A Tradition Of Wells (part 4)

Leaving Abraham, this study moves on to the next of Israel’s patriarchs, whose story will be part of the grand tale told by Israel about itself, and comes face to face with Isaac.  Not only is his wife discovered in connection with a well, but Isaac has his own well dealings.  Not surprisingly, since his life mimics that of his father in a number of ways (movements based on famine, deceptions about his wife, growing wealthy based on these deceptions, a wife that was initially childless, etc…), it is discovered that Isaac, like his father, is involved in disputes concerning wells. 

There is no need to retrace the exact course of the disputation found in the twenty-sixth chapter of Genesis, as it shall suffice to say that it looks quite similar to that which was experienced by Abraham.  Surely these disputes play into and informs the historic sensibilities that must be brought to any attempt to enter into the mindset of Jesus and that of the Samaritan woman when they engage in a partially disputative conversation at the well. 

This may prove to be especially so when considering what took place once Isaac was able to dig a well over which there was no dispute.  Isaac’s response to the digging of this undisputed well was “now the Lord has made room for us, and we will prosper in the land” (26:22b).  “From there Isaac went up to Beer Sheba.  The Lord appeared to him that night and said, ‘I am the God of your father Abraham.  Do not be afraid, for I am with you.  I will bless you and multiply your descendants for the sake of My servant Abraham.’  Then Isaac built an altar there and worshiped the Lord” (26:23-25a).  This is rounded out in a not unexpected way, as the story goes on to say that “He pitched his tent there, and his servants dug a well” (26:25b). 

Here, a well (actually two wells) is connected with a place of worship, prompting thoughts of worship and the act of worship itself.  Of course, hearkening back to yet another connection to his father, one must consider that Beer Sheba is also the place that Abraham dug a well and the place at which he made the treaty with Abimelech (Isaac also deals with an Abimelech) following the initial disputes about a well.  So naturally, Isaac’s venturing to that place is an explicit reminder of Abraham’s story (as is much of Isaac’s story in and of itself), and by extension the Creator God’s covenant with Abraham.  So perhaps one should not think of wells, especially in Scripture, without also retaining the idea of the Creator God’s covenant and His covenant faithfulness to go along with it? 

Staying with Abraham, it is recorded that he “planted a tamarisk tree in Beer Sheba” (21:33a), which was the place that he dug the well, and “There he worshiped the Lord, the eternal God” (21:33b).  Why go back to Abraham after having moved on to Isaac?  Why mention the covenant that was begun with Abraham, which would be extended to Isaac, to Jacob/Israel, and then on to the nation of Israel?  Why speak here of worship?  Because it attunes an observer to the words of the Samaritan woman, as she responds to Jesus.  “The woman said to Him, ‘Sir, I see that you are a prophet.  Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you people say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem” (4:19-20).  Here is a well, a dispute, and talk of worship, which accords nicely with the well stories that participate in shaping and defining the collective mindset of the people of Israel.   

A Tradition Of Wells (part 2)

Now, this study does not intend to go into detail concerning the story of every well, nor is it going to present an exhaustive list of the wells of Scripture---though nearly all would be instrumental in shaping the thinking of the Johannine author.  It will go into detail when doing so can provide useful interpretive background for Jesus’ time and experience at the well in John’s Gospel.  That said, the story of Hagar’s son, Ishmael, contains a well---which could also be of some interest to a Samaritan woman, especially one that references Jacob as her ancestor when speaking about the well, especially seeing as how Ishmael, the son of Abraham, is Jacob’s uncle. 

Ishmael’s well experience flows from his being sent out from his home along with his mother, at yet another request from Sarah, as she said “Banish that slave woman and her son, for the son of that slave woman will not be an heir along with my son Isaac!” (Genesis 21:10)  When their provisions ran out, Hagar becomes frantic, and is apparently convinced that her and her son are going to die.  However, the Creator God intervened on their behalf and “enabled Hagar to see a well of water.  She went over and filled the skin with water, and then gave the boy a drink” (21:19). 

In light of the reason for Hagar and Ishmael’s expulsion from the house of Abraham, how interesting that a Samaritan woman at a well, by speaking about Jacob and then speaking about the messiah, was laying claim to a tradition and to promises directed to the people of the covenant God, though she would be viewed by the descendants of Isaac (through Jacob) as an illegitimate user and usurper of such things.

Merely a few verses removed from the story of Ishmael that is connected to a well, Abraham is himself engaged in a “well” story.  Apparently there was some controversy afoot, in that “Abraham lodged a complaint against Abimelech,” the name actually being a general title of a tribal chieftain, “concerning a well that Abimelech’s servants had seized” (21:25).  Abraham offers a treaty to Abimelech in the form of a gift of seven lambs, saying “You must take these seven ewe lambs from my hand as legal proof that I dug this well” (21:30). 

So here there is a dispute concerning a well.  With that in mind, it’s not at all surprising to find a disputation in connection to the story of Jesus and the Samaritan woman.  Though the dispute was not over the well, though there is an underlying dispute about true Israelite lineage implied, the well becomes the locus of the review of one of the main points of disputation between Israel and Samaria. 

Without having to traverse too many pages of Scripture in search of the next watering hole, one finds the twenty-fourth chapter of Genesis, which contains another “well” tale.  In this story, Abraham is sending his servant to his home country and to his relatives to find a wife for Isaac, his son (24:4).  When the servant reached his desired destination, “He made the camels kneel down by the well outside the city” (24:11a). 

So that he might accomplish the task that was set before him, which would be indissolubly connected to the covenant that the Creator God had made with Abraham that his descendants would be named through Isaac, “He prayed, ‘O Lord, God of my master Abraham, guide me today.  Be faithful to my master Abraham.  Here I am, standing by the spring, and the daughters of the people who live in the town are coming out to draw water.  I will say to a  young woman, “Please lower your jar that I may drink.”  May the one you have chosen for your servant Isaac reply, “Drink, and I’ll give water to you camels too.”  In this way I will know that you have been faithful to my master.’” (24:12-14)  Effectively then, the woman that provided a drink to the servant of Abraham, would be the one through whom the Creator God would continue to carry out His covenant plans. 

Deception

Though there is much to be learned from his life, in comparison to his father and son (Abraham and Jacob), Isaac appears on the scene and passes relatively quickly from the pages of Scripture.  However, before he departs from view, we encounter the story of Isaac’s blessing of Jacob and Esau.  It is a familiar story, in that, it is a story that involves deception.  Why should this not be the case?   This is what we have now come to expect, and we will see it carried out all the way through the story of Joseph.  

If we were to explore the Biblical narrative, we would see Abraham engaging in outright deception on two occasions, and Isaac engaging in the same type of deceptive practices on one occasion.  How did those cases of deception turn out?  One could say that they turned out pretty well in the immediate aftermath of the discovery of the deceptions (gaining of individual wealth), though the deceptions may very well have had long-term implications in the area of Israel’s relations with the Egyptians and the Philistines.  In the case of Abraham, much wealth was added to him as a direct result of his engagement in deception, with those whom he defrauded supplying the material wealth.  In the case of Isaac, wealth also came to him, but it was indirect, in that the Scriptural report is that “the Lord blessed him” (Genesis 26:12b).  This blessing by the Lord, which Isaac would have been attributed by Isaac to the blessings of the covenant that had been made with Abraham, and which he now enjoyed (both the covenant and the blessings), is confirmed by what we see at the close of Isaac’s dealings with Abimelech of the Philistines.  There, we bear in mind the Abrahamic covenant, and its being passed along to Isaac, when Abimelech says to him, “Now you are blessed by the Lord” (26:29b).  

This family has displayed a history of a willingness to engage in deception, especially if such engagement is deemed to be crucial to survival (which is a questionable basis) or simply in their self-interest (much more likely).  We do not here attempt to pass judgment on this, nor do we desire to make an attempt to downplay the facts of the matter.  We do diffuse the potential argument in favor of the deceptions, in that they were dealing with those who were not, in a manner of speaking, “saved.”  However, it mattered not that they were dealing with Egyptians and Philistines, who were those outside of the covenant, for the covenant was designed and purposed to extend God’s blessings to them, so as to make them a blessing to all nations. 

These deceptive practices could very well have put in jeopardy the possibility of their being a blessing, but the results of the deception (the gaining of wealth and its attendant respect, whether direct or indirect) put them in a position to tell others about their covenant-making Creator God, His promises of blessing or cursing, and His transcendent nature as the God of all creation and all nations.  The fact that the hearers could easily observe the wealth, power, and respect that had been garnered by these men would serve as a witness to their words.  The accumulation of visual and historical evidence would then lead to an acknowledgment of their God, as we have seen here with Abimelech and his reference to “the Lord.” 

More than anything, the willful acknowledgment of these deceptive practices (for there is no escaping what they are) causes us, as observers, to look past these men to the God that had decided to use them and to work through them to make His name known in the world.  It appears to be an unavoidable conclusion that this covenant God works through flawed men in order to draw attention to Himself and to the accomplishment of His purposes.  This is why passing judgment upon these cases serves little to no purpose.  When we presume to judge, rather than simply observe and learn inside the foundational narrative of Scripture, we come to be focused on the characters that are on the stage, and we lose sight of the God that has created the stage on which the performance is taking place, and Who has a greater purpose that is being served.  This is not to say that we sanction the activities (for neither is that our place), but again, we observe and learn inside the exile and exodus criteria that is provided by the foundational narrative so that we might learn more of this God, and through that, better know Him so as to serve Him within and towards His grand design as we await His climactic, consummating, and transformational action towards His creation.  Naturally, we catch a brilliant glimpse of that climactic and transformational purpose in the Resurrection of Jesus, especially as we consider His crucifixion and Resurrection and how it can be understood within the increasingly obvious story of exile and exodus that is being so deftly told.        

Why all this talk of deception?  It seems like a bit of a black mark on the pages of Scripture.  That may be so, but only in the sense that if it is a black mark at all, it is not a black mark on Scripture, but on these men, which is useful because it keeps us from elevating them to the position of demigods, while constantly reminding us of the Creator God that would eventually embody a human form so as to do what was necessary to provide humanity and His creation with an exodus from exile. 

Isaac's Life Of Exodus (part 4 of 6)

When Isaac had been blessed in the land, with the wealth of tremendous reaping, this did not exactly go over well with the Philistines.  Though his wealth is not attributed to anything beyond providence of God, this gaining of wealth in the land of Abimelech (Gerar) is a repetition of that which had been experienced by the original bearer of the covenant of blessing.  Abimelech gave Abraham “sheep, cattle, and male and female servants” (Genesis 20:14b).  Isaac is said to have had “sheep, cattle and such a great household of servants” (26:14a).  Not only did Abraham receive such things as gifts, he was also told “Look, my land is before you; live wherever you please” (20:15).  In response, “Abraham prayed to God, and God healed Abimelech, as well as his wife and female slaves so that they were able to have children” (20:17).  We read that Abraham did this, thereby becoming the exemplary of divine blessing that God had ordained him to be (rather than the deceiver of these people), “For the Lord had caused infertility to strike every woman in the household of Abimelech because he took Sarah, Abraham’s wife” (20:18).  Interestingly, the revelation of divine blessing that Abimelech and his household received was precisely the same blessing that Abraham would receive, and which would enable him to even have a household.  Abimelech’s wives were barren, as was Abraham’s wife. 

It would be immediately after Abraham prays and the Lord restores fertility to Abimelech’s household, that the Scriptural record confirms that “The Lord visited Sarah just as He had said He would and did for Sarah what He had promised” (21:1).  The Lord brought life to Sarah’s womb, and also brought life to the womb’s of Abimelech’s wives.  In a culture in which having children was highly prized, and in which not having children was a source of shame (with shame being the near equivalent of death in an honor and shame society), the God of Abraham becomes the God of vindication, of exodus, and of resurrection for Abimelech and his household, just as He will also show Himself to be for Abraham.  How incredibly fascinating that God does for Abimelech, through Abraham, what He promised to do for Abraham, doing it for Abimelech before He did it for Abraham.  How difficult it must have been for Abraham to pray for fertility to come to Abimelech’s household while awaiting the same to come to him.

Whereas Abraham is well appreciated by Abimelech, even after attempting to defraud him, and whereas Abraham becomes a blessing for Abimelech and the Philistines, the same cannot be said of Isaac.  His growing wealth produced the effect that “the Philistines became jealous of him” (26:14b).  In response, “the Philistines took dirt and filled up all the wells that his father’s servants had dug back in the days of his father Abraham” (26:15).  Rather than hearing what Abraham heard, which was “live wherever you please,” what Isaac heard, through these actions by the Philistines, was “please leave.”  Just in case he did not get the point with the filling of his wells, which would his continued dwelling there impossible anyway, “Abimelech said to Isaac, ‘Leave us and go elsewhere, for you have become much more powerful that we are’” (26:16).  As Israel would tell its story, this would be a natural parallel to Israel’s experience in Egypt, when “a new king, who did not know about Joseph, came to power over Egypt.  He said to his people, ‘Look at the Israelite people, more numerous and stronger that we are!  Come, let’s deal wisely with them.  Otherwise they will continue to multiply, and if a war breaks out, they will ally themselves with our enemies and fight against us” (Exodus 1:8-10a). 

This rejection of Isaac by the Philistines is not unfortunate, in that it forces Isaac into the mold that we have come to expect, which is that of exile and exodus, and a yet a further reminder of the God of movement.  Abraham went to Egypt, underwent a figurative oppression through having his wife “taken” from him, grew in numbers and power and gained great wealth, saw plagues come upon Pharaoh’s household, and was then expelled from the land.  Later, Israel went down to Egypt, and though the sequence is not necessarily the same, they grew in number, were oppressed, saw plagues come upon the whole of Pharaoh’s household (the Egyptian empire), and were then expelled from the land, gaining great wealth as part of the expulsion.  Isaac went to Gerar, grew in wealth, suffered the oppression of local opposition through the stopping of his wells (almost like a military siege), and was asked to leave.  We only lack evidence of some type of plague upon the Philistines or upon Abimelech’s house to complete the nearly identical picture (in events, if not in sequence).  This story of exiles and exodus and movement is the story that Israel was able to tell as they sought to understand and to reveal their God. 

In being exodus-ed, as he was actually in exile from the land promised to his father when in Gerar---yes, exile can even entail growing in wealth and enjoying God’s blessings and being a blessing, in fact, God will later demand that His people seek the good of their oppressors, when exiled to Babylon, “Isaac left there and settled in the Gerar Valley” (26:17).  Upon arrival there, making the point that the earlier stopping up of the wells that are essential to life can be equated with forcing Isaac to leave, the first thing that happened was “Isaac reopened the wells that had been dug back in the days of his father Abraham” (26:18a).  In this, not only is Isaac mimicking Abraham, but he represents something of a forerunner to Israel in their post-Egypt wilderness experience.      

Isaac's Life Of Exodus (part 3)

With this examination of Abraham and Isaac, let’s not use this as a reason to get too down on them.  They were, after all, human.  They were not demi-gods, though for some reason we tend to think of them in that way.  No, they were simply two of those that God chose so as to make manifest His will and to carry forward His purposes of human and cosmic redemption.  They were also men of faith.  In what was important in God’s eyes, which was trusting Him in going out to the lands and places that God had for them, they seemed to have attained.  The bottom line was that they trusted in the God of exodus, who would lead them to the places and the situations in which He could best demonstrate, through them and their blessed lives, His covenant faithfulness.  He could do this in spite of their shortcomings. 

Returning to the story of Isaac, we find that “After Isaac had been there a long time, Abimelech king of the Philistines happened to look out a window and observed Isaac caressing his wife Rebekah” (Genesis 26:8).  It seems that Isaac had gotten a little careless, perhaps forgetful of their ruse in that moment.  Abimelech was distressed at this situation, and with what appears to possibly be a knowledge of what happened to Pharaoh’s house when Abraham’s wife was taken in to his harem, said “What in the world have you done to us?  One of the men might easily have had an sexual relations with your wife, and you would have brought guilt on us!” (26:10b)  Here again we see a sense of honor, which is further demonstrated by Abimelech’s subsequent command that “Whoever touches this man or his wife will surely be put to death” (26:11b).  So contrary to Isaac’s “fear” that he would be killed so that the men of the land could get to Rebekah, we see the opposite established, in that anybody that so much as lifted a finger in the direction of Isaac and Rebekah would invite death upon themselves. 

There is an element here that causes use to hearken back to an earlier event in the life of Isaac, which was his near-sacrifice at the hands of his father.  In that event, Abraham expected to have to slaughter his son.  However, he had a promise that he would have countless descendants through that son.  The fact that Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son in the face of that promise, along with his words to his servants that both he and the boy would return from the mountain of sacrifice, is an indication that Abraham expected his covenant God to raise his son up from the dead.  Abraham’s faith was vindicated.  As the author of Hebrews would come to write, Abraham “reasoned that God could even raise him from the dead, and in a sense he received him back from there” (11:19).  This event was looked upon in the history of Israel as something like a movement from death to resurrection.  It was conceived of as an instance of suffering to vindication.  This means that we can view it as a movement from exile to exodus. 

So likewise, Isaac’s fear of being killed by the Philistines (regardless of whether it was true fear or a strategic ploy by which to gain wealth), coupled with his “rescue” from death by Abimelech, can be viewed according to the same pattern, as it points not primarily to the actions of Isaac, but to the exodus-ing, vindicating God of Scripture.  With such thoughts in place, the same can then be said of Abraham, in that there is a recurring theme of death to resurrection (suffering to vindication, exile to exodus) in relation to the situations with he and his wife.  For Abraham, both of those situations resulted in his being tremendously blessed with material wealth by the very men that he had defrauded.  As we have said, it is possible that Isaac was hoping for the same outcome.  However, it did not happen in this way for Isaac.  Nobody took his wife from him, so he received no bride price (as did Abraham in Egypt).  Nobody took his wife from him, so he did not receive payments for his and his wife’s vindication (as did Abraham with Abimelech).  However, we do go on to find out that “When Isaac planted in that land, he reaped in the same year a hundred times what he had sown, because the Lord blessed him.  The man became wealthy.  His influence continued to grow until he became very prominent” (26:12-13).               

Isaac's Life Of Exodus (part 2)

Isaac, of course, would be able to easily identify the pattern that was unfolding.  As the bearer of the divine covenant, and as the one through whom God was promising to bless the peoples of the world, it would be unreasonable to suppose that Abraham did not routinely share the details of his life with his family and with all those with whom he came into contact.  Isaac would be fully cognizant of the fact that what he was now experiencing was a mirror of that which had been experienced by his father.  In that light, what son would not think along the lines of “if it worked for him, it will work for me”?  So upon reaching Gerar, which was, coincidentally, the same place that his father had settled (as presumably directed by God as part of Abraham’s movements in the region), Isaac entered into the ploy of informing the people of Gerar that his wife was actually his sister. 

Now for Abraham, this was not an untruth, as his wife was his half-sister.  For Isaac, this was a total deception, as Rebekah was a cousin.  This makes Isaac a bit of a liar, thereby putting him in tremendous Biblical company.  This serves as yet another reminder of the purpose of this Word, which is not to simply tell us the story of various men and women, or the story of a particular people so as to elevate them; but rather, to present to us by way of these stories that are designed to give us a basic understanding of His nature, a faithful God that uses individuals and peoples so as to accomplish His purposes in and for this world. 

Why would Isaac resort to such things?  What would be Isaac’s motivation to present himself and his wife in this way?  The Scriptures inform us that “He was afraid to say, ‘She is my wife,’ for he thought to himself, ‘The men of this place will kill me to get Rebekah because she is very beautiful.’” (26:7b)  On the surface this sounds good.  It is also the same thing we find Abraham communicating to his wife.  When Abraham went to Egypt, he had instructed Sarah (Sarai) to “tell them you are my sister so that it may go well for me because of you and my life will be spared on account of you” (12:13).  When Abram went to Gerar, he “said about his wife Sarah, ‘She is my sister.’” (20:2a) 

In Egypt, “Abram’s wife was taken into the household of Pharaoh, and he (Pharaoh) did treat Abram well on account of her” (12:15b-16a), with Abram receiving a substantial amount of livestock, presumably as a bridal price.  In Gerar, “Abimelech…sent for Sarah and took her” (20:2b).  In both instances, by saying that his wife was his sister, Abraham ended up having his wife taken from him.  In both instances, there is never any indication that Abraham’s life was in danger simply because his wife was beautiful; and in any case, it seems to be the case that the insistence that his wife was his sister put Abraham in the position of not being able to justify denying a request for marriage, should such a request be made.  In fact, what this looks like is a ploy to gain wealth through what is, for all practical purposes, prostitution, while relying on a sense of honor on the part of the men that took his wife, when it would eventually be revealed that she was his wife and not his sister.  Again, in both of the cases of Abraham and Sarah, when the deceived men find out the truth, and when they would be more than justified in killing Abraham for his lies and his dishonorable treatment of them, they act honorably toward Abraham, thus negating the supposed fear of death that had been the foundational need for the deception.  In fact, when it comes to the situation in Gerar, after finding out the truth, “Abimelech gave sheep, cattle, and male and female servants to Abraham,” he told him to “live wherever you please,” and he also gave him “a thousand pieces of silver” (20:14a,15b,16b). 

Though Abraham does gain great wealth through these tactics, is therefore in an even greater position to exemplify divine blessing (as his increasing wealth will given him an even more lofty position from which to tell the story of his covenant God), and though he does have an even greater story of divine faithfulness to tell (depending on the perspective from which the story is told), one cannot help but think that his interactions make him something less than the shining light of God’s glory to these people with which he dealt.  Beyond that, one also cannot help but think that the deceptions that were practiced against the pharaoh of Egypt (by Abraham) and the king of the Philistines (by Abraham and Isaac, as we shall see) must have influenced the later dealings between the Egyptians, the Philistines, and Israel.  Indeed, when we encounter Joseph as the ruler of Egypt, we find that “The Egyptians are not able to eat with Hebrews, for the Egyptians think it is disgusting to do so” (43:32b).  Might this situation that presents some type of underlying conflict between Egyptians and Hebrews have something to do with the deception perpetrated against Pharaoh by Abraham, and the fact that, as a result, “Pharaoh and his household” had been struck “with severe diseases” (12:17)? 

So returning to Isaac again, we find that his purported reasoning, that of fear of being killed, rings somewhat hollow.  It seems that he was relying on the Abrahamic pattern, almost hopeful that his wife’s beauty, along with his reporting that she was his sister, would lead to her being taken up as a wife just as his mother had been, which would thereby lead to greater wealth for himself.  Why not?  His father had been given the covenant, and had done these things and prospered.  Why should the son, who had also been given the covenant, not also engage in such activities?  It seemed to portend an extension of divine blessings. 

Isaac's Life Of Exodus (part 1)

Some of the Biblical details of the life of Isaac, as is well known, present themselves as a repetition of events that are also to be found as part of the life of Abraham.  As we consider this in the overwhelming light of the repetitive hermeneutical framework of the Scriptures, not only should we find this fact to be unsurprising, but it should re-confirm that the Bible, though this may sound redundant, can and should be understood as a revelation of God inside of and according to a repetitive hermeneutical framework.  Remembering this will aid us in that which is most important, which is the task of coming to an understanding of what is meant by the words of Jesus, along with His life, death, resurrection, and ascension, inside the understanding of Israel and its role in the world as presented by the Hebrew Scriptures that are shaped by the story of the exodus. 

We should be able to understand Jesus, and therefore able to understand those who told us about Jesus (Gospel writers), as well as those that presented the early church’s understanding of Jesus (authors of New Testament letters), because of what we know about God based on this obvious repetitive theme.  If Israel’s God is the God of exodus, and if the notion of exile is always bound up with exodus, and if this God presents Himself as a God of movement in accordance with His over-arching plans for exodus, then operating within this hermeneutic will shed a fair amount of illumination upon the God-revealing Scriptures, allowing us to avoid pointlessly spiritualized, unnecessarily existential, unfortunately de-contextualized, and often catastrophic mis-readings. 

Returning to Isaac, the first stories of him that are independent from Abraham have him experiencing a famine and considering a trek to Egypt.  This is familiar.  However, the Lord intervenes and says to Isaac: “Do not go down to Egypt” (Genesis 26:2b).  Thus, it is almost as if Abraham’s venture to Egypt is repeated in Isaac’s life.  That’s an odd things to say.  However, what we can see is that rather than Isaac actually going to Egypt, and then being sent out of Egypt as was Abraham, the inclination to Egypt, and God’s call to retrieve Isaac from such thinking, serve in place of an actual journey.  Even in this we find an exile and exodus construction.  The command that is then given to Isaac is to “settle down in the land that I will point out to you” (26:2c).  This is immediately followed by “Stay in this land” (26:3a).  Now, this is not to say that Isaac was to stay where he was, but that Isaac was to “stay in this land” that was going to be pointed out to him by the Lord.  It appears to be the case that the words of the first verse are explained by the subsequent verses, in that we have a record that “Isaac when to Abimelech king of the Philistines at Gerar” (26:1b) because of the famine in the land.  It was before going to Gerar that Isaac considered going to Egypt to escape the famine, as his father had done.  It is during this consideration that God speaks to Isaac, promising direction, which the result that “Isaac settled in Gerar” (26:6b). 

Before Isaac made his move to settle in Gerar, he receives the promise that had first been delivered to Abraham.  After directing Isaac to trust Him, the Lord speaks and says, “Then I will be with you and will bless you, for I will give all these lands to you and to your descendants, and I will fulfill the solemn promise I made to your father Abraham.  I will multiply your descendants so they will be as numerous as the stars in the sky, and I will give them all these lands.  All the nations of the earth will pronounce blessings on one another using the name of your descendants” (26:3b-4).  What we see in this is a collapsing of all of the various promises made to Abraham into one single iteration from the Lord.  We should not be surprised to find that the first instance of God’s speaking directly to Isaac so as to extend the Abrahamic covenant to him and through him, occurs in conjunction with a command to move and a demand for trust.  God first spoke and made promises to Abraham (Abram) by directing him to “go out from” the place that he was dwelling at the time (Haran, having already left Ur with his father), and evoking a need for Abram to trust Him with “to a land that I will show you” (12:1).  So also the record of Isaac’s initial personal dealing with the same God, with the Lord effectively instructing him to go out (“do not go down to Egypt; settle down in…”, while positing a need for trust with the statement in regards to “the land that I will point out to you.” 

Movement (part 2 of 3)

Continuing our observation of the “movement” of Scripture, Abram is not long in the land before there is a famine.  In response, he moves south to Egypt (Genesis 12:10).  Later, he is expelled from Egypt due to deceptive acts perpetrated by he and his wife (12:20) but not before receiving “sheep and cattle, male donkeys, male servants, female servants, female donkeys and camels” (12:16b).  Owing to that, and with these possessions, Abram left Egypt and “returned to the place where he had pitched his tent at the beginning… This was the place where he had first built the altar, and there Abram worshiped the Lord” (13:3b,4).  Once again, we see a foreshadowing of the great movement of the people of God, in an exit from Egypt, an altar, the worship of the Lord, and mention of a tent. 

Shortly thereafter, we hear God saying to Abram, “Look from the place where you stand to the north, south, east, and west. I will give all the land that you see to you and your descendants forever.  And I will make your descendants like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone is able to count the dust of the earth, then your descendants can also be counted” (13:14b-16).  Not only is Abram directed to look, but God adds to this by saying “Get up and walk throughout the land, for I will give it to you” (13:17).  Yet again, just as we have seen when Noah and his family make their departure from the ark, God demands movement.  There is a more than a superficial correlation between God’s command to Noah to fill the earth, and God’s command to Abram to get up and walk throughout the land.  In both cases, there is a promise from God connected to movement.  As a result, “Abram moved his tents and went… and he built an altar to the Lord…” (13:18)  Additionally, let us not discount the importance that can be attached to “looking.”  Moses, though he is not denied the opportunity to move with the people of God into the land, is given the opportunity to look upon the land, thus enabling us to make an appropriate connection between the two men that can be thought of as bearing God’s covenant. 

When the Lord comes to Abram in a vision and gives him a promise of an heir and descendants, and the reiteration of a promise of a land to possess.  These promises are accompanied by a reminder of his being taken out of Ur of the Chaldeans (15:7), a promise that those descendants will go into subjection to a foreign nation in a foreign country (15:13), and a promise that when they come out of that foreign land that they will do so with many possessions (15:14).  This, of course, is what was supposed to have sustained Israel during their time in Egypt, as well as the evidence (many possessions---plundering the Egyptians, and thus providing an even further revelation of the tremendous symmetry of Scripture---both Abram and Israel would go down into Egypt and leave Egypt with more than they possessed when going in) that would have been purposed to increase their trust in the covenant faithfulness of their God, that He would bring them into the land that had been promised to Abram.  We note with interest that when God speaks to Abram, he reminds Abram of his own exodus, just as when God speaks to His prophets or speaks to His people through His prophets, He is almost always very quick to remind them of their exodus.  For Abram, the exodus is linked to Ur, and for Israel it is linked to Egypt.  When God speaks, He is quite often reminding His chosen ones that He is the God of exodus---the God of rescue. 

We will find Abraham (now with name changed) journeying again, settling “between Kadesh and Shur” (20:1b).  It is said that “he lived as a temporary resident in Gerar” (20:1c), which can be taken to imply that Abraham pitched his tent in that place.  It is here that Abraham will have his dealings with Abimelech, in which he again engages in deceptive acts regarding the nature of the relationship between he and his wife.  This time however, Abraham is not expelled from the land, but is told “Look, my land is before you; live wherever you please” (20:15).  It appears to be the case that it is in this place that Abraham’s wife, Sarah, gives birth to Isaac, for we later learn that “Abraham stayed in the land of the Philistines for quite some time” (21:34). 

The next time we find Abraham moving, it is in connection with this son that was born to him according to God’s promise, when God says to Abraham to “Take your son---your only son, whom you love, Isaac---and go to the land of Moriah!  Offer him up there as a burnt sacrifice on one of the mountains which I will indicate to you” (22:2).  The faithful movement of Abraham in response to this commandment results in an offering on an altar (but not of Isaac), and yet another reiteration of the original covenant promise to Abraham (22:17-18).  Not surprisingly then, we immediately read that Abraham “set out” (22:19).  Though this setting out was simply a return to his home, the fact that there is a  “setting out” set before us following a revelation of God should not go unnoticed.