Genesis 21:22-24

5. The Covenant with Abimelech (Genesis 21:22-34)

22 And it came to pass at that time, that Abimelech and Phicol the captain of his host spake unto Abraham, saying, God is with thee in all that thou doest: 23 now therefore swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son's son: but according to the kindness that I have done unto thee, thou shalt do unto me, and to the land wherein thou hast sojourned. 24 And Abraham said, I will swear. 25 And Abraham reproved Abimelech because of the well of water, which Abimelech's servants had violently taken away. 26 And Abimelech said, I know not who hath done this thing: neither didst thou tell me, neither yet heard I of it, but today. 27 And Abraham took sheep and oxen, and gave them unto Abimelech; and they two made a covenant. 28 And Abraham set seven ewe lambs of the flock by themselves. 29 And Abimelech said unto Abraham, What mean these seven ewe lambs which thou hast set by themselves? 30 And he said, These seven ewe lambs shalt thou take of my hand, that it may be a witness unto me, that I have digged this well. 31 Wherefore he called that place Beer-sheba; because there they sware both of them. 32 So they made a covenant at Beer-sheba: and Abimelech rose up, and Phicol the captain of his host, and they returned into the land of the Philistines. 3 3 And Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beer-sheba, and called there on the name of Jehovah, the Everlasting God. 34 And Abraham sojourned in the land of the Philistines many days.

At that time, that is, about the time Isaac was born, Jewish scholarship explains this incidentthe dialogue between Abimelech and Abrahamsubstantially as follows (SC, 106-107). Abimelech recognized that God was with Abraham, as evident by the latter's escape from Sodom (and his abandonment of that area as his place of residence), and the birth of Isaac in Sarah's declining years. On these grounds Abimelech sought peace between them by means of a covenant (in this sense, a pact, a treaty), not on the ground of Abraham's wealth and power. The king reminded the patriarch of his kindness in permitting the latter to live in the land surrounding Gerar, seat of the royal residence, and sought from him a formal declaration of reciprocal courtesy. To give support to this approach and to the proposed pact, the king brought with him, Phicol, the leader of his army (cf. Genesis 26:26). We now learn that the reason for Abimelech's proposal was the fact that a strained relationship had arisen; this, said he, should not be allowed to persist. Whereupon Abraham replied that his only cause of complaint was the theft by violence of one of his wells, by Abimelech's servants. (Skinner (ICCG, 326) thinks that the right to several wells was being contestedon the basis of the frequentative used here; also on the basis of the plural -Wells-' in the LXX, Brooke-McLean adition, 1906; and especially by comparison with the fuller parallel in Genesis 26:18. Skinner translates, And as often as Abraham took Abimelech to task about the wells ... Abimelech would answer. etc.) To this the king replied that he had not been cognizant of the incident until -today-' (i.e., the day on which he was meeting with Abraham to propose this mutual agreement), even chiding the patriarch for not telling him about it. (This would seem to refute Skinner: indeed Abraham might well have dug several wells, but the violence may have occurred at only one of them.) When the air had been cleared by this preliminary exchange, the covenant was actualized. (Some authorities think that the word covenant in Scripture should be used exclusively to signify pacts in which God is one of the parties involved). It must be kept in mind that in these hot countries a well was of great value (cf. Genesis 26:18-21).

Genesis 21:28-30: The seven ewe-lambs. Abraham's explanation of his purpose in presenting the seven-ewe lambs to the king by themselvesan allusion to the special end which they were intended to serveand the king's acceptance of them, signified Abimelech's renunciation of all claim to the well in question. The gift or exchange of presents frequently accompanied the making of a covenant (cf. 1 Kings 15:19, Isaiah 30:6, Hosea 12:1-2), the exchange in this case, however, was not an integral part of the covenant. The covenant itself (berith) was then confirmed by the mutual oath-taking: hence the name Beersheba, meaning the Well of the Oath, after the essential element of the covenant. The first part of the compound means -well-'; but the second part could be either -seven-' or -oath.-' Hence an original and entirely appropriate -Well of Seven,-' that is, Seven-Wells, lent itself to elaboration as -Well of the Oath,-' which popular etymology would be loath to ignore. As a matter of fact, all three connotationswell, seven, and oathfigure in the present episode through the medium of popular interpretation: a dispute over a well is resolved by a treaty that is solemnized by seven ewes, which in turn symbolize a mutual oath (ABG, 159-160). But Skinner seems to insist that the seven lambs, a present or gift, was not an understood part of the ceremony, at least on the part of Abimelech. Why can we not let the Bible say what it means and mean what it says? that is, why is it necessary to assume that Abraham himself had nothing to do with the naming of the place, in view of the plain statement in Genesis 21:31 that he did, and that he so named it with regard to the mutual oath taken by the king and himself, the Well of the Oath? (Why does the ultra-academic mentality insist on reading discrepancies into Scripture passages when there is no necessity for such nit-picking) Can it be true that the ultra-educated mind has become so intellectually bogged down with minutiae that it has lost the power to think, or at least to think straight?) It seems that the whole question involved here is presented with complete clarity: that the first group of animals, Genesis 21:27, symbolized the basic pact (cf. Genesis 15:9 ff.), that the second group, on the other hand, the seven ewe-lambs, was clearly labeled a gift, the acceptance of which by Abimelech was to constitute the validation of Abraham's claim to the well. (Obviously Abraham may have caused other wells to be dug after this occurrence, cf. Genesis 26:18). The king and his captain then returned into the land of the Philistines, that is, they simply returned from Beersheba where this took place, to Gerar which was the capital (SC, 107). As Beersheba lay in the same general area it could also be described as being in the land of the Philistines. Beersheba did not belong to Gerar, in the stricter sense; but the Philistines extended their wanderings so far, and claimed the district as their own, as is evident from the fact that Abimelech's people had taken the well from Abraham. On the other hand, Abraham with his numerous flocks would not confine himself to the Wady es Seba, but must have sought for pasturage in the whole surrounding country; and as Abimelech had given him full permission to dwell in the land (Genesis 20:15), he would still, as heretofore, frequently come as far as Gerar, so that his dwelling at Beersheba (Genesis 22:19) might be correctly described as sojourning (nomadizing) in the land of the Philistines (BCOTP, 247). There are several wells in this vicinity, in our day, we are told, the largest of which is a little over 12 feet in diameter; the digging of this well involved cutting through 16 feet of solid rock.. Conder found a date indicating that repairs had been carried out as late as the 12 th century A.D. At the time of his visit in 1874, it was 38 feet to the surface of the water (NBD, 138).

Genesis 21:33The tamarisk tree, planted by Abraham in Beersheba, common in Egypt and in Petraea, has been found growing in recent years near the ancient Beersheba. This is a species of stunted bush or gnarled tree of desert areas. The planting of this long-lived tree, with its hard wood, and its long, narrow, thickly clustered, evergreen leaves, was to be a type of the ever-enduring grace of the faithful covenant God. But there is no mention whatever of a cult associated with this place, or of sacrifice in memoriam of the treaty made there. The tamarisk with its firm and durable wood was a fitting emblem of the Everlasting God. Why some make a fetish of this tree, or others say that the tree was only -believed to have been planted by Abraham,-' is beyond our power to explain (EG, 614). Sacred trees, sacred wells, sacred stones, etc., each sacred by virtue of the event which it memorialized, are common throughout the Scriptures (cf. Joshua 4:7; Genesis 35:8; Genesis 13:18; Exodus 3:1-5; cf. Exodus 34:13; Deuteronomy 16:21-22; cf. Deuteronomy 33:16; cf. also Genesis 2:16-17; Genesis 3:6; Revelation 22:2). Jehovah, the Everlasting God. The peculiar term here, El Olam, apparently is to justify the translation, the Eternal. (The critics assume that there was a Cult of Beersheba, among the sacra of which there must have been a sacred tamarisk believed to have been placed there by Abraham. Hence the name of Deity here is explained presumably as being the pre-Israelite name of the local numen [presiding spirit] here identified with Yahwe. But this whole hypothesis is based on the apriori determination to explain everything recorded in the Old Testament solely in the light of pagan mythologies and cults: hence the many such instances in Genesis. The fact seems to be that no concrete evidence exists to justify the notion that in this particular account in Genesis a grove was involved rather than a single tamarisk tree. Similarly, there is no real warrant, outside human speculation, for trying to tie in the name of Jehovah here with any localized numen. I find Lange's explanation the simplest and most convincing (CDHCG, 460): Abraham had earlier (Genesis 14:22) designated Jehovah as El Elyon, then recognized him (Genesis 17:1) as El Shaddai. It follows from this that Jehovah had revealed himself to him under various aspects, whose definitions form a parallel to the universal name Elohim. The God of the highest majesty who gave him victory over the kings of the East, the God of miraculous power who bestowed upon him his son Isaac, now revealed himself in his divine covenant-truth, over against the temporary covenant with Abimelech, as the eternal God. And the tamarisk might well signify this also, that the hope of his seed for Canaan should remain green until the most distant future, uninjured by his temporary covenant with Abimelech, which he will hold sacred. (For the tamarisk, cf. also 1 Samuel 22:6; 1 Samuel 31:13; for The Everlasting God, cf. Exodus 15:18, Psalms 90:2, Jeremiah 10:10, Deuteronomy 32:40, Daniel 6:26, Romans 1:20, Ephesians 3:9, 2 Peter 3:8; Revelation 1:8; Revelation 4:9; Revelation 22:13, etc.) Speiser (ABG, 159): This need not, however, refer to the local deity of Beer-sheba, but may be a local epithet of a deity called upon to support a formal treaty that is expected to be valid for all time. Genesis 21:34More and more Abraham, and later his son Isaac, saw that this southern extremity of the land (Palestine) was best suited to his sojourning. (This word sojourning is indeed the key to Abraham's life throughout: cf. Hebrews 11:8-10). Many daysaccording to Rashi's calculations: More than in Hebron: in Hebron he dwelt twenty-five years but here twenty-six years (SC, 108). (Cf. Genesis 22:19; Genesis 26:23-33; Genesis 28:10; Genesis 46:1).

FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING

The Allegory of Sarah and Hagar

Galatians 4:21-31, cf. 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, Revelation 21:2. An allegory is defined as a sustained comparison, as a prolonged metaphor, in which typically a series of actions are symbolic of other actions (Webster). In the allegory of Sarah and Hagar the Apostle certainly points up the principle of interpretation on which we have insisted, in this work on Genesis, from the very beginning, namely, that no Scripture passage or incident can be clearly understood, or interpreted, except in the light of the teaching of the Bible as a whole. Failure to recognize this norm is responsible for ninety per cent, I should say, of the doctrinal confusion that abounds in the nominal Christian world.

In our text the Apostle teaches us that in Hagar and Sarah we have an allegory of the Old and the New Covenants respectively (in stereotyped form, the two Testaments which make up the entire Bible). On the basis of this allegorical interpretation, we find the following comparisons (in this case, points of difference):

HAGAR

SARAH

(fugitive, flight)

(princess)

__the bondwoman, slave, Genesis 21:10; Genesis 21:12; Galatians 4:30.

__the freewoman, the wife, Genesis 17:15-19, Galatians 4:31.

Ishmael, God hears, the child of bondage, Genesis 16:15, Galatians 4:21-31.

__Isaac, laughter, the child of Divine promise, Genesis 17:19; Genesis 18:14; Genesis 21:2; Galatians 4:23.

__the Old Covenant, which engendered unto bondage, Galatians 4:24.

__the New Covenant, which engenders unto freedom, Galatians 4:26, John 8:31-32, Romans 8:1-11, James 1:25.

__made with the fleshly seed of Abraham, Genesis 12:1-3; Genesis 17:7; Deuteronomy 5:1-5, Jeremiah 31:31-34.

__made with the spiritual seed of Abraham, those redeemed by Christ Jesus, Galatians 3:23-29, 1 Corinthians 12:13, 1 Peter 2:1-5.

__mediated by Moses, Deuteronomy 5:4-5; John 1:17; John 7:19; Galatians 3:18-20.

__mediated by Christ, 1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 8:1-6; Hebrews 9:15; Hebrews 12:24.

__included Jews (and proselytes) only, Genesis 17:9-14.

__includes all obedient believers in Christ, both Gentiles and Jews, Ephesians 2:11-22; Ephesians 3:6-7; Romans 11:28-32; Galatians 3:23-29.

__that of natural or fleshly birth (generation), Genesis 17:13.

__that of spiritual birth (re generation), John 3:1-7; Romans 5:5; Romans 8:1-11; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 1 Corinthians 6:19; Galatians 5:22-25, 2 Corinthians 3:1-3, Titus 3:5.

__that of fleshly circumcision, as the sign and seal thereof, hence infants and heathen servants, who had to be taught to know the Lord after their induction into the Covenant by circumcision, Genesis 17:9-14; John 3:6; John 7:22; Acts 7:8; Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:7-12.

__that of spiritual circumcision as the sign and seal thereof, Romans 2:29, Ephesians 2:11, Philippians 3:3, Colossians 2:9-12. Cf. Acts 2:38, John 3:5; Romans 5:5; Romans 6:1-9; Galatians 3:27, 2 Corinthians 1:22, 1 Corinthians 3:16; 1 Corinthians 6:19. (See under Part 30, Circumcision of the Heart.)

that of an earthly (the Levitical) priesthood, Exodus 28:1, Hebrews 5:4; Hebrews 7:1-9.

__that of the priesthood of all obedient believers, 2 Peter 2:5; 2 Peter 2:9; Revelation 1:6, Romans 12:1.

__that of an earthly (the Aaronic) high priesthood, Leviticus 8:1-9.

__that of the royal High Priest hood of Christ, after the order of Melchizedek, i.e., the King-Priest without beginning of days or end of life, Psalms 110:4; Heb., chs. 7, 8, 9, 10.

__that of Law, John 1:17, the bond written in ordinances, Colossians 2:14, Romans 2:12-16, Luke 24:44, etc.

__that of Grace (unmerited favor), John 1:27, Romans 3:24; Romans 7:4; Romans 8:3; Romans 10:4; Ephesians 2:8, Titus 3:7, Acts 20:24, etc.

__that of Law written on tables of stone, Exodus 32:15, Deuteronomy 10:4, Hebrews 9:4, 2 Corinthians 3:3.

__that of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, Romans 8:2, 1 Corinthians 15:45, John 6:63; John 6:68; written on tablets of human hearts, 2 Corinthians 3:3 (R.S.V.); hence, by the hearing of faith, Galatians 3:2. (Cf. also Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 11:19).

__that of the letter, i.e., of the Mosaic Law regarded as a yoke of externalism, a system that possessed no life of its own, and inspired no life in others. Romans 3:19-20.

__that of the spirit, 2 Corinthians 3:3, Romans 3:21-27; John 6:63; Romans 8:1-11; that which makes for freedom in Christ Jesus, John 8:31-32, James 1:25; freedom both from the guilt of sin (Ezekiel 18:19-20; and from the consequences of sin, Exodus 20:5-6,-' and from passion, pride, superstition, prejudice, etc., as well, John 6:63.

__that of the ministration of death, 2 Corinthians 3:7; that is, the Law passes the death sentence on all who disobey it, 1 Corinthians 15:56, Romans 5:12.

that of the ministration of the spirit, Romans 7:6; Romans 8:6; John 6:63; 2 Corinthians 3:6.

__that of the ministration of condemnation, 2 Corinthians 3:9; the system of thou-shalt nots, disobedience to which was sin, and usually incurred the death penalty, e.g., Numbers 15:32-36; John 8:5.

__that of the ministration of righteousness, i.e., justification, Romans 5:1-11. Cf. also Romans 2:27-29; Romans 7:6; Romans 8:11; Galatians 5:8, 1 Corinthians 15:45. John 8:5the Law would stone the adulteress; the Gospel said to her, Go, and sin no more.

__that of a system of shadows or types, Heb., chs. 9, 10; cf. Romans 5:14, 1 Peter 3:19-21.

__that of the antitypes, the realities of heavenly things, Hebrews 8:5, also ch. 10.

__that system under which the gifts and powers of the Holy Spirit were bestowed only on individuals to qualify them for tasks which God commissioned them to perform, Genesis 20:7, Nehemiah 9:9-30, Isaiah 63:10-15; Numbers 11:17; Numbers 11:25-30; Numbers 27:18-23; Exodus 35:30-35; Judges 4:4; Judges 3:10; Judges 11:29; Judges 14:6; Judges 14:14; Judges 14:19; 1 Samuel 11:6; 1 Samuel 16:13; 2 Samuel 23:1-2; 1 Chronicles 28:11-12; cf. Nehemiah 9:20, 2 Peter 1:21, 1 Peter 1:10-12; hence, imperfect in the sense that it lacked the promises connected with the Gospel, Jeremiah 31:31-34, Hebrews 8:7-12; Hebrews 9:11-15; Hebrews 10:1-18.

__that system under which all obedient believersthe churchshare the indwelling of the Spirit, John 7:37-39, Acts 2:38, Romans 5:5, 1 Corinthians 3:16; 1 Corinthians 6:19; Romans 8:11, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Romans 14:17, 1 Peter 1:2; hence, said to be enacted upon better promises, viz., remission of sins, the indwelling of the Spirit, and eternal life, Acts 2:38; Romans 5:5; Romans 8:9-11, 2 Corinthians 1:22; Ephesians 4:30; Ephesians 5:18; Matthew 25:46, Romans 6:23, John 3:16.

Farrar (PC, Second Corinthians, 58): In other words, -not of the Law, but of the Gospel-'; not of that which is dead, but of that which is living; not of that which is deathful, but of that which is life-giving; not of bondage, but of freedom; not of mutilation, but of self-control; not of the outward, but of the inward; not of works, but of grace; not of menace, but of promise; not of curse, but of blessing; not of wrath, but of love; not of Moses, but of Christ. This is the theme which St. Paul develops especially in the Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians (see Romans 2:29; Romans 3:20; Romans 7:6-11; Romans 8:2; Galatians 3:10; Galatians 5:4, etc.).

On Galatians 4:22-25, Mackintosh (NG, 181) writes: -The flesh-' is, in this important passage, contrasted with -promise-'; and thus we not only get the divine idea as to what the term -flesh-' implies, but also as to Abraham's effort to obtain the seed by means of Hagar, instead of resting in God's -promise.-' The two covenants are allegorized by Hagar and Sarah, and are diametrically opposite, the one to the other. The one gendering to bondage, inasmuch as it raised the question as to man's competency -to do-' and -not to do,-' and made life entirely dependent upon that competency. -The man that doeth these things shall live in them.-' This was the Hagar-covenant. But the Sarah-covenant reveals God as the God of promise, which promise is entirely independent of man, and founded upon God's willingness and ability to fulfill it. When God makes a promise, there is no -if-' attached thereto. He makes it unconditionally, and is resolved to fulfill it; and faith rests in Him, in perfect liberty of heart. It needs no effort of nature to reach the accomplishment of a divine promise. Here was precisely where Abraham and Sarah failed. They made an effort of nature to reach a certain end, which end was absolutely secured by a promise of God. This is the grand mistake of unbelief. By its restless activity, it raises hazy mist around the soul, which hinders the beams of the divine glory from reaching it. -He could do there no mighty works, because of their unbelief.-' One great characteristic virtue of faith is, that it ever leaves the platform clear for God to show Himself; and truly, when He shows Himself, man must take the place of a happy worshiper. Again: Hence, therefore, a man who tells me, You must be so and so, in order to be saved, robs the cross of all its glory, and robs me of all my peace. If salvation depends upon our being or doing aught, we shall inevitably be lost. Thank God, it does not; for the great fundamental principles of the gospel is that God is ALL: man is NOTHING. It is not a mixture of God and manit is all of God. The peace of the Gospel does not repose in part on Christ's work and in part on man's work; it reposes wholly on Christ's work, because that work is perfectperfect forever; and it renders all who put their trust in it as perfect as itself (p. 183). (Cf. John 1:29).

The law addresses man, tests him, proves him a wreck, puts him under a curse. It not only puts him there, but keeps him there as long as he is occupied with it. The Gospel, on the other hand, recognizes that man is lost, in need of a Savior. So the Gospel reveals God as He isthe Savior of the lost, the Pardoner of the guilty, the Quickener of the dead. It exhibits Him as extending His ineffable grace in offers of redemption. There is nothing in manfor who could expect anything out of a bankrupt?that might enable him to achieve redemption no matter how strenuously he might tug at his own bootstraps. There is no provision in any law for self-redemption: redemption can occur only when the true owner buys back his own property. God is the owner of all thingsthe earth and the fulness thereof, all things non-living and living, including man. Therefore, since man has chosen to mortgage himself in sin, he simply cannot be redeemed unless and until his original owner pays the ransom price and so buys him back: that ransom price was paid on Calvary. God must independently exhibit His own grace to the fallen creatures (Romans 3:23, Colossians 1:21-22; Romans 6:6; Romans 7:14; Ephesians 2:1, Galatians 4:3, Hebrews 2:17, Matthew 20:28, 1 Timothy 2:5-6, etc.). And the Galatians, like Abraham of old, were going away from God, and depending upon the flesh. They were returning to bondage, and to go back unto the Law was to put themselves back under the curse of sin, cf. Galatians 3:1-14.

While the birth of Isaac filled Sarah's heart with laughter, it also brought out the true character of the bondwoman's son. So the inauguration of the New Covenant brought out by way of contrast the true character of the Old. The Old was the tutor leading us unto Christ: it served the ideals of its day. But the New is of Christ, and therefore we who are in Christ (Romans 8:1) are no longer under the Old. The birth of Isaac proved to be to Abraham's household what the implantation of a new heart is to the soul of the sinner. The son of the bondwoman could never be anything but that. He might become a great archer; he might dwell in the wilderness; he might become the ancestor of twelve princesbut he was still the son of a bond-woman. On the other hand, no matter how despised, how weak, how powerless Isaac might be, he was still the son of the freewoman. Their very natures were different (cf. John 3:6, Romans 8:1-11).

The bondwoman represents the Covenant of Law, and her son represents the works of the Law. This is very plain. The former genders only to bondage; she can never bring forth a free man, because she herself is a bondwoman. The Law of Moses never gave liberty, as long as the individual was alive and it ruled him. I can never be truly free if I am under the dominion of the Law. I can be free only under grace, appropriated by faith (Acts 15:11, Ephesians 2:8, Titus 2:11, Romans 3:26). Wherefore, when the New Covenant was ratified, it was necessary that the Old be cast out (abrogated). (Cf. Colossians 2:13-15, Hebrews 8:13, Galatians 3:23-25). Thus, in the casting out of the bondwoman, Hagar, the allegory of Sarah and Hagar is complete. (See again art., The Two Covenants, Part Thirty, supra. Read also Augustine's great work, The City of God; cf. Galatians 4:26, Revelation 21:1-4.)

Infant Baptism

(Review Circumcision of the Heart, Part Thirty, supra. The following is added verbatim from the dialectic of the little book, On the Rock (pp. 43, 44), by D. R. Dungan, pioneer preacher of the Restoration Movement, It should be considered as complementary, and conclusive (I should say) to any study of the Covenants.)

I will give you a few, as I think, valid reasons for not baptizing infants:
1. It is without Scriptural authority, Neither Christ nor any one of the apostles ever commanded it.
2. It supplants believers-' baptism, which the Lord did command.
3. It has a tendency to subvert true conversion, by bringing persons into the church in infancy, causing them to trust to that for salvation.
4. It deprives one of the pleasure of obedience.
5. It involves uncertainty as to having been baptized.
6. It teaches baptismal regeneration. Indeed, baptismal regeneration gave rise to infant baptism.
7. It changes the order of Christ's commission to His apostles; their first duty according to that, was to teach, or preach the gospel; but, according to this doctrine, their first duty was to baptize.
8. To be baptized is an act of obedience, but an infant can not obey an authority it knows nothing about.
9. Peter says that baptism is the answer of a good conscience, but the infant can have no conscience in the matter.
10. Baptism is coupled with repentance and faith, but infants are incapable of either.
11. Baptism was coupled with calling on the name of the Lord by those who were baptized, but infants cannot do that.
12. Those baptized by divine authority gave satisfactory evidence of faith, by a confession, before they were baptized, but infants can not.
13. Infant baptism is generally employed to bring them into the church, a place in which they are in no way qualified to be. Church members in the days of the apostles, first, gave heed to the apostles-' teaching; attended to the fellowship; third, partook of the Lord's Supper; fourth, engaged in prayer; fifth, did not dare to willfully neglect the assembly of the saints; sixth, exhorted one another; seventh, engaged in the public charities that were imposed upon them at the time; eighth, exhibited the fruits of the Spirit. Now infants can do none of these things, and hence can not be members of the church.
14. It set at naught all change of heart as necessarily preceding baptism.
(To this we add: infant christening, commonly called infant baptism, is really infant aspersion (sprinkling), or infant affusion (pouring). Real infant baptism is infant immersion, the practice of Greek Orthodoxy from the first.)

REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PART THIRTY-THREE

1.

Locate the Negeb, Gerar, the way of Shur. What mining operations were carried on in this area in patriarchal times?

2.

To what area did Abraham migrate after the destruction of the Cities of the Plain? What probably prompted this move?

3.

What evidence do we have that the Philistines were in this area even before patriarchal times?

4.

From what Mediterranean areas did the Philistines come?

5.

Explain Caphtor and Caphtorian.

6.

What did the word Abimelech signify?

7.

What probably was Abimelech's motive for taking Sarah into his harem?

8.

What affliction did God put on the house of Abimelech because of this action?

9.

What does this account indicate about Abimelech's general moral standards?

10.

Name the outstanding dream experiences related in the Bible.

11.

List some of the more important Biblically-related vision-experiences.

12.

How did these differ from theophanies?

13.

What were the functions of a prophet? In what sense was Abraham a prophet?

14.

What did God order Abimelech to do by way of restitution for the wrong he had committed?

15.

How did Abraham account for his own action with respect to Abimelech and Sarah?

16.

What were the details of Abimelech's response (restitution) ?

17.

What was the result of Abraham's intercession for Abimelech?

18.

How does Abimelech compare with Pharaoh in the similar incident recorded in ch. 12?

19.

What seems to have been God's over-all design in His dealing with the persons involved?

20.

In what three Chapter s of Genesis do we find this theme of a sister-wife relationship recorded, and who were the persons involved in each case?

21.

What added explanation did Abraham make to Abimelech that he had not made to Pharaoh? How account for this added disclosure?

22.

On what grounds do we reach the conclusion that these three accounts involving sister-wife relationships were accounts of three different episodes?

23.

List the circumstantial differences in the two narratives.

24.

Is it reasonable to assume a priori that similar events are necessarily identical?

25.

How does Dr. Speiser relate Human customary law to these sister-wife episodes?

26.

What are some of the objections to this view?

27.

In what sense was Isaac's conception and birth a special demonstration of Divine power?

28.

How old was Abraham when Isaac was born? How long had he waited for the fulfillment of the Divine promise?

29.

What did the name Isaac mean? What was the basis for giving the boy this name?

30.

What aroused Sarah's resentment against Hagar and her son? What did she demand of Abraham?

31.

How does Skinner's explanation of Sarah's attitude differ from that of Leupold et al?

32.

How does Galatians 4:29 give us the determination of this problem?

33.

What was Abraham's personal reaction to Sarah's demand that Hagar and her son be cast out?

34.

What reassurance did God give Abraham about the future of Ishmael and his progeny?

35.

What is the simplest and obvious meaning of Genesis 21:14?

36.

How does Haley explain Genesis 21:14-18?

37.

How does Genesis describe Hagar's and Ishmael's condition in the wilderness of Beer-sheba?

38.

How did Divine succor come to Hagar and her son? What did God promise with regard to Ishmael's future? What circumstances of his future are disclosed here?

39.

Locate geographically the Wilderness of Beersheba, the Wilderness of Paran, and the Wilderness of Zin.

40.

What role does Beersheba play in the story of the patriarchal age?

41.

How long did Abraham continue to sojourn in the region of Beersheba?

42.

What kind of covenant did Abimelech now seek with Abraham? What apparently prompted him to propose this covenant?

43.

What seems to have been the cause of the strained relationship between the patriarch and the king?

44.

What was the importance of wells in these countries?

45.

In what way was the covenant confirmed in this instance?

46.

What was the purpose of Abraham's gift of the seven ewe-lambs?

47.

Give Dr. Speiser's explanation of the etymology of the name Beersheba.

48.

What claim apparently was validated by Abimelech's acceptance of the seven ewe-lambs?

49.

In what sense is Beersheba said to have been in the land of the Philistines?

50.

Explain the significance of Abraham's planting of the tamarisk tree in Beersheba. Is there any significant evidence that this was in a grove or that the place was the locus of a pagan cult?

51.

What general forms do memorials take in Scripture? That is, what are the different kinds?

52.

Explain the significance of the name El Olam.

53.

Restate Lange's exposition of the significance of this name.

54.

How many years did Abraham spend in this region, in comparison with the length of his sojourn near Hebron?

55.

Why is the word sojourn so significant in explaining Abraham's movements?

56.

Explain what is meant by the Allegory of Sarah and Hagar. List the essential features of this allegory.

57.

Review the section of Part Thirty which has to do with circumcision of the heart, showing precisely what Scripture teaches spiritual circumcision to be.

58.

What reasons are given by Dungan for not practising what is called infant baptism? How is infant baptism related to spiritual circumsision?