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

So as has been said, this quarreling over wells that went on between the herdsmen of Gerar and Isaac’s herdsmen are a reminder of a quarrel that took place in the life of Abraham.  In the thirteenth chapter of Genesis, we read that “Lot, who was traveling with Abram, also had flocks, herds, and tents” (13:5).  Lot could be said to be “riding the coattails of Abraham’s blessings.  However, this created a problem, in that “the land could not support them while they were living side by side.  Because their possessions were so great, they were not able to live alongside one another” (13:6).  As a result, “there were quarrels between Abram’s herdsmen and Lot’s herdsmen” (13:7a).  Isaac’s solution, as we saw, was to continue his movements until there was no reason for quarreling; and if there was strife over wells and water, then it is likely that this was one of the sources of the strife between the servants of Abram and Lot as well. 

Isaac’s solution was certainly predicated on that which had been taken up by his father.  “Abram said to Lot, ‘Let there be no quarreling between me and you, and between my herdsmen and your herdsmen, for we are close relatives.  Is not the whole land before you?  Separate yourself now from me.  If you go to the left, then I’ll go to the right, but if you go to the right, then I’ll go to the left’” (13:8-9).  So the decision is made, lands are chosen, and “the relatives separated from each other” (13:11b); and as we have previously noted, Isaac marks his movement of separation by saying, “For now the Lord has made room for us, and we will prosper in the land” (26:22b). 

From there, the Scriptural record has Isaac moving again, this time to Beer Sheba.  While there, “The Lord appeared to him… 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” (26:24).  We note that Beer Sheba is also mentioned in connection with Abraham, as one of the places where he had settled.  Just before we learn that little fact, we have a record of God speaking to Abraham and saying, “I will indeed bless you, and I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be as countless as the stars in the sky or the grains of sand on the seashore.  Your descendants will take possession of the strongholds of their enemies.  Because you have obeyed Me, all the nations of the earth will pronounce blessings on one another using the name of your descendants” (22:17-18).  For sake of a chronological reminder, this word from the Lord comes in the wake of the near sacrifice of Isaac. 

Returning to the separation of Abram and Lot, we have the Lord speaking to Abram and saying, “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.  Get up and walk throughout the land, for I will give it to you” (13:14b-17).  As for Abraham, so for Isaac, in that the words that he heard from the Lord, following his time of quarreling and separation (like that experienced by Abram), are a communication of the Lord’s covenant to him.  Isaac, quite rightly, reacts to this second hearing of the divine covenant, and does so in a way that reflects the knowledge of the covenant God that has been passed on to him by his father.  We read, that “Isaac built an altar there and worshiped the Lord.  He pitched his tent there, and his servants dug a well” (26:25).  The one that was now the bearer of the covenant and the representative of God in the world, built an altar and pitched a tent.  This is also the pattern that would be followed by Israel after exodus-ing Egypt. 

The nation that bore the divine covenant to represent God in the world and to be a blessing, pitched a tent (the tabernacle).  This tent would contain both an altar, as well as the ark that represented the covenant God.  It could be said that this took place following a quarrel with the Egyptians.  Though the relationship between the Egyptians and the Israelites started off well, with Joseph, Jacob and his brothers receiving honor and welcome in the land of Egypt, it deteriorated with the growth in the numbers and power (and presumably wealth) of the growing nation of Israel in Egypt, much like as happened with Abraham (in Egypt and the land of the Philistines) and Isaac (in the land of the Philistines).  In that case, the quarreling did not result in the stopping of wells, but rather, took an entirely different form, in that the Egyptians “put foremen over the Israelites to oppress them with hard labor… But the more the Egyptians oppressed them, the more they multiplied and spread.  As a result the Egyptians loathed the Israelites, and they made the Israelites serve rigorously” (Exodus 1:11a,12-13). 

Eventually a separation would come.  The separation that came, which resulted in the construction of a tent, as well as an altar (along with detailed instructions as to how to go about utilizing that altar in proper worship), followed the pattern of Isaac, which, not unexpectedly, followed the pattern of Abraham.  Yes, when Abram and Lot went their separate ways, and when Abram was reminded of the covenant promise that had already been given to him (as Isaac would be reminded, and as Israel would be reminded), “Abram moved his tents and went to live by the oaks of Mamre in Hebron, and he built an altar to the Lord there” (13:18).  It seems that wherever we find mention being made of covenant, it is connection with some type of exodus movement, and we find the covenant bearers connected to a tent.  Truly, this God of exodus is a God of tents.  

Isaac's Life Of Exodus (part 5 of 6)

Not only did Isaac re-open the wells (sources of water and therefore life in a desert environment---crucial for Israel’s wilderness experience) that were dug by his father, “Isaac’s servants dug in the valley and discovered a well with fresh flowing water there” (Genesis 26:19).  This became yet another point of contention (just as water was a point of contention for Israel and Moses), “the herdsmen of Gerar quarreled with Isaac’s herdsmen, saying, ‘The water belongs to us!’” (26:20a)  Rather than going to war over the well, “His servants dug another well, but they quarreled over it too” (26:21a).  With this, and though it does not appear that there is a strong analogy to be drawn, are we wrong to think about the multiple times in which Israel complained about water (or the lack thereof) following their exodus?  Israel, in a sense, struggled with their trust in God (quarreling with Him if you will) when it came to water in the desert.  Again, rather than go to war with these people, “he moved away from there and dug another well.  They did not quarrel over it” (26:22a).  Isaac responded to this lack of tension by positing that “now the Lord has made room for us, and we will prosper in the land” (26:22c).  This is the attitude that would later be taken up by Israel when it came time to enter in to that which had been long promised to them.  Yet again, this incident from the life of Isaac is a re-enactment of a scene from the life of Abraham. 

Do all of these repetitions indicate that these stories are not true?  Though we must be prepared to admit that such may be the case, that is not a necessary (or even necessarily reasonable) conclusion to be drawn, especially considering the widely held and relatively easily observable axiom that history can be observed to be cyclical.  Beyond that, and most importantly, if we take this Book as the self-revelation of a covenant God that has a plan and purpose for the world that He created, then the repetitions and similarities (whether precisely factual in every detail or not) can be understood as that God going to great lengths to reveal Himself and His nature, so that we might be able to understand Him and thereby understand what it is that He desires from His image-bearing creations.  If Jesus is the embodiment of that same God, then the repetitions to be found in the very same Hebrew Scriptures that Jesus clearly accepts as authoritative and deterministic within His life and mission, are highly instructive in our attempts to comprehend Jesus as well. 

Of course, the weight that Jesus gives to these repetitive stories, and the fact that He takes the Hebrews Scriptures with seriousness and reverence, attaching His identity to the history presented therein, is reason for a high degree of confidence in their relative (generally if not in precise detail) historical accuracy.  Of course, it is the Resurrection of Jesus (as the exclamation point on a variety of reasons related to Jesus) that causes us to put stock in Jesus’ position towards these Scriptures and their stories, which happily returns us to the foundation of the Christian faith (which is a return trip that we should make quite often).  That foundation of the faith, which the Apostle Paul will say is the basis for all of our hope, and therefore all that we do and think as we function in this world as revelations of the covenant faithfulness of God who point towards a resurrection to come, is itself a grand tale of exile and exodus inside the even grander tale of exile and exodus. 

As we have been looking at the life of Isaac, is it not of interest to note that the examination of the events of his life continually point us backwards to Abraham and forward to Israel?  When we consider the Abraham and Isaac relationship of father to son, and the fact that God tells Abraham that it would be through his son that he would have a multitude of descendants (with specific reference to Israel), we should not be surprised at this occurrence.  We also note that this is the case even though the story of Isaac takes up a relatively small amount of Scripture when compared to Abraham and Israel.  So yes, even though we are looking at Isaac, we have spent more time looking at and considering Abraham, and from that we have been making applications to Israel. 

For purposes of narrative symmetry within the recorded history of Israel, this can also be said of David and Solomon.  Even though Solomon takes up a small amount of Scripture in comparison to his father, looking at Solomon’s life will cause us to learn even more about David.  In addition to that, Solomon’s life and reign, and the idolatry into which he falls, will be highly determinative for Israel’s subsequent history.  So just as Isaac’s life can shed light on Israel itself, the events of Solomon’s reign are foundational for the life of the divided kingdom of Israel that followed.  As for Isaac and Solomon, so too for Jesus.  The story of Jesus takes up a small portion of the Bible---quite small if we consider that the Gospels provide multiple tellings of one story.  Yet it is in examining and unpacking the life of Jesus that we are constantly pointed to God (like Isaac to Abraham and Solomon to David), and by which we comprehend the history of Jesus’ Israel to come, which would be His church (multitude of descendants).  So the repetition occurs at the level of history and in the overall narrative sense that is conveyed by the Scriptures.     

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 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.