Genesis · Chapter 25

V. 1. Five and thirty years Abraham lived after the marriage of Isaac, and all that is recorded concerning him during that time lies here in a very few verses: we hear no more of God’s extraordinary appearances to him, or trials of him; for all the days even of the greatest saints are not eminent days, some slide on silently, and neither come nor go with observation: such were these last days of Abraham. We have here an account of his children by Keturah, another wife, which he married after the death of Sarah. He had buried Sarah, and married Isaac, the two dear companions of his life, and was now solitary; his family wanted a governess and it was not good for him to be thus alone; he therefore marries Keturah, probably the chief of his maid servants, born in his house, or bought with money. By her he had six sons, in whom the promise made to Abraham concerning the great increase of his posterity was in part fulfilled. The strength he received by the promise still remained in him, to shew how much the virtue of the promise exceeds the power of nature.

Verse 1. Then again Abraham took a wife] When Abraham took Keturah we are not informed; it might have been in the lifetime of Sarah; and the original ãsyw vaiyoseph, and he added, &c., seems to give some countenance to this opinion. Indeed it is not very likely that he had the children mentioned here after the death of Sarah; and from the circumstances of his age, feebleness, &c., at the birth of Isaac, it is still more improbable. Even at that age, forty years before the marriage of Isaac, the birth of his son is considered as not less miraculous on his part than on the part of Sarah; for the apostle expressly says, Romans 4:19, that Abraham considered not his own body NOW DEAD, when he was about a hundred years old, nor the DEADNESS of Sarah’s womb; hence we learn that they were both past the procreation of children, insomuch that the birth of Isaac is ever represented as supernatural. It is therefore very improbable that he had any child after the birth of Isaac; and therefore we may well suppose that Moses had related this transaction out of its chronological order, which is not unfrequent in the sacred writings, when a variety of important facts relative to the accomplishment of some grand design are thought necessary to be produced in a connected series. On this account intervening matters of a different complexion are referred to a future time. Perhaps we may be justified in reading the verse: “And Abraham had added, and had taken a wife (besides Hagar) whose name was Keturah,” &c. The chronology in the margin dates this marriage with Keturah A. M. 2154, nine years after the death of Sarah, A. M. 2145. Jonathan ben Uzziel and the Jerusalem Targum both assert that Keturah was the same as Hagar. Some rabbins, and with them Dr. Hammond, are of the same opinion; but both Hagar and Keturah are so distinguished in the Scriptures, that the opinion seems destitute of probability.

Verse 1. Five and thirty years Abraham lived after the marriage of Isaac, and all that is recorded concerning him during that time lies here in a very few verses; we hear no more of God’s extraordinary appearances to him or trials of him; for all the days even of the greatest saints are not eminent; some slide on silently; such were these last days of Abraham. We have here an account of his children by Keturah, another wife, whom he married after the death of Sarah. He had buried Sarah, and married Isaac, the two dear companions of his life, and was now solitary; his family wanted a governess, and it was not good for him to be thus alone; he therefore marries again. By Keturah he had six sons, in whom the promise made to Abraham, concerning the great increase of his posterity, was in part fulfilled. The strength he received by the promise still remained in him, to show how much the virtue of the promise exceeds the power of nature.

Verse 1. Keturah is here called a wife; but a learned writer in his Bibliotheca Biblia, printed at Oxford 1720, brings forward a supposition of the Jews, that Hagar returned to Abraham after the death of Sarah, and then received the name of Keturah. It was anciently a frequent custom for persons on being favoured with signal blessings to assume a new name, or to receive some addition to the old.

ABRAHAM’S SONS BY KETURAH, 1-6.

1. Then — Rather and, for here is no note of time. When Abraham took Keturah for a wife we have no means of knowing, but it is generally supposed to have been after Sarah’s death. This the order of the narrative would most naturally imply. But such order, and especially the record of genealogies, is no sure index of time, and, for aught that appears, Abraham may have taken Keturah, who is called his concubine in 1 Chronicles 1:32, as he took Hagar, long before Sarah’s death. The historian did not choose to interrupt his narrative by introducing it before, especially as it was of no vital importance in the previous history of Abraham. But, on the other hand, all this may have occurred after Sarah’s death, and even after Isaac’s marriage. In view of the great longevity of Abraham, it is possible that he may have possessed as much vital force at one hundred and forty as ordinarily vigorous men at seventy. The statement, also, that he took Keturah, compared with Genesis 16:3, where it is said “Sarah took Hagar and gave her to her husband,” seems to be against the idea that he took this concubine during Sarah’s lifetime. The six sons mentioned in verse 2 may all have been born after Isaac’s marriage, and twenty-five years before Abraham’s death.

Verse 2. Zimran] Stephanus Byzantinus mentions a city in Arabia Felix called Zadram, which some suppose to have been named from this son of Keturah; but it is more likely, as Calmet observes, that all these sons of Abraham resided in Arabia Deserta; and Pliny, Hist. Nat., lib. vi., c. 28, mentions a people in that country called Zamarenians, who were probably the descendants of this person.

Jokshan] Several learned men have been of opinion that this Jokshan was the same as Kachtan, the father of the Arabs. The testimonies in favour of this opinion see in Dr. Hunt’s Oration, Deuteronomy Antiquitate, &c., Linguæ Arabicæ, p. 4. Calmet supposes that the Cataneans, who inhabited a part of Arabia Deserta, sprang from this Jokshan.

Medan, and Midian] Probably those who peopled that part of Arabia Petræa contiguous to the land of Moab eastward of the Dead Sea. St. Jerome terms the people of this country Madinæans; and Ptolemy mentions a people called Madianites, who dwelt in the same place. Ishbak] From this person Calmet supposes the brook Jabbok, which has its source in the mountains of Gilead, and falls into the sea of Tiberias, took its name.

Shuah.] Or Shuach. From this man the Sacceans, near to Batanla, at the extremity of Arabia Deserta, towards Syria, are supposed to have sprung. Bildad the Shuhite, one of Job’s friends, is supposed to have descended from this son of Abraham.

Ver. 2. She bare him Zimran, and five others, to whom Abraham gave gifts, and established them as patriarchal heads of houses. Abraham having reconquered the country from the Assyrian kings, exercised the rights of royalty, in the establishment of his sons.—Midian, from whom the Midianites descended who dwelt in Arabia the Stony.—Shuah, from whom it is probable that Bildad the Shuhite, so often mentioned in the book of Job, descended. From these six sons many of the Arabian tribes derived their origin.

2-4. Compare 1 Chronicles 1:32, 33. Here are mentioned six sons, seven grandsons, and three great-grandsons. The subsequent history and location of the tribes that sprung from them are very uncertain, and conjectures on the subject are scarcely worth repeating. Those who wish to note them should consult the Bible Dictionaries on the several names. From Midian came the Midianites, often mentioned in the later history of Israel. We meet them in the history of Joseph (Genesis 37:28) and of Moses, (Exodus 2:15; Numbers 22:4,) and against them Gideon waged successful war. Judges chapters 6-8. The names of Sheba and Dedan occur among the sons of Cush, (Genesis 10:7,) but nothing can be argued from such repetition of names. Some, however, think that these tribes subsequently became intermixed by marriage. Midian, Ephah, and Sheba are mentioned together in Isaiah 60:6. These tribes were nomadic, and probably for a time wandered, like Abraham, to and fro in the wide deserts south and east of Palestine. They probably, at a subsequent date, became largely intermingled with the Ishmaelites, and are represented now in the numerous Arab tribes of these same ancient deserts.

Verse 3. Sheba] From whom sprang the Sabeans, who robbed Job of his cattle. See Bochart and Calmet.

Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim.] We know not who these were, but as each name is plural they must have been tribes or families, and not individuals. Onkelos interprets these words of persons dwelling in camps, tents, and islands; and Jonathan ben Uzziel calls them merchants, artificers, and heads or chiefs of people.

2-4. Compare 1 Chronicles 1:32, 33. Here are mentioned six sons, seven grandsons, and three great-grandsons. The subsequent history and location of the tribes that sprung from them are very uncertain, and conjectures on the subject are scarcely worth repeating. Those who wish to note them should consult the Bible Dictionaries on the several names. From Midian came the Midianites, often mentioned in the later history of Israel. We meet them in the history of Joseph (Genesis 37:28) and of Moses, (Exodus 2:15; Numbers 22:4,) and against them Gideon waged successful war. Judges chapters 6-8. The names of Sheba and Dedan occur among the sons of Cush, (Genesis 10:7,) but nothing can be argued from such repetition of names. Some, however, think that these tribes subsequently became intermixed by marriage. Midian, Ephah, and Sheba are mentioned together in Isaiah 60:6. These tribes were nomadic, and probably for a time wandered, like Abraham, to and fro in the wide deserts south and east of Palestine. They probably, at a subsequent date, became largely intermingled with the Ishmaelites, and are represented now in the numerous Arab tribes of these same ancient deserts.

Verse 4. Ephah, and Epher, &c.] Of these we know no more than of the preceding; an abundance of conjectures is already furnished by the commentators.

2-4. Compare 1 Chronicles 1:32, 33. Here are mentioned six sons, seven grandsons, and three great-grandsons. The subsequent history and location of the tribes that sprung from them are very uncertain, and conjectures on the subject are scarcely worth repeating. Those who wish to note them should consult the Bible Dictionaries on the several names. From Midian came the Midianites, often mentioned in the later history of Israel. We meet them in the history of Joseph (Genesis 37:28) and of Moses, (Exodus 2:15; Numbers 22:4,) and against them Gideon waged successful war. Judges chapters 6-8. The names of Sheba and Dedan occur among the sons of Cush, (Genesis 10:7,) but nothing can be argued from such repetition of names. Some, however, think that these tribes subsequently became intermixed by marriage. Midian, Ephah, and Sheba are mentioned together in Isaiah 60:6. These tribes were nomadic, and probably for a time wandered, like Abraham, to and fro in the wide deserts south and east of Palestine. They probably, at a subsequent date, became largely intermingled with the Ishmaelites, and are represented now in the numerous Arab tribes of these same ancient deserts.

V. 5. And Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac-As he was bound to do in justice to Sarah his first wife, and to Rebekah who married Isaac upon the assurance of it.

Verse 5. Gave all that he had unto Isaac.] His principal flocks, and especially his right to the land of Canaan, including a confirmation to him and his posterity of whatever was contained in the promises of God.

Verse 5. And Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac — As he was bound to do, not only in justice to Sarah his first wife, but also to Rebekah, who married Isaac upon the assurance of it.

5. Gave all… unto Isaac — This had been understood and settled long before. Genesis 24:36.

V. 6. He gave gifts-Or portions to the rest of his children, both to Ishmael, though at first he was sent empty away, and to his sons by Keturah. It was justice to provide for them; parents that do not that, are worse than infidels. It was prudence to settle them in places distant from Isaac, that they might not pretend to divide the inheritance with him. He did this while he yet lived, lest it should not have been done, or not so well done afterwards. In many cases it is wisdom for men to make their own hands their executors, and what they find to do, to do it while they live. These sons of the concubines were sent into the country that lay east from Canaan, and their posterity were called the children of the east, famous for their numbers. Their great increase was the fruit of the promise made to Abraham, that God would multiply his seed.

Verse 6. Unto the sons of the concubines] Viz., Hagar and Keturah, Abraham gave gifts. Cattle for breed, seed to sow the land, and implements for husbandry, may be what is here intended.

And sent them away-while he yet lived] Lest after his death they should dispute a settlement in the Land of Promise with Isaac; therefore he very prudently sent them to procure settlements during his lifetime, that they might be under no temptation to dispute the settlement with Isaac in Canaan. From this circumstance arose that law which has prevailed in almost all countries, of giving the estates to the eldest son by a lawful wife; for though concubines, or wives of the second rank, were perfectly legitimate in those ancient times, yet their children did not inherit, except in case of the failure of legal issue, and with the consent of the lawful wife; and it is very properly observed by Calmet, that it was in consequence of the consent of Leah and Rachel that the children of their slaves by Jacob had a common and equal lot with the rest. By a law of Solon all natural children were excluded from the paternal inheritance, but their fathers were permitted to give them any sum not beyond a thousand drachma by way of present.

Eastward, unto the east country.] Arabia Deserta, which was eastward of Beer-sheba, where Abraham lived.

Verse 6. Abraham gave gifts — Or portions. Abraham may be an example to us in almost every circumstance of life: we find him, with great prudence: making, in his lifetime, proper provision for his sons by his secondary wives, Hagar and Keturah, and sending them away from Isaac; whereby, in all probability, he prevented great animosities and dissensions. How happy would it be if all parents, in the time of health, would take care to settle, by will, the division of their goods among their children! What confusion! what quarrels! what discord! what never to be reconciled animosity among brethren, might this prevent! These sons of the concubines, as they are here called, were sent into the country that lay east of Canaan, and their posterity were termed the children of the east, famous for their number. Their great increase was the fruit of the promise made to Abraham, that God would multiply his seed.

6. The concubines — Hagar and Keturah. Sent them away — Some have objected that Keturah’s sons, if born after Sarah’s death, were too young to be thus sent away. But Ishmael was only a lad of fifteen or seventeen years when sent away with his mother into the wilderness of Beer-sheba. Genesis 21:14. But the time of bestowing these gifts on the sons of his concubines, and sending them away, is uncertain. The different facts stated in verses 5 and 6 may have occurred at very different dates. From Isaac — Abraham would not have his son and heir troubled by claims or disputes after his death, so he was careful to see that all disposition of his possessions, and of the sons of his concubines, was made while he yet lived. A wise example to fathers who have large estates, and many possible claimants. Unto the east country — And they became known thereafter as the Easterns, or Bene-Kedem, sons of the East. See Judges 6:3; 1 Kings 4:30; Job 1:3; Isaiah 11:14.

V. 7. And these are the days of Abraham-He lived one hundred and seventy-five years; just a hundred years after he came to Canaan; so long he was a sojourner in a strange country.

Verse 7. The days of the years, &c.] There is a beauty in this expression which is not sufficiently regarded. Good men do not live by centuries, though many such have lived several hundred years, nor do they count their lives even by years, but by days, living as if they were the creatures only of A DAY; having no more time than they can with any propriety call their own, and living that day in reference to eternity.

Verse 7. These are the days of Abraham — He lived just a hundred years after he came to Canaan; so long he was a sojourner in a strange land.

DEATH AND BURIAL OF ABRAHAM, 7-11.

The termination of Abraham’s life is recorded here, as also the generations of Ishmael, (verses 12-18,) in order to prepare the way for the history of Isaac. But it appears from verse 26, that Jacob and Esau were born fifteen years before Abraham’s death.

7. The days of the years — This form of expression is impressive, and served to intensify the idea of the long life of one hundred and seventy-five years. Comp. Genesis 35:28, 29; and 47:9. How many days in these years! But his father, Terah, died at two hundred and five years, (Genesis 11:32,) his son Isaac at one hundred and eighty, (Genesis 35:28,) and Jacob at one hundred and forty-seven years. Genesis 47:28.

V. 8. He died in a good old age, an old man-So God had promised him. His death was his discharge from the burdens of his age: it was also the crown of the glory of his old age. He was

full of years-A good man, though he should not die old, dies full of days, satisfied with living here, and longing to live in a better place. And was gathered to his people-His body was gathered to the congregation of the dead, and his soul to the congregation of the blessed. Death gathers us to our people. Those that are our people while we live, whether the people of God, or the children of this world, to them death will gather us.

Verse 8. Then Abraham gave up the ghost] Highly as I value our translation for general accuracy, fidelity, and elegance, I must beg leave to dissent from this version. The original word [wgy yigva, from the root [yg gava, signifies to pant for breath, to expire, to cease from breathing, or to breathe one’s last; and here, and wherever the original word is used, the simple term expired would be the proper expression. In our translation this expression occurs Genesis 25:8,17; 35:29; 44:33; Job 3:11; 10:18; 11:20; 13:19; 14:10; Lamentations 1:19; in all of which places the original is [yg gava. It occurs also in our translation, Jeremiah 15:9, but there the original is hvpn hjpn naphecah naphshah, she breathed out her soul; the verb [yg gava not being used. Now as our English word ghost, from the Anglo-Saxon [A.S.] gast, an inmate, inhabitant, guest, (a casual visitant,) also a spirit, is now restricted among us to the latter meaning, always signifying the immortal spirit or soul of man, the guest of the body; and as giving up the spirit, ghost, or soul, is an act not proper to man, though commending it to God, in our last moments, is both an act of faith and piety; and as giving up the ghost, i.e., dismissing his spirit from his body, is attributed to Jesus Christ, to whom alone it is proper, I therefore object against its use in every other case. Every man since the fall has not only been liable to death, but has deserved it, as all have forfeited their lives because of sin. Jesus Christ, as born immaculate, and having never sinned, had not forfeited his life, and therefore may be considered as naturally and properly immortal. No man, says he, taketh it-my life, from me, but I lay it down of myself; I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again: therefore doth the Father love me, because I lay down my life that I might take it again, John 10:17,18. Hence we rightly translate Matthew 27:50, afhke to pneuma, he gave up the ghost; i.e., he dismissed his spirit that he might die for the sin of the world. The Evangelist St. John 19:30, makes use of an expression to the same import, which we translate in the same way, paredwke to pneuma, he delivered up his spirit. We translate Mark 15:37, and Luke 23:46, he gave up the ghost, but not correctly, because the word in both these places is very different, exepneuse, he breathed his last, or expired, though in the latter place (Luke 23:46) there is an equivalent expression, O Father, into thy hands paratiqemai to pneuma mou, I commit my spirit, i.e., I place my soul in thy hand; proving that the act was his own, that no man could take his life away from him, that he did not die by the perfidy of his disciple, or the malice of the Jews, but by his own free act. Thus HE LAID DOWN his life for the sheep. Of Ananias and Sapphira, Acts 5:5,10, and of Herod, Acts 12:23, our translation says they gave up the ghost; but the word in both places is exeyuxe, which simply means to breathe out, to expire, or die; but in no case, either by the Septuagint in the Old or any of the sacred writers in the New Testament, is afhke to mneuma or paredwke to pneuma, he dismissed his spirit or delivered up his spirit, spoken of any person but Christ. Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, &c., breathed their last; Ananias, Sapphira, and Herod expired; but none, Jesus Christ excepted, gave up the ghost, dismissed, or delivered up his own spirit, and was consequently free among the dead. Of the patriarchs, &c., the Septuagint uses the word ekleipwn, failing, or katepause, he ceased or rested.

An old man] Viz., one hundred and seventy-five, the youngest of all the patriarchs; and full of years. The word years is not in the text; but as our translators saw that some word was necessary to fill up the text, they added this in italics. It is probable that the true word is ימים yamim, days, as in Genesis 35:29; and this reading is found in several of Kennicott’s and Deuteronomy Rossi’s MSS., in the Samaritan text, Septuagint, Vulgate, Syriac, Arabic, Persic, and Chaldee. On these authorities it might be safely admitted into the text.

Being full of days, or full of years.-To be satiated with days or life, has been in use among different nations to express the termination of life, and especially life ended without reluctance. It seems to be a metaphor taken from a guest regaled by a plentiful banquet, and is thus used by the Roman poets.

Lucretius, lib. iii., ver. 947, ridiculing those who were unreasonably attached to life, and grievously afflicted at the prospect of death, addresses them in the following manner:—

————Quid mortem congemis, ac fies?

Nam si grata fuit tibi vita anteacta, priorque,

Et non omnia pertusum congesta quasi in vas

Commoda perfluxere, atque ingrata interiere:

Cur non, ut PLENUS VITÆ CONVIVA, RECEDIS?

Fond mortal, what’s the matter, thou dost sigh?

Why all these fears because thou once must die?

For if the race thou hast already run

Was pleasant, if with joy thou saw’st the sun,

If all thy pleasures did not pass thy mind

As through a sieve, but left some sweets behind,

Why dost thou not then, like a THANKFUL GUEST,

Rise cheerfully from life’s ABUNDANT FEAST?

CREECH.

Et nec opinanti mors ad caput astitit ante,

Quam SATUR, ac PLENUS possis discedere rerum.

Ib. ver. 972.

And unexpected hasty death destroys,

Before thy greedy mind is FULL of JOYS. Idem.

Horace makes use of the same figure:—

Inde fit, ut raro, qui se vixisse beatum

Dicat, et exacto CONTENTUS tempore vitæ

Cedat, ut CONVIVA SATUR, reperire queamus.

Sat. l. i. Sat. i. ver. 117.

From hence how few, like SATED GUESTS, depart

From life’s FULL BANQUET with a cheerful heart?

FRANCIS.

The same image is expressed with strong ridicule in his last EPISTLE— Lusisti satis, edisti satis, atque bibisti;

Tempus ABIRE tibi est.

Epist. l. ii., ver. 216.

Thou hast eaten, drunk, and play’d ENOUGH; then why

So stark reluctant to leave off, and DIE?

The poet Statius uses abire paratum PLENUM vita, “prepared to depart, being FULL of LIFE,” in exactly the same sense:—

———Dubio quem non in turbine rerum

Deprendet suprema dies; sed abire paratum,

Ac PLENUM VITA.

Sylv. l. ii., Villa Surrentina, ver. 128.

The man whose mighty soul is not immersed

in dubious whirl of secular concerns,

His final hour ne’er takes him by surprise,

But, FULL of LIFE, he stands PREPARED to DIE.

It was the opinion of Aristotle that a man should depart from life as he should rise from a banquet. Thus Abraham died FULL of days, and SATISFIED with life, but in a widely different spirit from that recommended by the above writers-HE left life with a hope full of immortality, which they could never boast; for HE saw the day of Christ, and was glad; and his hope was crowned, for here it is expressly said, He was gathered to his fathers; surely not to the bodies of his sleeping ancestors, who were buried in Chaldea and not in Canaan, nor with his fathers in any sense, for he was deposited in the cave where his WIFE alone slept; but he was gathered to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to the Church of the first-born, whose names are written in heaven; Hebrews 12:23.

Verse 8. He died in a good old age — As God had promised him; good, through grace, his hoary head being found in the way of righteousness; and naturally good, he being free, it seems, from many of the infirmities and calamities of old age. Full of years — Of years, is not in the Hebrew, it is only, an old man, and full, or satisfied. He had fulfilled the divine will, and served his generation, and was fully satisfied with life. A good man, though he should not die old, dies full of days; satisfied with living here, and longing to live in a better world. And was gathered to his people — His body was gathered to the congregation of the dead, and his soul to the congregation of the blessed. Death gathers us to our people, to those that are our people while we live, whether the people of God, or the children of this world. Reader, to whom, at death shalt thou be gathered?

Ver. 8. Abraham gave up the ghost. [wgy yigeva, resigned his breath; for God had breathed into man the breath of life. Genesis 2:7. Therefore resigning his breath is but the figure for calling on God, like Stephen, to receive his spirit. It is the spirit which causes the body to breathe. How happy is the life, how dignified the death, and how blessed is the memory of the just: as the sun rejoices like a giant to run his course, and on dipping behind the western hills, shines in a new hemisphere, leaving his lustre bright on high; so Abraham, after shining as the first and best of men, illustrious in every virtue, removed from earth, shines as the brightest of stars among the spirits of just men made perfect: while on the contrary, the wicked go to the congregation of the giants. Job 26:4, 5. Proverbs 2:18.

8. Gave up the ghost — Hebrews, breathed out. He seems to have died of old age, and in a good old age, according to the promises of Genesis 15:15. An old man, and full of years — Rather, old and full. His was a well-rounded and completed life. Gathered to his people — Not buried in the ancestral tomb, for this was not the case; nor is the expression equivalent to burial, for that is separately mentioned in the next verse; but gathered where his people were yet living an immortal life. See on Genesis 15:15. Abraham’s faith “looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.” And he died in this faith, “not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off.” Evidently he desired and sought a heavenly land; not that from which he emigrated. See Hebrews 11:10-16. And long after, in the days of Moses Jehovah said, “I am the God of Abraham.” Exodus 3:6. But “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” Matthew 22:32.

V. 9. Here is nothing recorded of the pomp or ceremony of his funeral; only we are told, his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him-It was the last office of respect they had to pay to their good father. Some distance there had formerly been between Isaac and Ishmael, but it seems either Abraham had himself brought them together while he lived, or at least his death reconciled them. They buried him, in his own burying-place which he had purchased and in which he had buried Sarah. Those that in life have been very dear to each other, may not only innocently, but laudably, desire to be buried together, that, in their deaths, they may not be divided, and in token of their hopes of rising together.

Verse 9. His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him] Though Ishmael and his mother had been expelled from Abraham’s family on the account of Isaac, yet, as he was under the same obligation to a most loving affectionate father as his brother Isaac, if any personal feuds remained, they agreed to bury them on this occasion, that both might dutifully join in doing the last offices to a parent who was an honour to them and to human nature: and, considering the rejection of Ishmael from the inheritance, this transaction shows his character in an amiable point of view; for though he was a wild man, (see Genesis 16:12,) yet this appellation appears to be more characteristic of his habits of life than of his disposition. For the character of Abraham see the conclusion of this chapter. See Clarke “Genesis 25:34”.

9. Isaac and Ishmael buried him — There is something touching in this statement. No wrongs, or bitterness, or antipathy of the past, prevent their union in a common sorrow over their great father. So at a later date Esau and Jacob, similarly estranged, come together to bury their father, Isaac. Genesis 35:29. The sons of Keturah, now, perhaps, far scattered, and less attached to Abraham than Ishmael and Isaac, are not mentioned here. Machpelah — See on Genesis 23:9.

DEATH AND BURIAL OF ABRAHAM, 7-11.

The termination of Abraham’s life is recorded here, as also the generations of Ishmael, (verses 12-18,) in order to prepare the way for the history of Isaac. But it appears from verse 26, that Jacob and Esau were born fifteen years before Abraham’s death.

7. The days of the years — This form of expression is impressive, and served to intensify the idea of the long life of one hundred and seventy-five years. Comp. Genesis 35:28, 29; and 47:9. How many days in these years! But his father, Terah, died at two hundred and five years, (Genesis 11:32,) his son Isaac at one hundred and eighty, (Genesis 35:28,) and Jacob at one hundred and forty-seven years. Genesis 47:28.

V. 11. And God blessed Isaac-The blessing of Abraham did not die with him, but survived to all the children of the promise. But Moses presently digresseth from the story of Isaac, to give a short account of Ishmael, for as much as he also was a son of Abraham; and God had made some promises concerning him, which it was requisite we should know the accomplishment of. He had twelve sons, twelve princes they are called, Genesis 25:16, heads of families, which, in process of time, became nations, numerous and very considerable. They peopled a very large continent that lay between Egypt and Assyria, called Arabia. The names of his twelve sons are recorded: Midian and Kedar we oft read of in scripture. And his posterity had not only tents in the fields wherein they grew rich in times of peace, but they had towns and castles, Genesis 25:16, where in they fortified themselves in time of war. Their number and strength was the fruit of the promise made to Hagar concerning Ishmael, Genesis 16:10. and to Abraham, Genesis 17:20 21:13.

Verse 11. God blessed his son Isaac] The peculiar blessings and influences by which Abraham had been distinguished now rested upon Isaac; but how little do we hear in him of the work of faith, the patience of hope, and the labour of love! Only one Abraham and one Christ ever appeared among men; there have been some successful imitators, there should have been many.

Verses 11, 12. God blessed Isaac — For the blessing of Abraham did not die with him, but was perpetuated to his posterity, and especially to the children of the promise. The generations of Ishmael — God had made some promises concerning him, and this account of his posterity is given that we may know the accomplishment of them. He had twelve sons, the names of whom are here recorded; two of them, Midian and Kedan, we often read of in Scripture. They are termed twelve princes, verse 16, or heads of families, which, in process of time, became nations, numerous, and very considerable. And his posterity had not only tents in fields, wherein they grew rich in time of peace, but they had towns and castles, wherein they fortified themselves in times of war. Their number and strength were the fruit of the promise made to Hagar, concerning Ishmael, Genesis 16:10; and to Abraham, Genesis 17:20, and 21:13.

11. God blessed… Isaac — This verse is a sort of appendix to Abraham’s death. The aged patriarch is buried, but the God of Abraham abides the God of Isaac, and ever lives to fulfil his word. Lahai-roi — See on Genesis 16:14; 24:62. After this new sorrow Isaac might well betake him to the place so memorably associated with his first meeting with his beloved Rebekah, who comforted him after his mother’s death. Generations of Ishmael, Genesis 25:12-18.

Verse 12. These are the generations of Ishmael] The object of the inspired writer seems to be to show how the promises of God were fulfilled to both the branches of Abraham’s family. Isaac has been already referred to; God blessed him according to the promise. He had also promised to multiply Ishmael, and an account of his generation is introduced to show how exactly the promise had also been fulfilled to him.

Verses 11, 12. God blessed Isaac — For the blessing of Abraham did not die with him, but was perpetuated to his posterity, and especially to the children of the promise. The generations of Ishmael — God had made some promises concerning him, and this account of his posterity is given that we may know the accomplishment of them. He had twelve sons, the names of whom are here recorded; two of them, Midian and Kedan, we often read of in Scripture. They are termed twelve princes, verse 16, or heads of families, which, in process of time, became nations, numerous, and very considerable. And his posterity had not only tents in fields, wherein they grew rich in time of peace, but they had towns and castles, wherein they fortified themselves in times of war. Their number and strength were the fruit of the promise made to Hagar, concerning Ishmael, Genesis 16:10; and to Abraham, Genesis 17:20, and 21:13.

12. These are the generations — This is the eighth section so beginning. “According to custom,” says Murphy, “before the history of the principal line is taken up, that of the collateral branch is briefly given. Thus Cain’s history is closed before Seth’s is commenced; Japheth and Ham are before Shem; Haran and Nahor before Abram. And so the sons of Keturah are first dismissed from the pages of history, and then Ishmael.”

Verse 13. Nebajoth] From whom came the Nabatheans, whose capital was Petra, or, according to Strabo, Nabathea. They dwelt in Arabia Petræa, and extended themselves on the east towards Arabia Deserta. Kedar] The founder of the Cedreans, who dwelt near to the Nabatheans. The descendants of Kedar form a part of the Saracens. Adbeel, and Mibsam] Where these were situated is not known.

13-15. The names — We find scattered notices of these names in later books. Thus, Nebajoth in Isaiah 60:7, probably the Nabataeans of later history; Kedar in Isaiah 21:17; 42:11; 60:7; Jeremiah 2:10; 49:28; Ezekiel 27:21; Psalm 120:5; Song of Solomon 1:5; Dumah in Isaiah 21:11; Tema in Job 6:19; Isaiah 21:14; Jeremiah 25:23; Jetur and Naphish in 1 Chronicles 5:19. From Jetur probably sprung the Ituraeans of later history. Many of these, no doubt, became intermingled with the sons of Keturah. See on verses 2-4.

Verse 14. Mishma, and Dumah, and Massa] Where the first and last of these settled is not known; but it is probable that Dumah gave his name to a place called Dumah in Arabia. See a prophecy concerning this place, Isaiah 21:11, from which we find that it was in the vicinity of Mount Seir.

These three names have passed into a proverb among the Hebrews, because of their signification. [mvm mishma signifies HEARING; hmwd dumah, SILENCE; and acm massa, PATIENCE. Hence, “Hear much, say little, and bear much,” tantamount to the famous maxim of the Stoics, anecou kai apecou, “Sustain and abstain,” is supposed to be the spirit of the original words.

Ver. 14. Dumah is mentioned as living in mount Seir, and menaced by the watchman with a visitation. Isaiah 21:11. Tema, Dedan, and others are menaced in the same chapter. Ishmael’s twelve sons settled themselves on the eastern shores of the Red sea; and they are often in modern history denominated Saracens, because Ishmael, till the birth of Isaac, was accounted Sarah’s son.

13-15. The names — We find scattered notices of these names in later books. Thus, Nebajoth in Isaiah 60:7, probably the Nabataeans of later history; Kedar in Isaiah 21:17; 42:11; 60:7; Jeremiah 2:10; 49:28; Ezekiel 27:21; Psalm 120:5; Song of Solomon 1:5; Dumah in Isaiah 21:11; Tema in Job 6:19; Isaiah 21:14; Jeremiah 25:23; Jetur and Naphish in 1 Chronicles 5:19. From Jetur probably sprung the Ituraeans of later history. Many of these, no doubt, became intermingled with the sons of Keturah. See on verses 2-4.

Verse 15. Hadar] This name should be read Hadad as in 1 Chronicles 1:30. This reading is supported by more than three hundred MSS., versions, and printed editions. See Clarke at “Genesis 25:18”. Tema] Supposed to be a place in Arabia Deserta, the same of which Job speaks, Job 6:19.

Jetur] From whom came the Itureans, who occupied a small tract of country beyond Jordan, which was afterwards possessed by the half-tribe of Manasseh.

Naphish] These are evidently the same people mentioned 1 Chronicles 5:19, who, with the Itureans and the people of Nadab, assisted the Hagarenes against the Israelites, but were overcome by the two tribes of Reuben and Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh.

Kedemah] Probably the descendants of this person dwelt at Kedemoth, a place mentioned Deuteronomy 2:26. I wish the reader to observe, that concerning those ancient tribes mentioned here or elsewhere in the Pentateuch little is known; nor of their places of settlement have we more certain information. On this subject many learned men have toiled hard with but little fruit of their labour. Those who wish to enter into discussions of this nature must consult Bochart’s Geographia Sacra, Calmet, &c.

13-15. The names — We find scattered notices of these names in later books. Thus, Nebajoth in Isaiah 60:7, probably the Nabataeans of later history; Kedar in Isaiah 21:17; 42:11; 60:7; Jeremiah 2:10; 49:28; Ezekiel 27:21; Psalm 120:5; Song of Solomon 1:5; Dumah in Isaiah 21:11; Tema in Job 6:19; Isaiah 21:14; Jeremiah 25:23; Jetur and Naphish in 1 Chronicles 5:19. From Jetur probably sprung the Ituraeans of later history. Many of these, no doubt, became intermingled with the sons of Keturah. See on verses 2-4.

Verse 16. These are their names] By which their descendants were called. Their towns-places of encampment in the wilderness, such as have been used by the Arabs from the remotest times. Their castles, mtryc tirotham, their towers, probably mountain tops, fortified rocks, and fastnesses of various kinds in woods and hilly countries.

Ver. 16. Their castles; cities, habitations, tabernacles. The primitive word Ar, dar, as in Cheddar, arma, or the old French les rochars, signifies rock, munition or defence. They could not expose themselves and their riches to wild beasts and invaders, without a place of defence.

16. By their towns, and… castles — Rather, in their village and in their encampment. “It is generally known, that the Arabs are, according to their mode of life, divided into two chief classes: those of towns or villages, and those of the deserts, or the dwellers in tents. The latter, of course nomadic in their habits, are the Bedouins and Scenitae. It is not improbable that these two different classes are alluded to in the words, ‘By their villages and by their tents.’ The roaming Bedouins regard the agricultural population with a certain contempt as slaves of toil and drudgery. They seldom cultivate the land which they may have inherited or won by their valour; but rent it out for a fixed annual sum to peasants subordinated to them in a kind of vassalage.” — Kalisch. Twelve princes — Ishmael, like Israel, had twelve sons, who became the princes and heads of so many tribes. Nations — twma, peoples, or tribes sprung from one common mother, µa.

V. 17. He lived an hundred and thirty and seven years-Which is recorded to shew the efficacy of Abraham’s prayer for him, Genesis 17:18. O that Ishmael might live before thee! Then he also was gathered to his people. And he died in the presence of all his brethren-With his friends about him. Who would not wish so to do?

Verse 17. He lived a hundred and thirty-seven years — Which is recorded to show the efficacy of Abraham’s prayer for him, Genesis 17:18, O that Ishmael might live before thee! Then he also was gathered to his people. And he died in the presence of all his brethren — With his friends about him. Who would not wish so to die?

Ver. 17. Ishmael gave up the ghost, and died in the 137th year of his age, and in the faith of Abraham. We are struck here with the special providence of God, in gradually shortening the life of man. There was no need, as men multiplied, that he should reach the years of his fathers. The few who now surpass their hundredth year, have been exempt from intemperance, from violent passions, from severity of manual labour. They have been regular in the hours of sleep, and happy in the married state. With them, the flame of animal life, like a candle in a calm place, has burned its full time.

17. Hundred and thirty and seven — Lange suggests that the violent disposition and passions of Ishmael consumed his life comparatively early; while the more peaceful and serene Isaac outlived him by more than forty years. His people — He doubtless died in the faith of Abraham. Comp. verse 8, note.

Verse 18. They dwelt from Havilah unto Shur] The descendants of Ishmael possessed all that country which extends from east to west, from Havilah on the Euphrates, near its junction with the Tigris, to the desert of Shur eastward of Egypt; and which extends along the isthmus of Suez, which separates the Red Sea from the Mediterranean.

As thou goest toward Assyria] “These words,” says Calmet, “may refer either to Egypt, to Shur, or to Havilah. The desert of Shur is on the road from Egypt to Assyria in traversing Arabia Petræa, and in passing by the country of Havilah. I know not,” adds he, “whether Ashshurah in the text may not mark out rather the Asshurim descended from Keturah, than the Assyrians, who were the descendants of Asshur the son of Shem.” He died in the presence of all his brethren] The original will not well bear this translation. In Genesis 25:17 it is said, He gave up the ghost and died, and was gathered to his people. Then follows the account of the district occupied by the Ishmaelites, at the conclusion of which it is added lpn wyja lk ynp l[ al peney col echaiv naphal, “IT (the lot or district) FELL (or was divided to him) in the presence of all his brethren:” and this was exactly agreeable to the promise of God, Genesis 16:12, He shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren; and to show that this promise had been strictly fulfilled, it is here remarked that his lot or inheritance was assigned him by Divine Providence, contiguous to that of the other branches of the family. The same word, lpn naphal, is used Joshua 23:4, for to divide by lot.

On the subject of writing the same proper name variously in our common Bibles, the following observations and tables will not be unacceptable to the reader.

“Men who have read their Bible with care,” says Dr. Kennicott, “must have remarked that the name of the same person is often expressed differently in different places. Indeed the variation is sometimes so great that we can scarcely persuade ourselves that one and the same person is really meant. A uniform expression of proper names is diligently attended to in other books: perhaps in every other book, except the Old Testament. But here we find strange variety in the expression, and consequently great confusion: and indeed there is scarcely any one general source of error which calls for more careful correction than the same proper names now wrongly expressed. I shall add here, from the Pentateuch, some proper names which are strangely varied: first, twenty-three names expressed differently in the Hebrew text itself, and seventeen of them in our English translation; and then thirty-one names expressed uniformly in the Hebrew yet differently in the English. “Nothing can be more clear than that these fifty-four proper names (at least the far greater part of them) should be expressed with the very same letters, in the places where they are now different. In the second list, instances 6, 10, and 13, have been corrected and expressed uniformly in the English Bible printed at Oxford in 1769. And surely the same justice in the translation should be done to the rest of these proper names, and to all others through the Bible; at least, where the original words are now properly the same. Who would not wonder at seeing the same persons named both Simon and Shimon, Richard and Ricard? And can we then admit here both Seth and Sheth, Rachel and Rahel? Again: whoever could admit (as above) both Gaza and Azzak, with Rameses and Raamses, should not object to London and Ondon, with Amsterdam and Amstradam. In short, in a history far more interesting than any other, the names of persons and places should be distinguished accurately, and defined with exact uniformity. And no true critic will think lightly of this advice of Origen, Contemnenda non est accurata circa NOMINA diligentia ei, qui volurit probe intelligere sanctas literas? No person who desires thoroughly to understand the sacred writings, should undervalue a scrupulous attention to the proper names.”-Kennicott’s Remarks.

18. From Havilah unto Shur — Or, as we might say, from the Arabian Gulf and the Euphrates to the border of Egypt and the Red Sea. On Havilah see Genesis 10:7, 29; and on Shur see on Genesis 16:7; 20:1, and Exodus 15:22. As thou goest toward Assyria — One journeying most directly from Egypt to Assyria would pass through this broad Ishmaelite territory. Died — Rather, he fell, or threw himself, lpn. This word is here used somewhat in the sense of the American word squat; he threw himself down upon, or settled in this region, between Havilah and Shur. The word is rendered lay along in Judges 7:12, where it is said the Midianites and Amalekites and Bene-Kedem fell with their tents and cattle in the valley. That is, they dropped down, flung themselves down, intending to stay. Thus was fulfilled the prophecy of Genesis 16:12.

Generations of Isaac, Genesis 25:19-35:29.

Verse 19. These are the generations of Isaac] This is the history of Isaac and his family. Here the sixth section of the law begins, called qj[y tdlwt toledoth yitschak; as the fifth, called hrc yyj chaiye Sarah, which begins with Genesis 23:1, ends at the preceding verse.

BIRTH OF ESAU AND JACOB, 19-26.

19. These are the generations of Isaac — Thus characteristically this new section of the history opens. We have also a repetition of Isaac’s birth, his age at marriage, and the name, country, father, and brother of his wife.

V. 20. And Isaac was forty years old-Not much is related concerning Isaac, but what had reference to his father, while he lived, and to his sons afterward; for Isaac seems not to have been a man of action, nor much tried, but to have spent his day, in quietness and silence.

Verse 20. And Isaac was forty years old — Not much is related concerning Isaac, but what had reference to his father, while he lived, and to his sons afterward; for Isaac seems not to have been a man of action, nor to have been much tried, but to have spent his days in quietness and silence.

BIRTH OF ESAU AND JACOB, 19-26.

19. These are the generations of Isaac — Thus characteristically this new section of the history opens. We have also a repetition of Isaac’s birth, his age at marriage, and the name, country, father, and brother of his wife.

V. 21. And Isaac intreated the Lord for his wife-Though God had promised to multiply his family, he prayed for it; for God’s promises must not supersede but encourage our prayers, and be improved as the ground of our faith. Though he had prayed for this mercy many years, and it was not granted, yet he did not leave off praying for it.

Verse 21. Isaac entreated the Lord for his wife] Isaac and Rebekah had now lived nineteen years together without having a child; for he was forty years old when he married Rebekah, Genesis 25:20, and he was threescore years of age when Jacob and Esau were born, Genesis 25:26. Hence it is evident they had lived nineteen years together without having a child.

The form of the original in this place is worthy of notice: Isaac entreated Jehovah, wtva jknl lenochach ishto, directly, purposely, especially, for his wife. Ainsworth thinks the words imply their praying together for this thing; and the rabbins say that “Isaac and Rebekah went on purpose to Mount Moriah, where he had been bound, and prayed together there that they might have a son.” God was pleased to exercise the faith of Isaac previous to the birth of Jacob, as he had exercised that of Abraham previous to his own birth.

Verse 21. And Isaac entreated the Lord for his wife — Though God had promised to multiply his family, he prayed for it; for God’s promises must not supersede, but encourage our prayers, and be improved as the ground of our faith. Though he had prayed for this mercy many years, and it was not granted, yet he did not leave off praying for it.

Ver. 21. Isaac entreated the Lord for his wife. The three patriarchs were greatly honoured with posterity, but first they were greatly tried. Abraham waited twenty five years, Isaac twenty, and Jacob must serve seven years for Rachel, and then be put off for a second servitude. These mysteries of providence were no doubt designed to subdue and sanctify the will.

21. Entreated the Lord — The word for entreated (rt[) implies earnest and repeated prayer, and perhaps the accompaniment of incense offering, or some kind of sacrifice. See the Hebrews lexicons on the word. We note that Isaac directs his prayer to Jehovah, the God of the covenant and the promises. Was entreated — Was prevailed upon by his importunity. Compare Luke 18:7. “The heir of promise was to be a child of prayer.”

V. 22. The children struggled within her-The commotion was altogether extra-ordinary, and made her very uneasy:

If it be so, or, since it is so, why am I thus?-Before the want of children was her trouble, now the struggle of the children is no less so. And she went to enquire of the Lord-Some think Melchizedek was now consulted as an oracle, or perhaps some Urim or Teraphim were now used to enquire of God by, as afterwards in the breast-plate of judgment. The word and prayer, by which we now enquire of the Lord, give great relief to those that are upon any account perplexed: it is a mighty ease to spread our case before the Lord, and ask council at his mouth.

Verse 22. The children struggled together] wxxrty yithrotsatsu, they dashed against or bruised each other, there was a violent agitation, so that the mother was apprehensive both of her own and her children’s safety; and, supposing this was an uncommon case, she went to inquire of the Lord, as the good women in the present day would go to consult a surgeon or physician; for intercourse with God is not so common now, as it was in those times of great primitive simplicity. There are different opinions concerning the manner in which Rebekah inquired of the Lord. Some think it was by faith and prayer simply; others, that she went to Shem or Melchizedek; but Shem is supposed to have been dead ten years before this time; but as Abraham was yet alive, she might have gone to him, and consulted the Lord through his means. It is most likely that a prophet or priest was applied to on this occasion. It appears she was in considerable perplexity, hence that imperfect speech, If so, why am I thus? the simple meaning of which is probably this; if I must suffer such things, why did I ever wish to have a child? A speech not uncommon to mothers in their first pregnancy.

Verse 22. The children struggled within her — In an unusual and painful manner; a presage of the enmity of these two sons and their posterities. If it be so, or since it is so, why am I thus? — That is, as some interpret it, “If I am with child, what is the reason of this unusual commotion I feel?” Or, as others explain her exclamation, “If I must suffer such uncommon pangs, why did I conceive?” Before, the want of children was her trouble; now, the struggle of her children is no less so. She went to inquire of the Lord — Probably she consulted Melchizedek, or some other holy person, who was favoured with divine revelations: or perhaps the expression only means that she addressed herself to God in prayer. The Word of God and prayer, by which we now inquire of him, give great relief to those that are, upon any account, perplexed. It is a mighty ease to spread our case before the Lord, and ask counsel at his mouth. Reader, let this be thy practice in all thy difficulties and perplexities.

Ver. 22. She went to enquire of the Lord. The oracle was at Salem with Melchizedek, but she might enquire of Abraham.

22. Struggled together within her — Hebrews, dashed against one another. Premonition of the coming differences between the offspring. If it be so, why am I thus — The Vulgate reads: “If it was to have been so with me, why should I have conceived?” Rebekah was evidently of an excitable and emotional temperament, (compare Genesis 27:46,) and under the pains of maturing pregnancy yielded fitfully to despondency and gloom. Went to inquire of the Lord — Where and how, has been often asked, but not so easily answered. The old Jewish interpreters suppose she went to Shem, or to Melchizedek, who were still living. Much more probable is the supposition that she went to Abraham, who was still living, and known as a prophet, (Genesis 20:7, compare 1 Samuel 9:9,) and doubtless intensely interested in the prospective offspring of Isaac. But, perhaps, she went to that domestic altar where Isaac had so earnestly besought Jehovah for her, (verse 21,) and Jehovah answered by his angel as he spoke to Hagar. Genesis 16:11.

V. 23. Two nations are in thy womb-She was now big not only with two children, but two nations, which should not only in their manners greatly differ from each other, but in their interest contend with each other, and the issue of the contest should be that the

elder should serve the younger, which was fulfilled in the subjection of the Edomites for many ages to the house of David.

Verse 23. Two nations are in thy womb] “We have,” says Bishop Newton, “in the prophecies delivered respecting the sons of Isaac, ample proof that these prophecies were not meant so much of single persons as of whole nations descended from them; for what was predicted concerning Esau and Jacob was not verified in themselves, but in their posterity. The Edomites were the offspring of Esau, the Israelites were of Jacob; and who but the Author and Giver of life could foresee that two children in the womb would multiply into two nations? Jacob had twelve sons, and their descendants were all united and incorporated into one nation; and what an overruling providence was it that two nations should arise from the two sons only of Isaac! and that they should be two such different nations! The Edomites and Israelites have been from the beginning two such different people in their manners, customs, and religion, as to be at perpetual variance among themselves. The children struggled together in the womb, which was an omen of their future disagreement; and when they grew up to manhood, they manifested very different inclinations. Esau was a cunning hunter, and delighted in the sports of the field; Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents-minding his sheep and his cattle. The religion of the Jews is well known; but whatever the Edomites were at first, in process of time they became idolaters. When Amaziah king of Judah overthrew them, he brought their gods, and set them up to be his gods. The king of Edom having refused a passage to the Israelites through his territories on their return from Egypt, the history of the Edomites afterwards is little more than the history of their wars with the Jews.”

The one people shall be stronger than the other people] The same author continues to observe, that “for some time the family of Esau was the more powerful of the two, there having been dukes and kings in Edom before there was any king in Israel; but David and his captains made an entire conquest of the Edomites, slew several thousands of them, and compelled the rest to become tributaries, and planted garrisons among them to secure their obedience. In this state of servitude they continued about one hundred and fifty years, without a king of their own, being governed by deputies or viceroys appointed by the kings of Judah; but in the days of Jehoram they revolted, recovered their liberties, and set up a king of their own. Afterwards Amaziah, king of Judah, gave them a total overthrow in the valley of Salt; and Azariah took Elath, a commodious harbour on the Red Sea, from them. Judas Maccabeus also attacked and defeated them with a loss of more than twenty thousand at two different times, and took their chief city Hebron. At last Hyrcanus his nephew took other cities from them, and reduced them to the necessity of leaving their country or embracing the Jewish religion; on which they submitted to be circumcised, and become proselytes to the Jewish religion, and were ever afterwards incorporated into the Jewish Church and nation.”

The elder shall serve the younger.] “This passage,” says Dr. Dodd, “serves for a key to explain the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, where the words are quoted; for it proves to a demonstration that this cannot be meant of God’s arbitrary predestination of particular persons to eternal happiness or misery, without any regard to their merit or demerit-a doctrine which some have most impiously fathered on God, who is the best of beings, and who cannot possibly hate, far less absolutely doom to misery, any creature that he has made: but that it means only his bestowing greater external favours, or, if you please, higher opportunities for knowing and doing their duty, upon some men, than he does upon others; and that merely according to his own wise purpose, without any regard to their merits or demerits, as having a right to confer greater or smaller degrees or perfection on whom he pleases.”

The doctrine of unconditional predestination to eternal life and eternal death cannot be supported by the example of God’s dealings with Esau and Jacob, or with the Edomites and Israelites. After long reprobation the Edomites were incorporated among the Jews, and have ever since been undistinguishable members in the Jewish Church. The Jews, on the contrary, the elect of God, have been cut off and reprobated, and continue so to this day. If a time should ever come when the Jews shall all believe in Christ Jesus, which is a general opinion, then the Edomites, which are now absorbed among them, shall also become the elect. And even now Isaac finds both his children within the pale of the Jewish Church, equally entitled to the promises of salvation by Christ Jesus, of whom he was the most expressive and the most illustrious type. See the account of Abraham’s offering, Genesis 22:2-14.

Verse 23. Two nations are in thy womb — The fathers of two nations, namely, of the Edomites and Israelites; two manner of people, which should not only greatly differ from each other in religion, laws, manners, but should contend with each other, and the issue of the contest should be, that the elder should serve the younger, which was fulfilled in the subjection of the Edomites, for many ages, to the house of David.

Ver. 23. Two nations are in thy womb—and the elder nation of Edom shall serve the younger, the Israelites; as was the case when David made them tributary. St. Paul improves this by showing that believers in Christ are now the children of the promise, the sheep of the shepherd’s fold; and the poor unbelieving Jews crouch for a pittance of bread to the christian church, who are now the chosen generation, the new or peculiar Israel of God. Reader, beware of construing this prophecy, in misguided theories of eternal reprobation.

23. The Lord said — Here, too, we have a poetic strain:

Then said Jehovah to her,

Two nations are in thy womb,

And two peoples from thy bowels shall be separated.

And people than people shall be stronger,

And the great shall serve the small.

What immediate effect this oracle had on Rebekah we are not told, but it probably served, in the subsequent time, to give her an intuitive partiality for the younger son. The subsequent history of the Israelites and the Edomites show how truly this prophecy was fulfilled. The descendants of Esau were strong, and fortified themselves in Mount Seir. They refused the Israelites a passage through their territory. Numbers 20:18. But Saul vexed them with his wars, (1 Samuel 14:47,) and David subdued them, and put garrisons throughout their land, (2 Samuel 8:14,) and they remained in such subjection till the days of Joram. 2 Kings 8:20. Then, according to Isaac’s prophecy, Esau broke his brother’s yoke from off his neck. Genesis 27:40.

Verse 24. There were twins] תומם thomim, from which comes Thomas, properly interpreted by the word didumov, Didymus, which signifies a twin; so the first person who was called Thomas or Didymus, we may take for granted, had this name from the circumstance of his being a twin.

BIRTH OF ESAU AND JACOB, 19-26.

19. These are the generations of Isaac — Thus characteristically this new section of the history opens. We have also a repetition of Isaac’s birth, his age at marriage, and the name, country, father, and brother of his wife.

V. 25. Esau when he was born was red and hairy, as if he had been already a grown man, whence he had his name Esau, made, reared already. This was an indication of a very strong constitution, and gave cause to expect that he would be a very robust, daring, active man. But Jacob was smooth and tender as other children.

Verse 25. Red, all over like a hairy garment] This simply means that he was covered all over with red hair or down; and that this must be intended here is sufficiently evident from another part of his history, where Rebekah, in order to make her favourite son Jacob pass for his brother Esau, was obliged to take the skins of kids, and put them upon his hands and on the smooth part of his neck.

They called his name Esau.] It is difficult to assign the proper meaning of the original wc[ esau or esav; if we derive it from hc[ asah it must signify made, performed, and, according to some, perfected; [Arabic] esa in Arabic signifies to make firm or hard, and also to come to man’s estate, to grow old. Probably he had this name from his appearing to be more perfect, robust, &c., than his brother.

Verse 25. Red, like a hairy garment — With red hair all over his body, as if he had been already a grown man, whence he had his name, Esau, made, reared already. This was an indication of a very strong constitution, and gave cause to expect that he would be a very robust, daring, active man. But Jacob was smooth and tender, as other children.

25. Red, all over like a hairy garment — “His whole body was as if covered with a fur, with an unusual quantity of hair, (hypertrichosis,) which is sometimes the case with new-born infants, but was a sign in this instance of excessive sensual vigour and wildness.” — Keil. Esau — Which means hairy.

V. 26. His hand took hold on Esau’s heel-This signified, 1. Jacob’s pursuit of the birth-right and blessing; from the first he reached forth to have catched hold of it, and if possible to have prevented his brother.

2. His prevailing for it at last: that in process of time he should gain his point. This passage is referred to Hosea 12:3, and from hence he had his name Jacob, a supplanter.

Verse 26. His name was called Jacob] bq[y Yaccob, from bq[ akab, to defraud, deceive, to supplant, i.e., to overthrow a person by tripping up his heels. Hence this name was given to Jacob, because it was found he had laid hold on his brother’s heel, which was emblematical of his supplanting Esau, and defrauding him of his birthright.

Verse 26. His hand took hold on Esau’s heel — This signified, 1st, Jacob’s pursuit of the birthright and blessing; from the first he reached forth to have caught hold of it, and if possible to have prevented his brother. 2d, His prevailing for it at last: that, in process of time, he should gain his point. This passage is referred to, Hosea 12:3, and from hence he had his name, Jacob, which means, He took him by the heel, or he supplanted.

Ver. 26. Jacob. bq[ akob, the heel; hence Jacob, a heeler, as in Genesis 27:36. The reference is to the serpent which bites the heel of the unwary. On this account the birthright was a constant subject of dispute between these twins.

26. His hand took hold on Esau’s heel — His birth seems to have followed that of Esau more speedily than is usual in the case of twins, and his hand was so extended as to seem to grasp hold of Esau’s heel. Hence his name Jacob, heel-catcher. Compare Genesis 27:36. Threescore years old — Twenty years after the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah. Comp. verse 20.

V. 27. Esau was an hunter-And a man that knew how to live by his wits, for he was a cunning hunter.

A man of the field-All for the game, and never so well but as when he was in pursuit of it.

And Jacob was a plain man-An honest man, that dealt fairly. And dwelt in tents-Either, 1. As a shepherd, loving that safe and silent employment of keeping sheep, to which also he bred up his children, Genesis 46:34. Or,

2. As a student, he frequented the tents of Melchizedek or Heber, as some understand it, to be taught by them divine things.

Verse 27. A man of the field] hdc vya ish sadeh, one who supported himself and family by hunting and by agriculture.

Jacob was a plain man] ועהתתאם איש ish tam, a perfect or upright man; dwelling in tents-subsisting by breeding and tending cattle, which was considered in those early times the most perfect employment; and in this sense the word ועהתתאם tam, should be here understood, as in its moral meaning it certainly could not be applied to Jacob till after his name was changed, after which time only his character stands fair and unblemished. See Genesis 32:26-30.

Verse 27. Jacob was a plain man — This probably means, that he was of a mild and gentle nature, of a contemplative turn of mind, and delighting in a pastoral life.

Ver. 27. Plain man. The Hebrew word, taim, perfect, indicates rectitude and purity.

SALE OF ESAU’S BIRTHRIGHT, 27-34.

27. The boys grew — And their diverse dispositions and tendencies early developed themselves. Esau was a cunning hunter — A man knowing the chase, or skilled in hunting. We are to think of him as the hairy man, rough, impulsive, desperate; loving the dangers and excitements of the chase. Jacob was a plain man — µt vya, a complete man. The word µt is generally used of moral uprightness and integrity. The kindred word µymt is used in Genesis 17:1, where Jehovah says to Abraham, “walk before me and be thou perfect.” Here the word seems to mean simplicity, mildness, and inoffensiveness of disposition, in contrast with the wild and daring character of Esau. Jacob was a complete man in the simplicity and regularity of his temper and domestic habits.

V. 28. And Isaac loved Esau-Isaac though he was not a stirring man himself, yet he loved to have his son active. Esau knew how to please him, and shewed a great respect for him, by treating him often with venison, which won upon him more than one would have thought. But Rebekah loved him whom God loved.

Verse 28. Isaac loved Esau-but Rebekah loved Jacob.] This is an early proof of unwarrantable parental attachment to one child in preference to another. Isaac loved Esau, and Rebekah loved Jacob; and in consequence of this the interests of the family were divided, and the house set in opposition to itself. The fruits of this unreasonable and foolish attachment were afterwards seen in a long catalogue of both natural and moral evils among the descendants of both families.

Verse 28. Isaac loved Esau — The conduct of both these parents was blameable: they had but these two children, and the father was peculiarly attached to the one, and the mother to the other. And this improper partiality gave occasion to that strife which once threatened their being deprived of them both. Such partiality should be carefully guarded against in parents, as being both sinful in itself, and of dangerous tendency. It is true some children may be of a much more amiable spirit and conduct than others of the same family; yet all ought to have a due share of parental regard, and none be in any manner slighted or neglected.

28. Because he did eat — Literally, for hunting was in his mouth, that is, the results of hunting — game. Comp. Genesis 27:4. Rebekah loved Jacob — No reason is given for her partial love, but we easily infer it was owing to Jacob’s more domestic habits, and the prophecy which had gone before his birth. Isaac seems, after the birth of his sons, to have been strangely swayed by carnal appetite. Quiet, unenterprising, and timid, he was drawn by the law of attraction of opposites to his daring, impetuous, and resolute son, while the quick and impulsive Rebekah loved (best) the mild and undemonstrative, but scheming, Jacob. Esau was frank and bold, but coarse and carnal; Jacob was timid, reticent, and shrewd, but spiritual. Esau had no spiritual insight, no relish whatever for the blessings and duties of the great Abrahamic covenant, he cared only for the carnal portion of the birthright; Jacob, though selfish and cunning, yet had a genuine hunger for the things of God; but it required a long and painful discipline, mighty, spiritual strugglings and angelic wrestlings to qualify him to become the heir of Abraham. In this patriarchal home the mother was the ruling spirit, and the timorous Isaac and unsuspecting Esau were no match for the resolute Rebekah and scheming Jacob. God used, yet punished, these sins. The shortsightedness of Isaac, the wild ferocity of Esau, the deception of Rebekah and Jacob, were woven into the web of providence for man’s good and God’s glory.

V. 29. Sod-That is, boiled.

Verse 29. Sod pottage] dyzn dzy yazed nazid, he boiled a boiling; and this we are informed, Genesis 25:34, was of µyvd[ adashim, what the Septuagint render fakon, and we, following them and the Vulgate lens, translate lentiles, a sort of pulse. Dr. Shaw casts some light on this passage, speaking of the inhabitants of Barbary. “Beans, lentiles, kidney beans, and garvancos,” says he, “are the chiefest of their pulse kind; beans, when boiled and stewed with oil and garlic, are the principal food of persons of all distinctions; lentiles are dressed in the same manner with beans, dissolving easily into a mass, and making a pottage of a chocolate colour. This we find was the red pottage which Esau, from thence called Edom, exchanged for his birthright.” Shaw’s Travels, p. 140, 4to. edit.

Verses 29-32. Sod — That is, boiled. Edom, or red. Sell me this day thy birthright — He cannot be excused in taking advantage of Esau’s necessity; yet neither can Esau be excused, who was profane, Hebrews 12:16, because for one morsel of meat he sold his birthright. Various have been the opinions what this birthright was which Esau sold, but the most probable is, that, together with the right of sacrificing, and being the priest of the family, it included the peculiar blessing promised to the seed of Abraham, that of being the progenitor of the Messiah, and the heir of the special promises of God, respecting Christ’s kingdom. It was at least typical of spiritual privileges, those of the firstborn that are written in heaven. Esau was now tried how he would value those, and he shows himself sensible only of present grievances; may he but get relief against them, he cares not for his birthright. If we look on Esau’s birthright as only a temporal advantage, what he said had something of truth in it; our worldly enjoyments, even those we are most fond of, will stand us in no stead in a dying hour. They will not put by the stroke of death, nor ease the pangs, nor remove the sting of it. But being of a spiritual nature, his undervaluing it was the greatest profaneness imaginable. It is egregious folly to part with our interest in God, and Christ, and heaven, for the riches, honours, and pleasures of this world.

29. Sod pottage — Jacob boiled a dish of lentiles, (verse 34,) a podded vegetable like the pea or bean, which is cooked by parching over the fire or boiling into a soup, making a favourite and highly nutritious dish all through the East. There is a small red variety of lentile which makes a reddish brown, or chocolate coloured pottage, much prized by the Arabs, which, when being cooked, exhales a savoury odour very grateful to a hungry man. Robinson, Thomson. Jacob’s household tastes made him skilful in the preparation of this favourite dish. In Eastern homes food is prepared only as it is wanted; and when Esau returned home from the unsuccessful hunt, fatigued and faint, and saw and smelled the red savoury pottage steaming in Jacob’s tent, impetuous, impatient, and hungry, he cried out,

V. 30. Edom-That is, red.

Verse 30. I am faint] It appears from the whole of this transaction, that Esau was so completely exhausted by fatigue that he must have perished had he not obtained some immediate refreshment. He had been either hunting or labouring in the field, and was now returning for the purpose of getting some food, but had been so exhausted that his strength utterly failed before he had time to make the necessary preparations.

Verses 29-32. Sod — That is, boiled. Edom, or red. Sell me this day thy birthright — He cannot be excused in taking advantage of Esau’s necessity; yet neither can Esau be excused, who was profane, Hebrews 12:16, because for one morsel of meat he sold his birthright. Various have been the opinions what this birthright was which Esau sold, but the most probable is, that, together with the right of sacrificing, and being the priest of the family, it included the peculiar blessing promised to the seed of Abraham, that of being the progenitor of the Messiah, and the heir of the special promises of God, respecting Christ’s kingdom. It was at least typical of spiritual privileges, those of the firstborn that are written in heaven. Esau was now tried how he would value those, and he shows himself sensible only of present grievances; may he but get relief against them, he cares not for his birthright. If we look on Esau’s birthright as only a temporal advantage, what he said had something of truth in it; our worldly enjoyments, even those we are most fond of, will stand us in no stead in a dying hour. They will not put by the stroke of death, nor ease the pangs, nor remove the sting of it. But being of a spiritual nature, his undervaluing it was the greatest profaneness imaginable. It is egregious folly to part with our interest in God, and Christ, and heaven, for the riches, honours, and pleasures of this world.

30. Feed me — “Literally, Let me devour now that red, that red, for I am faint; therefore they called his name Red (Edom.) It is the language of greedy, and perhaps imperious, impatience, which Jacob might have resented, whereas he craftily resolved to turn it to his own advantage. In this characteristic incident the sacred writer dramatically paints the two brothers before us. The man, the hungry hunter, led by the senses, is fascinated by the high colour and rich flavour of a mess of pottage, and the meditative schemer of the tents, the man of wits, cannot wait for Providence to bring him the predicted birthright, but must intermeddle with his selfish craft. Here is also an interesting illustration of the origin of names. Some characteristic incident gives rise to a name, and on the subsequent occurrence of a similar incident the appropriateness of the name, or its coincidence with events, is noted, and the name is renewed. Esau is first surnamed Red from his red hair, and then from the red pottage. Jacob is called heel-catcher, or tripper, first literally (verse 26) and then figuratively, (Genesis 27:36,) and the figurative name is first applied when he trips up Esau in the matter of the birthright, and then its appropriateness is noticed again when we arrive at the incident of Isaac’s blessing. We often thus meet in this history with various reasons for the application of the same name.” — Newhall.

V. 31. Sell me this day thy birth-right-He cannot be excused in taking advantage of Esau’s necessity, yet neither can Esau be excused who is profane, Hebrews 12:16, because for one morsel of meat he sold his birth-right. The birth-right was typical of spiritual privileges, those of the church of the first-born: Esau was now tried how he would value those, and he shews himself sensible only of present grievances: may he but get relief against them, he cares not for his birth-right. If we look on Esau’s birth-right as only a temporal advantage, what he said had something of truth in it, that our worldly enjoyments, even those we are most fond of, will stand us in no stead in a dying hour. They will not put by the stroke of death, nor ease the pangs, nor remove the sting. But being of a spiritual nature, his undervaluing it, was the greatest profaneness imaginable. It is egregious folly to part with our interest in God, and Christ, and heaven, for the riches, honours, and pleasures of this world.

Verse 31. Sell me this day thy birthright.] What the hrjb bechorah or birthright was, has greatly divided both ancient and modern commentators. It is generally supposed that the following rights were attached to the primogeniture:—

1. Authority and superiority over the rest of the family.

2. A double portion of the paternal inheritance.

3. The peculiar benediction of the father.

4. The priesthood, previous to its establishment in the family of Aaron.

Calmet controverts most of these rights, and with apparent reason, and seems to think that the double portion of the paternal inheritance was the only incontestable right which the first-born possessed; the others were such as were rather conceded to the first-born, than fixed by any law in the family. However this may be, it appears,

1. That the first-born were peculiarly consecrated to God, Exodus 22:29.

2. Were next in honour to their parents, Genesis 49:3.

3. Had a double portion of their father’s goods, Deuteronomy 21:17.

4. Succeeded him in the government of the family or kingdom, 2 Chronicles 21:3.

5. Had the sole right of conducting the service of God, both at the tabernacle and temple; and hence the tribe of Levi, which was taken in lieu of the first-born, had the sole right of administration in the service of God, Numbers 8:14-18; and hence we may presume, had originally a right to the priesthood previous to the giving of the law; but however this might have been, afterwards the priesthood is never reckoned among the privileges of the first-born. That the birthright was a matter of very great importance, there can be no room to doubt; and that it was a transferable property, the transaction here sufficiently proves.

Verses 29-32. Sod — That is, boiled. Edom, or red. Sell me this day thy birthright — He cannot be excused in taking advantage of Esau’s necessity; yet neither can Esau be excused, who was profane, Hebrews 12:16, because for one morsel of meat he sold his birthright. Various have been the opinions what this birthright was which Esau sold, but the most probable is, that, together with the right of sacrificing, and being the priest of the family, it included the peculiar blessing promised to the seed of Abraham, that of being the progenitor of the Messiah, and the heir of the special promises of God, respecting Christ’s kingdom. It was at least typical of spiritual privileges, those of the firstborn that are written in heaven. Esau was now tried how he would value those, and he shows himself sensible only of present grievances; may he but get relief against them, he cares not for his birthright. If we look on Esau’s birthright as only a temporal advantage, what he said had something of truth in it; our worldly enjoyments, even those we are most fond of, will stand us in no stead in a dying hour. They will not put by the stroke of death, nor ease the pangs, nor remove the sting of it. But being of a spiritual nature, his undervaluing it was the greatest profaneness imaginable. It is egregious folly to part with our interest in God, and Christ, and heaven, for the riches, honours, and pleasures of this world.

Ver. 31. Sell me this day thy birthright. The birthright constituted a son heir to the house, and a double portion of goods. He had the rights of the priesthood, and without him no one could enquire of God. He had the patriarchal benediction as prince and chief. These privileges were understood to descend to his posterity: yet the sovereignty of God could at all times confer these blessings on whom it was his pleasure. While we are astonished at Esau’s profaneness, we cannot but lament to see every age so full of Esaus. One sells his birthright for wine, another for a harlot, a third for sordid gold: they toil hard and spend their money for that which is not bread.

31. Sell me this day thy birthright — “This birthright not only embraced the authority and honour of the patriarchal headship of the chosen family, but made its possessor heir to the Abrahamic covenant, and thus the channel of God’s great revealed mercies to mankind — a mediator between God and the race — typifying the God-man. Jacob, who was on a much lower spiritual plane than Abraham, by no means comprehended the vastness and dignity of these spiritual blessings, but he appreciated them far more than the worldly and sensual Esau. He knew that he was predestinated to this heir-ship, although he was the younger son. Dreading a collision with his ferocious brother, which seemed inevitable in the event of his father’s death, when the succession would be contested, and lacking faith in God’s unfolding providence, he resolves to avail himself of Esau’s weakness to obtain the birthright by peaceful purchase. The cautious Jacob knows well that Esau will repent as soon as his hunger is sated, and takes care to have the contract ratified by a solemn oath.” — Newhall.

Verses 29-32. Sod — That is, boiled. Edom, or red. Sell me this day thy birthright — He cannot be excused in taking advantage of Esau’s necessity; yet neither can Esau be excused, who was profane, Hebrews 12:16, because for one morsel of meat he sold his birthright. Various have been the opinions what this birthright was which Esau sold, but the most probable is, that, together with the right of sacrificing, and being the priest of the family, it included the peculiar blessing promised to the seed of Abraham, that of being the progenitor of the Messiah, and the heir of the special promises of God, respecting Christ’s kingdom. It was at least typical of spiritual privileges, those of the firstborn that are written in heaven. Esau was now tried how he would value those, and he shows himself sensible only of present grievances; may he but get relief against them, he cares not for his birthright. If we look on Esau’s birthright as only a temporal advantage, what he said had something of truth in it; our worldly enjoyments, even those we are most fond of, will stand us in no stead in a dying hour. They will not put by the stroke of death, nor ease the pangs, nor remove the sting of it. But being of a spiritual nature, his undervaluing it was the greatest profaneness imaginable. It is egregious folly to part with our interest in God, and Christ, and heaven, for the riches, honours, and pleasures of this world.

Ver. 32. Esau said, Behold I am at the point to die; it being now a year of sore famine in the land. But in the time of temptation we must sacrifice life itself, rather than the covenant of our fathers’ God. Esau could not regain the birthright which he had despised, though he sought it carefully with tears.

SALE OF ESAU’S BIRTHRIGHT, 27-34.

27. The boys grew — And their diverse dispositions and tendencies early developed themselves. Esau was a cunning hunter — A man knowing the chase, or skilled in hunting. We are to think of him as the hairy man, rough, impulsive, desperate; loving the dangers and excitements of the chase. Jacob was a plain man — µt vya, a complete man. The word µt is generally used of moral uprightness and integrity. The kindred word µymt is used in Genesis 17:1, where Jehovah says to Abraham, “walk before me and be thou perfect.” Here the word seems to mean simplicity, mildness, and inoffensiveness of disposition, in contrast with the wild and daring character of Esau. Jacob was a complete man in the simplicity and regularity of his temper and domestic habits.

SALE OF ESAU’S BIRTHRIGHT, 27-34.

27. The boys grew — And their diverse dispositions and tendencies early developed themselves. Esau was a cunning hunter — A man knowing the chase, or skilled in hunting. We are to think of him as the hairy man, rough, impulsive, desperate; loving the dangers and excitements of the chase. Jacob was a plain man — µt vya, a complete man. The word µt is generally used of moral uprightness and integrity. The kindred word µymt is used in Genesis 17:1, where Jehovah says to Abraham, “walk before me and be thou perfect.” Here the word seems to mean simplicity, mildness, and inoffensiveness of disposition, in contrast with the wild and daring character of Esau. Jacob was a complete man in the simplicity and regularity of his temper and domestic habits.

V. 34. He did eat and drink, and rise up and went his way-Without any serious reflections upon the ill bargain he had made, or any shew of regret. Thus Esau despised his birth-right-He used no means to get the bargain revoked, made no appeal to his father about it but the bargain which his necessity had made, (supposing it were so) his profaneness confirmed, and by his subsequent neglect and contempt, he put the bargain past recall.

Verse 34. Pottage of lentiles] See Clarke’s note “Genesis 25:29”. Thus Esau despised his birthright.] On this account the apostle, Hebrews 12:16, calls Esau a profane person, because he had, by this act, alienated from himself and family those spiritual offices connected with the rights of primogeniture. While we condemn Esau for this bad action, (for he should rather have perished than have alienated this right,) and while we consider it as a proof that his mind was little affected with Divine or spiritual things, what shall we say of his most unnatural brother Jacob, who refused to let him have a morsel of food to preserve him from death, unless he gave him up his birthright? Surely he who bought it, in such circumstances, was as bad as he who sold it. Thus Jacob verified his right to the name of supplanter, a name which in its first imposition appears to have had no other object in view than the circumstance of his catching his brother by the heel; but all his subsequent conduct proved that it was truly descriptive of the qualities of his mind, as his whole life, till the time his name was changed, (and then he had a change of nature,) was a tissue of cunning and deception, the principles of which had been very early instilled into him by a mother whose regard for truth and righteousness appears to have been very superficial. See on Genesis 27:6-27 THE death of Abraham, recorded in this chapter, naturally calls to mind the virtues and excellences of this extraordinary man. His obedience to the call of God, and faith in his promises, stand supereminent. No wonders, signs, or miraculous displays of the great and terrible God, as Israel required in Egypt, were used or were necessary to cause Abraham to believe and obey. He left his own land, not knowing where he was going, or for what purpose God had called him to remove. Exposed to various hardships, in danger of losing his life, and of witnessing the violation of his wife, he still obeyed and went on; courageous, humane, and disinterested, he cheerfully risked his life for the welfare of others; and, contented with having rescued the captives and avenged the oppressed, he refused to accept even the spoils he had taken from the enemy whom his skill and valour had vanquished. At the same time he considers the excellency of the power to be of God, and acknowledges this by giving to him the tenth of those spoils of which he would reserve nothing for his private use. His obedience to God, in offering up his son Isaac, we have already seen and admired; together with the generosity of his temper, and that respectful decency of conduct towards superiors and inferiors for which he was so peculiarly remarkable; see on Genesis 23:3-7, See Clarke “Genesis 23:17”. Without disputing with his Maker, or doubting in his heart, he credited every thing that God had spoken; hence he always walked in a plain way. The authority of God was always sufficient for Abraham; he did not weary himself to find reasons for any line of conduct which he knew God had prescribed; it was his duty to obey; the success and the event he left with God. His obedience was as prompt as it was complete. As soon as he hears the voice of God, he girds himself to his work! Not a moment is lost! How rare is such conduct! But should not we do likewise? The present moment and its duties are ours; every past moment was once present; every future will be present; and, while we are thinking on the subject, the present is past, for life is made up of the past and the present. Are our past moments the cause of deep regret and humiliation? Then let us use the present so as not to increase this lamentable cause of our distresses. In other words, let us now believe-love-obey. Regardless of all consequences, let us, like Abraham, follow the directions of God’s word, and the openings of his providence, and leave all events to Him who doth all things well. See to what a state of moral excellence the grace of God can exalt a character, when there is simple, implicit faith, and prompt obedience! Abraham walked before God, and Abraham was perfect. Perhaps no human being ever exhibited a fairer, fuller portrait of the perfect man than Abraham. The more I consider the character of this most amiable patriarch, the more I think the saying of Calmet justifiable: “In the life of Abraham,” says he, “we find an epitome of the whole law of nature, of the written law, and of the Gospel of Christ. He has manifested in his own person those virtues, for which reason and philosophy could scarcely find out names, when striving to sketch the character of their sophist-wise or perfect man. St. Ambrose very properly observes that ‘philosophy itself could not equal, in its descriptions and wishes, what was exemplified by this great man in the whole of his conduct.’ Magnus plane vir, quem votis suis philosophia non potuit æquare; denique minus est quod illa finxit quam quod ille gessit. The LAW which God gave to Moses, and in which he has proposed the great duties of the law of nature, seems to be a copy of the life of Abraham. This patriarch, without being under the law, has performed the most essential duties it requires; and as to the GOSPEL, its grand object was that on which he had fixed his eye-that JESUS whose day he rejoiced to see; and as to its spirit and design, they were wondrously exemplified in that faith which was imputed to him for righteousness, receiving that grace which conformed his whole heart and life to the will of his Maker, and enabled him to persevere unto death. ‘Abraham,’ says the writer of Ecclesiasticus, 44:20, &c., ‘was a great father of many people: in glory was there none like unto him, who kept the law of the Most high, and was in covenant with him. He established the covenant in his flesh, and when he was tried he was found faithful.’“ See Calmet.

As a son, as a husband, as a father, as a neighbour, as a sovereign, and above all as a man of God, he stands unrivalled; so that under the most exalted and perfect of all dispensations, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, he is proposed and recommended as the model and pattern according to which the faith, obedience, and perseverance of the followers of the Messiah are to be formed. Reader, while you admire the man, do not forget the God that made him so great, so good, and so useful. Even Abraham had nothing but what he had received; from the free unmerited mercy of God proceeded all his excellences; but he was a worker together with God, and therefore did not receive the grace of God in vain. Go thou, believe, love, obey, and persevere in like manner.

GENESIS

Verse 34. He did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way — Without any serious reflections upon the ill bargain he had made, or any show of regret. Thus Esau despised his birthright — He used no means to get the bargain revoked, made no appeal to his father about it; but the bargain which his necessity had made, (supposing it were so,) his profaneness confirmed, and by his subsequent neglect and contempt, he put the matter past recall.

34. Esau despised his birthright — “In these graphic touches the sacred writer paints the ‘profane’ Esau’s unfitness for the spiritual headship of the chosen people, yet with equal faithfulness depicts the craft and selfishness of the ‘supplanter,’ who afterwards became the ‘warrior of God’ (Israel.)” — Newhall.

In these growing divergences of character, here manifest in the two brothers, Lange observes what he calls “the Hebraic, or profoundest conception of history. All history develops itself from personal beginnings. The personal is predominant in history.”