Genesis 26:26-33

8. The Covenant with Abimelech (Genesis 26:26-33). As Abimelech was the standing title of the Philistine kings, so Phicol seems to have been the standing title of the captain (or general) of the army. (Cf. Genesis 21:22 f.) As there was a lapse of seventy years between the visit of Abraham and of Isaac, the Abimelech and Phicol spoken of must have been different persons-' official titles (CECG, 193). It is fair to conclude that Abimelech was the royal title, just as Pharaoh was in Egypt, and Caesar in Rome. Phicol may also have been a name of office, as mudir or mushir now is in this country. If one of these officers is spoken of, his name is rarely mentioned. I, indeed, never know any but the official title of these Turkish officers (LB, 560). Abimelech brought with him a certain Abuzzah his friend, that is, his confidential adviser, or Vizier-'an official title common in Egypt from an early period, and amongst the Ptolemies and Seleucids (1Ma. 2:18; 1Ma. 10:65; cf. 2 Samuel 16:16 f., 1 Kings 4:5, 1 Chronicles 27:33 (Skinner, ICCG, 367). (In 1 Chronicles 27:33, we find the rendering, counsellor). (Ahuzzath: note the Philistine ending of the name: cf. Goliath, 1 Samuel 17, also Gath). Note that one idea stands out in the conversation of these Philistines, namely, we are impressed by the fact of Yahweh's blessings which go with you continually: they do not think it safe to be on bad terms with one who so manifestly stands in Yahweh's favor. That the name -Yahweh-' should be used by Philistines need not surprise us. They naturally do not know Him as the One who is what this name involved. They simply take the heathen attitude: each nation serves its own God: we have heard that Isaac serves Yahweh; it must be Yahweh who has blessed His faithful follower (EG, 731). Abimelech makes the overture. But Isaac chides him for his unkindness in sending him away and his inconsistency in now seeking a conference with him, Genesis 26:27. However, the king sees clearly now that Isaac's God is to be reckoned with: thou art now the blessed of Jehovah; therefore let there now be an oath between us. and let us make a covenant with thee, etc. By whatever motive the proposal was dictatedwhether fear of his growing power, or regret for the bad usage they had given him, the king and his courtiers paid a visit to the tent of Isaac (Proverbs 16:7). His timid and passive temper had submitted to the annoyances of his rude neighbors; but now that they wish to renew the covenant, he evinces deep feeling at their conduct, and astonishment, or artifice, in coming near him. Being, however, of a pacific disposition, he forgave their offence, accepted their proposals, and treated them to a banquet by which the ratification of a covenant was usually crowned (CECG, 193).

The oath, Genesis 26:28, in this case was what was known as a curse-oath, that is, the curse invoked on violation of the covenant. The Jews in later ages were in the habit of using vain and frivolous oaths in their ordinary talk. They swore by the temple, by the earth, by heaven, by the head, etc. So long as they did not use the name of God in these oaths, they did not deem them particularly binding. This practice is alluded to in Matthew 23:16-22 (ADB, 243). This was known as profane swearing (cf. Matthew 5:33-37, James 5:12). The judicial oath was of an entirely different character. The validity of this type of oath was recognized by Jesus: indeed He allowed Himself to be put under it (cf. Matthew 26:63-68), and He responded to the solemn adjuration. We find also that good men, an angel, and even God Himself, made use of the oath for confirmation (Genesis 21:23-24; 1 Samuel 20:42; Hebrews 6:17-18; Revelation 10:5-6). It should be noted that the oaths were exchanged on the morning after the feast (Genesis 26:30-31) before the Philistines departed. Apparently the feast, the common meal, was a feature of the covenant ceremony (cf. Genesis 31:53-54) even though the oath-taking did not occur until early the next morning.

9. The Naming of the Well (Genesis 26:32-33). On the same day the oaths were exchanged Isaac's servants found water. This is the well mentioned in Genesis 26:25. It is possible that it is the same well which Abraham had excavated and named Beer-sheba (Genesis 21:31). The Philistines had stopped it up; now Isaac reopened it and gave it the same name it had borne previously (Nachmanides). Rash-bam holds that it was a different well, there being two of that name (SC, 148). To the rationalistic objection that -identical names of places are not imposed twice,-' we may reply, in general, that it is -in full accordance with the genius of the Oriental languages and the literary tastes of the people,-' to suppose that a name may be renewed; in other words, that a new meaning and significance may be attached to an old name. (This is the testimony of a scholar thoroughly acquainted with Oriental manners and customs, Prof. L. J. Porter, in Kitto's Biblical Cyclopaedia, II, 132, latest edition.) This fact sweeps away a host of objections urged against this and similar cases. The whole series of events served to recall to Isaac's mind the former name and the circumstances which gave rise to it, hence he renewed it. From Genesis 26:15; Genesis 26:18 we learn that all the wells dug by Abraham had been filled with earth by the Philistines, but that Isaac re-opened them, and called them by the old familiar names. This would seem a sufficient explanation of the case before us (ADB, 410).

This was not the restoration of an old, but the sinking of a new well; and hence, by the formal ceremony of inauguration gone through with Abimelech, Isaac established his right of possession to the adjoining district.. One would naturally imagine that the place received this name [Beer-sheba] now for the first time from Isaac. But it had been so called long before by Abraham (Genesis 21:31), in memory of a solemn league of alliance which he formed with a contemporary king of Gerar. A similar covenant, in similar circumstances, having been established between Isaac and the successor of that Gerar monarch, gave occasion to a renewed proclamation of the name: and it is accordant with the practice of the sacred writer to notice an event as newly occurred, while in point of fact it had taken place long before (CECG, 193-194). For similar instances of twofold naming, cf. Genesis 35:6-7; Genesis 35:15, with Genesis 28:18-22, as to the name Bethel; Genesis 35:10 with Genesis 32:28, as to the name Israel; Genesis 14:14 with Deuteronomy 34:1, Joshua 19:47, Judges 18:29, as to the name Dan; Numbers 32:41, with Deuteronomy 3:14 and Judges 10:3-4, as to the name Havothjair). (For a description of the present-day Wady-es-Seba and the two deep wells on the northern bank, which are still called Bir es-Seba, the ancient Beer-sheba, see again jamieson, CECG, 193-194, quoting Robinson's Biblical Researches, I, 300, 301).

Isaac called the well Shibah, i.e., Sheba) On account of the covenant (connecting Shibah with shebuah (-an oath, covenant-') according to Rashi (Solomon ben Isaac, 1040-1105), It was the -seventh-' well which he had dug, according to Ben Jacob Sforno, c, 1475-1550. (See SC, 148). Cf. Genesis 21:31obviously, the name Beer-sheba is best interpreted the well of the oath, rather than of the seven. On the latter view, seven could have been variously interpreted, either as indicative of the seven ewe lambs given, by Abraham to the Philistine king (Genesis 21:28-30), or as signifying the seventh well which Isaac had dug, or as indicating that either (or both) of the patriarchs had put himself under the influence of the number seven, which was regarded among ancients generally as a sacred number. This last view is suggested by Skinner (ICCG, 326); to the present writer it seems rather farfetched. Both points of view seem well justified: there were originally -seven-' wells; the place was the scene of an -oath.-' One account emphasizes the former; the other, the latter idea. For that matter, Isaac may well have remembered the name given to the place in Abraham's time and may have welcomed the opportunity for establishing that name. The expression -unto this day-' simply carries us up to the writer's time and is, of course, very appropriate coming from the pen of Moses (EG, 733). At any rate Beer-sheba came to be the principal city in the Judean Negeb. It was situated at the junction of the highway running southward from Hebron to Egypt and the route that ran northeastward from Arabah to the coast. It marked the southern limit of Israelite occupation, so that the entire land came to be described as the territory extending from Dan to Beersheba (Judges 20:1). Beersheba still exists, and retains its ancient name in a slightly modified form. The old wells too are there, of great depth, and of great value to the surrounding Arabs (SIBG, 257).

Review Questions

See Genesis 26:34-35.