Genesis · Chapter 26

Verse 1. There was a famine] When this happened we cannot tell; it appears to have been after the death of Abraham. Concerning the first famine, see Genesis 12:10.

Abimelech] As we know not the time when the famine happened, so we cannot tell whether this was the same Abimelech, Phichol, &c., which are mentioned Genesis 20:1, 2, &c., or the sons or other descendants of these persons.

Verse 1. Abimelech was a name common to the kings of Gerar, and the Philistines were of African descent. Genesis 10:14.

ISAAC AND ABIMELECH, 1-33.

This is the only chapter in the history of Isaac which is devoted entirely to incidents in the life of that patriarch, the rest being largely intermixed with the history of his father or his sons. And yet it is a repetition of events remarkably similar to those of one passage in the life of Abraham. Comp. Genesis 20; 21:22-34. So striking are the analogies between these two accounts that rationalistic critics have not hesitated to pronounce them different forms of one and the same story. But we must observe that there are as many points of dissimilarity as of agreement; and in making prominent the fact that Isaac’s life was so largely a repetition of Abraham’s, the sacred writer doubtless had a purpose. How much of human life and history is ever repeating itself! And how slow are many of the best of men to improve by the errors of their fathers or predecessors! To show this is an important part of the purpose of this chapter. The points of agreement with portions of Abraham’s life are as follows: 1) A famine causes Isaac’s moving. Comp. Genesis 12:10. 2) He had some thought of going down into Egypt. Verse 2 compared with Genesis 12:10. 3) The dwelling in Gerar. 4) The names Abimelech and Phicol. 5) Denial of his wife. 6) Reproof by Abimelech. 7) Desire of Abimelech to make a covenant. 8) Strife between herdsmen. 9) Oath at Beer-sheba. 10) Calling on the name of the Lord.

The points of disagreement are as follows: 1) The famine in Isaac’s case is carefully distinguished from that in the days of Abraham. 2) He is prohibited from going into Egypt. 3) Rebekah was not taken into Abimelech’s house as was Sarah. 4) Isaac’s deceit was discovered, not by a judgment of God, but by accident. 5) Abraham was allowed free use of the land; Isaac was requested to leave. 6) Abraham’s difficulty was about the well of Beer-sheba; Isaac was driven from many wells before he withdrew to Beer-sheba. 7) Isaac’s servants discover water at Beer-sheba, and the name is renewed after the oath between him and Abimelech, and after the latter had departed. 8) Abraham made a covenant with seven lambs; Isaac made a feast. 9) Ahuzzah, the friend of Abimelech, is an additional personage in the affair with Isaac; in chap. 20 God appears in a dream to Abimelech, but no special revelations were made to Abraham. A careful scrutiny of these points of agreement and difference will show that the events narrated were two very different affairs… Isaac’s life, while having so many experiences like his father’s, was not a mere echo of the life of Abraham. It had an individuality peculiarly its own, from his being quiet and passive where Abraham was active and bold.

1. A famine — Abraham’s, Isaac’s, and Jacob’s history are each distinguished by a famine, that frequent plague of the East. Besides the first famine — Our historian was not so obtuse, as some critics have assumed, as not to know that Abraham’s life had passages very much like Isaac’s. But he knew, what some critics seem unable to comprehend, that two men’s lives may be largely the one a repetition of the other. Thus history has often repeated itself in less than a century. Abimelech — Possibly the same Abimelech as that of Genesis 20:2. For if he had been aged forty at the time of Abraham’s visit, he would have now been about one hundred and twenty-five — no very unsupposable age for that time, when men lived, as we have seen, to be one hundred and seventy-five years old. But it is altogether probable that this was the son and successor of the Abimelech of Abraham’s time, for both this name and that of Phichol (verse 26) were official titles rather than personal appellations. See notes on Genesis 20:2; 21:22.

V. 2. The Lord said, go not down into Egypt. Sojourn in this land-There was a famine in Jacob’s days, and God bid him go down into Egypt, Genesis 46:3,4, a famine in Isaac’s days, and God bid him not go down: a famine in Abraham’s days, and God left him to his liberty, directing him neither way, which (considering that Egypt was always a place of trial to God’s people) some ground upon the different characters of these three patriarchs. Abraham was a man of very intimate communion with God, and to him all places and conditions were alike; Isaac a very good man, but not cut out for hardship, therefore he is forbidden to go to Egypt; Jacob inured to difficulties, strong and patient, and therefore he must go down into Egypt, that the trial of his faith might be to praise, and honour, and glory. Thus God proportions his people’s trials to their strength.

Verse 2. Go not down into Egypt] As Abraham had taken refuge in that country, it is probable that Isaac was preparing to go thither also; and God, foreseeing that he would there meet with trials, &c., which might prove fatal to his peace or to his piety, warns him not to fulfil his intention.

Verse 2. Go not down into Egypt — Whither, it is likely, Isaac had intended to go, it being a very fruitful country, and he being encouraged to go thither by his father’s example, on a similar occasion. No doubt God had wise reasons for prohibiting his going; but as he has not been pleased to acquaint us with them, to spend time in conjecturing what they were, would be giving ourselves trouble to no purpose.

Ver. 2. The Lord appeared unto him. The infancy of the patriarchal family was the infancy of the church, which needed the fostering care of God. A removal to Egypt at this period might have been eventful to Isaac. The Egyptians might have seized his substance for the supply of bread. If Abimelech was jealous of Isaac, Pharaoh might have been so too. Besides, God had in view a far more auspicious occasion of bringing the Hebrews into Goshen than at this juncture of temporary scarcity. Happy the man who is thus under the eye and care of the Lord, and who in the time of trouble enjoys the tokens of his presence.

2. The Lord appeared — In a dream or vision of the night. Comp. verse

24. “The last recorded vision was at the sacrifice of Isaac, more than sixty years before. These revelations were not so frequent as they seem to us, as we read one event rapidly after the other; but just sufficient to keep up the knowledge of God and the faith of the patriarchs in the line of the chosen people, and of the promised seed.” — Speaker’s Commentary.

Verse 3. Sojourn in this land] In Gerar, whither he had gone, Genesis 26:1, and where we find he settled, Genesis 26:6, though the land of Canaan in general might be here intended. That there were serious and important reasons why Isaac should not go to Egypt, we may be fully assured, though they be not assigned here; it is probable that even Isaac himself was not informed why he should not go down to Egypt. I have already supposed that God saw trials in his way which he might not have been able to bear. While a man acknowledges God in all his ways, he will direct all his steps, though he may not choose to give him the reasons of the workings of his providence. Abraham might go safely to Egypt, Isaac might not; in firmness and decision of character there was a wide difference between the two men.

ISAAC AND ABIMELECH, 1-33.

This is the only chapter in the history of Isaac which is devoted entirely to incidents in the life of that patriarch, the rest being largely intermixed with the history of his father or his sons. And yet it is a repetition of events remarkably similar to those of one passage in the life of Abraham. Comp. Genesis 20; 21:22-34. So striking are the analogies between these two accounts that rationalistic critics have not hesitated to pronounce them different forms of one and the same story. But we must observe that there are as many points of dissimilarity as of agreement; and in making prominent the fact that Isaac’s life was so largely a repetition of Abraham’s, the sacred writer doubtless had a purpose. How much of human life and history is ever repeating itself! And how slow are many of the best of men to improve by the errors of their fathers or predecessors! To show this is an important part of the purpose of this chapter. The points of agreement with portions of Abraham’s life are as follows: 1) A famine causes Isaac’s moving. Comp. Genesis 12:10. 2) He had some thought of going down into Egypt. Verse 2 compared with Genesis 12:10. 3) The dwelling in Gerar. 4) The names Abimelech and Phicol. 5) Denial of his wife. 6) Reproof by Abimelech. 7) Desire of Abimelech to make a covenant. 8) Strife between herdsmen. 9) Oath at Beer-sheba. 10) Calling on the name of the Lord.

The points of disagreement are as follows: 1) The famine in Isaac’s case is carefully distinguished from that in the days of Abraham. 2) He is prohibited from going into Egypt. 3) Rebekah was not taken into Abimelech’s house as was Sarah. 4) Isaac’s deceit was discovered, not by a judgment of God, but by accident. 5) Abraham was allowed free use of the land; Isaac was requested to leave. 6) Abraham’s difficulty was about the well of Beer-sheba; Isaac was driven from many wells before he withdrew to Beer-sheba. 7) Isaac’s servants discover water at Beer-sheba, and the name is renewed after the oath between him and Abimelech, and after the latter had departed. 8) Abraham made a covenant with seven lambs; Isaac made a feast. 9) Ahuzzah, the friend of Abimelech, is an additional personage in the affair with Isaac; in chap. 20 God appears in a dream to Abimelech, but no special revelations were made to Abraham. A careful scrutiny of these points of agreement and difference will show that the events narrated were two very different affairs… Isaac’s life, while having so many experiences like his father’s, was not a mere echo of the life of Abraham. It had an individuality peculiarly its own, from his being quiet and passive where Abraham was active and bold.

1. A famine — Abraham’s, Isaac’s, and Jacob’s history are each distinguished by a famine, that frequent plague of the East. Besides the first famine — Our historian was not so obtuse, as some critics have assumed, as not to know that Abraham’s life had passages very much like Isaac’s. But he knew, what some critics seem unable to comprehend, that two men’s lives may be largely the one a repetition of the other. Thus history has often repeated itself in less than a century. Abimelech — Possibly the same Abimelech as that of Genesis 20:2. For if he had been aged forty at the time of Abraham’s visit, he would have now been about one hundred and twenty-five — no very unsupposable age for that time, when men lived, as we have seen, to be one hundred and seventy-five years old. But it is altogether probable that this was the son and successor of the Abimelech of Abraham’s time, for both this name and that of Phichol (verse 26) were official titles rather than personal appellations. See notes on Genesis 20:2; 21:22.

Verse 4. I will make thy seed-as the stars of heaven] A promise often repeated to Abraham, and which has been most amply fulfilled both in its literal and spiritual sense.

Verse 4. I will make thy seed to multiply — Here we find a renewal to Isaac of all God’s promises made to Abraham; and the great fundamental mysterious promise is renewed exactly in the same words in which it had been given to Abraham. When God said to Abraham, In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed — Perhaps Abraham might, at first, suppose God spake of his immediate seed, namely, of Isaac; but when he came upon the stage of life, he brought no such blessing with him; and when the promise was renewed to him in the very same words, it became evident that the seed which was to be this universal blessing was still to come.

4. All these countries — All the different districts or territories of the different Canaanitish tribes.

V. 5. Abraham obeyed my voice-Do thou do so too, and the promise shall be sure to thee. A great variety of words is here used to express the Divine Will to which Abraham was obedient,

my voice, my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws-Which may intimate, that Abraham’s obedience was universal; he obeyed the original laws of nature, the revealed laws of divine worship, particularly that of circumcision, and all the extraordinary precepts God gave him, as that of quitting his country, and that (which some think is more especially referred to) the offering up of his son, which Isaac himself had reason enough to remember. Those only shall have the benefit of God’s covenant with their parents, that tread the steps of their obedience.

Verse 5. Abraham obeyed my voice] yrmym meimeri, my WORD. See Genesis 15:1.

My charge] ytrmcm misitmarti, from rmv shamar, he kept, observed, &c., the ordinances or appointments of God. These were always of two kinds: 1. Such as tended to promote moral improvement, the increase of piety, the improvement of the age, &c. And 2. Such as were typical of the promised seed, and the salvation which was to come by him. For commandments, statutes, &c., the reader is particularly desired to refer to Leviticus 16:15, &c., where these things are all explained in the alphabetical order of the Hebrew words.

Verse 5. My voice, my charge, my commandments — This variety of expression seems to be designed to show the universality and exactness of Abraham’s obedience, that he readily complied with every intimation of the divine will. He obeyed the original laws of nature, the revealed laws of divine worship, particularly that of circumcision, and all the extraordinary precepts God gave him, as that of quitting his country, and that (which some think is more especially referred to) respecting the offering up of his son, which Isaac himself had reason enough to remember. Those only shall have the benefit of God’s covenant with their parents that tread in the steps of their obedience. It must be observed, however, as the covenant made with Abraham, and God’s promises to him, were made by God of his mere grace and mercy, so the blessings promised and conferred were so very great, that it is idle to imagine they could be merited by so mean a compensation as Abraham’s obedience which obedience was a debt that he would have owed to God, if there had been neither covenant nor promise made by God, and which was the effect of God’s grace to and in him.

5. Voice… charge… commandments… statutes… laws — A

comprehensive summary of all the various revelations of the divine will. God’s voice denotes more particularly the spoken revelations; his charge the special trusts of promise he had given Abraham to guard; his commandments the occasional precepts given from time to time; his statutes the more permanent prescriptions of his will; his laws the everlasting and unchangeable expressions of his righteousness. Already had God spoken “at sundry times and in divers manners,” (Hebrews 1:1,) and we note that the son is blessed because of his father’s obedience.

ISAAC AND ABIMELECH, 1-33.

This is the only chapter in the history of Isaac which is devoted entirely to incidents in the life of that patriarch, the rest being largely intermixed with the history of his father or his sons. And yet it is a repetition of events remarkably similar to those of one passage in the life of Abraham. Comp. Genesis 20; 21:22-34. So striking are the analogies between these two accounts that rationalistic critics have not hesitated to pronounce them different forms of one and the same story. But we must observe that there are as many points of dissimilarity as of agreement; and in making prominent the fact that Isaac’s life was so largely a repetition of Abraham’s, the sacred writer doubtless had a purpose. How much of human life and history is ever repeating itself! And how slow are many of the best of men to improve by the errors of their fathers or predecessors! To show this is an important part of the purpose of this chapter. The points of agreement with portions of Abraham’s life are as follows: 1) A famine causes Isaac’s moving. Comp. Genesis 12:10. 2) He had some thought of going down into Egypt. Verse 2 compared with Genesis 12:10. 3) The dwelling in Gerar. 4) The names Abimelech and Phicol. 5) Denial of his wife. 6) Reproof by Abimelech. 7) Desire of Abimelech to make a covenant. 8) Strife between herdsmen. 9) Oath at Beer-sheba. 10) Calling on the name of the Lord.

The points of disagreement are as follows: 1) The famine in Isaac’s case is carefully distinguished from that in the days of Abraham. 2) He is prohibited from going into Egypt. 3) Rebekah was not taken into Abimelech’s house as was Sarah. 4) Isaac’s deceit was discovered, not by a judgment of God, but by accident. 5) Abraham was allowed free use of the land; Isaac was requested to leave. 6) Abraham’s difficulty was about the well of Beer-sheba; Isaac was driven from many wells before he withdrew to Beer-sheba. 7) Isaac’s servants discover water at Beer-sheba, and the name is renewed after the oath between him and Abimelech, and after the latter had departed. 8) Abraham made a covenant with seven lambs; Isaac made a feast. 9) Ahuzzah, the friend of Abimelech, is an additional personage in the affair with Isaac; in chap. 20 God appears in a dream to Abimelech, but no special revelations were made to Abraham. A careful scrutiny of these points of agreement and difference will show that the events narrated were two very different affairs… Isaac’s life, while having so many experiences like his father’s, was not a mere echo of the life of Abraham. It had an individuality peculiarly its own, from his being quiet and passive where Abraham was active and bold.

1. A famine — Abraham’s, Isaac’s, and Jacob’s history are each distinguished by a famine, that frequent plague of the East. Besides the first famine — Our historian was not so obtuse, as some critics have assumed, as not to know that Abraham’s life had passages very much like Isaac’s. But he knew, what some critics seem unable to comprehend, that two men’s lives may be largely the one a repetition of the other. Thus history has often repeated itself in less than a century. Abimelech — Possibly the same Abimelech as that of Genesis 20:2. For if he had been aged forty at the time of Abraham’s visit, he would have now been about one hundred and twenty-five — no very unsupposable age for that time, when men lived, as we have seen, to be one hundred and seventy-five years old. But it is altogether probable that this was the son and successor of the Abimelech of Abraham’s time, for both this name and that of Phichol (verse 26) were official titles rather than personal appellations. See notes on Genesis 20:2; 21:22.

V. 7. He said, she is my sister-So Isaac enters into the same temptation that his father had been once and again surprised and overcome by, viz. to deny his wife, and to give out that she was his sister! It is an unaccountable thing, that both these great and good men should be guilty of so odd a piece of dissimulation, by which they so much exposed both their own and their wives reputation.

Verse 7. He said, She is my sister] It is very strange that in the same place, and in similar circumstances, Isaac should have denied his wife, precisely as his father had done before him! It is natural to ask, Did Abraham never mention this circumstance to his son? Probably be did not, as he was justly ashamed of his weakness on the occasion-the only blot in his character; the son, therefore, not being forewarned, was not armed against the temptation. It may not be well in general for parents to tell their children of their former failings or vices, as this might lessen their authority or respect, and the children might make a bad use of it in extenuation of their own sins. But there are certain cases, which, from the nature of their circumstances, may often occur, where a candid acknowledgment, with suitable advice, may prevent those children from repeating the evil; but this should be done with great delicacy and caution, lest even the advice itself should serve as an incentive to the evil. I had not known lust, says St. Paul, if the law had not said, Thou shalt not covet. Isaac could not say of Rebekah, as Abraham had done of Sarah, She is my sister; in the case of Abraham this was literally true; it was not so in the case of Isaac, for Rebekah was only his cousin. Besides, though relatives, in the Jewish forms of speaking, are often called brothers and sisters, and the thing may be perfectly proper when this use of the terms is generally known and allowed, yet nothing of this kind can be pleaded here in behalf of Isaac; for he intended that the Gerarites should understand him in the proper sense of the term, and consequently have no suspicion that she was his wife. We have already seen that the proper definition of a lie is any word spoken with the intention to deceive. See Genesis 20:12.

Verse 7. She is my sister — So Isaac enters into the same temptation that his father had been once and again surprised and overcome by, namely, to deny his wife, and to give out that she was his sister! It is an unaccountable thing, that both these great and good men should be guilty of so odd a piece of dissimulation, by which they so much exposed both their own and their wives’ reputation.

Ver. 7. She is my sister. Augustine in his City of God, book 16. chap. 36, undertakes to justify Abraham, and consequently Isaac, in the use of this precaution. But the Holy Ghost having recorded Abimelech’s reproof of Sarah, we ought to admit its equity.

7. Should kill me — Comp. Genesis 12:12; 20:11, notes; and for the agreement and differences of these narratives the note at the beginning of this chapter.

V. 8. This Abimelech was not the same that was in Abraham’s days, Genesis 20:2-18, for this was near an hundred years after, but that was the common name of the Philistine kings, as Caesar of the Roman emperors.

Verse 8. Isaac was sporting with Rebekah his wife.] Whatever may be the precise meaning of the word, it evidently implies that there were liberties taken and freedom used on the occasion, which were not lawful but between man and wife.

Verse 8. This Abimelech was not the same that was in Abraham’s days, (chapter 20.,) for this was near a hundred years after; but that was the common name of the Philistine kings, as Cesar of the Roman emperors.

8. Sporting — See note on Genesis 21:8.

ISAAC AND ABIMELECH, 1-33.

This is the only chapter in the history of Isaac which is devoted entirely to incidents in the life of that patriarch, the rest being largely intermixed with the history of his father or his sons. And yet it is a repetition of events remarkably similar to those of one passage in the life of Abraham. Comp. Genesis 20; 21:22-34. So striking are the analogies between these two accounts that rationalistic critics have not hesitated to pronounce them different forms of one and the same story. But we must observe that there are as many points of dissimilarity as of agreement; and in making prominent the fact that Isaac’s life was so largely a repetition of Abraham’s, the sacred writer doubtless had a purpose. How much of human life and history is ever repeating itself! And how slow are many of the best of men to improve by the errors of their fathers or predecessors! To show this is an important part of the purpose of this chapter. The points of agreement with portions of Abraham’s life are as follows: 1) A famine causes Isaac’s moving. Comp. Genesis 12:10. 2) He had some thought of going down into Egypt. Verse 2 compared with Genesis 12:10. 3) The dwelling in Gerar. 4) The names Abimelech and Phicol. 5) Denial of his wife. 6) Reproof by Abimelech. 7) Desire of Abimelech to make a covenant. 8) Strife between herdsmen. 9) Oath at Beer-sheba. 10) Calling on the name of the Lord.

The points of disagreement are as follows: 1) The famine in Isaac’s case is carefully distinguished from that in the days of Abraham. 2) He is prohibited from going into Egypt. 3) Rebekah was not taken into Abimelech’s house as was Sarah. 4) Isaac’s deceit was discovered, not by a judgment of God, but by accident. 5) Abraham was allowed free use of the land; Isaac was requested to leave. 6) Abraham’s difficulty was about the well of Beer-sheba; Isaac was driven from many wells before he withdrew to Beer-sheba. 7) Isaac’s servants discover water at Beer-sheba, and the name is renewed after the oath between him and Abimelech, and after the latter had departed. 8) Abraham made a covenant with seven lambs; Isaac made a feast. 9) Ahuzzah, the friend of Abimelech, is an additional personage in the affair with Isaac; in chap. 20 God appears in a dream to Abimelech, but no special revelations were made to Abraham. A careful scrutiny of these points of agreement and difference will show that the events narrated were two very different affairs… Isaac’s life, while having so many experiences like his father’s, was not a mere echo of the life of Abraham. It had an individuality peculiarly its own, from his being quiet and passive where Abraham was active and bold.

1. A famine — Abraham’s, Isaac’s, and Jacob’s history are each distinguished by a famine, that frequent plague of the East. Besides the first famine — Our historian was not so obtuse, as some critics have assumed, as not to know that Abraham’s life had passages very much like Isaac’s. But he knew, what some critics seem unable to comprehend, that two men’s lives may be largely the one a repetition of the other. Thus history has often repeated itself in less than a century. Abimelech — Possibly the same Abimelech as that of Genesis 20:2. For if he had been aged forty at the time of Abraham’s visit, he would have now been about one hundred and twenty-five — no very unsupposable age for that time, when men lived, as we have seen, to be one hundred and seventy-five years old. But it is altogether probable that this was the son and successor of the Abimelech of Abraham’s time, for both this name and that of Phichol (verse 26) were official titles rather than personal appellations. See notes on Genesis 20:2; 21:22.

V. 10. Lightly-Perhaps.

Verse 10. Thou shouldest have brought guiltiness upon us.] It is likely that Abimelech might have had some knowledge of God’s intentions concerning the family of Abraham, and that it must be kept free from all impure and alien mixtures; and that consequently, had he or any of his people taken Rebekah, the Divine judgment might have fallen upon the land. Abimelech was a good and holy man; and he appears to have considered adultery as a grievous and destructive crime.

Verse 10. Lightly — Here, means perhaps. The heathen considered fornication either as no sin, or a very little one; but they had a different idea of adultery, considering it as heinous. Therefore, with a reference to it, Abimelech says, Thou shouldest have brought guiltiness upon us — Probably it might be fresh in his memory how sorely God had punished his predecessor and all his family in the days of Abraham (chap. 20.) for only an intention of adultery. It is very observable here, that Abimelech takes it for granted, that their ignorance of Rebekah’s being Isaac’s wife would not have been a sufficient excuse for their sin.

ISAAC AND ABIMELECH, 1-33.

This is the only chapter in the history of Isaac which is devoted entirely to incidents in the life of that patriarch, the rest being largely intermixed with the history of his father or his sons. And yet it is a repetition of events remarkably similar to those of one passage in the life of Abraham. Comp. Genesis 20; 21:22-34. So striking are the analogies between these two accounts that rationalistic critics have not hesitated to pronounce them different forms of one and the same story. But we must observe that there are as many points of dissimilarity as of agreement; and in making prominent the fact that Isaac’s life was so largely a repetition of Abraham’s, the sacred writer doubtless had a purpose. How much of human life and history is ever repeating itself! And how slow are many of the best of men to improve by the errors of their fathers or predecessors! To show this is an important part of the purpose of this chapter. The points of agreement with portions of Abraham’s life are as follows: 1) A famine causes Isaac’s moving. Comp. Genesis 12:10. 2) He had some thought of going down into Egypt. Verse 2 compared with Genesis 12:10. 3) The dwelling in Gerar. 4) The names Abimelech and Phicol. 5) Denial of his wife. 6) Reproof by Abimelech. 7) Desire of Abimelech to make a covenant. 8) Strife between herdsmen. 9) Oath at Beer-sheba. 10) Calling on the name of the Lord.

The points of disagreement are as follows: 1) The famine in Isaac’s case is carefully distinguished from that in the days of Abraham. 2) He is prohibited from going into Egypt. 3) Rebekah was not taken into Abimelech’s house as was Sarah. 4) Isaac’s deceit was discovered, not by a judgment of God, but by accident. 5) Abraham was allowed free use of the land; Isaac was requested to leave. 6) Abraham’s difficulty was about the well of Beer-sheba; Isaac was driven from many wells before he withdrew to Beer-sheba. 7) Isaac’s servants discover water at Beer-sheba, and the name is renewed after the oath between him and Abimelech, and after the latter had departed. 8) Abraham made a covenant with seven lambs; Isaac made a feast. 9) Ahuzzah, the friend of Abimelech, is an additional personage in the affair with Isaac; in chap. 20 God appears in a dream to Abimelech, but no special revelations were made to Abraham. A careful scrutiny of these points of agreement and difference will show that the events narrated were two very different affairs… Isaac’s life, while having so many experiences like his father’s, was not a mere echo of the life of Abraham. It had an individuality peculiarly its own, from his being quiet and passive where Abraham was active and bold.

1. A famine — Abraham’s, Isaac’s, and Jacob’s history are each distinguished by a famine, that frequent plague of the East. Besides the first famine — Our historian was not so obtuse, as some critics have assumed, as not to know that Abraham’s life had passages very much like Isaac’s. But he knew, what some critics seem unable to comprehend, that two men’s lives may be largely the one a repetition of the other. Thus history has often repeated itself in less than a century. Abimelech — Possibly the same Abimelech as that of Genesis 20:2. For if he had been aged forty at the time of Abraham’s visit, he would have now been about one hundred and twenty-five — no very unsupposable age for that time, when men lived, as we have seen, to be one hundred and seventy-five years old. But it is altogether probable that this was the son and successor of the Abimelech of Abraham’s time, for both this name and that of Phichol (verse 26) were official titles rather than personal appellations. See notes on Genesis 20:2; 21:22.

Verse 11. He that toucheth] He who injures Isaac or defiles Rebekah shall certainly die for it. Death was the punishment for adultery among the Canaanites, Philistines, and Hebrews. See Genesis 38:24.

Ver. 11. He that toucheth this man—shall be put to death. Perhaps this Abimelech recollected the judgment of God on one of his predecessors for the detention of Sarah, chap. 20. And if a heathen prince did not think death too severe a punishment for known and studied adultery, the guilty may tremble at the sentence which God is ready to pronounce against them: his revenge against murder and adultery has often been remarked in the course of providence.

ISAAC AND ABIMELECH, 1-33.

This is the only chapter in the history of Isaac which is devoted entirely to incidents in the life of that patriarch, the rest being largely intermixed with the history of his father or his sons. And yet it is a repetition of events remarkably similar to those of one passage in the life of Abraham. Comp. Genesis 20; 21:22-34. So striking are the analogies between these two accounts that rationalistic critics have not hesitated to pronounce them different forms of one and the same story. But we must observe that there are as many points of dissimilarity as of agreement; and in making prominent the fact that Isaac’s life was so largely a repetition of Abraham’s, the sacred writer doubtless had a purpose. How much of human life and history is ever repeating itself! And how slow are many of the best of men to improve by the errors of their fathers or predecessors! To show this is an important part of the purpose of this chapter. The points of agreement with portions of Abraham’s life are as follows: 1) A famine causes Isaac’s moving. Comp. Genesis 12:10. 2) He had some thought of going down into Egypt. Verse 2 compared with Genesis 12:10. 3) The dwelling in Gerar. 4) The names Abimelech and Phicol. 5) Denial of his wife. 6) Reproof by Abimelech. 7) Desire of Abimelech to make a covenant. 8) Strife between herdsmen. 9) Oath at Beer-sheba. 10) Calling on the name of the Lord.

The points of disagreement are as follows: 1) The famine in Isaac’s case is carefully distinguished from that in the days of Abraham. 2) He is prohibited from going into Egypt. 3) Rebekah was not taken into Abimelech’s house as was Sarah. 4) Isaac’s deceit was discovered, not by a judgment of God, but by accident. 5) Abraham was allowed free use of the land; Isaac was requested to leave. 6) Abraham’s difficulty was about the well of Beer-sheba; Isaac was driven from many wells before he withdrew to Beer-sheba. 7) Isaac’s servants discover water at Beer-sheba, and the name is renewed after the oath between him and Abimelech, and after the latter had departed. 8) Abraham made a covenant with seven lambs; Isaac made a feast. 9) Ahuzzah, the friend of Abimelech, is an additional personage in the affair with Isaac; in chap. 20 God appears in a dream to Abimelech, but no special revelations were made to Abraham. A careful scrutiny of these points of agreement and difference will show that the events narrated were two very different affairs… Isaac’s life, while having so many experiences like his father’s, was not a mere echo of the life of Abraham. It had an individuality peculiarly its own, from his being quiet and passive where Abraham was active and bold.

1. A famine — Abraham’s, Isaac’s, and Jacob’s history are each distinguished by a famine, that frequent plague of the East. Besides the first famine — Our historian was not so obtuse, as some critics have assumed, as not to know that Abraham’s life had passages very much like Isaac’s. But he knew, what some critics seem unable to comprehend, that two men’s lives may be largely the one a repetition of the other. Thus history has often repeated itself in less than a century. Abimelech — Possibly the same Abimelech as that of Genesis 20:2. For if he had been aged forty at the time of Abraham’s visit, he would have now been about one hundred and twenty-five — no very unsupposable age for that time, when men lived, as we have seen, to be one hundred and seventy-five years old. But it is altogether probable that this was the son and successor of the Abimelech of Abraham’s time, for both this name and that of Phichol (verse 26) were official titles rather than personal appellations. See notes on Genesis 20:2; 21:22.

V. 12. Isaac received an hundred fold-And there seems to be an emphasis laid upon the time; it was that same year when there was a famine in the land; while others scarce reaped at all, he reaped thus plentifully.

Verse 12. Isaac sowed in that land] Being now perfectly free from the fear of evil, he betakes himself to agricultural and pastoral pursuits, in which he has the especial blessing of God, so that his property becomes greatly increased.

A hundred-fold] שערים ham, meah shearim, literally, “A hundred-fold of barley;” and so the Septuagint, ekatosteuousan kriqhn. Perhaps such a crop of this grain was a rare occurrence in Gerar. The words, however, may be taken in a general way, as signifying a very great increase; so they are used by our Lord in the parable of the sower.

Verse 12. Isaac sowed in that land — Either in grounds which he had hired of the right owners, or in some which lay neglected, and therefore were free to the first occupier. That this should be the case, in that age of the world, is not strange, considering how few the inhabitants, even of Canaan, then were, in comparison of what they were three hundred years after, when the Israelites came out of Egypt. He received a hundred-fold — A hundred times as much as he sowed. The same degree of increase is spoken of Matthew 13:8; and affirmed sometimes of other places by heathen writers. But then it was in a better soil and season than this was; for this was in a time of famine. Accordingly an emphasis is laid upon the time; it was the same year when there was a famine in the land; while others scarce reaped at all, he reaped thus plentifully, through the divine blessing.

Ver. 12. A hundredfold. Herodotus says, that the land about Babylon yielded two hundredfold. Gentlemen distinguished by agricultural science and their patronage of husbandry, are the best friends of the nation. Veteres siquem virum bonum colonum appellassent, amplissime laudasse extimabant. Cicero. The ancients thought it a very high encomium to be a good agriculturalist.

12. Isaac sowed — He now added agriculture to the pursuits of nomadic life. Received — Hebrews, found. A hundredfold — Or, a hundred measures. Some (Sept., Syr.) read, µyr[c, barley, instead of µyr[v, measures, or fold. The letters of the two words are the same. A hundredfold is a very large increase, but Herodotus (i, 193) writes of the Babylonian territory as “so fruitful in the produce of corn, that it yields continually two hundredfold, and when it produces its best, it yields even three hundredfold.”

Verse 13. The man waxed great] There is a strange and observable recurrence of the same term in the original: dam ldg yk d[ ldgw Ëwlh Ëlyw vyah ldgyw vaiyigdal haish vaiyelech haloch vegadel ad ki gadal meod, And the man was GREAT; and he went, going on, and was GREAT, until that he was exceeding GREAT. How simple is this language, and yet how forcible!

13. Went forward — Hebrews, went going; that is, kept on growing. Three degrees are here expressed — great, greater, very great.

Verse 14. He had possession of flocks] He who blessed him in the increase of his fields blessed him also in the increase of his flocks; and as he had extensive possessions, so he must have many hands to manage such concerns: therefore it is added, he had great store of servants-he had many domestics, some born in his house, and others purchased by his money.

14. Flocks… herds… servants… envied — These four words speak volumes. Prosperity and abundance excite the envy of ignoble natures.

Verse 15. For all the wells-the Philistines had stopped them] In such countries a good well was a great acquisition; and hence in predatory wars it was usual for either party to fill the wells with earth or sand, in order to distress the enemy. The filling up the wells in this case was a most unprincipled transaction, as they had pledged themselves to Abraham, by a solemn oath, not to injure each other in this or any other respect. See Genesis 21:25-31.

15. Wells… filled — The wells dug by Abraham gave Isaac a sort of title to the land, and filling them up was equivalent to a declaration of war. Comp. 2 Kings 3:25; Isaiah 15:6.

Verse 16. Go from us; for thou art much mightier than we.] This is the first instance on record of what was termed among the Greeks ostracism; i.e., the banishment of a person from the state, of whose power, influence, or riches, the people were jealous. There is a remarkable saying of Bacon on this subject, which seems to intimate that he had this very circumstance under his eye: “Public envy is an ostracism that eclipseth men when they grow too great.” On this same principle Pharaoh oppressed the Israelites. The Philistines appear to have been jealous of Isaac’s growing prosperity, and to have considered it, not as a due reward of his industry and holiness, but as their individual loss, as though his gain was at their expense; therefore they resolved to drive him out, and take his well-cultivated ground, &c., to themselves, and compelled Abimelech to dismiss him, who gave this reason for it, wnmm tmx[ atsamta mimmennu, Thou hast obtained much wealth among us, and my people are envious of thee. Is not this the better translation? for it can hardly be supposed that Isaac was “mightier” than the king of whole tribes.

Verse 16. Go from us: for thou art much mightier than we — It seems Isaac’s increasing riches and power caused envy, jealousy, and fear among Abimelech’s subjects, and he was afraid that unpleasant consequences might follow should Isaac continue in that neighbourhood.

16. Go from us — The Philistine king perceives that such a rich and prosperous chief as Isaac cannot peaceably dwell in Gerar. The strife between the different herdmen would be likely to be more bitter than that of the herdmen of Abram and Lot. Genesis 13:7. So while Abraham was invited to stay and settle anywhere, (Genesis 20:15,) Isaac is invited to leave.

17. Valley of Gerar — Some writers speak of a district el-Gerar south of Beer-sheba, but that country has not been sufficiently explored to confirm their statements. Isaac withdrew from Gerar, but not from the Philistine land.

Verse 18. In the days of Abraham] Instead of ymyb bimey, in the days, Houbigant contends we should read ydb[ abdey, servants. Isaac digged again the wells which the servants of Abraham his father had digged. This reading is supported by the Samaritan, Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate; and it is probably the true one.

18. Digged again the wells — Abraham’s long residence (comp. 21:34) in the districts of Gerar and Beer-sheba had left its traces in many a valley, and after his death the Philistines seem to have hastened to obliterate the witnesses of their treaty with him. Hence the repetition of oaths, treaties, and names like Beer-sheba. Verse 33.

Verse 19. A well of springing water.] חיים מים באר beer mayim chaiyim, A well of living waters. This is the oriental phrase for a spring, and this is its meaning both in the Old and New Testaments: Leviticus 14:5,50; 15:30; Numbers 19:17; Cant. Song of Solomon 4:15. See also John 4:10-14; 7:38; Revelation 21:6; 22:1. And by these scriptures we find that an unfailing spring was an emblem of the graces and influences of the Spirit of God.

ISAAC AND ABIMELECH, 1-33.

This is the only chapter in the history of Isaac which is devoted entirely to incidents in the life of that patriarch, the rest being largely intermixed with the history of his father or his sons. And yet it is a repetition of events remarkably similar to those of one passage in the life of Abraham. Comp. Genesis 20; 21:22-34. So striking are the analogies between these two accounts that rationalistic critics have not hesitated to pronounce them different forms of one and the same story. But we must observe that there are as many points of dissimilarity as of agreement; and in making prominent the fact that Isaac’s life was so largely a repetition of Abraham’s, the sacred writer doubtless had a purpose. How much of human life and history is ever repeating itself! And how slow are many of the best of men to improve by the errors of their fathers or predecessors! To show this is an important part of the purpose of this chapter. The points of agreement with portions of Abraham’s life are as follows: 1) A famine causes Isaac’s moving. Comp. Genesis 12:10. 2) He had some thought of going down into Egypt. Verse 2 compared with Genesis 12:10. 3) The dwelling in Gerar. 4) The names Abimelech and Phicol. 5) Denial of his wife. 6) Reproof by Abimelech. 7) Desire of Abimelech to make a covenant. 8) Strife between herdsmen. 9) Oath at Beer-sheba. 10) Calling on the name of the Lord.

The points of disagreement are as follows: 1) The famine in Isaac’s case is carefully distinguished from that in the days of Abraham. 2) He is prohibited from going into Egypt. 3) Rebekah was not taken into Abimelech’s house as was Sarah. 4) Isaac’s deceit was discovered, not by a judgment of God, but by accident. 5) Abraham was allowed free use of the land; Isaac was requested to leave. 6) Abraham’s difficulty was about the well of Beer-sheba; Isaac was driven from many wells before he withdrew to Beer-sheba. 7) Isaac’s servants discover water at Beer-sheba, and the name is renewed after the oath between him and Abimelech, and after the latter had departed. 8) Abraham made a covenant with seven lambs; Isaac made a feast. 9) Ahuzzah, the friend of Abimelech, is an additional personage in the affair with Isaac; in chap. 20 God appears in a dream to Abimelech, but no special revelations were made to Abraham. A careful scrutiny of these points of agreement and difference will show that the events narrated were two very different affairs… Isaac’s life, while having so many experiences like his father’s, was not a mere echo of the life of Abraham. It had an individuality peculiarly its own, from his being quiet and passive where Abraham was active and bold.

1. A famine — Abraham’s, Isaac’s, and Jacob’s history are each distinguished by a famine, that frequent plague of the East. Besides the first famine — Our historian was not so obtuse, as some critics have assumed, as not to know that Abraham’s life had passages very much like Isaac’s. But he knew, what some critics seem unable to comprehend, that two men’s lives may be largely the one a repetition of the other. Thus history has often repeated itself in less than a century. Abimelech — Possibly the same Abimelech as that of Genesis 20:2. For if he had been aged forty at the time of Abraham’s visit, he would have now been about one hundred and twenty-five — no very unsupposable age for that time, when men lived, as we have seen, to be one hundred and seventy-five years old. But it is altogether probable that this was the son and successor of the Abimelech of Abraham’s time, for both this name and that of Phichol (verse 26) were official titles rather than personal appellations. See notes on Genesis 20:2; 21:22.

V. 20. Esek-That is, contention.

Verses 20, 21. Esek means contention; and Sitnah, hatred.

20-22. Esek… Sitnah… Rehoboth — These appear to have been new wells digged, in addition to the old ones re-opened, and the names mean, respectively, Strife, Opposition, (from the same root as Satan,) and Broad Places, Room. The name of Rehoboth still lingers in the wady er-Ruhaibeh, some twenty-three miles south of Beer-sheba, where Robinson found extensive ruins. Later travellers claim to have found the well, but their reports are conflicting.

V. 21. Sitnah-That is, hatred.

Verse 21. They digged another well] Never did any man more implicitly follow the Divine command, Resist not evil, than Isaac; whenever he found that his work was likely to be a subject of strife and contention, he gave place, and rather chose to suffer wrong than to have his own peace of mind disturbed. Thus he overcame evil with good.

Verses 20, 21. Esek means contention; and Sitnah, hatred.

20-22. Esek… Sitnah… Rehoboth — These appear to have been new wells digged, in addition to the old ones re-opened, and the names mean, respectively, Strife, Opposition, (from the same root as Satan,) and Broad Places, Room. The name of Rehoboth still lingers in the wady er-Ruhaibeh, some twenty-three miles south of Beer-sheba, where Robinson found extensive ruins. Later travellers claim to have found the well, but their reports are conflicting.

V. 22. He digged a well, and for that they strove not-Those that follow peace, sooner or later, shall find peace: those that study to be quiet seldom fail of being so. This well they called Rehoboth-Enlargements, room enough.

Verse 22. He digged a well, and for that they strove not — Those that follow peace, sooner or later shall find peace. Those that study to be quiet, seldom fail of being so. This well they called Rehoboth, enlargement, room enough.

20-22. Esek… Sitnah… Rehoboth — These appear to have been new wells digged, in addition to the old ones re-opened, and the names mean, respectively, Strife, Opposition, (from the same root as Satan,) and Broad Places, Room. The name of Rehoboth still lingers in the wady er-Ruhaibeh, some twenty-three miles south of Beer-sheba, where Robinson found extensive ruins. Later travellers claim to have found the well, but their reports are conflicting.

Ver. 23. He went—to Beersheba, where the Lord again appeared to him, and where he built an altar, and called on the name of the Lord in regular acts of prayer and devotion, with all his camp. Men are bound to attend public worship, or to stay in their houses on the sabbath; to wander abroad is to live like the beasts, and to forget the God who made them.

ISAAC AND ABIMELECH, 1-33.

This is the only chapter in the history of Isaac which is devoted entirely to incidents in the life of that patriarch, the rest being largely intermixed with the history of his father or his sons. And yet it is a repetition of events remarkably similar to those of one passage in the life of Abraham. Comp. Genesis 20; 21:22-34. So striking are the analogies between these two accounts that rationalistic critics have not hesitated to pronounce them different forms of one and the same story. But we must observe that there are as many points of dissimilarity as of agreement; and in making prominent the fact that Isaac’s life was so largely a repetition of Abraham’s, the sacred writer doubtless had a purpose. How much of human life and history is ever repeating itself! And how slow are many of the best of men to improve by the errors of their fathers or predecessors! To show this is an important part of the purpose of this chapter. The points of agreement with portions of Abraham’s life are as follows: 1) A famine causes Isaac’s moving. Comp. Genesis 12:10. 2) He had some thought of going down into Egypt. Verse 2 compared with Genesis 12:10. 3) The dwelling in Gerar. 4) The names Abimelech and Phicol. 5) Denial of his wife. 6) Reproof by Abimelech. 7) Desire of Abimelech to make a covenant. 8) Strife between herdsmen. 9) Oath at Beer-sheba. 10) Calling on the name of the Lord.

The points of disagreement are as follows: 1) The famine in Isaac’s case is carefully distinguished from that in the days of Abraham. 2) He is prohibited from going into Egypt. 3) Rebekah was not taken into Abimelech’s house as was Sarah. 4) Isaac’s deceit was discovered, not by a judgment of God, but by accident. 5) Abraham was allowed free use of the land; Isaac was requested to leave. 6) Abraham’s difficulty was about the well of Beer-sheba; Isaac was driven from many wells before he withdrew to Beer-sheba. 7) Isaac’s servants discover water at Beer-sheba, and the name is renewed after the oath between him and Abimelech, and after the latter had departed. 8) Abraham made a covenant with seven lambs; Isaac made a feast. 9) Ahuzzah, the friend of Abimelech, is an additional personage in the affair with Isaac; in chap. 20 God appears in a dream to Abimelech, but no special revelations were made to Abraham. A careful scrutiny of these points of agreement and difference will show that the events narrated were two very different affairs… Isaac’s life, while having so many experiences like his father’s, was not a mere echo of the life of Abraham. It had an individuality peculiarly its own, from his being quiet and passive where Abraham was active and bold.

1. A famine — Abraham’s, Isaac’s, and Jacob’s history are each distinguished by a famine, that frequent plague of the East. Besides the first famine — Our historian was not so obtuse, as some critics have assumed, as not to know that Abraham’s life had passages very much like Isaac’s. But he knew, what some critics seem unable to comprehend, that two men’s lives may be largely the one a repetition of the other. Thus history has often repeated itself in less than a century. Abimelech — Possibly the same Abimelech as that of Genesis 20:2. For if he had been aged forty at the time of Abraham’s visit, he would have now been about one hundred and twenty-five — no very unsupposable age for that time, when men lived, as we have seen, to be one hundred and seventy-five years old. But it is altogether probable that this was the son and successor of the Abimelech of Abraham’s time, for both this name and that of Phichol (verse 26) were official titles rather than personal appellations. See notes on Genesis 20:2; 21:22.

V. 24. Fear not, I am with thee, and will bless thee-Those may remove with comfort that are sure of God’s presence with them wherever they go.

Verse 24. The Lord appeared unto him] He needed especial encouragement when insulted and outraged by the Philistines; for having returned to the place where his noble father had lately died, the remembrance of his wrongs, and the remembrance of his loss, could not fail to afflict his mind; and God immediately appears to comfort and support him in his trials, by a renewal of all his promises.

Verse 24. Fear not, I am with thee, and will bless thee — Those may remove with comfort that are sure of God’s presence with them wherever they go.

24. The Lord appeared — Immediately on Isaac’s return to Beer-sheba Jehovah renews to him the promises, and there he builds an altar in acknowledgment of his mercy.

Verse 25. Builded an altar there] That he might have a place for God’s worship, as well as a place for himself and family to dwell in. And called upon the name of the Lord] And invoked in the name of Jehovah. See Clarke’s notes on “Genesis 12:8”; “Genesis 13:15”.

25. Altar… tent… well — Mark the order; first the altar, God’s worship before all else; next his tent, and then the well.

Verse 26. Abimelech went to him] When a man’s ways please God, he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him; so Isaac experienced on this occasion. Whether this was the same Abimelech and Phichol mentioned Genesis 21:22, we cannot tell, it is possible both might have been now alive, provided we suppose them young in the days of Abraham; but it is more likely that Abimelech was a general name of the Gerarite kings, and that Phichol was a name of office.

Ahuzzath] The Targum translates this word a company, not considering it as a proper name: “Abimelech and Phichol came with a company of their friends.” The Septuagint calls him ocozaq o numfagwgov, Ochozath, the paranymph, he who conducts the bride to the bridegroom’s house. Could we depend on the correctness of this version, we might draw the following curious conclusions from it: 1. That this was the son of that Abimelech the friend of Abraham. 2. That he had been lately married, and on this journey brings with him his confidential friend, to whom he had lately intrusted the care of his spouse.

Ver. 26. Phichol; that is, the mouth of all. The word therefore may indicate his office of speaker, as well as express his proper name. A man of the same name had come, and with another Abimelech to contract a covenant with Abraham, nearly a century before. Phichol was, it would seem, a military title.

26. Ahuzzath — The king and his chief captain now take with them a third person, one of the king’s friends. Comp. Genesis 21:22.

Verse 27. Seeing ye hate me] He was justified in thinking thus, because if they did not injure him, they had connived at their servants doing it.

27. Wherefore come ye — Isaac receives them coldly, as well he might after their breach of an old treaty of peace with his father. But the king was anxious to be on friendly terms with Isaac, even though the latter was not welcome to settle in his land.

V. 28. The Lord is with thee, and thou art the blessed of the Lord, q.d. Be persuaded to overlook the injuries offered thee, for God has abundantly made up to thee the damage thou receivedst. Those whom God blesseth and favours, have reason enough to forgive those that hate them, since the worst enemy they have cannot do them any real hurt.

Let there be an oath betwixt us-Whatever some of his envious subjects might mean, he and his prime ministers, whom he had now brought with him, designed no other but a cordial friendship. Perhaps Abimelech had received by tradition the warning God gave to his predecessor not to hurt Abraham, Genesis 20:7, and that made him stand in such awe of Isaac, who appeared to be as much the favourite of heaven as Abraham was.

Verse 28. Let there be now an oath betwixt us] Let us make a covenant by which we shall be mutually bound, and let it be ratified in the most solemn manner.

Verse 28. The Lord is with thee, and thou art the blessed of the Lord — As if he had said, Be persuaded to overlook the injuries offered thee, for God has abundantly made up to thee the damage thou receivedst. Those whom God blesses and favours have reason enough to forgive those that hate them, since the worst enemy they have cannot do them any real hurt. Let there be an oath betwixt us — Whatever some of his envious subjects might mean, he and his prime minister, whom he had now brought with him, designed no other but a cordial friendship. Perhaps Abimelech had received by tradition the warning God gave to his predecessor, not to hurt Abraham; (Genesis 20:7;) and that made him stand in such awe of Isaac, who appeared to be as much the favourite of Heaven as Abraham was. It appears from this verse that a strong sense still prevailed, in that part of the world, of God’s superintending providence, and of his ordering the affairs of men so that blessings might come on the righteous. These Philistines not only observe this with regard to Isaac, but desire to enter into a covenant with him on that account. Would to God there was as much faith in general in regard to thin point in our days, as there seems to have been then, even among the Philistines!

Ver. 28. Let there be now an oath, &c. The wicked having driven Isaac from wells which his servants had dug, and grounds which he had cleared, were afraid of war from Isaac’s angry camp. A good man’s word is as his bond; yet the wicked want an oath.

Quo teneam vultus mutantum Protea nodo?

HORAT.

28. We saw certainly — The signal favour bestowed on Isaac, (verse 12,) and the memory of his father, convinced these Philistine lords that their God Jehovah was mighty to help his worshippers. Twice in this address the name Jehovah is used, showing that Isaac’s piety had magnified that name among the heathen.

29. Not touched thee… nothing but good… sent thee away in peace — Three falsehoods; for his servants had assailed Isaac’s, they had filled up his wells, and really persecuted him out of all the region of Gerar. And yet, perhaps, Abimelech was ignorant of these wrongs, as his father had before claimed to have been to Abraham. Genesis 21:26.

Verse 30. He made them a feast] Probably on the sacrifice that was offered on the occasion of making this covenant. This was a common custom.

30. Made them a feast — Thus returning good for evil, and overcoming evil with good.

Verse 31. They rose up betimes] Early rising was general among the primitive inhabitants of the world, and this was one cause which contributed greatly to their health and longevity.

ISAAC AND ABIMELECH, 1-33.

This is the only chapter in the history of Isaac which is devoted entirely to incidents in the life of that patriarch, the rest being largely intermixed with the history of his father or his sons. And yet it is a repetition of events remarkably similar to those of one passage in the life of Abraham. Comp. Genesis 20; 21:22-34. So striking are the analogies between these two accounts that rationalistic critics have not hesitated to pronounce them different forms of one and the same story. But we must observe that there are as many points of dissimilarity as of agreement; and in making prominent the fact that Isaac’s life was so largely a repetition of Abraham’s, the sacred writer doubtless had a purpose. How much of human life and history is ever repeating itself! And how slow are many of the best of men to improve by the errors of their fathers or predecessors! To show this is an important part of the purpose of this chapter. The points of agreement with portions of Abraham’s life are as follows: 1) A famine causes Isaac’s moving. Comp. Genesis 12:10. 2) He had some thought of going down into Egypt. Verse 2 compared with Genesis 12:10. 3) The dwelling in Gerar. 4) The names Abimelech and Phicol. 5) Denial of his wife. 6) Reproof by Abimelech. 7) Desire of Abimelech to make a covenant. 8) Strife between herdsmen. 9) Oath at Beer-sheba. 10) Calling on the name of the Lord.

The points of disagreement are as follows: 1) The famine in Isaac’s case is carefully distinguished from that in the days of Abraham. 2) He is prohibited from going into Egypt. 3) Rebekah was not taken into Abimelech’s house as was Sarah. 4) Isaac’s deceit was discovered, not by a judgment of God, but by accident. 5) Abraham was allowed free use of the land; Isaac was requested to leave. 6) Abraham’s difficulty was about the well of Beer-sheba; Isaac was driven from many wells before he withdrew to Beer-sheba. 7) Isaac’s servants discover water at Beer-sheba, and the name is renewed after the oath between him and Abimelech, and after the latter had departed. 8) Abraham made a covenant with seven lambs; Isaac made a feast. 9) Ahuzzah, the friend of Abimelech, is an additional personage in the affair with Isaac; in chap. 20 God appears in a dream to Abimelech, but no special revelations were made to Abraham. A careful scrutiny of these points of agreement and difference will show that the events narrated were two very different affairs… Isaac’s life, while having so many experiences like his father’s, was not a mere echo of the life of Abraham. It had an individuality peculiarly its own, from his being quiet and passive where Abraham was active and bold.

1. A famine — Abraham’s, Isaac’s, and Jacob’s history are each distinguished by a famine, that frequent plague of the East. Besides the first famine — Our historian was not so obtuse, as some critics have assumed, as not to know that Abraham’s life had passages very much like Isaac’s. But he knew, what some critics seem unable to comprehend, that two men’s lives may be largely the one a repetition of the other. Thus history has often repeated itself in less than a century. Abimelech — Possibly the same Abimelech as that of Genesis 20:2. For if he had been aged forty at the time of Abraham’s visit, he would have now been about one hundred and twenty-five — no very unsupposable age for that time, when men lived, as we have seen, to be one hundred and seventy-five years old. But it is altogether probable that this was the son and successor of the Abimelech of Abraham’s time, for both this name and that of Phichol (verse 26) were official titles rather than personal appellations. See notes on Genesis 20:2; 21:22.

ISAAC AND ABIMELECH, 1-33.

This is the only chapter in the history of Isaac which is devoted entirely to incidents in the life of that patriarch, the rest being largely intermixed with the history of his father or his sons. And yet it is a repetition of events remarkably similar to those of one passage in the life of Abraham. Comp. Genesis 20; 21:22-34. So striking are the analogies between these two accounts that rationalistic critics have not hesitated to pronounce them different forms of one and the same story. But we must observe that there are as many points of dissimilarity as of agreement; and in making prominent the fact that Isaac’s life was so largely a repetition of Abraham’s, the sacred writer doubtless had a purpose. How much of human life and history is ever repeating itself! And how slow are many of the best of men to improve by the errors of their fathers or predecessors! To show this is an important part of the purpose of this chapter. The points of agreement with portions of Abraham’s life are as follows: 1) A famine causes Isaac’s moving. Comp. Genesis 12:10. 2) He had some thought of going down into Egypt. Verse 2 compared with Genesis 12:10. 3) The dwelling in Gerar. 4) The names Abimelech and Phicol. 5) Denial of his wife. 6) Reproof by Abimelech. 7) Desire of Abimelech to make a covenant. 8) Strife between herdsmen. 9) Oath at Beer-sheba. 10) Calling on the name of the Lord.

The points of disagreement are as follows: 1) The famine in Isaac’s case is carefully distinguished from that in the days of Abraham. 2) He is prohibited from going into Egypt. 3) Rebekah was not taken into Abimelech’s house as was Sarah. 4) Isaac’s deceit was discovered, not by a judgment of God, but by accident. 5) Abraham was allowed free use of the land; Isaac was requested to leave. 6) Abraham’s difficulty was about the well of Beer-sheba; Isaac was driven from many wells before he withdrew to Beer-sheba. 7) Isaac’s servants discover water at Beer-sheba, and the name is renewed after the oath between him and Abimelech, and after the latter had departed. 8) Abraham made a covenant with seven lambs; Isaac made a feast. 9) Ahuzzah, the friend of Abimelech, is an additional personage in the affair with Isaac; in chap. 20 God appears in a dream to Abimelech, but no special revelations were made to Abraham. A careful scrutiny of these points of agreement and difference will show that the events narrated were two very different affairs… Isaac’s life, while having so many experiences like his father’s, was not a mere echo of the life of Abraham. It had an individuality peculiarly its own, from his being quiet and passive where Abraham was active and bold.

1. A famine — Abraham’s, Isaac’s, and Jacob’s history are each distinguished by a famine, that frequent plague of the East. Besides the first famine — Our historian was not so obtuse, as some critics have assumed, as not to know that Abraham’s life had passages very much like Isaac’s. But he knew, what some critics seem unable to comprehend, that two men’s lives may be largely the one a repetition of the other. Thus history has often repeated itself in less than a century. Abimelech — Possibly the same Abimelech as that of Genesis 20:2. For if he had been aged forty at the time of Abraham’s visit, he would have now been about one hundred and twenty-five — no very unsupposable age for that time, when men lived, as we have seen, to be one hundred and seventy-five years old. But it is altogether probable that this was the son and successor of the Abimelech of Abraham’s time, for both this name and that of Phichol (verse 26) were official titles rather than personal appellations. See notes on Genesis 20:2; 21:22.

Verse 33. He called it Shebah] This was probably the same well which was called Beersheba in the time of Abraham, which the Philistines had filled up, and which the servants of Isaac had reopened. The same name is therefore given to it which it had before, with the addition of the emphatic letter h he, by which its signification became extended, so that now it signified not merely an oath or full, but satisfaction and abundance. The name of the city is Beer-sheba] This name was given to it a hundred years before this time; but as the well from which it had this name originally was closed up by the Philistines, probably the name of the place was abolished with the well; when therefore Isaac reopened the well, he restored the ancient name of the place.

33. Called it Shebah — h[bv, Shibhah; which means both seven and oath. Compare Genesis 21:28-31. “Now the writer was aware that this place had received the same name on a former occasion. But a second well had now been dug in like circumstances in the same locality. This gives occasion for a new application of the name in the memories of the people. This is another illustration of the principle explained at Genesis 25:30. Two wells still exist at this place, attesting the correctness of the record.” — Murphy.

V. 34. He took to wife-Marrying Canaanites, who were strangers to the blessing of Abraham, and subject to the curse of Noah.

Verse 34. He took to wife-the daughter, &c.] It is very likely that the wives taken by Esau were daughters of chiefs among the Hittites, and by this union he sought to increase and strengthen his secular power and influence.

Verse 34. He took to wife — Contrary to the command of his father, mother, and grandfather, he marries Canaanites, who were strangers to the blessing of Abraham, and subject to the curse of Noah.

ESAU’S MARRIAGE, 34, 35.

34. Judith… and Bashemath — Two wives, and both Hittites, and both married in the same year, was polygamy equal to Lamech’s, (Genesis 4:19,) and led an apostle to call him a fornicator, (Hebrews 12:16,) and might well have caused his parents a great “grief of mind,” (verse 35,) and bitterness of spirit. See further on Genesis 28:9; 36:2, 3.

Verse 35. Which were a grief of mind] Not the marriage, though that was improper, but the persons; they, by their perverse and evil ways, brought bitterness into the hearts of Isaac and Rebekah. The Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel, and that of Jerusalem, say they were addicted to idol worship, and rebelled against and would not hearken to the instructions either of Isaac or Rebekah. From Canaanites a different conduct could not be reasonably expected. Esau was far from being spiritual, and his wives were wholly carnal.

THE same reflections which were suggested by Abraham’s conduct in denying his wife in Egypt and Gerar, will apply to that of Isaac; but the case of Isaac was much less excusable than that of Abraham. The latter told no falsity; he only through fear suppressed a part of the truth.

1. A good man has a right to expect God’s blessing on his honest industry. Isaac sowed, and received a hundred-fold, and he had possession of flocks, &c., for the Lord blessed him. Worldly men, if they pray at all, ask for temporal things: “What shall we eat? what shall we drink? and wherewithal shall we be clothed?” Most of the truly religious people go into another extreme; they forget the body, and ask only for the soul! and yet there are “things requisite and necessary as well for the body as the soul,” and things which are only at God’s disposal. The body lives for the soul’s sake; its life and comfort are in many respects essentially requisite to the salvation of the soul; and therefore the things necessary for its support should be earnestly asked from the God of all grace, the Father of bounty and providence. Ye have not because ye ask not, may be said to many poor, afflicted religious people; and they are afraid to ask lest it should appear mercenary, or that they sought their portion in this life. They should be better taught. Surely to none of these will God give a stone if they ask bread: he who is so liberal of his heavenly blessings will not withhold earthly ones, which are of infinitely less consequence. Reader, expect God’s blessing on thy honest industry; pray for it, and believe that God does not love thee less, who hast taken refuge in the same hope, than he loved Isaac. Plead not only his promises, but plead on the precedents he has set before thee. “Lord, thou didst so and so to Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob, and to others who trusted in thee; bless my field, bless my flocks, prosper my labour, that I may be able to provide things honest in the sight of all men, and have something to dispense to those who are in want.” And will not God hear such prayers? Yea, and answer them too, for he does not willingly afflict the children of men. And we may rest assured that there is more affliction and poverty in the world than either the justice or providence of God requires. There are, however, many who owe their poverty to their want of diligence and economy; they sink down into indolence, and forget that word, Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; nor do they consider that by idleness a man is clothed with rags. Be diligent in business and fervent in spirit, and God will withhold from thee no manner of thing that is good.

2. From many examples we find that the wealth of the primitive inhabitants of the world did not consist in gold, silver, or precious stones, but principally in flocks of useful cattle, and the produce of the field. With precious metals and precious stones they were not unacquainted, and the former were sometimes used in purchases, as we have already seen in the case of Abraham buying a field from the children of Heth. But the blessings which God promises are such as spring from the soil. Isaac sowed in the land, and had possessions of flocks and herds, and great store of servants, Genesis 26:12-14. Commerce, by which nations and individuals so suddenly rise and as suddenly fall, had not been then invented; every man was obliged to acquire property by honest and persevering labour, or be destitute. Lucky hits, fortunate speculations, and adventurous risks, could then have no place; the field must be tilled, the herds watched and fed, and the proper seasons for ploughing, sowing, reaping, and laying up, be carefully regarded and improved. No man, therefore, could grow rich by accident. Isaac waxed great and went forward, and grew until he became very great, Genesis 26:13. Speculation was of no use, for it could have no object; and consequently many incitements to knavery and to idleness, that bane of the physical and moral health of the body and soul of man, could not show themselves. Happy times! when every man wrought with his hands, and God particularly blessed his honest industry. As he had no luxuries, he had no unnatural and factitious wants, few diseases, and a long life.

O fortunatos nimium, sua si bona norint,

Agricolas!

O thrice happy husbandmen! did they but know their own mercies. But has not what is termed commerce produced the reverse of all this? A few are speculators, and the many are comparatively slaves; and slaves, not to enrich themselves, (this is impossible,) but to enrich the speculators and adventurers by whom they are employed. Even the farmers become, at least partially, commercial men; and the soil, the fruitful parent of natural wealth, is comparatively disregarded: the consequence is, that the misery of the many, and the luxury of the few, increase; and from both these spring, on the one hand, pride, insolence, contempt of the poor, contempt of GOD’S holy word and commandments, with the long catalogue of crimes which proceed from pampered appetites and unsubdued passions: and on the other, murmuring, repining, discontent, and often insubordination and revolt, the most fell and most destructive of all the evils that can degrade and curse civil society. Hence wars, fightings, and revolutions of states, and public calamities of all kinds. Bad as the world and the times are, men have made them much worse by their unnatural methods of providing for the support of life. When shall men learn that even this is but a subordinate pursuit; and that the cultivator. of the soul in the knowledge, love, and obedience of God, is essentially necessary, not only to future glory, but to present happiness?

GENESIS

ESAU’S MARRIAGE, 34, 35.

34. Judith… and Bashemath — Two wives, and both Hittites, and both married in the same year, was polygamy equal to Lamech’s, (Genesis 4:19,) and led an apostle to call him a fornicator, (Hebrews 12:16,) and might well have caused his parents a great “grief of mind,” (verse 35,) and bitterness of spirit. See further on Genesis 28:9; 36:2, 3.