Verse by Verse

1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless.

² And I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly.”

³ Then Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying:

⁴ “As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations.

⁵ No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations.

⁶ I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you.

⁷ And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you.

⁸ Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.”

“Almighty God”—Shaddai—is the name of God characteristically used by the patriarchs prior to the giving of the law at Sinai. It’s most frequent occurrence is in the book of Job, where Shaddai occurs thirty-one times. The name Jehovah largely replaces it from Exodus 6 onward, where attention is centered more particularly on Israel as God’s covenant people.

(1) El Shaddai is the name of God which sets Him forth primarily as the strengthener and satisfier of His people. It is to be regretted that Shaddai was translated “Almighty.” The primary name, El or Elohim, sufficiently signifies almightiness. “All-sufficient” would far better express the characteristic use of the name in Scripture.

(2) El Shaddai not only enriches but makes fruitful. This is nowhere better illustrated than in the first occurrence of the name. To a man ninety-nine years of age, and “as good as dead” (Hebrews 11:12), He said, I am the Almighty God … I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.” To the same purport is the use of the name in Genesis 28:3-4.

(3) As bestower of fruitfulness, El Shaddai chastens His people. For the moral connection of chastening with fruit-bearing, see John 15:2; cp, Ruth 1:20; Hebrews 12:10. Hence, Almighty is the characteristic name of God in Job. The hand of Shaddai falls upon Job, the best man of his time, not in judgment but in purifying unto greater fruitfulness (Job 5:17-25). —Scofield, page 25.

__________

Fourteen years of silence on the part of God follow upon Abraham’s folly in the matter of Ismael; but man’s foolish plannings cannot undo God’s eternal counsels. The time is fulfilled and the child of promise must be born. But faith must be energized if Isaac is to be begotten; and accordingly there is a new and abrupt revelation made of Jehovah to Abraham’s soul as “El-Shaddai.” This is the first occurrence of this great Divine title. It assured Abraham that what God had promised, He was almighty to perform. … Throughout the chapter, man is dead and God is the actor; and it is not so much what God was for Abraham, but what He was Himself—not “I am thy shield,” but “I am El-Shaddai.” Hence, the third verse in contrast with Genesis 15:2-3, pictures the patriarch as a silent worshiper listening to Elohim who talks with him.

In the first verse God, as El-Shaddai, says, “Walk before me and be thou perfect.” “Perfect” here means “guileless”; that is, God says, be simple, leave all to me, let me plan for  you. I am Almighty. No longer scheme to begat an Ismael, but trust me to give you an Isaac. This is the meaning of “perfect” in this passage. It does not mean that Abraham could be sinlessly perfect, for he could not. This word “perfect” occurs four times in the New Testament: Matthew 5:48; Matthew 19:21; Philippians 3:12; and Hebrews 10:1. These four passages treat of benevolence, self-denial, glory and assurance of salvation. None of them teach sinless perfection. — Williams, page 21.

__________

First, [God] admonished Abram to be careful to walk in fellowship with Him (as occasionally in the past he had forgotten to do), and to be wholly dedicated to performing the will of God (the word is translated “perfect,” but means, simply, “whole”). These admonitions were not stated as conditions of the covenant, however, but simply as commands.

God again promised to make Abram a father of many nations, and then changed his name to Abraham (“father of a multitude”) instead of Abram (“exalted father”) in token thereof.  God stressed also that His covenant was not only with Abraham, but with “thy seed after thee,” as an everlasting covenant. Specifically He said that Canaan would be an everlasting possession; so it is clear no action on the part of Abraham’s descendants can ever permanently sever the land from them. — Morris, page 332.

__________

God’s statement in verses 2 and 7 should properly be rendered: “I am upholding my covenant …”—and hence His previous command to “walk before me and be blameless” is intended not as a condition to ensure that the covenant will be made, but rather as a response to the fact that the covenant has been made.—Wechsler, page 194.

⁷ Now the Angel of the Lord found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, by the spring on the way to Shur.

⁸ And He said, “Hagar, Sarai’s maid, where have you come from, and where are you going?” She said, “I am fleeing from the presence of my mistress Sarai.”

⁹ The Angel of the Lord said to her, “Return to your mistress, and submit yourself under her hand.”

¹⁰ Then the Angel of the Lord said to her, “I will multiply your descendants exceedingly, so that they shall not be counted for multitude.”

¹¹ And the Angel of the Lord said to her: “Behold, you are with child, and you shall bear a son. You shall call his name Ishmael, because the Lord has heard your affliction.

¹² He shall be a wild man; his hand shall be against every man, and every man’s hand against him. And he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.”

¹³ Then she called the name of the Lord who spoke to her, You-Are-the-God-Who-Sees; for she said, “Have I also here seen Him who sees me?”

¹⁴ Therefore the well was called Beer Lahai Roi; observe, it is between Kadesh and Bered.

¹⁵ So Hagar bore Abram a son; and Abram named his son, whom Hagar bore, Ishmael.

¹⁶ Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ishmael to Abram.

Hagar had started home to Egypt, but the journey through the wilderness was bound to be too much for her. Consequently, the “Angel of the Lord” met her and constrained her to return to Abram. This is the first occurrence of this phrase in the Bible, and the context indicates (v. 13) that this “angel” was indeed God Himself, that is, another preincarnate appearance of the Messiah. 

Ishmael (meaning “God hears” ) would, by his name, always remind his mother how the God of Abram (not her old gods in Egypt, to which she had started to return) had met her need. She even named the well where the Angel of Jehovah had spoken to her “the well of the Living One who seeith me” (Beer-lahai-roi), and called God by the name El Roi (“the God who sees”).

God also foretold the nature of her son, that he would be, literally, “a wild ass of a man,” one who would be perpetually in conflict with others, dwelling “against the face of his brethren.” — Morris, pages 330-331.

__________

The consequence …—since it concerns sexual sin and hence the issue of patrimony—is … centered in the son of the union, Ishmael, and his descendants—specifically, that he/they would be like a wild donkey (i.e. uncontrollable and fractious), with especial animosity (such being the sense of “to the east”—i.e., in rebellion/enmity) towards his brothers in the line of Promise, Israel. Throughout the Bible, accordingly, the Ishmaelites—i.e., the Arabs—are represented as being in continual opposition to Israel and their assertion of ownership and dominion of the land of Israel (cf. Psalm 83:6; Nehemiah 6:1)—as is also the case in post-biblical history up to the present day. Thus, for example, the great rabbinic authority Maimonides writes in his famous Letter to Yemen, concerning the state of affairs between Jews and Arabs in the twelfth century: “We prefer peace with them [i.e., the Ishmaelites], yet they prefer strife and warfare with us, as David said, (Woe is me … for I dwell among the tents of Kedar [an Ismaelite/Arab tribe; cf. Genesis 25:13] …;) I am for peace, but when I speak, they are for war (Psalm 120:5-7).” It is essential to note, as it bears upon the present Jewish-Arab “conflict,” that this enmity is declaratively established by God in verse 12, the implication being that only God Himself (and not diplomacy) can remove it—as He does, exclusively and completely, in Christ. Wechsler, pages 192-193.

1 Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. And she had an Egyptian maidservant whose name was Hagar.

² So Sarai said to Abram, “See now, the Lord has restrained me from bearing children. Please, go in to my maid; perhaps I shall obtain children by her.” And Abram heeded the voice of Sarai.

³ Then Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar her maid, the Egyptian, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan.

⁴ So he went in to Hagar, and she conceived. And when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress became despised in her eyes.

⁵ Then Sarai said to Abram, “My wrong be upon you! I gave my maid into your embrace; and when she saw that she had conceived, I became despised in her eyes. The Lord judge between you and me.”

⁶ So Abram said to Sarai, “Indeed your maid is in your hand; do to her as you please.” And when Sarai dealt harshly with her, she fled from her presence.

The Epistle to the Galatians declares that Sarah and Hagar represent the two principles of law and grace. Hagar represents salvation by works; Sarah, salvation by faith. These principles are opposed to one another. Ismael is born as the result of man’s planning and energy. Isaac is born as the result of God’s planning and energy. In the birth of Ishmael, God had nothing to do, and as regards the birth of Isaac man was dead. So is it today, salvation by works entirely depends on man’s capacity to produce them; salvation by faith upon God’s ability to perform them. Under a covenant of works, God stands still in order to see what man can do. Under the covenant of grace, man stands still to see what God has done. The two covenants are opposed; it must be either Hagar or Sarah. If Hagar, God has nothing to do with it; if Sarah, man has nothing to do with it. — Williams, pages 20-21.

__________

By this time, Abram was eighty-five years old, and Sarai was seventy-five (note Genesis 16:16). Her maid, Hagar (an Egyptian girl, perhaps acquired during their stay in Egypt), was, in effect, her own personal property. Thus any children that she might bear to Abram would legally belong to Sarai, in accordance with the customs of the day. Abram “hearkened to the voice of Sarai,” and this turned out to be a serious mistake, just as it had for Adam long ago (Genesis 3:17). He had still not fully learned that we must “through faith and patience inherit the promises” (Hebrews 6:12). Scripture enjoins us: “Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompense of reward. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise” (Hebrews 10:35-36). Morris, page 329.

When Hagar saw that she had conceive while Sarai couldn’t, Hagar despised Sarai.

How can we reconcile this statement of Romans 4:20 that Abraham staggered not in unbelief, when we see him in the story of Genesis repeatedly in unbelief? This question is often asked. Many preachers can be very harsh on Abraham’s slips. They have not fully taken God’s attitude to him and they do not seem to know what grace means. Grace means that God fully forgives and forgets. In the Old Testament He uses the sins of the saints as warning beacons, but He does not even do this in the New Testament. He there has buried their sins, blotted them out and forgotten them, and He only exalts their faith. What is said here of Abraham is also true of David and of all the ancient worthies where the sins of even a Samson and Gideon are not mentioned but their faith is shining on the page of Holy Writ. Then, the Lord does not forget what we so often forget that Satan uses all his trickery and chicanery against God’s men. It is true that Abraham went down to Egypt and the Philistines and that he lied twice about his wife and that he used Hagar his maid. All this proves not only that he was a man of like movement as we are, but also that he was the special object of Satan’s onslaughts and designs to prevent the birth of the promised holy seed of the woman. — Bultema, page 48.

__________

Abraham exhibits faith in chapter 15, and yet he fails in patience in chapter 16. hence the force and beauty of the apostle’s word in Hebrews 6:12: “Followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.” God makes a promise; faith believes it, hope anticipates it, patience waits quietly for it.

There is such a thing, in the commercial world, as “the present worth” of a bill or promissory note; for if men are called upon to wait for their money, they must be paid for waiting. Now, in faith’s world there is such a thing as the present worth of God’s promise; and the scale by which that worth is regulated, is the hearth’s experimental knowledge of God; for according to my estimate of God, will be my estimate of His promise; and, moreover, the subdued and patient spirit finds its rich and full reward in waiting upon Him for the accomplishment of all that He has promised. — Mackintosh, page 175.

__________

The specific pattern surrounding the temptation, sin, consequences, and divine response to Abram’s sin is clearly parallel to that surrounding Adam’s sin in chapter 3, thus vividly reinforcing the two-sided point that (1) God’s ideal purpose for man is refocused on Abram, and (2) God will sovereignly ensure the success of this purpose despite the fact that Abram, like Adam before him, and all men in between, is fundamentally tainted by the problem of depravity. — Wechsler, page 190.

__________

Abram, like Adam was the leader of his family: it was to him that God had directly and clearly communicated His word, and it was he who was therefore responsible for properly communicating this word to his family and leading them in obedience to it. And in this instance, as in chapter 3, the temptation to doubt and disobey God’s word is subtly set before the husband through the mediation of his wife—to whom Abram, like Adam, gives in and does what he knows to be wrong. Indeed, the sinfulness of Abram’s action is underscored for the reader by use in verse 2b of the same expression (“to listen to the voice of…”) as that used by God to preface His chastisement of Adam in Genesis 3:17 (“Because you listened to the voice of your wife” ). — Wechsler, page 191.

⁷ Then He said to him, “I am the Lord, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to inherit it.”

⁸ And he said, “Lord God, how shall I know that I will inherit it?”

⁹ So He said to him, “Bring Me a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old female goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.”

¹⁰ Then he brought all these to Him and cut them in two, down the middle, and placed each piece opposite the other; but he did not cut the birds in two.

¹¹ And when the vultures came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away.

¹² Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold, horror and great darkness fell upon him.

¹³ Then He said to Abram: “Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years.

¹⁴ And also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come out with great possessions.

¹⁵ Now as for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age.

¹⁶ But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.”

¹⁷ And it came to pass, when the sun went down and it was dark, that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces.

¹⁸ On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying: “To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates—

¹⁹ the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites,

²⁰ the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim,

²¹ the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.”

One each of the five acceptable sacrificial animals (cow, sheep, goat, pigeon, dove) was to be slain by Abram and laid on the altar. The slain animals were placed in two rows, one bird in each, along with a half-portion of each of the other animals. This arrangement was evidently intended to conform to the custom of the day, when a covenant was made between two parties; each would pass between the two rows, as a sign that he was bound by the terms of the contract. The intimation perhaps was that, if he broke it, the substitutionary death of the animals would no longer be efficacious and he himself (or possibly his cattle) would be subject to death. …

After Abram made the preparations, however, nothing happened during the rest of the day, and finally the sun went down. The delay possibly symbolized the fact that, although God’s covenant would be sure, its accomplishment would take a long time. In the first place, Abram himself would have to wait many years for the promised seed. Even then, it would still be many long centuries before the seed would become a great nation and possess the promised land, and many millennia before the ultimate fulfillment would take place, with all nations being blessed through the nation of Abram’s seed. 

During the wait, as could be expected, Abram had to drive off the birds of prey that dried to devour the carcasses. This experience, no doubt symbolized the attempts of Satan to thwart the plans of God. — Morris, page 326

__________

Up to this day in Abraham’s life, God was wont to say to him, “I will give thee this land,” but from the hour of this blood-sealed covenant, He says, “I have given thee this land;” for promises based upon the precious blood of Christ are so absolutely sure that faith can claim them as already possessed. — Williams, page 20.

__________

The reason for the delay, God said, was that “the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.” Just as God delayed the judgment of the Flood for 120 years, so here He waited four hundred years. “God is not willing that any should perish” (2 Peter 3:9).

Then, when it was dark, a smoking firepot and a flaming torch, representing God’s presence in the covenantal relation with Abram, passed between the two parts of the sacrifice. Only God passed through, not Abram, denoting an unconditional promise on God’s part, not dependent on Abram’s fulfilling his part of the contract, since he had no such part. It was all of God, in response to Abram’s believing faith. In order for God to keep His covenant, there must first be suffering, with glory then to follow. This is suggested by the furnace and the lamp.

The covenant, already made, is now expounded. The land which God will give Abram is from the Nile to the Euphrates, the land then occupied by Canaanites, represented by the ten tribes named. For a very brief time, under Solomon (1 Kings 8:65) and possibly again under Jeroboam II (2 Kings 14:25), the children of Israel ruled all this territory, as a token of the final and permanent possession they will have in the future. — Morris, page 328.

__________

Having affirmed—and hence, for the moment, assuaged Abram’s doubt about—the promise of an heir, God next affirms the covenant promise of Abram possessing “this land” (i.e., Canaan). Not unexpectedly, this prompts a new expression of doubt on the part of Abram, who responds to God’s affirmation by asking, “How may I know that I shall possess it?”—to which, again, God responds with patience and grace. In this instance, however, since the provision in view is abstract (i.e., the right of possession/ownership) rather than material (such as an heir and descendants), God affirms His promise and assuages Abram’s doubts by condescending to participate in the accepted human convention of covenant “ratification” (i.e., establishing a “binding” agreement), which was for the covenantee to be “bound” to the conditions of the agreement by the blood of a sacrifice—either by walking between the bloody parts, as here, or being sprinkled by the blood, as in Exodus 24:6-8, where both Israel and God (represented by the altar) are sprinkled with the sacrificial blood, both sides having certain conditions to fulfill. In this instance, though God adopts the generally accepted form of ratification, He “tweaks” it to conform to the unconditional nature of His promise to Abram. Thus, while Abram is waiting for God, as the superior party, to pass between the pieces, he falls into a deep sleep (induced by God), during which God passes between the pieces in the form of a smoking oven and a flaming torch—thereby ensuring that the pieces were completely burned up in the process (as in 1 Kings 18:38). Consequently, when Abram awoke, he would have perceived that (1) God had passed between the pieces, and (2) that He had done so in such a way as to prevent Abram from doing so afterward, the point thus being clearly driven home that the only one to whom the covenant is “bound” for its fulfillment is God—i.e., it is unconditional. This is likewise Paul’s point in his comment on this event in Galatians 3:17, in which he clearly states that the Abrahamic covenant was “ratified by God” alone, hence justifying his designation of it as a “promise” (= unconditional covenant) rather than “law” (= conditional covenant). — Wechsler, pages 189-190.

1 After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision, saying, “Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward.”

² But Abram said, “Lord God, what will You give me, seeing I go childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?”

³ Then Abram said, “Look, You have given me no offspring; indeed one born in my house is my heir!”

⁴ And behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying, “This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body shall be your heir.”

⁵ Then He brought him outside and said, “Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.”

⁶ And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.

Lord God (v.2) = Adonai (Master) Jehovah (G0d)

Not only does this remarkable verse [verse 1] contain the first mention of “word,” but it also introduces for the first time in Scripture the words “vision,” “shield,” and “reward.” Even more significantly, this is the first of the great “I am’s” of Scripture. — Morris, page 323

__________

Now [verse 6], once again we have a first mention, this time of the word “believe.” Abram “believed God and He counted [or ‘imputed’] it to him for righteousness.” Here is the great principle of true salvation, set forth for the first time in the Bible. Not by works do men attain or manifest righteousness, but by faith. Because they believe in the Word of God, He credits them with perfect righteousness and therefore enables sinful man to be made fit for the fellowship of a holy God. In this verse is also the first occurrence of “imputed” and the first occurrence of “righteousness” (except in the name “Melchizedek’; also, a similar word, though not the same, was applied to Noah, in Genesis 6:9, translated “just”). … This wonderful verse is quoted in three epistles of the New Testament (Romans 4:3; Galatians 3:6; James 2:23). — Morris, page 325

__________

The imputation of righteousness to Abraham is here founded upon his believing in the Lord as the Quickener of the dead. It is in this character that He reveals Himself in a world where death reigns; and when a soul believes in Him as such, it is counted righteous in His sight. This necessarily shuts man out, as regards his cooperation, for what can he do in the midst of a scene of death? Can he raise the dead? Can he open the gates of the grave? Can he deliver himself from the power of death, and walk forth, in life and liberty, beyond the limits of its dreary domain? Assuredly not. Well, then, if he cannot do so, he cannot work out righteousness, nor establish himself in the relation of sonship. “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living,” and therefore, so long as a man is under the power of death, and under the dominion of sin, he can neither know the position of a son, nor the condition of righteousness. Thus, God alone can bestow the adoption of sons, and He alone can impute righteousness, and both are connected with faith in Him as the One who raised up Christ from the dead.

It is in this way that the apostle handles the question of Abraham’s faith, in Romans 4:23, where he says, “It was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed onto him; but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.” Here, the God of resurrection is presented “to us also” as the object of faith, and our faith in Him as the alone ground of our righteousness. If Abraham had looked up into heaven’s vault, spangled with innumerable stars, and then looked at “his own body now dead,” how could he ever grasp the idea of a seed as numerous as those stars? Impossible. But he did not look at his own body, but at the resurrection-power of God; and inasmuch as that was the power which was to produce the seed, we can easily see that the stars of heaven and the sand on the sea-shore are but feeble figures indeed; for what natural object could possible illustrate the effect of that power which can raise the dead? 

So also, when a sinner hearkens to the glad tidings of the gospel, were he to look up to the unsullied light of the divine presence, and then look down into the unexplored depths of his own evil nature, he might well exclaim, How can I ever get thither?—how can I ever be fit to dwell in that light? Where is the answer? In himself? Nay, blessed be God, but in that blessed One who traveled from the bosom to the cross and the grave, and from thence to the throne, thus filling up, in His Person and work, all the space between those extreme points. There can be nothing higher than the bosom of God—the eternal dwelling-place of the Son, and there can be nothing lower than the cross and the grave; but, amazing truth! I find Christ in both. I find Him in the bosom, and I find Him in the grave. He went down into death in order that he might leave behind Him, in the dust thereof, the full weight of His people’s sins and iniquities. Christ in the grave exhibits the end of everything human—the end of sin—the full limit of Satan’s power. The grave of Jesus forms the grand terminus of all. But resurrection takes us beyond this terminus, and constitutes the imperishable basis on which God’s glory and man’s blessing repose forever. The moment the eye of faith rests on a risen Christ, there is a triumphant answer to every question as to sin, judgment, death, and the grave. the One who divinely met all these is alive from the dead, and has taken His seat at the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens; and not only so, but the Spirit of that risen and glorified One, in the believer, constitutes him a son. He is quickened out of the grave of Christ: as we read “And you, being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He quickened together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses” (Colossians 2:13).

Hence, therefore, sonship, being founded on resurrection, stands connected with perfect justification—perfect righteousness—perfect freedom from everything which could in anywise be against us. God could not have us in His presence with sin upon us. He could not suffer a single speck or stain of sin upon His sons and daughters. The father could not have the prodigal at his table with the rags of the far country upon him. He could go forth to meet him in those rags, he could fall upon his neck and kiss him in those rags,—it was worthy and beautifully characteristic of his grace so to do; but then to seat him at his table in the rags would never do. The grace that brought the father out to the prodigal, reigns through the righteousness which brought the prodigal in to the father. It would not have been grace had the father waited for the son to deck himself in robes of his own providing, and it would not have been righteous to bring him in in his rags,  but both grace and righteousness shone forth in all their respective brightness and beauty when the father went out and fell on the prodigal’s neck, but yet did not give him a seat at his table until he was clad and decked in a manner suited to that elevated and happy position. God, in Christ, has stooped to the very lowest point of man’s moral condition, that, by stooping, He might raise man to the very highest point of blessedness, in fellowship with Himself. From all this, it follows that our sonship, with all its consequent dignities and privileges, is entirely independent of us. We have just as little to do with it as Abraham’s dead body and Sarah’s dead womb had to do with a seed as numerous as the stars which garnish the heavens, or as the sand on the sea-shore. It is all of God. — Mackintosh, pages 163-166

__________

In ratifying the promise (i.e., the “Abrahamic Covenant”), therefore, God is not “activating” it, but rather establishing the certainty of its fulfillment in the mind of Abraham—i.e., here, as continually throughout the history of redemption, God condescends to “meet” man in his lack of faith by doing more (or less, depending on one’s perspective) than required by the ideal since the depraved man that He interacts with are so far from that ideal. — Wechsler, page 186. 

__________

As in the initial expression of God’s promise in Genesis 12, so too here the scene commences immediately with God’s active expression of what He will do for Abram (and his descendants in the line of Promise). And so too here, as in the latter part of Genesis 12, God’s declaration of promise is followed by a clear expression of doubt on the part of Abram. In the present instance this doubt is represented by Abram’s questioning response, “O Lord God, what will You give me, since I am childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” By this question, in other words, Abram is, at best, seeking to “force” God’s “hand” into specifying and fulfilling His previous statement, “I will make you into a great nation” (Genesis 12:2); at worst he is rhetorically denying that God can in fact give him the son that he so desires, Sarai being barren (see Genesis 11:30) and postmenopausal to boot (see Genesis 18:13), in which latter case Abram’s statement in verse 2 should be understood as the despondent statement of an old man of little faith anticipating his death (as is perfectly consistent with the Hebrew grammar). As in chapter 12, however, God responds not with judgment, but with patience and grace, thus emphasizing the unconditional nature of His promise. — Wechsler, page 187.

__________

[Genesis 15:6] is referring to the fact that Abraham, who is already a believer, believed even more so (but still far from perfectly; see Genesis 17:17) in God’s specific promise of an heir, and this inner “act” of expressing greater faith was therefore credited to Abraham as a specific act of righteousness (thus yielding an added “notch” to his reward in the hereafter). … This is absolutely consistent with Paul’s citation of this verse in Romans 4, the point of which chapter is, simply, that righteousness is based first and foremost on faith (i.e., the inner “acts” or affirmations, of one’s heart)—whether that be one’s initial faith in Christ as the resurrected Lord, resulting in the overall righteousness of justification, or (as in the present instance) the believer’s subsequent and growing faith in the specific promises and commands of God’s Word, as reflected in the righteous acts that he performs in obedience to those promises and commands. — Wechsler, pages 188-189.

¹⁸ Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High.

¹⁹ And he blessed him and said:  “Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth;

²⁰ And blessed be God Most High, Who has delivered your enemies into your hand.” And he gave him a tithe of all.

²¹ Now the king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me the persons, and take the goods for yourself.”

²² But Abram said to the king of Sodom, “I have raised my hand to the Lord, God Most High, the Possessor of heaven and earth,

²³ that I will take nothing, from a thread to a sandal strap, and that I will not take anything that is yours, lest you should say, ‘I have made Abram rich’—

²⁴ except only what the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men who went with me: Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.”

[Melchizedek] is referred to nine hundred years later by King David (Psalm 110:4) and one thousand years later than that by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hebrews 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:1-21), where he is mentioned by name no less than nine times!

His name means “King of Righteousness” (Hebrews 7:2), and his title “King of Salem” means also “King of Peace.” For an individual to have such a name in such a place as Canaan, filled with wickedness and demonism as it was is sufficiently remarkable in itself. All indications, however, show that his name was appropriate. He is the first priest mentioned in the Bible (and this is also the first mention of “peace”), and he obviously had a unique relation to the true God. He used the name El Elyon (the “most high God”) to stress the absolute superiority of God to the multitude of gods and goddesses worshiped in Canaan. He also identified God as “the possessor of heaven and earth,” thus referring back to Genesis 1. Abram gladly recognized Melchizedek as representing the same God, who had called him to Canaan, and he “gave him tithes of all.” Melchizedek had brought bread and wine and, assuming this was meant for the refreshment of the weary fighters and travelers, it would have required a very large amount. — Morris, page 318

__________

Abram gave a tenth of “all” to Melchizedek. This is the first mention of tithing in the Bible. It is normally assumed that this refers to a tithe of the spoils of the battle, but Scripture does not actually say so. It is possible that Abram, overwhelmed by the presence and blessing of Melchizedek, really did give him a tenth of all that he had.

As far as the actual spoils of battle were concerned, the king of Sodom (who had in the meantime reappeared from the slimepits where he had fled from the armies of the four kings) recognized that their recovery was due entirely to Abram, and told him to take all the goods, returning only the people who were captives back to their homes. Abram, however, knew that the victory was not due to him, but to God, and would not take any of the goods. — Morris, pages 321-322

Two of my commentaries state that Melchizedek appeared at this moment to remind Abram that he had been blessed by God and, therefore, did not need the material things offered to him by the king of Sodom, the taking of which would have made him indebted to the evil king. The text doesn’t say this. I don’t know if that was part of the purpose of Melchizedek’s appearance, but it did certainly have that effect.

It is indispensable to a full appreciation of of the canonical significance of Melchizedek that one bear in mind the consistent principle that, in the general priestly economy of God, the nature of the priest inevitably and commensurately determines the nature of his priestly work (cf. Hebrews 7:26-28). It is for this reason, we believe, that the discussion of Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 commences with an explicit discussion of the titles/names (there being no semantic distinction between names and titles in biblical Hebrew) by which he is here introduced—namely, Melchizedek, meaning “King of Righteousness,” and King of Salem, meaning “King of Peace.” In other words, insofar as “righteousness” and “peace,” as biblically defined, are qualities centered in and administered by God, the implication right at the outset is that Melchizedek is none other than God Himself—yet another example of the many theophanies in the Hebrew Bible. Indeed, reflective of their divine connotation, these two titles/names are not employed for any other individual—king, priest, or otherwise—in Israel, and the two names employed within an Israelite context that come semantically closest to these are, not surprisingly, prophetically applied to the Messiah in His eschatological role of eternal priest-king—to wit, “the Lord our righteousness” in Jeremiah 23:6 and “Prince of Peace” in Isaiah 9:6.

This identification of Melchizedek with God thus explains why Abram immediately recognized and submitted to Melchizedek’s superiority—not simply out of social respect, but as an expression of faith and worship, allowing himself to be blessed (which typically proceeds from “greater”; cf. Hebrews 7:7) and responding by giving Melchizedek a tithe, which is portrayed throughout the Hebrew Bible as a specific act of worship. The implication of Melchizedek’s deity is further explicated in Hebrews 7 by (1) the contrast in verse 8 between the receiving of tithes by the Levites, who are “mortal men,” and the receiving of tithes by Melchizedek, who “lives on” (i.e., who is immortal); and (2) the statement in verse 3 that he—that is, per the context, Melchizedek in Genesis 14—”abides a priest perpetually.” This begs the question: if Jesus , as the writer of Hebrews goes on to state, “abides forever” (Hebrews 7:24) in the role of high priest “after the order of Melchizedek” (Hebrews 7:17)—and there can only be one high priest—then how can the Melchizedek of Genesis 14, whom we are told “abides [present tense!] a priest perpetually” (Hebrews 7:3), be anyone other than Christ, the believer’s great high priest?— Wechsler, pages 184-185

For the record, I agree with Wechsler. Melchizedek was Jesus Christ in a pre-incarnate appearance.

1 And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations,

² that they made war with Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar).

³ All these joined together in the Valley of Siddim (that is, the Salt Sea).

⁴ Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled.

⁵ In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings that were with him came and attacked the Rephaim in Ashteroth Karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shaveh Kiriathaim,

⁶ and the Horites in their mountain of Seir, as far as El Paran, which is by the wilderness.

⁷ Then they turned back and came to En Mishpat (that is, Kadesh), and attacked all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites who dwelt in Hazezon Tamar.

⁸ And the king of Sodom, the king of Gomorrah, the king of Admah, the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar) went out and joined together in battle in the Valley of Siddim

⁹ against Chedorlaomer king of Elam, Tidal king of nations, Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar—four kings against five.

¹⁰ Now the Valley of Siddim was full of asphalt pits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled; some fell there, and the remainder fled to the mountains.

¹¹ Then they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their provisions, and went their way.

¹² They also took Lot, Abram’s brother’s son who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.

¹³ Then one who had escaped came and told Abram the Hebrew, for he dwelt by the terebinth trees of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and brother of Aner; and they were allies with Abram.

¹⁴ Now when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his three hundred and eighteen trained servants who were born in his own house, and went in pursuit as far as Dan.

¹⁵ He divided his forces against them by night, and he and his servants attacked them and pursued them as far as Hobah, which is north of Damascus.

¹⁶ So he brought back all the goods, and also brought back his brother Lot and his goods, as well as the women and the people.

¹⁷ And the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley), after his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him.

made war (v.2) — These are the first battles recorded in history.

Archaeology has confirmed that, during those early years of Abram in Canaan, all the lands from Syria through Sinai were peaceful and fruitful. Then, however, the calm was broken, and broken severely, as a great northeastern confederation of kings swept through the land, devastating everything in their path.

The confederacy consisted of the kings of Shinar (Babylonia), Ellasar (the leading tribe in southern Babylonia), Elam (the original kingdom of Persia), and Goiim (translated “nations,” but probably a tribe of northeastern Babylonia).

At this time, of course, kingdoms were still small, probably not much more than city-states; so these invading armies were not comparable to those that invaded Palestine in later times. Nevertheless they were fierce and cruel and could well have destroyed all the inhabitants. Archaeology has revealed … that such invasions and destructions were common all through the Middle East, as each tribe sought to obtain for itself the most desirable lands and mineral resources. This particular invasion probably had as its goal the rich metal deposits of the region.

Chederlaomer, king of Elam, was the acknowledged leader of the group. … According to the Bible, this confederacy had come earlier into the region and had placed the local kings under tribute. These included the five city-states of the Jordanian plain and southern Dead Sea area: Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Zoar. This area was called the “vale of Siddim,” meaning “fields,” probably because of the high fertility and extensive agriculture at the time. Evidently Moses added the editorial explanation, “which is the Salt Sea,” for later readers. Quite possibly the Salt Sea (which came to be known as the Dead Sea in the second Century A.D. and was sometimes also called the Asphalt Sea by early writers) was not originally salty when it first began to fill up after the post-Flood topographic upheavals. Centuries of salt-laden tributary inflows, combined with heavy evaporation and no outlet, gradually made it salty. Another unusual characteristic is indicated in verse 10: “And the vale of Siddim was full of slimepits” [asphalt pits in NKJV]. As a rich source of bitumen, this may also have been one of the attractions of the area to the invading kings.

After the cities of the plain had been under tribute for twelve years, “in the thirteenth year they rebelled” (v.4). This is the first occurrence in the Bible of the number “thirteen,” and it is interesting that it should be associated with rebellion (as it often seems to be throughout the rest of Scripture). — Morris, pages 311-313

__________

[A leading archaeologist writes:] The rebellion of the small kings of the cities on the east side of the Dead Sea against what must have been the extortionate rule of absentee suzerains was brutally crushed. This comparatively minor insurrection was thereupon utilized as a pretext to settle old scores and to raid and ravage with unleashed ferocity for as much booty as could possibly be won. An old order was crumbling. From southern Syria to central Sinai, their fury raged. a punitive expedition developed into an orgy of annihilation. I found that every village in their path had been plundered and left in ruins, and the country side laid waste. The population had been wiped out or led away into captivity. for hundreds of years thereafter, the entire area was like an abandoned cemetery, hideously unkempt, with all its monuments shattered and strewn in pieces on the ground. — from Morris, pages 313-314

__________

After thus routing all who might stand in their way, the eastern confederacy then turned its full attention to the rebellious kings of the five cities of the south. They joined battle with them in the Vale of Siddim, decisively defeating them, so that the “kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled,” possibly hiding in the asphalt pits, with many of their followers fleeing to the mountains. 

Chedorlaomer’s armies then gathered up all the possessions of the vanquished cities, including the women and children and servants, as well as many captured soldiers, and headed north again. Unfortunately for them, however, they also took Lot and his family captive as well. Lot was living in Sodom proper by this time. In spite of his carnality, Lot was a “righteous man” (2 Peter 2:8), as well as a nephew of Abram, who had received God’s call; so God would not allow Lot to be carried off by Chedorlaomer. — Morris, pages 315-316

Hebrew (v.13) — This is the first time the word Hebrew appears in the Bible. It may come from Eber, Abram’s ancestor (Genesis 10:25).

trained servants (v.14) — hired soldiers

One of the inhabitants, presumably an Amorite, came to warn those of his tribe who were living near Abram by the grove of Mamre. Mamre, and his brothers, Eshcol and Aner, were “confederate with Abram.” …

Abram by this time was practically a king, or at least a tribal chieftain. From his retinue, he was able to gather 318 men, all of them trained in his own household, to pursue the kings and to rescue Lot. It seems probable that a number of the Amorites went with him.

In any case, their total number was surely no match for those invading armies who had already overwhelmed many armies much larger than the contingent following Abram. … But God was with them. Quite probably, the returning armies were relaxing and enjoying the spoils of war, and the idea of a sudden nighttime attack was absolutely the remotest thought from their minds at this time. Abram suddenly attacked them from different directions at once, and they soon became utterly demoralized. They fled, but Abram pursued them all the way to the north of Damascus, recapturing Lot, as well as all the other captives and the booty they had taken. — Morris, pages 316-317

__________

This passage concerning the conquest of the five Canaanite kings by the four kings of the east, though at first sight seemingly tangential in nature, serves the following three contextually-thematically significant purposes: first, it presents us with the first explicit evidence of the truly prophetic nature of Noah’s statement in Genesis 9:25-26, according to which (the descendants of) Canaan would be subordinated/enslaved to (the descendants of) his siblings and uncles (this being the general sense of “brothers”), for the conquering quartet is led by the king of Elam, and the Elamites are descendants of Shem (see Genesis 10:22). This historical precedent would also have served as further encouragement for the Israelites, likewise descended from Shem, in their divinely ordained conquest of the Canaanites. Second, it provides an extremely vivid example of God’s military solicitude for Abram, who succeeds in rescuing Lot (who was taken captive with the Sodomites) by defeating, in turn, the four kings from the east. Insofar as this military solicitude is guaranteed under the Abrahamic Covenant, this would also have served as a historical precedent of military success for the Israelites, Abram’s descendants in the line of Promise, both in their initial conquest of Canaan as well as in their ensuing battles to maintain control of the land. Third, it sets up the immediately following episode in which Abram gives “a tithe of all” the spoil (i.e., the spoil he had taken from the four eastern kings, who had themselves taken it from the five Canaanite kings) to Melchizedek, which is one of the most theologically important encounters in the Bible. — Wechsler, pages 183-184

Some of my commentaries tried to make of this passage an application about how living in the world (Lot) leads to captivity, but living apart from the world (Abram) gives victory.

While there is certainly truth in that, it’s not the reason the Holy Spirit inspired Moses to write it (or edit it, as the case may be). I very much appreciate Wechsler’s take (above)  with his explanation of why this account appears in the Bible.

• It fulfills prophecy.

• It encourages the Israelites—who were the chief audience for Moses’ writings.

• It sets up Abram’s meeting with Melchizedek, which is a significant moment in God’s plan to redeem the world through Israel and, ultimately, through Christ.

If you want to tack an application on the end, fine, but first make sure you understand the actual purpose of the passage.

¹⁴ And the Lord said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:

¹⁵ For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.

¹⁶ And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.

¹⁷ Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee.

¹⁸ Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the Lord.

God in grace once again confirmed His covenant with Abram to give him the land. … Abram never actually owned the land himself, however, during his lifetime. Nor, for most of human history, have his descendants actually owned the land, especially those of the promised seed, Isaac. … Since God promised the land to Abram and his seed forever, this can ultimately … be fulfilled only in the new earth of Revelation 21. It will … be fulfilled precursively, however, during the coming millennial age. 

God also assured Abram again that He would make him a great nation, with his seed numbering “as the dust of the earth.” The descendants of Abram today include not only the Jews but also the Arabs, and the number indeed is great. Once again, though, for the promise to be strictly literal, there must be a future fulfillment. During the Millennium, according to Revelation 20:8, earth’s population will be “as the sand of the sea.” Since it would be physically impossible to have as many people on earth as there are grains of sand (say, perhaps a billion billion), this expression evidently is a figure of speech for a number too great for actual enumeration. [But] there is no reason to doubt the reality of its promised literal fulfillment. God does not break His word, nor change His mind, and this promise was given unconditionally. Abram … was promised a nation that would bless other nations. — Morris, page 305

__________

Abram pulled up his tent again and descended from the mountain into the plain of Mamre (or the terebinth “grove of Mamre,” as rendered by the newer versions) near Hebron. Hebron, of course, was not yet in existence as a city by that name (Numbers 13:22), so this reference to Hebron should be understood as an editorial insertion by Moses into Isaac’s “generations” document to identify the location for future readers. The same will be found true of a number of other localities mentioned in Genesis.

Here in Mamre (so named after an Amorite chieftain who had settled there earlier—see Genesis 14:13), Abram built another altar. This was to be his home for some time now, and he wanted a place where his family and servants could meet for formal worship of God. — Morris, page 306.

13 Then Abram went up from Egypt, he and his wife and all that he had, and Lot with him, to the South.

² Abram was very rich in livestock, in silver, and in gold.

³ And he went on his journey from the South as far as Bethel, to the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Ai,

⁴ to the place of the altar which he had made there at first. And there Abram called on the name of the Lord.

⁵ Lot also, who went with Abram, had flocks and herds and tents.

⁶ Now the land was not able to support them, that they might dwell together, for their possessions were so great that they could not dwell together.

⁷ And there was strife between the herdsmen of Abram’s livestock and the herdsmen of Lot’s livestock. The Canaanites and the Perizzites then dwelt in the land.

⁸ So Abram said to Lot, “Please let there be no strife between you and me, and between my herdsmen and your herdsmen; for we are brethren.

⁹ Is not the whole land before you? Please separate from me. If you take the left, then I will go to the right; or, if you go to the right, then I will go to the left.”

¹⁰ And Lot lifted his eyes and saw all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere (before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah) like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt as you go toward Zoar.

¹¹ Then Lot chose for himself all the plain of Jordan, and Lot journeyed east. And they separated from each other.

¹² Abram dwelt in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelt in the cities of the plain and pitched his tent even as far as Sodom.

¹³ But the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked and sinful against the Lord.

Abram, probably aware of how far from God’s will he had been in Egypt, returned not just to the land God had given him, but to Bethel, where he had first lived and where he had built an altar to God. Once again Abram called on the name of the Lord.

Morris repeats many of the applications often given with this passage, although the Bible itself doesn’t state any of them.

Lot and his servants … no longer felt the reverent admiration they once had felt for Abram, and began to be self-seeking. … This situation was also aggravated by the great wealth they had observed in Egypt, including the considerable portion of it with which they themselves had returned. … Material possessions of God’s people, especially if they have been acquired by worldly methods, often lead to such problems.

Abram had learned that God could take care of his needs no matter where he was, so that he offered Lot the choice of fields. As the older man and the leader of the clan, Abram by all rights should have had priority; but he graciously offered it to Lot. Instead of deferring to Abram, as he should have done, Lot seized the opportunity to his own advantage (as he thought). — Morris, pages 302-303

__________

The region of these cities [on the plain of the Jordan River] now is almost unbearably hot and desolate, but in those early days there was still abundant rainfall in the region. The temperature, also, was much more pleasant than now, probably because of the lingering effects of the great Ice Age far to the north. According to verse 10, the Jordanian plain was “as the garden of the Lord.”

That was what Lot saw, as he lifted up his eyes. Abram, on the other hand, “looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (Hebrews 11:10).  — Morris, page 303

__________

At that time, the land of Canaan was sparsely inhabited, with most of the settlements concentrated along the seacoast, along the northern plain of Esdraelon, and here along the Jordanian plain. Abram had the more rugged hill and desert country almost to himself, in what is now termed the Negev (usually translated simply as “the south, in the KJV).

Lot first “pitched his tent toward Sodom,” but soon he “dwelt in Sodom” (Genesis 14:12), and finally “sat in the gate of Sodom” (Genesis 19:1) as one of its business leaders. — Morris, page 304.

__________

At the end of the previous section, despite Abram’s lack of faith and multiple sins, God already began to fulfill the material aspect of the blessing he promised Abram by moving Pharaoh to allow Abram to keep the vast wealth he had received in exchange for Sarai in Genesis 12:16 (another clear indication that the covenant does not depend on obedience!) That material wealth provides the basis for focusing on the provision of the land—specifically, establishing Abram’s “hold” on and reputation in Canaan, the Land of Promise. — Wechsler, page 180.

__________

The competition for this fruitful land was fierce [“Now the Canaanite and the Perizzite were dwelling then in the land.”]—all the more so due to the increased wealth in livestock and servants that Abram had acquired in Egypt from Pharaoh, and that in addition to the large entourage that Abram had already brought with him from Mesopotamia (conservatively numbering at least 500 people and their necessary provision). — Wechsler, page 180.

__________

The [current] inhospitable, barren state of that portion of the upper Negev and lower Jordan Valley (i.e., the “Dead Sea”) region is the direct result of the manner by which God judged the grievous sins of the Canaanites who lived there.

The sudden transformation of this region which was well watered and filled with life—”like the garden of the Lord”—to a region whose land and water are all but dead serves not only as an enduring reminder throughout redemption history of the consequences of sin (2 Peter 2:6), but also sets up and reinforces the prophetic expectation of God bringing life back to that very same region in the same sudden way when He establishes His kingdom in conquest of sin (see Ezekiel 47:8-12). — Wechsler, page 181.

Lot was certainly wrong to court evil and lose control of his family the way he did. But the only comment the Bible makes about Lot’s moral character and spiritual state is found in 2 Peter 2:7-8: And delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds).

In other words, Lot was likely no worse than any of us, and he had faith so that God considered him righteous. I think it’s important to remember that about Lot along with his failings.

¹⁰ Now there was a famine in the land, and Abram went down to Egypt to dwell there, for the famine was severe in the land.

¹¹ And it came to pass, when he was close to entering Egypt, that he said to Sarai his wife, “Indeed I know that you are a woman of beautiful countenance.

¹² Therefore it will happen, when the Egyptians see you, that they will say, ‘This is his wife’; and they will kill me, but they will let you live.

¹³ Please say you are my sister, that it may be well with me for your sake, and that I may live because of you.”

¹⁴ So it was, when Abram came into Egypt, that the Egyptians saw the woman, that she was very beautiful. 

⁵ The princes of Pharaoh also saw her and commended her to Pharaoh. And the woman was taken to Pharaoh’s house.

¹⁶ He treated Abram well for her sake. He had sheep, oxen, male donkeys, male and female servants, female donkeys, and camels.

¹⁷ But the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram’s wife.

¹⁸ And Pharaoh called Abram and said, “What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife?

¹⁹ Why did you say, ‘She is my sister’? I might have taken her as my wife. Now therefore, here is your wife; take her and go your way.”

²⁰ So Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him; and they sent him away, with his wife and all that he had.

At this time, a particularly severe trial of Abram’s faith took place. A grievous famine developed in the land, and it looked as though the land could no longer sustain him and his family and flocks. God’s promise had not changed, however, and Abram needed to learn to trust God not only when his needs were being supplied freely but also when it appeared that suffering and privation were imminent. But Abram was not equal to this test, and he soon yielded to the temptation to take matters into his own hand. — Morris, page 297.

__________

If Abram openly acknowledged Sarai to be his wife, he reasoned, he would probably be killed and she would be taken by the Egyptians into who-knows-what circumstances of moral degradation. If he said she was one of his servants, his own life might be spared; but she herself would probably be taken and defiled in perhaps even greater ways. The best solution would be to call her his sister. Actually, he reasoned, this was really true, because she was his half-sister (Genesis 20:12). … If Sarai were recognized as his sister, both she and Abram would be treated with respect and his life would not be endangered. It is true that this might mean she would be approached by the Egyptians for sexual purposes, but that would be true also if Abram were killed for her sake; so this seemed the best of a bad bargain.

Sarai no doubt saw it in this light also, and so she went along with the half-truth. … Actually, it turned out better than they had hoped. Instead of becoming involved with the ordinary Egyptians, Sarai came to the attention of Pharaoh himself. She was seen by Pharaoh’s princes, and they “commended” her to Pharaoh as a prime candidate to become one of his wives!

The word used here is the Hebrew hallal, meaning “to praise.” This is the first occurrence of this word in the Bible, and, in accordance with the principle of first mention, as it applies to important Biblical words, it seems to have a special significance here. Nearly always, it is used in reference to praising God, but here first of all it is used in reference to praising a godly woman…. The first use of hallal in this connection, therefore, seems to be reminding us that unsaved men will only come to praise God if they have first been constrained to praise those who manifest God to them. Pharaoh’s princes could see something unique in Sarai, not only her physical beauty, but also an “adorning” with a meek and quiet spirit, an inner beauty (1 Peter 3:3-6). Rather than taking her for themselves, they were constrained to “praise” her to Pharaoh himself. Rather than defiling her, however, he began to consider her for marriage. Furthermore, rather than Abram’s being murdered for Sarai’s sake, as he had feared, he was lavished with presents from Pharaoh, with flocks and herds and servants in abundance. — Morris, pages 298-299.

__________

But what would happen when Pharaoh actually decided to take Sarai as his wife? Would both Abram and Sarai still continue the deception to that point? Having involved themselves so deeply, what else could they do? It had been God’s intention to bring the promised Seed into the world through them, and this development would certainly prevent that from happening. …

Whether God actually spoke to Pharaoh, or whether he found it out by talking to Lot or to one of Abram’s servants, the king of Egypt soon came to realize that Sarai was already married. …

Pharaoh now feared to harm either Sarai or Abram; but he did sharply rebuke Abram, and no doubt Sarai also. He lost all respect and affection for them, and of course was not attracted to their God, even though he had to recognize that God was with them and that he could not harm them. …

The Lord surely could have supplied their needs in Canaan, even in time of famine. But once in Egypt, they should have been careful to maintain a good testimony at all costs. God could have protected them there, too, without such a degrading compromise. After all, He did protect them and provide for them, even in spite of their compromise. — Morris, pages 300-301

__________

When faced with a famine in the land to which God had brought him, rather than trusting God would bless and provide for him in the midst of famine (as he does for Isaac during famine: see Genesis 26:1-3), or seeking guidance through sacrifice and prayer (as does Jacob during the famine in his day; see Genesis 46:1-4), he is portrayed as taking matters into his own hands and adopting a course of “situational ethics” which is naught but a chain of ever-deepening sin borne of a faith that is all but nonexistent. First he demonstrates a lack of faith in God’s provision, prompting him to leave Canaan and go to Egypt. Then he demonstrates a lack of faith in God’s protection, prompting him to lie—and ask Sarai to lie as well—about their marital relationship. Rather than loving his wife as himself (see Ephesians 5:33; Leviticus 19:18)—considering her welfare and guarding her honor—Abram is exclusively concerned with his own welfare—”that it might go well with me.” Indeed, Abram’s self-interest and weak faith at this point are such that he remains silent not only when Sarai is taken to the palace, but also when she is taken as Pharaoh’s wife—and in so doing, Abram is the cause of the additional sin of adultery on the part of Sarai and Pharaoh. Though some translations attempt to soften the situation by paraphrasing Pharaoh’s words in verse 19 in a way that suggests he had not yet married her, the Hebrew text itself is quite clear, with Pharaoh employing the typical verbal idiom for marriage—i.e., “to take so-and-so to oneself as a wife” in a form signifying completed (past) action. — Wechsler, page 178.

__________

The purpose of this episode—which is unquestionably among the lowest points in Abram’s career—is not to single out Abram as more depraved than anyone else, for in the end he is merely symptomatic of the human condition and the virus of depravity endemic to us all. Rather, by presenting this episode immediately after God’s declaration of the Abrahamic Promise (Covenant), Scripture is reinforcing our appreciation of the unconditionality of that promise by making clear that it was not only bestowed in the absence of merit (the point of Genesis 11:27-32), but that it is maintained even in the presence of demerit—and if so with respect to Abram, then so too with respect to us today who benefit from that preeminent provision of blessing in Abraham’s Seed. — Wechsler, page 179.

Morris and another commentary say that this event was an attempt by Satan to destroy God’s plan to bring His promised seed through Abraham and Sarah—that if Sarah had borne Pharaoh’s child, she couldn’t have borne Isaac who continued the line to the Messiah. But Genesis 11:30 states that Sarah was barren, so she couldn’t have borne a child to Pharaoh. She could only have Isaac after God intervened. So, if Wechsler is right that Pharaoh and Sarah did commit adultery, it wouldn’t ruin God’s plan. It would just be another example of God using sinners.