world. It isn't the Bible that is schizophrenic, it is we human beings! We are ever capable of wonderful righteousness one minute and heinous sin the next. Look again at Paul's argument. "The promise that he would inherit the world did not come to Abraham or to his descendants through the law but through the righteousness of faith." God's promise to Abraham could not have been delivered through Abraham's adherence to the law, because Abraham was woefully incapable of following the law. So was David. So was Peter. So was Paul. So are you and I. We cannot attain righteousness alone. We are on one minute and off the next. We are on one minute and off the next twenty."

7. Someone wrote, ""Now we need to remember that Abraham’s action was a brave action. This was not only going to be a painful process, especially for the adult men in the camp, but it was going to be one that left them in a vulnerable situation. We hear of other stories in the Old Testament where that was exactly the case. It meant danger for him. And no doubt there was much grumbling in the tent. I mean, again Abraham comes back and he says, ‘Well, the Lord has promised to make me a father of

many nations, and he’s given me a sign and the sign is circumcision, and every male in the house is going to be circumcised. Now without being crass for a moment, friends, I have no doubt that there were some that were upset at this announcement. And there may well have been serious grumbling in the camp. And yet Abraham is absolutely obedient to God, because God’s command is sufficient to answer all the circumstances of life. Faith hears and obeys. Abraham heard and he believed and he obeyed."

8. Donald Aellen writes, " Now the thing about Abraham is that he is always better keeping his mouth shut. In our story today he acts better than he speaks. His speech is full of faithlessness. But his actions are full of obedience and faith. He clearly does not buy everything that God says; he clearly does not understand it. But he does it. He circumcises himself and all the males of his household. "Just do it" is sometimes the way our faith has to be. Even when we do not feel like being faithful, or understand what’s going on, or simply disagree with God, our faith calls us to ‘just do it’. Acting as though it were true is very important on our way to experiencing its truth."

9. Rav Mordecai Silver pointed out that it is possible to be physically circumcised and still not be any more so than the uncircumcised Gentile nations. He quotes Jeremiah 9:25: ...for all the nations are uncircumcised, and the House of Israel is of uncircumcised heart." and then writes, "Interesting play on words here. The nations are the goyim who are not part of God’s covenant with Israel not just because they are of the nations but because of the condition of their hearts which cause them to act as being uncircumcised which should be taken as meaning that they have chosen not to follow the ways of the Creator. Then Jeremiah goes on to describe the hearts of Israel and he includes them in the same classification as the nations even though they have the physical circumcision. Outward and inward must go hand in hand." So it is today with those who are baptized in water, but who have not been baptized by the Spirit and thereby have a personal faith and commitment to Jesus as Lord and Savior.

24 Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised,

1. It is not a matter that concerns us, but there are different ideas as to who actually circumcised Abraham. Some feel it was his head servant Eliezer, and others say he sent for Shem the son of Noah, and still others say he did it himself. Since there is no record it is meaningless to speculate. The fact is, he at his old age did fully obey the will of God. He may not have understood it, but he obeyed it in faith that God would honor him and his seed as he promised. Old age is never to be an excuse for not obeying what is understood to be the will of God. It was not a pleasant thing to do, but he did it because God said to do it.

25 and his son Ishmael was thirteen;

1. The fact that Ishmael was 13 when he was circumcised has had an impact on the entire Arab world. Most of them circumcise their boys at this age or near this age because of this. Gill in his commentary writes, " Hence the Arabians, as Josephus {w} relates, circumcise their children when at thirteen years of age, because Ishmael, the founder of their nation, was circumcised at that age; and Origen {x} asserts the same; and with which agrees what an Arabic writer says {y} of the Arabians before Mahomet, that they used to circumcise at a certain age, between the tenth and fifteenth years of their age. So Rauwolff says {z}, there are some, chiefly among the Arabians, that imitate their patriarch Ishmael. As for the Mahometans, though they circumcise, they do not always do it in the thirteenth year, as some write; for it is performed by them sometimes in the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, or sixteenth, and sometimes in the sixth or seventh year {a}. The Egyptians, according to Ambrose {b}, circumcised their children at fourteen years of age, which comes pretty near to the time of the Ishmaelites or Arabs, from whom they might receive circumcision, if not of the Israelites, as before observed. A certain traveler says {c}, the modern Egyptians, as the rest of the Mahometans, are not circumcised until the thirteenth year."

"It should also be noted that the south-western Arabs circumcise in multiples of seven days from birth, and Muslims circumcise from two years of age onwards, generally up to eight years in Kashgar and up to ten years in Turkistan. The Turks circumcise between six and thirteen years. It is only the sons of Ishmael among the Arabs that circumcise at the later age of twelve to thirteen years. No Semites circumcise later than this age. The Sarakolese of West Africa do likewise and the Mandingo of the Sudan wait for between twelve and fourteen years. The Wydah and Coast region of West Africa wait until 12 to 16 years and sometimes as late as 20.Thus the circumcision practice among Semites also provides clues as to their origins. Most people assume Arabs are sons of Ishmael and circumcise at thirteen years of age; as shown above, however, that is very far from the truth. Only the ancient Egyptians circumcised at 14 years and the Angaardi of the Murchison River in Western Australia do likewise from 14-16 years. Some South Australian tribes have adopted to wait until hairs appear on the face.

2. Beware of subjective interpretation where there is no basis for a viewpoint. One of my favorite preachers and commentators is Ray Stedman, but he gives an excellent example of what is called isogesis, or a reading into a text what is not there. He writes, "Thirteen years elapsed between the account of Chapter 16 and that of Chapter 17, and we can well suspect these were years of unhappiness and unrest in the household of Abram. The presence of Ishmael in the home created endless contempt, bitterness, envy, jealousy, weariness of spirit, and rebellion. These thirteen years were designed of God to teach Abram the folly of acting on his own. But after thirteen years of heartache, a new aspect of God's grace opens before Abram." The fact is, Hagar went back and submitted to Sarah and there is not one word of conflict in that home until Isaac was born and Ishmael began to tease and mock him, and it made Sarah mad. Stedman is saying God was punishing Abraham over these 13 years for his taking another wife in Hagar. But this text makes it clear that Abraham loves Ishmael and they are the best of friends. It does not appear to be a painful relationship at all. So Stedman got carried away here with his own feelings with no basis in the revelation that God has given us of what those 13 years were like. One could with more basis describe the home as the happiest it had been in many years.

26 Abraham and his son Ishmael were both circumcised on that same day.

1. Why does Moses make a point of his son Ishmael being circumcised on that same day? Is it a significant fact, or just an observation? It seems quite significant in the light that the nations that came out of Ishmael continued to practice circumcision. It meant a lot to Ishmael and he continued to practice it and had all his sons circumcised.

2. Criswell was the pastor of the largest church in the USA at the time, the First Baptist Church of Dallas, where he pastored for decades He was one of the most famous preachers in America. Here is a sermon he preached on this text.

"In the Muslim religion, there are three great religious celebrations. The first is Ramadan: the feast, the fast of Ramadan, the killing of the goat. For a month they fast every year from sun-up to sundown—the fast in Ramadan.

The second great celebration of the Muslim religion is the birthday of Muhammad. That is like we celebrate Christmas. They celebrate the birthday of Muhammad.

The third great religious celebration of the Muslim world is the feast of Ishmael. They trace their lineage and their parentage back to Ishmael. And to the Muslim, the first son of Abraham is the child through whom the covenant of God is made and is mediated to the world today.

In the story and the tradition of the Muslim, it was not Isaac that Abraham offered on top of Mount Moriah, but it was his eldest son, Ishmael. The Quraysh tribe from Mecca, that gave Muhammad to the world, the greatest son of Hagar, traced their ancestry back to Ishmael and look upon themselves as being the true descendants of Abraham.

Hagar is never mentioned in the Koran, but Ishmael is mentioned several times. One time, Ishmael and Abraham are commanded to purify the temple at Mecca. And in Muslim tradition, it was Abraham and his son Ishmael that built that holy house, the Mecca. And in the Kaaba, the holy house at Mecca, there is buried Hagar—or they say they are buried—there is buried—there are buried Hagar and her son Ishmael. So, I say that, in the tradition of the Muslim, the whole Arab world looks back to Ishmael as being their patriarch, their father, and their child of the covenant, from faithful Abraham.

Now, according to the Word of God, I want us to see what is the future of the Ishmaelites, the future of the Arabs, the future of the Muslim, this Muhammadan world, who sticks out his tongue at Isaac, who jeers at the Jews, who is the impeccable and sworn and bitter enemy of these children of Israel. What does God say shall be the end of them and what shall God do for them?

Now, this is the thing that overwhelmed me, as I studied these Scriptures and as I learned what God had promised, and what God someday is going to do with the whole Arab world with the children of Ishmael. Now, let's look at it hastily in the Bible. We have just a few moments. “God said to Abraham, Let it not be grievous to thee,” for I am going to do a marvelous thing by Ishmael.

In the seventeenth chapter of the Book of Genesis, when this thing came even on the birth of Isaac, Abraham cried before God. Look at that eighteenth verse: “O God, that Ishmael might live before Thee!”

Abraham loved Ishmael, was greatly, greatly devoted to him. And Abraham prayed that Ishmael might be the child of the covenant, might be the child through whom the great salvation of Christ should come to the world: “O that Ishmael might live before Thee!” Apparently, Abraham came to the place where he did not even seek for, or long for, or desire a child from Sarah: “O that Ishmael might live before Thee!”

Now, you look at how God answered that prayer of Abraham. The twentieth verse: “And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, . . . twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.”

Then, according to the promise and the covenant of God, look what Abraham did. Here, in the twenty-third verse: “And Abraham took Ishmael his son, . . . and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin, in the self-same day as God had said unto him”—the twenty-fifth verse:

And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael, his son.

The Bible emphasizes that.

What does that mean? Listen to me. That means that Ishmael is a child of the covenant of Abraham, no less so than Isaac, the child of promise. Both of them are included in the covenant of circumcision. Both of them are to share in all of the rights and the privileges of that holy covenant.

Now, may I say a thing out of history? One of the most remarkable facts in the development of history is this: there is not a mention, not a reference, to the rite of circumcision in the Koran. It is not even referred to. And every Muslim expositor is at a loss to explain why.

And yet, the one universal custom in the whole Arabic world is circumcision. Even an ignorant, unlearned, untaught Bedouin, who does not even know the story of Abraham, and does not even know the story of Ishmael—even an untaught, wild Bedouin, without exception, all of them are circumcised.

And they circumcise according to the way Ishmael was, and the way Abraham was. They do not circumcise on the eighth day, as the Jewish people, but they circumcise later in life. That is the one universal characteristic of the entire Muslim, Muhammadan, Islamic, Arabic world, and there is no exception to it.

That rite was a thing that God gave to Abraham, a covenant between him and God, and Ishmael is in it. And the Arab world is in it.

God—I am saying this, God has a program for the Jew. God has a program for the Arabic world, in the same Abrahamic covenant that you will find, the one of circumcision that you will find Isaac. In that same Abrahamic covenant, you will also find Ishmael and the Arabic world.

Well, I have to conclude. Oh, that we had time to enter into this. Nine- tenths of what I prepared I

have to leave out this morning.

All right, what is the end of it? This is the end of it. In the sixtieth chapter of Isaiah—the gem of all great missionary passages is the sixtieth chapter of Isaiah; there is no more glorious passage in the whole Bible than this glorious sixtieth chapter of Isaiah, which sees the great missionary purposes of God in the world—Look at it:

Arise, shine for thy light has come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee.

For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.

And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.

Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come, . . . thy daughters. . . .

Then shalt thou see, and flowing on and on… .

The glorious, glorious prophecy of the uplifting of the Lord, and the flowing of the nations and of the people to the great God and our Savior; the coming, reigning Lord, Christ, Jesus. In that group, look—In that multitude, look.

While the Bible points to the glorious conversion of the Jew, when a nation is born in a day, when “they shall look on him whom they have pierced, when they shall lament over Him as one over a lost son and brother”—Look:

The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah; all they from Sheba shall come: they shall bring gold and incense; and they shall show forth the praises of the Lord.

All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together under thee, the rams of Nebaioth shall minster unto thee: they shall come up with acceptance on thine altar, and I will glorify the house of my glory.

Who are these that fly as a cloud, and as the dove to their windows?

These are descriptions of the Arab people. And in that great and final consummation, God says that the camel drivers of Arabia and the sheep herders of Sheba and of Yemen, will come to the glory of the brightness of the shining, reigning presence of the Lord God our Savior.

Why, the thing astounds me. I knew from the Book that there was a covenant promise with the seed of Isaac, with the seed of Jacob that God has not done with the Jew. Some day, he will be converted and glory in Christ his Lord.

But, I never knew, until I read the Book this week, that that same covenant includes also the Muslim, the Arab, the Muhammadan. There shall come a time when he, too, shall come with his camels and with his dromedaries, with gifts of gold and incense, and they shall bring an acceptable altar in the glory of the coming of the Lord.

What a day! What an event! What a consummation. God's purposes worked out in Isaac, in the Jew, and God's purposes worked out in Ishmael, in the Arab—even in Muhammad, in the camel

driver, and the sheepherder of the sands of Arabia. Copyright 2002 The Criswell Legacy. All Rights Reserved.

27 And every male in Abraham's household, including those born in his household or bought from a foreigner, was circumcised with him.

1. This would include the children as well as the adults. Those who were bought would be slaves and so we see that Abraham's household began with some who were of a different race or family. A Jew author Mendel Starkman wrote, "Before this mitzvah is performed, a Jew is considered physically imperfect. Only after the foreskin is removed, is the body perfected. In reality, the foreskin is comprised of two layers. The Beis HaLevi, one of the most brilliant Talmudists of the 19th century, explains that the removal of the first layer corrects the physical imperfection, while the removal of the second layer raises the person to a holier level."

2. Someone wrote, " It is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual reality. It is a demonstration of willingness to give something of oneself, something of pain, of blood, which shows that Abraham accepts God’s claim on him. It’s a willingness to be seen as belonging to God, right down to the most private of our parts. But note that what God asks for is a body part that is expendable. Abraham was not asked to castrate himself, or chop off a hand. Foreskin plays no critical biological or reproductive role. Compared with what God asks of Himself, what he asks from his chosen people is negligible. Nevertheless it is something. Jesus never asked us to be circumcised, as least on our privates. St. Paul talks instead that we must ‘circumcise our hearts’ instead. It’s about giving ourselves body, mind and heart to God, in response to what he does for us."

3. STEVEN KEY "And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you" (Gen 17:11). The observing of this sign of circumcision was an acknowledgment by Abraham and his seed that they were themselves unclean and brought forth unclean seed. But more, circumcision was an outward sign that signified an internal reality. It signified the fact that salvation was the work of God whereby God cut away the sin and evil from the hearts of His people and gave them new hearts. It signified the inward cleansing and purifying of the heart through the operation of the Spirit of God. That is taught in many passages in the Scriptures. In Deuteronomy 10:16 you read: "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff-necked." In Jeremiah 4:4 you read: "Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings." So circumcision pointed to the spiritual circumcision of the heart, the cutting away of sin from the heart of man, and thus it pointed to his spiritual renewal unto holiness by the death of his unclean nature on the cross and through the shedding of Christ's blood.

Now the Scriptures very clearly teach that baptism in the New Testament has the same significance as circumcision did in the Old. Baptism, as we saw from Romans 6, is also an outward sign of inward cleansing. It also speaks of the taking away of the heart of sin and the creation of a new heart that is filled with the life of Christ. And although there are other passages that also show us this truth, as we

read earlier there is one passage in particular that literally speaks of the fact that baptism has taken the place of circumcision inasmuch as the outward sign of circumcision was fulfilled in the blood of the cross of Jesus Christ. That passage is Colossians 2:11,12: "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." It cannot be denied that baptism has taken the place of circumcision as the sign of the one covenant, which God establishes with His people throughout all time. Baptism with water signifies the same washing away of the sin of the heart by the blood of Jesus Christ and by His Holy Spirit. In Christ and through the shedding of His blood and the washing away of our sins, God establishes His covenant with believers and their seed, the spiritual children of Abraham.

APPENDIX A

I am adding several appendixes to this chapter because of the many implications of circumcision that are still relevant today. These three appendix additions will give you more information on the issue of circumcision than you can imagine. The first is comments about the book QUESTIONING CIRCUMCISION: A JEWISH PERSPECTIVE. This is a rather surprising and even shocking book in the light of the Biblical commands, because it comes from a Jewish author and is highly recommended by many Jewish authorities. Below are the Jewish authorities and readers who recommend it.

“Thorough, moving, convincing, and of staggering importance. I believe this book will change Judaism for the better.” —Michael Koran, Jewish educator “Jewish circumcision has traditionally been the province of males. This groundbreaking book sheds new light on the issue by also including women's views and feelings about circumcision.” —Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb, Nahalat Shalom Congregation “For thousands of years we have ceremoniously circumcised our sons without knowing or honestly considering how this practice affects the child. In this book, Ronald Goldman presents us with compelling new information that we can't ignore.” —Rabbi Beverly Lerner, psychotherapist “Goldman's analysis of Jewish reluctance to discuss circumcision is right on the mark. The collective Jewish psyche will benefit from confronting circumcision anxieties and myths. This book will facilitate that process and should lead to more than a few changes of heart and mind.” —Dr. Richard Schwartzman, Psychiatrist “A bold, compassionate, and powerful critique of Jewish circumcision. With revealing new research, Goldman calls attention to the unrecognized physical and psychological effects connected with this

procedure.” —Myron Sharaf, Ph.D., lecturer and author, Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School “The information in this book was the most comprehensive we found. It was very useful in our decision not to circumcise. And after my father read it, he said he could really understand our feelings. I am certain that we made the right decision.” —Aviva Furman, Mother of uncircumcised son

“If a woman is made to distrust her most basic instinct to protect her newborn child, what feelings can she ever trust?” —Miriam Pollack, Mother of two circumcised sons “My son screamed. Unmistakable screams of pain. Sounds I'd never heard from him before . . . . I was in a state of shock.” —Victor Schonfeld, Father of circumcised son “I experienced my doubts privately and without comfort . . . . Thus, a rite intended to inspire feelings of Jewish unity evoked in me a sense of loss and alienation.” —Lisa Braver Moss, Mother of circumcised son “I fell in love with my son the first seven days. There was no way we were going to hurt him. . . . We got respect for putting our values into practice.” —Moshe Rothenberg, Father of uncircumcised son “Every time I change his diaper, I feel so good that we didn't do it.” —Dana Parmes-Katz, Mother of uncircumcised son “Although uncircumcised, I am a very proud Jew, with a very strong sense of Jewish identity, and never hesitate to affirm my Jewish identity to Jew and non-Jew alike.” —Alan Altmann, Uncircumcised Jew “When I explained circumcision to him, his face took on a frightened expression as he cupped his hands over his genitals and loudly declared, 'That is never going to happen to me!'” —Rosemary Romberg, Relating the response of her seven-year-old uncircumcised son

Here is the TABLE OF CONTENTS of the book:

Foreword Introduction 1. Origins and Background

History; Anthropological and Psychological Explanations; Circumcision Has Not Always Been Practiced; Changing the Circumcision Procedure 2. Assumed Benefits

Jewish Survival and Identity; Conformity; Health Claims 3. Risks: Opinion versus Research

Pain; Behavioral Changes Following Circumcision; Trauma; Complications 4. Unrecognized Consequences

Sexual Impact; Psychological Effects 5. Personal Experiences

Parents Who Circumcised Their Son; Parents Who Did Not Circumcise; “Something Just Came Over Me”; Childhood Memories of Being at a Bris 6. Conflicts and Questions

Reason, Knowledge, and Understanding; Ethics and Human Rights Considerations; Jewish Culture and Male-Female Relationships 7. Preventing More Pain

Breaking the Silence; Circumcision in Perspective; Exploring Thoughts and Feelings; Next Steps; Potential Benefits of Forgoing Circumcision Appendix A My Experience with Circumcision Appendix B One Woman’s Learning Process Appendix C Discussion following “The Circumcision Debate” Appendix D A Response to Traditionalists Appendix E Circumcision and Anti-Semitism Appendix F Precautions for Parents of Intact Boys Appendix G Alternative Rituals Notes Bibliography Index

APPENDIX B Written by Michael Morrison

Controversy in the early church

The Law and the Prophets consistently upheld the need for circumcision, and the intertestamental period did, too. Circumcision was one of the Jewish customs forbidden by Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Maccabees 1:48). Hellenizers who tried to surgically reverse their circumcision were considered to have "abandoned the holy covenant" (verse 15).

Circumcision was so important to Jewish self-identity and worship that faithful Jews were willing to die rather than abandon this physical reminder that they were God's covenant people. The books of Maccabees record their eventual victory. Circumcision and other Jewish customs were enforced and were emphasized as religious obligations for Jewish people.

John the Baptist and Jesus were circumcised (Luke 1:59; 2:21). Jesus' only comment about circumcision was favorable: It was part of "the law of Moses," and the Jews were willing to circumcise children on the Sabbath. Since it was a religious rite, it could be done on the Sabbath (John 7:22-23), just as priests could "desecrate" the Sabbath to perform sacrifices (Matthew 12:5).

Stephen mentioned the covenant of circumcision that God had given Abraham (Acts 7:8), but he criticized the Sanhedrin for having uncircumcised hearts and ears (verse 51). They were physically circumcised, but not obedient to what God had told them through Jesus. Physical circumcision should have been followed by a circumcision of the heart.

The biggest controversy about circumcision came when the gospel began going to gentiles. Circumcised believers (i.e., Jews) were astonished when the Holy Spirit was given to Cornelius (Acts 10:45). Circumcised believers criticized Peter for going to the house of an uncircumcised person and even eating with gentiles (Acts 11:2-3).

The problem surfaced again when more and more gentiles began responding to the gospel by believing in the Lord Jesus (verses 20-21). Later, some Jewish believers came to Antioch and taught that the gentiles had to be circumcised or else they could not be saved (Acts 15:1). They also said that the gentiles should obey the entire law of Moses (verse 5). In Antioch, this would not have included sacrifices (unless they were to travel to Jerusalem), but it would have included other Jewish customs traceable to the five books of Moses. By "circumcision," these messianic Jews meant full proselyte status, since circumcision implied all the other laws (Galatians 5:3).

Argument of the Judaizers

The Jerusalem conference concluded that circumcision was not required for gentile believers. They did not have to obey "the law of Moses." Today, we understand that circumcision is not required for gentiles, and we take it for granted. But perhaps we will better understand the significance of this decision if we try to argue the case for circumcision. Luke does not report the actual arguments used by the Judaizers, but they could have made a strong case:

"Circumcision goes back to God's eternal covenant with Abraham, in which God promised to be the God of his descendants. These gentiles are claiming Abraham as their spiritual father. He is the father of the faithful, and Genesis 17:12 tells us that all who are his descendants, whether physically or otherwise, fall under the covenant of circumcision. If they really have the faith that Abraham did, they will be willing to do what Abraham did. If they really have a covenant with the same God, they will gladly accept the sign of that covenant. The covenant was revealed as everlasting, not a temporary arrangement. It was commanded by God himself.

"God has called these people, and that is good. But just as our ancestor Israelites could not inherit the promises until they were circumcised, so also these gentiles cannot inherit the spiritual promises (salvation) unless they are circumcised. Until they are circumcised, they are strangers to the covenant of promise. We should not allow them to participate in the bread and wine with us until they are circumcised; even though they have believed in Jesus our Passover, they should not partake of the meal or receive the benefit of his sacrifice unless they are circumcised. There is solid scriptural precedent and support for this. The example of the ancient Israelites was written for our admonition.

"Circumcision is not only a physical command from God; it also has important spiritual symbolism. It pictures repentance, but this symbolism doesn't eliminate the need to obey God physically, too. In fact, if these people really were obedient to God, they would not want to spiritualize away God's command to be circumcised. Isaiah clearly said that when the good news of salvation is preached, only circumcised people would be able to enter the daughter of Zion, which is the Church today. These gentiles are being grafted into Israel, and they therefore need to keep Israelite laws.

"What advantage is there in being circumcised? Much in every way! It is our nation that has the promises and covenants, and our Lord said that salvation is of the Jews. The only thing Jesus said about circumcision was positive. And he said that if something causes sin, we ought to cut it off. Circumcision helps us picture that important truth, but we lose its symbolic value if we abandon the practice. Circumcision has value if a person observes the law, and we certainly don't want to encourage these new converts to be lawbreakers. Our Messiah specifically said that he didn't come to do away with the law, and none of it would pass away. He fulfilled the symbolism of sacrifices, but that doesn't do away with our need to obey the plain and clear commands of God.

"God justifies people by faith, but the faith isn't genuine if these people aren't willing to obey clear commands of God in the God-breathed Scriptures that are able to make us wise for salvation. No one should rely on circumcision as a guarantee of salvation, of course, but neither should we reject it. Abraham believed first, and then he obeyed. That's what these gentiles need to do to be saved. Keeping God's commands is what counts."

Would we be able to answer such an argument without the writings of Paul? We'd have, of course, the conclusion of the Jerusalem conference, but then right after that we would read that Paul circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3). Paul was accused of teaching against circumcision (Acts 21:21), but that was clearly a false accusation. From Genesis to Acts, the Scriptures are supportive of the rite of circumcision except for one chapter. Although Acts 15 gives us the overall conclusion that circumcision is not required for gentiles, it does not answer all the specific arguments that the Judaizers could have had.

However, Peter, Barnabas and Paul radically reinterpreted the law of circumcision by keeping the spiritual meaning but rejecting the physical rite. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, they explained that Abraham received the promises by faith before circumcision; therefore the circumcision of the most-respected patriarch, although commanded as an everlasting covenant for his physical heirs and extended household, cannot be a requirement for salvation. Why? Because Peter, Barnabas and Paul saw a dramatic discontinuity between the old and the new. Even a ritual confirming the promises, a ritual given hundreds of years before Sinai, could simply be swept aside, as a requirement for salvation, by the new situation that Jesus had inaugurated.

Few among us would have been so bold.

Many Jewish Christians could have been deeply troubled by the conclusion that circumcision was simply not required. An ancient and culturally important religious law was rejected without even a hint that Jesus was against it in any way. Why was this necessary? Let us now see what Paul later wrote, and understand his rationale for the discontinuity between old and new.

Circumcised in and by Jesus Christ

"Circumcision has value if you observe the law," Paul writes (Romans 2:25), but he does not explain what that value is. After all, if a person observes the law he is counted as circumcised (i.e., in Abraham's covenant) whether or not he is actually circumcised (verse 26). A gentile who obeys is better than a Jew who disobeys (verse 27); mere circumcision cannot guarantee salvation. If a person is Jewish only externally, in physical circumcision, but not in the heart, such a person is not one of God's people, since real circumcision is not "merely" physical (verse 28). Paul's comments so far would be agreeable to a messianic Judaizer who advocated that both physical and spiritual circumcision were necessary. But Paul's next comment would be too sweeping: A man is one of God's people if he is inwardly circumcised, since the real circumcision is a spiritual matter, of the heart, "not by the written code" (verse 29).

But what value is there in being circumcised? Or, in synonymous terms, what advantage is there in being a Jew? Much, replies Paul (Romans 3:1-2). He does not extol any health benefits, but he mentions that circumcised people have in their community the words of God (verse 3). That is a great value, but it is all for naught if they do not obey — and that brings Paul to the crux of the problem.

There is none righteous, no not one. No one keeps the law perfectly; we all fall short. How then can we be saved? By faith! "There is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith" (verse 30). Justification by faith is the central reason that the physical rite of circumcision is no longer necessary.

Paul examines the example of Abraham again, and notes that Abraham was accounted righteous even while he was uncircumcised (Romans 4:9-10). Even though he later received a physical sign or seal of his righteousness, his righteous status before God did not depend on circumcision (verse 11). He is the father of all who faithfully live as he did before he was circumcised (verse 12) — and that was an exemplary faith, since Abraham packed up and moved without knowing where he was going.

To the Corinthians, Paul made it clear that if a person was called while uncircumcised, he should not attempt to change his anatomy (1 Corinthians 7:18). And his reason is surprising: "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts" (verse 19). The surprise is that circumcision had been one of God's commands, and yet it doesn't count. The law of circumcision was a religious rite that had nothing to do with our moral responsibilities to our neighbors.

Paul explained circumcision in greatest detail in his letter to the Galatians. They were being misled by a Judaizing heresy that demanded that gentile believers follow up their faith with physical compliance with old covenant commands. But Paul explained that it is wrong to view physical circumcision as necessary because that would imply that faith in Christ was not enough. "If you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all" (Galatians 5:2).

Paul himself did not forbid circumcision; we have already noted that he circumcised Timothy, whose mother was Jewish. But he explains that Titus, a gentile, was not circumcised (Galatians 2:3). It was not a requirement for salvation, nor a requirement for leadership within the Church. Circumcision is permissible as a voluntary practice, but it should not be taught as a requirement. It does not enhance anyone's standing before God. It should not be done as a commitment to old covenant laws, which was the issue in Acts 15 and Galatians 5:2-3.

Circumcision was only the beginning of the messianic Judaizers' demands. What they were really insisting on was the whole Law of Moses as a requirement (Galatians 5:3). They were insisting on the Mosaic covenant. Faith in Christ is great, they probably said, but we have to add to our faith some works as specified by the authoritative writings of Moses. Not so, said Paul. "In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love" (verse 6).

Paul had to state that he was not preaching circumcision (verse 11). Why was this necessary? Probably because the messianic Judaizers were making the claim that Paul was actually in favor of circumcision. Like other Jewish preachers seeking proselytes, Paul taught morals and virtues. Once people had accepted the morals, the Judaizers claimed, Paul would add circumcision as the capstone requirement. Not so, said Paul. He was not going to add requirements to what he had already taught the Galatian believers. He was so vehement about the Judaistic agitators that he exclaimed, "I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" (verse 12). Moreover, if the Galatians submitted to this work of the law, as if it were required, they could not be saved (verse 2)!

The Judaizers, he said, had selfish motives. They wanted to look good by bringing in converts for messianic Judaism, and they didn't want to be criticized by fellow Jews regarding the shameful death of Jesus (Galatians 6:12). They talked about obedience, but they themselves were sinning and in need of the cross they were ashamed of (verse 13). Circumcision is obsolete, Paul said, since it has been replaced by the cross of Christ and all that the cross symbolizes (verse 14). Through faith in our Savior's death on our behalf, we are acceptable to God on the basis of faith, and we do not need a physical sign of the covenant we have in Jesus' blood.

"Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation" (verse 15). If we are born anew in Christ, if we have faith that works itself out in love, then we are acceptable to God. We do not have to observe this ancient rite in order to be saved.

Because the gentiles were uncircumcised, they were once considered excluded from the covenants of promise and cut off from God. But now, through the blood of Christ, they have been brought near to God (Ephesians 2:11-13). In Jesus' own flesh, by his own obedience to old covenant rules, he has abolished the commandments and regulations that had separated Jews from gentiles (verse 14-15). He gave all ethnic groups access to God and made them fellow citizens with each other; it is in Christ that we are being built together as a spiritual temple for God (verse 19-22).

Paul also warned the Philippians about the circumcision advocates. "Watch out for those dogs," he said, using Jewish slang for gentiles in reference to the Judaizers (Philippians 3:2). They are evil men, "mutilators of the flesh" — a Greek view of the rite of circumcision. But the Spirit wars against the flesh; Paul emphasizes that the physical rite, at least to the Greek mind, takes away from its spiritual meaning. It is believers who are the true circumcision — all "who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh" (verse 3). Paul himself was circumcised (verse 5), but he counted it as loss for the sake of Christ (verse 7-8). His righteousness did not come from the law, but from faith in Christ (verse 9). Justification by faith has rendered the rite of circumcision obsolete. The principle of salvation by faith, which Abraham received before his circumcision, gave Paul the logical foundation for saying that obedience to a clear command of Scripture was not necessary for salvation. A physical requirement cannot supersede a promise of God

given through faith.

Paul told his gentile converts in Colosse that they were circumcised in Christ (Colossians 2:11). Since he is our righteousness, and we are in him, we have been given fullness in him (verse 10). We can be accounted righteous because he himself is righteous. Therefore we are as good as circumcised if we are putting off our sinful nature — if we have repented and have begun to live holy lives. Our circumcision is therefore not done by humans, but by Christ himself. How so? Through baptism (verse 12). That is how we express publicly that we have faith in Jesus as our Savior, that our old life is ended, that we — now circumcised in the heart — intend to live from then on in his service and that we have faith that we will live again with him.

When we were separated from God in our sinful nature, we were spiritually uncircumcised. But God has now made us alive again with Christ (verse 13). He forgave our sins, canceling our spiritual debts (incurred through transgressing the written code that was against us), including the regulations that concerned the symbolic forgiveness of sins (verse 14). He likewise canceled the regulation of circumcision, which symbolized repentance and sanctification. Since the fullness of those regulations has come, the symbol is no longer required. Christ has given us the fulfillment.

The eternal validity of God's law

The conclusion is clear: Physical circumcision, which was once commanded by God, is no longer required. How can this be? God, the perfect and unchangeable Lawgiver, changed a fundamental aspect of his law — not only circumcision, but also sacrifices and temples and priesthoods. The infallible Scriptures contain commands that are obsolete.

But didn't Jesus say, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" (Matthew 5:17-18).

Jesus was talking about the entire Old Testament — the Law and the Prophets. So how can his statement be reconciled with the fact that some commands of the Old Testament are not required today? Perhaps the best approach to explain this is to understand that the laws are valid in their intent, but changed in their application. Laws regarding sacrifice continue to be valid, but we actually obey them through faith in Jesus Christ, who was sacrificed for us. The law required sacrifice, and Jesus confirmed its validity at the same times as he made it unnecessary for us to perform it.2

When God commanded animal sacrifices, he commanded an administration of the law that was perfectly appropriate to the times. When David said that God did not want animals (Psalm 51:16), that was also a perfectly appropriate administration of the law of sacrifice, because David was inspired to understand that contrition was the real command (verse 17). When Christ sacrificed himself, he rendered all animal sacrifices unnecessary (Hebrews 10:8-10). The administration of the law shifted to faith in the efficacy of Jesus to atone for our sinfulness. When we have faith in him, we are effectively obeying the laws regarding sacrifice.

Likewise, we are obeying the law of circumcision when our attitudes are circumcised. The real law —allegiance to God — is eternally valid; the physical administration of it has changed. We live in a

different age, needing a different administration.

God's law is to be written on our hearts by the Holy Spirit. This does not mean the physical details regulating specifics of worship practices, but it means the intent behind those regulations, especially faith and love and other fruits of the Spirit.

God's law did not originate with Moses — since sin existed before Moses and sin does not exist without law, law existed before Moses (Romans 5:12-14). God's law existed, and the people transgressed it. God's law does not depend on its Mosaic administration. There is a law behind the Law of Moses. The Mosaic administration was a valid expression of God's holy, spiritual, righteous law, and it was perfectly appropriate for its situation, but it is not appropriate after the death of Christ and the coming of the Holy Spirit.

In fact, to impose or to attempt to combine the Mosaic administration into Christian faith and practice can cause many problems. New wine makes old wineskins burst (Matthew 9:17). The old covenant is obsolete. However, many of the Mosaic rules, especially those concerning the way we should treat other people, are still valid applications of the spiritual purpose. Jesus explained them in the Sermon on the Mount, for example.3 But many other laws of Moses, especially those concerning worship, are not valid practices because we have been given the spiritual fulfillment that those rites only symbolized. Jesus criticized the Pharisees for paying too much attention to those rules and not enough on human relationships (e.g., Matthew 23; Mark 7:11-13).

In summary, laws can remain on the books, and remain valid in purpose, and yet we may no longer be required to keep them in the letter. A simple citation of Matthew 5:17 does not automatically prove that an Old Testament law must be administered in the way it was under Moses. The law of circumcision illustrates the new covenant approach to old covenant laws.

Endnotes

1 Since the Israelites did not practice circumcision in the wilderness (Joshua 5:5), and uncircumcised people could not partake of the Passover, only the generations that left Egypt kept the Passover. There may not have been enough lambs in the desert to keep an annual slaughter for the whole congregation (Numbers 11:13).

2 " `The law' was a comprehensive term for the total divine revelation of the Old Testament. None of it will pass away or be discarded, he says, not a single letter or part of a letter, until it has all been fulfilled.... The law is as enduring as the universe....

" `The law and the prophets,' namely the Old Testament, contain various kinds of teaching. The relation of Jesus Christ to these differs, but the word `fulfillment' covers them all.... Jesus `fulfilled' it all in the sense of bringing it to completion by his person, his teaching and his work....

"The whole ceremonial system of the Old Testament, both priesthood and sacrifice, found its perfect fulfillment. Then the ceremonies ceased. Yet, as Calvin rightly comments, `It was only the use of them that was abolished, for their meaning was more fully confirmed.' They were but a `shadow' of what was to come; the `substance' belonged to Christ" (John R.W. Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7): Christian Counter-Culture. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity, 1978, 1985,

pages 71, 73).

3 "The Old Testament contains ethical precepts, or the moral law of God.... Jesus fulfilled them in the first instance by obeying them.... He does more than obey them himself; he explains what obedience will involve for his disciples. He rejects the superficial interpretation of the law given by the scribes; he himself supplies the true interpretation. His purpose is not to change the law, still less to annul it, but `to reveal the full depth of meaning that it was intended to hold.'...

"Christian righteousness is greater than pharisaic righteousness because it is deeper, being a righteousness of the heart.... The scribes and Pharisees...were trying to reduce the challenge of the law, to `relax' the [ethical] commandments of God, and so make his moral demands more manageable and less exacting.... They made the law's demands less demanding and the law's permissions more permissive. [They did this for laws about interpersonal conduct, but they had the opposite approach regarding the Sabbath!] What Jesus did was to reverse both tendencies. He insisted instead that the full implications of God's commandments must be accepted without imposing any artificial limits" (Stott, pages 72, 75, 79).

Written by Michael MorrisonCopyright 1995 by author

APPENDIX C BY WADE COX

Circumcision

It is important at this point to digress into the subject of circumcision.

The practice of circumcision is perhaps one of the oldest rites of all civilizations. It is found among all tribes and areas. It is found from Australia to Africa and into the Middle East. In the documentation of the practices James Frazer (The Golden Bough, Vol., 1, Macmillan, 1976, pp. 96 ff.) indicates the likely origin and thinking behind the practice. Circumcision has a beneficial effect in hot desert climates in the prevention of disease. Aside from this effect the original practice seemed to have a distinct relationship to the concept of rebirth and reincarnation. From the most ancient times the foreskin of the circumcised male was placed in a location of some direct proximity to the totems of the circumcised males, either in rocks or trees or the like. From what we can now tell it appears that the practice of circumcision is actually tied to the concept of the rebirth of the individual in the bodies of the descendants. This appears to have been carried over as a concept among all the ancient tribes; it has specific bearing on the concept of the lie in original sin, namely, thou shalt not surely die.

It appears that by giving the ordinance of circumcision to Abraham as a requirement of the eighth day, God was actually intervening and giving direct and corrective meaning to an existing pagan practice. God was saying, I am your rock or totem and the object of your resurrection and continued

life. That it was to be done at the eighth day and not at puberty removed it from the realm of the self existence and manhood of the individual, and placed it on the level of the free gift of God, as a member of the nation of Israel. In this way also, God was saying that Ishmael was brought into the tribe at the same time as Isaac and indeed through the covenant membership as was Abraham

himself.

God was striking at the lie of the soul and the reincarnation doctrines of the pagan or Satanic-teachings of the Sin and Ishtar systems (cf. the papers The Golden Calf (No. 222) and The Origins of

Christmas and Easter (No. 235)). This practice was also seemingly coupled with another practice namely that of tooth extraction. Teeth were removed or knocked out on circumcision in the more primitive tribal systems. Frazer is of the opinion that this practice probably derived from the concept of the durability of the tooth in the skull after death and thus it served as a symbol of the afterlife. We know with certainty that the early Australians practiced this custom for millennia and the famous Lake Nitchie male displays this characteristic. It is thus most ancient as a custom, probably dating back to the earliest times pre-flood.

The more modern Australian aborigines also practiced the ancient rite of cutting or marking by tribal insignia. It appears that this practice was anciently used to denote dedication to a deity and hence those with the markings were able to summon their deity. The practice was forbidden to Israel (Lev. 19:28; cf. 21:5; Deut. 14:1). It was known anciently among the Arabs and each tribe has its own tribal mark (wasm) for its cattle (Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (ERE), vol. 2, pp. 326 ff.). According to Lucian all the Syrians bore stigmata of religious significance on their wrists or neck (ibid.). Herodotus tells us that the fugitive slaves who fled to the Heraculeum at the canopic mouth of the Nile were tattooed and made over to the god and hence could not be reclaimed by their masters. Thus the prohibition has clear reference to the removal of idolatry in Israel. Among the Semites all marks within such categories were badges of relationship to either a god or fellow (ibid.). Hence a man’s reliance on another man was marked by an awl in the ear, as an indication of a lack of faith in God who was the real master. These badges probably all go back to the totem as common origin.

The ritual "cutting for the dead" was part of this ancient practice of ancestor worship, which had also at its base the reincarnation of the ancestor. This belief was also endemic to the Celts who got it from the same source. We know beyond doubt that the Caucasians, who appear to be relatives of the Aryan Celts, practiced mummification also.

We have evidence now from the finds in what may have been classed as Ancient Scythia. The mummies were found at Urumchi (or Urumqi) in what is now modern China in the Tien Shan in the Uygur Autonomous Region near the border with Kazakhstan. They are some thousands of years old and cover the period ca. 1000 BCE at the time of David and the subsequent Aryan invasion of India.

The mummies are at present in the hands of the Chinese government, who had kept them from public scrutiny because of the obvious ramifications of the Caucasians apparently related to the Celts, being in Ancient Scythia or what is now China. We have the record of the time of David and the wars in Scythia against Mesech and Tubal and in the tents of Kedar (Ps. 120:5-7). This subject will be examined in detail in the series on the history of nations (cf. E. J. W. Barber, The Mummies of

Urumchi, W. W. Norton, 1979).

The Blood Covenant

The markings among the Arabs were done as a covenant and this was originally between man and God and subsequently became between man and man (ERE ibid.). This marking was followed by the collection of blood and it was drunk as a sign of the covenant. This is the spiritual basis behind the injunction against drinking of blood in the Bible. There are serious health consequences also arising

from this practice. Thus Christ made the comment that they had to drink his blood and eat his body as part of the covenant.

Ancient Practices and Movements

Circumcision thus became the badge of this covenant between Yahovah and His people. Originally circumcision was very widespread and appears to have been in Egypt at the Exodus and before that, and so is thought to have been the origin of the practice in Israel. God gave Israel the true meaning of the symbolism. The Fallen Host under Azazel seems to have given the symbolism as a mark of the immortality of the soul and the system of reincarnation in man. Much is made of the Australian aboriginal being forty or untold thousands of years old and in occupation of Australia, but the fact is that the evidence does not support that claim and they actually came to Australia in some eight waves over the past few thousand years.

Professor Berndt holds that they were related to the ancient Egyptians and the tribal Dravidians of India. Their characteristics, and from examination their customs, seem to support this contention. Some of the evidence and anthropological theories relate them to the early types found in the Choukoutien Upper Cave in China which also included three different racial types in the one group of "primitive Mongoloid, Melanesoid and Eskimoid types." Birdsell, quoted by Hooten, also regards the Murrayian or Archaic white or Caucasoid or second migration wave skulls as having closest affinities with the Old Man of the Choukoutien Upper Cave (cf. R. M. and C. H. Berndt Aboriginal Man in

Australia, Angus and Robertson, 1965, pp. 29-31). Weidenreich notes that:

Some workers [anthropologists] have regarded the Aboriginal Australian as a direct descendant of European Upper Paleolithic Man and a migrant in recent time from Europe or Central Asia to Australia (ibid. p. 31).

What is also important is that these diverse racial types were found in the one group and strata in Choukoutien in China, indicating perhaps a common dispersal point for the racial types of Asia and/or a wider genetic pool at that time in the species.

For centuries Buddhist priests at their ordination ceremonies, have three heaps of incense burned into their forehead and this is repeated as they rise in ranks and order until there are nine scars on the forehead (ERE ibid., 2, p. 327). At the Theravadin pre-ordination ceremony even today the deity or spirits are invoked to come down through the five levels into the novice. The deity is worshipped and its priests are marked accordingly.

Thus God issued the injunction to Israel against such practice. However, anciently in Israel the prophets seemed to have had some form of a mark or a badge on the forehead as some deduce from the text in First Kings (cf. 1Kgs. 20:35-43; cf. ERE, vol. 2, p. 327).

Moses appears to have evidenced the practice of marking among the Midianites and the descendants of Abraham. Job, the son of Issachar (Gen. 46:13) in the times pre-Exodus in Midian appears to have had a mark dedicating him to Yahovah. The original text of Job 31:35 says:

Oh, that I had one to hear me! See my mark! Let the Almighty answer me and let my Accuser write an indictment.

This is obscured in the KJV but it is certainly there and refers to Job’s mark (cf. Green’s Interlinear

Bible and ERE ibid.). This was replaced by the Law of God as a memorial between the eyes and on the hand being written into the heart. It always pointed towards the Holy Spirit being given to write

God’s Law in our hearts and minds and in our actions.

Judaism wore phylacteries at the time of Christ as symbols of the Law of God, but they were ostentatious.

Badges for Jews did not come into use until the Pact of Omar (ca. 640 CE) where in Muhammedan countries all Jews were obliged to wear a yellow seam on their upper garments. In Egypt during the fourteenth century Jews wore a yellow turban. After the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 Rome ordered that all Jews and Muslims should wear a distinctive badge. It had already come into use in 1208 in France for Jews. The Roman church gave as the reason to prevent intermarriage and concubinage with Christians. In France the badge was yellow but in the east it was red (cf. e.g. following the Council of Buda).

The rite of circumcision came to be seen as being the precursor to baptism and hence in the Reformation Churches the infant was "baptized" at eight days as circumcision demanded and was then confirmed at puberty by the laying on of hands by the bishop. See the paper Repentance and Baptism (No. 52).

The Church Position on Circumcision

In the early church the circumcision controversy arose where the so-called Hellenizing party rejected it and the Judaising party affirmed it (cf. Acts 11:2; 15:1,5; 21:21). Paul had himself been circumcised, and, under Jewish pressure, he circumcised Timothy (Phil. 3:5; Acts 16:3). He considered it a mark of divine favor of the nation (Rom. 3:1 ff.). However, in the case of Gentile converts it was considered unessential (Acts 15:19 ff.; cf. Gal. 5:2-4).

Paul regarded the presence or absence of physical circumcision as equally immaterial to the covenant between the adult male and God (Rom. 3:30f.; 4:9ff.; 1Cor. 7:18f.; Gal. 5:6; 6:12f.; Col. 3:11). By faith the Law is established and righteousness through faith. For they themselves that are circumcised do not keep the law, but attempt to glory in the flesh of we who do keep the law (Gal. 6:12ff.).

For the only true circumcision is spiritual (Rom. 2:25ff.; Phil 3:3ff.; Col. 2:11ff.). In this teaching Paul reinforces Jeremiah (Jer. 4:4; 6:10; 9:26; cf. Deut. 10:16; 30:6). He allows for divergent procedures under different circumstances (cf. Acts 16:3 with Gal. 2:1ff.).

He held that he might by all means save some (1Cor. 9:19ff.). What is important is a personal honesty of conviction as to what is correct for each individual (cf. Gal. 2:11ff.). Paul considered himself to be entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, whereas Peter had been entrusted with the gospel of the circumcision (Gal. 2:7-9). Thus Peter’s mission had been to the Jews in the dispersion and also to Israel. Peter was never bishop of Rome. It was never his job.

The uncircumcision prevailed and it is often asserted that only a few minor sects who were regarded as erroneous kept circumcision. One was the judaising Ebionites who regarded circumcision as "the sign and stamp of the prophets and of the righteous" as it was of Christ himself basing their own practice on Mt. 10:25 (ERE, 3, pp. 665f; cf. Iren. Adv. Her. xxx. 26). Cerinthus also took a similar attitude and for this he is often considered a Judaising Gnostic (ERE ibid.). This view is however quite incorrect. We will see why below.

The Third council of Toledo (8 May 589) prohibited Jews from purchasing Christian slaves and

enacted that any Jew circumcising such a slave on the basis of Genesis 17:12f. should forfeit him. This attitude was also carried on into the legislation by Recared in the Leges Visigothorum [Laws of the

Visigoths] (ed. Zeumer, Hanover, 1894, p. 305 [=XII. ii. 12]) stating: ‘ille autem qui Christianum

mancipium circumciderit, omnem facultatem amittat et fisco adgregetur.’ (cf. ERE ibid., p. 664).

Thus the non-Trinitarians, or so-called Arian sects were in agreement with the Trinitarians on this matter. The Trinitarians or Catholics took power shortly after this and in 590 established the Holy Roman Empire. Eugene IV gave the official Roman Catholic pronouncement in the Bull Cantate

Domino (4 Feb. 1441). He held that the requirements and ceremonies of the Law, however proper for the time, were abrogated by the coming of Christ and the sacraments of the NT. Thus baptism was seen as replacing circumcision.

In the Coptic Church it was not so that baptism was seen as replacing circumcision. Boys were baptised at 40 days old and girls at 80 days old. This procedure reflected exactly that the purification legislation and circumcision for males remains general (ERE, vol. 4, p. 119).

The Copts were part of the earliest Christian Church of North Africa from Egypt. They separated from the so-called Orthodox Church ca. 451 as a result of the doctrines arising from Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451). It may be correctly argued from the evidence of the Copts, that baptism was not seen as replacing circumcision, as whilst the Copts adopted infant baptism based on the male/female purification distinctions, the males were still circumcised, as was the practice in ancient Israel. Thus the male and circumcision itself was seen as being the distinctive factor in the purification distinctions, which mirrored the biblical distinctions.

We can conclude from the early Coptic church practices, which were also practiced among Sabbatarian sects in Europe and Asia Minor, that circumcision for infants was considered essential as part of the nation of Israel as the Church. When they entered the Church, adult Gentile males were not required to be circumcised. When in the church the Gentiles had their children circumcised, as did everyone else. This practice was general and was not pronounced against officially in the Catholic system until the Fifteenth century.

Circumcision was endemic among the American Indians and Lewis Spence (ERE, vol. 3, p. 670) regards it as a practice that evolved from, and was a substitute for human sacrifice. The symbolism noted by Frazer and commented on by Spence shows then a relationship, not just to reincarnation, but to the rebirth of the spirits of the earth, which we saw in the Christmas and Easter Religious systems of the pagans (cf. The Origins of Christmas and Easter (No. 235)). Spence regards circumcision in two types; one, as a symbolical sacrifice of sexuality and desire and the other as a partial sacrifice, symbolic of the sacrifice of the whole being to the deity in question (ibid.).

Egyptian circumcision goes back at least to the VIth Dynasty, from the evidence found at Saqqarah, and the actual evidence of such practice at such an ancient date was at first doubted by eminent authorities (ERE ibid., 3, 671 ff.).

Circumcision is found, as we might expect, with the ancient sect of the Bene Israel, the ancient Israelites called "The Saturday Oil men" in India spreading from the South of Bombay throughout the Konkan (cf. ERE, vol. 2, pp. 471 ff.). Circumcision was always performed in the home until the time of the Geonim. Between the sixth and the eleventh centuries it was transferred to the synagogue and performed publicly as a religious ceremony in front of the congregation. All mournful activities in

worship were omitted on these days.

From the time of Christ and in later Talmudic Judaism, the child was named immediately after the ceremony. Hence we see the later baptismal naming proceed from this ceremony, rather than from baptism itself. Much later infant baptism came to be inserted in place of the circumcision ceremony. In Talmudic Judaism the ceremony consists of three parts:

1. The milah the cutting away of the outer part of the prepuce, which is done with one sweep of the knife;

2. peri’ah the tearing of the inner lining of the prepuce which still adheres to the gland and is done using the thumbnail and index finger;

3. Or the sucking of the blood from the wound. (This act contravenes biblical law)

Circumcision is not regarded as a sacrament of the Jews (or of ancient Israel) in the same way that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the two Sacraments of the Christian Faith (cf. The Sacraments of

the Church (No. 150)); cf. ERE, vol. 3, p. 680). The Reformed Jews from 1843 have made efforts to abolish circumcision without avail, but since 1892 the Reformed Jews of America have not required it of proselytes on the grounds of cruelty when performed on adults.

Circumcision in Israel is a symbol of the ethical and ritual structure of the heart and mind, which places all spiritual-converts as part of the body of Israel (cf. Deut. 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Lev. 26:41; Rom. 2:28; Col. 2:11). Philo 38d notes it as coming from El who circumcised himself and his allies (ERE, vol. 9, p. 896).

Herodotus (ii 104) notes the Phoenicians and Syrians adopted circumcision from Egypt.

One of the ancient rites of the worshippers of Ashtarte or Ashtaroth or Ishtar or Athargatis depending on the area in the Middle East, was that of emasculation. The young men worked themselves into a frenzy using music and other religious exercises and then castrated themselves. From then on they went about in women’s clothing. They carried an image of the goddess about, which they worshipped in wild orgies. They flogged and cut themselves. There were also female devotees in the Temple and licentious rites were practiced. There was a reverence for fish at the centers in Hierapolis and Bambyce. We might then deduce that the fish was thus the symbol of Easter or Attis and had nothing to do with Christianity. The ceremonies also involved other practices, which have crept into Christianity. The ceremony of carrying the third image (‘Ate) to the seashore and then taking jars of water back to the temple to pour into a hole in its precincts was observed. The spring festival consisted of piling up branches and heaping them with goods and treasure and then burning them in the presence of the gods of Syria, who were all assembled in the Temple for the procedure. Animals and sometimes children were also offered in this way. Pilgrims always shaved their heads when coming to the temple in this way and young men and women offered their hair in gold or silver boxes before marrying. Tattooing in honor of the god was also common practice (cf. ERE, article Atargatis vol. 2, pp. 166-167). From this we can see the link with the early Arab practice below. Lewis Paton is of the opinion that the Lydian god Attis may be merely another form of the name of Atargatis, or Ishtar in the form ‘Ate (cf. ERE, ibid., ‘Ate, vol. 2, p. 168). Attis was castrated by Rhea and then went about in women’s clothing. Lucian gives two reasons for this activity. He says it was in honor of Ate or Attis and also in honor of Combabus who mutilated himself in order to stop compromising himself with Queen Stratonice (ERE ibid.). This religious system, which we meet with

in the Bible on repeated occasions, is no doubt the origin of the Bible prohibitions on the practices. It is also easy to see the relationship between Ishtar or Easter and the dying god Attis who was sacrificed by hanging on a pine tree cross (cf. the paper The Cross: Its Origin and Significance (No.

39)). The worship of Attis was endemic in Rome at the beginning of the current era.

The priests of Attis continually protested in the fourth century that the Christians had stolen all their doctrines. The modern religious system of the Sun cults even uses the name Easter in the worship of the system and keeps the festival and the statues of the goddess and the god. Tertullian says that Atargatis was the goddess of the Syrians. Macrobius says they called the Sun Hadad and the earth Atargatis. Hence ben Hadad means son of the Sun. The Talmud calls her Tar’atha. In Armenia she is Tharatha. She is simply the form of the Semitic goddess Ishatar-’Athtar or simply in the ancient Anglo Saxon Easter. Strabo and Hesychius both identify her with Athara and the Delos inscriptions call her Aphrodite (ERE ibid.). Askelon, Karnaim and Delos were long devoted to Astarte. Known as Derketo at Askelon her lower half was a fish. This seems to be the origin of the mermaid. Lucian does not identify the Syrian deity at Hierapolis with the deity at Askelon, seemingly on the grounds that the deity at Hierapolis had perfect human form and he called her Hera, but admits that she may be identified with Rhea. There is little doubt they are one and the same deity. The followers of both Atargatis and Astarte did not eat fish, and the sex rites identify both goddesses as the one and the same deity. The deity was distinguished by the locality and thus was locally distinctive in the minds of the common people just as she was as Ishtar in Assyria at both Nineveh and Arbela. The native name of Hierapolis is Mabog and means spring in the native Aramaic (cf. ERE ibid.). Thus the association with water and springs also.

From 2Maccabees 12:26 Judas Maccabeus went against the Temple of Atergatis at Karnion in 164 BCE and killed 25,000 people. Paton concludes from the text in 1 Maccabees 5:43 that the cult of Atargatis flourished not only in Hierapolis and Askalon, but also in Bashan. Inscriptions between Damascus and Banias at Kefr Hauwar indicate a temple was there and also a number of inscriptions at Delos, dating from shortly before the Christian era, identify her with Hadad and also identify her as Aphrodite (cf. ERE, vol. 2, p. 166). Thus she is the consort of Hadad, the sun, or Baal. As Rhea she castrated Attis who is also identified with her.

Paton also notes that Ovid writing in 17 CE tells how Dercetis was changed into a fish in Palestine. Germanicus, in 19 CE, calls her the Syrian goddess Derceto and Atargatis and adds the new information that she was changed into a fish at Bambyce the Greek name for Hierapolis. Strabo writing in 24 CE says:

‘Artargate (or Artagate in some MSS) the Syrians call Arthara, but Ctesias calls her Derketo. Here Atargatis is identified with ‘Athar (= Athtar, Ashtart, Astarte), in the same manner with which she is identified with Aphrodite in the Delos inscriptions (ERE ibid).

Cornutis (ca 68 CE) records that fish and doves were sacred to Atargatis goddess of the Syrians. This is doubtless the real origin of the fish symbol in Rome in the first century. Christians would never have made the symbol of their faith an object that was an idol worshipped in Palestine for centuries before and during the time of Christ. Pliny in 79 CE says that Ceto is worshipped at Joppa. Both Pliny and Strabo state the skeleton of a sea monster was displayed at Joppa. Ceto is perhaps to be regarded as the truncated form of Derceto, but Paton says this is uncertain (ERE ibid.). Pliny identifies Atargatis as Derceto and says that she was worshipped at Hierapolis or Bambyce or Mabog. Plutarch says there was a pond of sacred fish at Hierapolis and says that this goddess worshipped there, is identified with Aphrodite and Hera, or the goddess who produces out of moisture the seeds of

all things. (ERE. ibid.). The most extensive account was given by Lucian writing ca. 200 CE, and as an eye- witness, being himself a Syrian. As we have noted, he prefers to identify her as Hera, but Paton says there is no doubt we are dealing with Atargatis (ERE ibid.). Thus the cult of Atargatis, Ishtar, or Astarte, Ashtaroth or Easter, is the basis of the rites condemned in the Bible involving these various aspects. The purification aspects involve the removal from this system of worship. It dates back to the system of the Golden Calf under various names (cf. the paper The Golden Calf (No. 222)). Thus the system of Attis and Easter were still operational in Syria as late as 200 CE.

The purification and circumcision rites were seen as the elimination of these fertility and sun cults in Israel and the children of Abraham. Circumcision was always practised among the Arabs and was adopted into Islam without question, based on the ancient practices, no doubt derived from Abraham. Islam has exactly the same practices in regard to males, in that the circumcision is performed ideally after seven days. However, often it is delayed for five, six or more years. The child’s hair is also shaved and weighed and the weight in gold or silver is given to the poor. The purification period is the same period of forty days and the mother goes to the bath at this time (ERE, vol. 2, p. 660).

The ancient practices of redemption of the child in sacrifice also came in to the traditions of Islam from older times. The term ‘aqiqah is applied both to the shaving of the child’s head and the slaying of the goat in redemption on the seventh day (ERE, ibid.). The circumcision is thus confused as being on the seventh day from this ancient practice. The hair here has similar significance to that of the Nazirite in biblical legislation, in being dedicated to God (cf. also ERE, Vol. 12, p. 148a).

We might deduce from the relationship of the seven days of purification and the activities of the circumcision of the eighth day, that we are dealing with the plan of salvation. The seventh day of purification relates to the final millennial system and the purification of the earth. The eighth day relates to the final resurrection and the restoration of all flesh on the earth, as part of the nation of Israel and hence part of the City of God (cf. Rev. 21:1-3 and the paper The City of God (No. 180)). Females are sanctified in the Holy Spirit and then the children are also sanctified through the parents.

We will see below the concept of sanctification taken on to the higher levels. The things referred to in the Law that are excluded on grounds of purification, we will see made clean in Messiah. These symbols have great significance for the elect and can not be understood if confined to the physical plane in which we see Judah trapped at present.

Female Circumcision

The distinction in the purification legislation regarding separation was seemingly aimed at establishing another clear distinction in the male-female relationships. That is of the barbaric and pagan practice of female circumcision, which long preceded either Islam or Christianity and even Judaism itself. Female circumcision has nothing to do with God or His Laws and is pure pagan barbarism, stemming from aberrant customs among some Middle East tribes.

Female circumcision consists of the cutting off of the nymphoe or labia minora of the vulva, which unite over the clitoris. The rite is still performed among the Arab tribes of Moab as the time of marriage approaches. Originally it was probably a sacrifice to the goddess of fertility to secure more abundant offspring, but may have reflected the sacrifice of a part of the person instead of the whole person, which practice was endemic to the Moabites (cf. ERE. ibid.). The mutilation of the clitoris in female circumcision to prevent orgasm is a bizarre rite derived from some Middle East tribes and has

no support from either the Bible or the Koran.

The protection of female children

One of the practices that were endemic in the ancient times was that of the sacrifice of infants to Moloch and the Moon god Sin, or whatever the name was in the various regions in which it was worshipped. One of the little known facts in this process was also that females were buried in sacrifice to the deity of the earth. This practice was also as old as that of circumcision. The practice among the Arabs was noted in the article on Arabs (Ancient) (ERE, Vol. 1, pp. 669 ff.). The Koran (Qur’an) notes the practice and ascribes the true motive to it, namely poverty (Surahs 5:152; 17:33).

The victim was slain without shedding blood. In other words buried alive. This practice may well have been the basis of the legislation for the protection of female children. Our knowledge of the practice is scant now from this distance in time, but it cannot be dismissed that this injunction was laid upon us as a sign and symbol of the protection of the female child in Israel and her dedication to God in purification and removal from the pagan system of the nations, from which Israel had been selected and called.

The purification legislation also appears to have some relationship to the separation of the Messiah and his sacrifice. Messiah, having pre-existence was brought to his ministry at the end of the fourth millennial system, or forty centuries, being born in 5 BCE. The female which was the bride of the male was drawn out and kept separate for seventy centuries from Adam to the First Resurrection and then over the thousand years of the Seventh Millennium and on into the Second Resurrection of the Eighth Millennium. Thus the male was circumcised on the eighth day, being also symbolic of the end of the system symbolized by the female at eighty days. The last phase is a new heaven and a new earth.

Symbolism of the Law and the sacrifices

The sacrificial system was itself symbolic of a number of aspects of worship. The peace offering with its communion feast showed the ideal of the fellowship between God and man. The tamid or continual offering symbolized Israel’s pledge of unbroken service to Yahovah. The sin offering:

with its sprinkling of blood showed that one of the conditions of cleansing oneself from sin was to place oneself submissively before God (ERE, vol. 12, p. 148).

Circumcision was a national badge of dedication to Yahovah. The Sabbath symbolized the completion of the work of creation. The Sabbaths were themselves also the sign of the sanctification of Israel and the people of God (Ex. 31:13).

Exodus 31:13 13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between you and me throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. (KJV)

Thus any other system of Sabbaths is indicative of the worship of another God and must by law and worship, constitute idolatry. It is a compromise of the purification following on from the sacrifice of Messiah. The Law itself and the purification legislation could never make the person perfect and pointed towards a more perfect system.

Hebrews 10:1-23 1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 2 For then would

they not have ceased to be offered? Because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 7

Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. 8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15

Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, 16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17

And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. 19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; 21 And having an high priest over the house of God; 22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) (KJV)

In this way we were all cleansed. The eunuch and the Gentile, who were prevented by Law from service, were made part of the Temple of God in the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Acts 8:26-40 26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert. 27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, 28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. 29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. 32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: 33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? For his life is taken from the earth. 34

And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? Of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea. (KJV)

From this point on the eunuch had no need of a teacher and Philip was removed to show by miracles in the Holy Spirit, that the eunuch was taught directly by the spirit and had no further need of a teacher other than Christ in the Holy Spirit as the power of God being all in all. That which was in sin was purified and made holy.