“The House of Jacob shall Possess their Possessions” (4)

by Charles H. Welch

No.4. Three hindrances. Terah, Lot 

and the Canaanites. 

Possession in the O.T. is closely related to “the land” of promise, and there are more occurrences of the word yarash ‘to possess’ in Deuteronomy than in any other book of the Bible. Keeping merely to the English of the A.V. and taking no account of such renderings as ‘inherit’, ‘succeed’, ‘drive out’ or ‘dispossess’, we find 46 references to possessing the land in that great book of the law. 

The first occurrence of yarash in the O.T. are found in Gen. xv., and are related (1) To the true heir, and (2) To the inheriting of the land.

“I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward” (xv. 1). In reply to this assurance of God, after the victory over the confederate kings and the blessing by Melchisedec, Abraham appears to have reviewed the fact that he was now an old man, and it looked very likely that his heir would have to be the steward of his house, seeing, as he said “I go childless” (xv. 2). 

While Abraham’s attitude is by no means a fulfillment of law 191 of the code of Khammurabi, it is sufficiently near in spirit to reveal Abraham’s intention and obligation. However, God had other plans. To Abraham’s plaint “Behold, Thou hast given to me no seed, and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir (yarash)”, the Lord replies, “This shall not be thine heir (yarash); but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir (yarash)” (xv. 4). 

Then follows the Divine promise and the great act of faith (Gen. xv. 5, 6) and God said: 

“I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it (yarash)” to which Abraham replies,

“Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it? (yarash)” (Gen. xv. 7, 8). 

In Gen. xv. we are turned back to the initial call of Abraham, and the certainty of the promise, that “the house of Jacob SHALL possess his possessions” (Gen. xv. 1-7), but from verse 8 to the end we are directed forward to the strange pathway which the chosen seed must tread before the possession is entered. This sheds light on the greater purpose of the ages, and is seen to involve a principle that obtains in every calling. Before we consider this great problematic passage, let us follow the Divine direction and turn back to the earlier chapters of Genesis where the initial call of Abraham, together with the hindrances that prevent him from taking possession of this inheritance, are recorded. 

Gen. xv. turns us back to Ur of the Chaldees, where the call first came. The first movement of Abraham’s family out of Ur of the Chaldees is by the record of Gen. xi. 31. 

“And Terah took Abram his son and Lot the son of Haran his son’s son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram’s wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, TO GO into the land of Canaan; and they came to Haran, and DWELT THERE.”

We have inspired warrant for the fact that God appeared unto Abraham “when he was in Mesopotamia” and “before he dwelt in Charran” and the call of the Lord was specific: 

“Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I will show thee” (Acts vii. 2, 3). 

Haran, although some 600 miles away from Ur, was nevertheless situated in the same country and on the wrong side of the Euphrates. The 600 miles that separated the two cities did not alter the fact that both Ur and Haran were dedicated to the same Babylonian moon-god. Terah had made a great move, but had not made any radical change. Paul as good as told the Galatians that to turn from Christ to weak and beggarly elements after having been redeemed from worshipping idols, was in spirit, much like returning to their early idolatry. The flesh can take part in campaigns, and go to great lengths of self denial and discomfort in the form of religion, only to exchange an Ur for an Haran and miss the great reality. 

Gesenius says that the name Terah is from a Chaldee root meaning ‘to delay’. It will be seen how aptly this name fits his typical character. “Who did hinder you?” said Paul to the Galatians (v. 7), and the answer “Religion after the flesh” is but the name Terah expanded in the light of the Gospel revelation. Terah’s action symbolizes the first of a series of hindrances that postponed the ‘possessing’ of this “possession”, and is a lesson for us all. While Stephen declared that the call came to Abraham before he dwelt in Haran, Gen. xi. says that it was Terah who responded. When one senses the authority of the parent in O.T. times this apparent contradiction is seen at its true value. Terah is a picture of religious flesh. It makes an attempt to follow the Divine call, but it breaks down in essentials. 

God called Abraham to leave his country and his kindred, but Terah includes both himself and Lot. Terah started out with the intention of going to the land of Canaan, but he never crossed the river Euphrates. Even though he trekked 600 miles, and had left Ur of the Chaldees behind, he had merely exchanged one pagan city for another. Abraham’s inheritance was on the other side of the river. He becomes “Abraham the Hebrew” (Gen. xiv. 13) because he ‘crossed over’ (Hebrew abar as in Gen. xxxii. 10; Josh. i. 2). 

Here is the first typical action that indicates one of the reasons why many fail to ‘possess’ their “possessions”. 

Terah, in spite of all his response and removal, never left the land of Mesopotamia, he merely changed one form of paganism for another. Religion is no friend to faith. It is the great hinderer. The second lesson that Gen. xi. teaches is that Abraham’s inheritance was entered only after his father died, even as his true heir was given to him after he was ‘as good as dead’. God’s promised inheritance looks to resurrection for its full realization, and in prospect can only be enjoyed on resurrection ground. 

After Terah’s death, the Lord in His grace calls Abraham again; note the word ‘had’ in the AV. “Now the Lord had said unto Abraham” (Gen. xii. 1), and is referred to by Stephen in Acts vii. 2. 

Upon the death of his father God said to Abraham: 

“Get thee out of thy country (for Haran was in the same ‘country’ as Ur, even though a great trek divided the two cities), and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house (this reference to his father’s house is not mentioned by Stephen), unto a land that I will show thee” (Gen. xii. 1). 

On the surface there appears to be a discrepancy when we compare these two calls together. Terah evidently “knew” that “Canaan” was the objective, yet according to Heb. xi. 8 Abraham went out ‘not knowing’ whither he went. The word used by the Apostle in Heb. xi. 9 for “knowing” is epistamai: 

“To obtain, and thus have a knowledge of anything by proximity to it, or as a result of prolonged attention: in contrast with the process of getting to know it, and with a mere casual dilettante acquaintance with it” (Appendix 132.1 V. Companion Bible).

To Agrippa, who was ‘an expert’ in Jewish customs and questions (Acts xxvi. 3), Paul could say “The king knoweth of these things” (Acts xxvi. 26) using epistamai, for Agrippa alone of his judges was versed and expert in such matters. Now both Terah and Abraham knew of the land of Canaan, and knew that in that land the inheritance was to be found, but he had no expert knowledge, nothing to equip or warn him of the requirements of such a journey, he went out not well equipped humanly speaking for such a response. The same could be said in a greater degree, when Abraham responded to another call to go to a mountain which God would show him, and there offer up his all, there too, he went humanly speaking ill equipped and unversed in the requirements that would be made of him. In each case Abraham ‘believed’ and went forward where the ordinary man of ‘sense’ would have drawn back. 

This feature therefore is not without its bearing upon the great lesson we are out to learn. When thinking of our inheritance and the pathway that leads to its enjoyment we need to remind ourselves that: 

“Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him. But God hath revealed them unto us by His spirit” (I Cor. ii. 9, 10). 

Abraham was no worldly wise ‘expert’, he was an unworldly and simple believer. 

God promised to ‘show’ Abraham the land that was to be the inheritance both of himself and of his seed, yet we read the whole of chapter xii., and on nearly to the end of chapter xiii. before that promise was fulfilled. If we ask why? the answer is not that God was ‘slack concerning His promise’, but that Abraham had failed to fulfil the conditions that were attached. 

Gen. xii. 4, 5 significantly reads ‘and Lot went with him’. “And Lot his brother’s son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran.” Abraham can hardly be said with this passage before us that he had left his ‘kindred’. 

There is an intended parallel between Gen. xi. 31 and xii. 5. “They went forth . . . . . to go into the land of Canaan; and they came to Haran and dwelt there.” Note the word THERE. The second reference reads: “They went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.” So far we may say, this is good. Canaan has now been entered, but there is a significant comment in verse 6 “And the Canaanite was then in the land”. Note the word THEN. It appears that Terah’s delay gave Satan an opportunity of forestalling the purpose of God and consequently, Israel could not really possess their possessions until the Canaanites were expelled and destroyed. 

This also is a solemn lesson for all believers, and links the failure to possess with the conflict of the two seeds, a theme too vast to develop here. 

After Abraham’s return from Egypt, where nothing but a Divine interposition saved Sarah and the true seed from contamination, we read “and Lot with him”. Still the condition remained unfulfilled, and it was not until strife arising because of the greatness of their substance that Abraham, driven apparently by exasperation, gave Lot the choice of the land if only he could be persuaded to separate from Abraham. 

“Is not the whole land before thee? separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left” (Gen. xiii. 9). 

Then come the significant words: 

“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 . . . . . all the land which thou seest . . . . . arise, walk through the land in the length of it, and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee” (Gen. xiii. 14-17). 

God kept His word. He had said “I will show thee” (Gen. xii. 1) and He kept His promise immediately after Abraham kept the terms laid down. 

The several hindrances that are revealed in these passages have a bearing upon the believer today, when translated into spiritual realities. 

Terah, assayed to do in the flesh, what could only be done in the spirit. He intended to go into the land of Canaan but dwelt in Haran. He made a move, and probably impressed his contemporaries with his sincerity, but it was after all just a ‘religious movement’. He never “passed over”. The Euphrates flowed between him and the land of promise after he reached Haran as surely as it had when he lived in Ur. 

Abraham was held by ‘the old man’. He could not respond until Terah died. 

The next hindrance was twofold. Satan had profited by the delay and had peopled the land of promise in advance with his own usurping seed. Lot, by reason of his kinship with Abraham, kept back the realization of the promised possession until by sheer force of circumstances he was compelled to ‘separate’. This too has a full lesson which is expounded in more than one passage of the N.T. 

Only when Terah and Lot are either dead or separated, can Abraham enjoy the firstfruits of his inheritance. He then saw it and walked through it, although still possessing not a foot of it except by faith. This however is as far as we can attain in this life, and the lesson which Genesis teaches is of perennial value. There are other aspects of this same truth which must be considered in subsequent articles, sufficient is before us surely, to call for the exercise of heart and mind. 

---------------

(From The Berean Expositor, vol. 41, page 182).

-----------------

The Pleroma (3) - Charles H. Welch

No.3. The First “Gap”. “Without form and void.”

Whatever the ultimate purpose of creation may prove to be, it is certain that it will not be attained without much sorrow and great sacrifice. “The Fuller” will be at work, and between the opening announcement of creation in Gen. i. 1 and the bringing in of the New Heavens and New Earth (Rev. xxi. 1; II Pet. iii. 13) and the “End” (I Cor. xv. 24) roll the eons or the ages with their burden of sin and of redeeming love. When the new heaven and earth was seen by John in the Apocalypse, he adds the words “and there was no more sea”. That is a most evident reference back to Gen. i. 2, where darkness and the deep take the place of order or kosmos. 

“And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep” (Gen. i. 2). 

It is of importance that we remember that in the LXX, “the deep” is the same Greek word that is translated “the bottomless pit” in the Apocalypse. 

When we read in Genesis that man “became” a living soul we immediately gather that he was not a living soul before he breathed the breath of life. When we read that Lot’s wife “became” a pillar of salt (Gen. xix. 26) we understand that this was consequent upon her looking back. When Cain said “And it shall come to pass” (Gen. iv. 14) we understand his fears concerning what would happen after others had heard of his deed. So, when we read “the earth was without form and void” and realize that the same verb that is here translated “was”, is translated “became” or “come to pass” in these other passages in Genesis, we realized that here in Gen. i. 2 we are looking at the record of the first great gap in the outworking of the Divine purpose, and must read: 

“And the earth BECAME without form and void.” 

The translation “was” in Gen. i. 2 however is perfectly good, for in our own usage we often mean “became” when “was” is written. If writing on two occasions concerning a friend we should say (1) “He was a man” and (2) “He was very ill”, everyone would understand that in the second case, this friend had “become” ill, and so “was” ill at the time spoken of, but it would be impossible to think that anyone would understand by the words “he was ill” that he had been created, or born in that state! 

Darkness both in the O.T. and in N.T. is associated with death, judgment and evil, and Paul’s use of Gen. i. 2, 3 in the words “God, Who commanded the light to shine out of darkness” (II Cor. iv. 6) most surely indicates that in his estimation, the darkness of Gen. i. 2 is a fit symbol of the spiritual darkness of the unregenerate mind. Two words however are found in Gen. i. 2 which are so used in subsequent Scriptures as to compel everyone that realizes what a great place “usage” has in interpretation, to acknowledge that nothing but catastrophic judgment can be intended by this verse. The two words that describe the condition of the earth in verse 2 are the Hebrew words tohu and bohu “without form and void”. Tohu occurs twenty times in the O.T. and bohu twice in addition to Gen. i. 2. The only other occurrence of tohu in the writings of Moses is in Deut. xxxii. 10 where it refers to “the waste howling wilderness”. The use which Isaiah makes of this word is highly suggestive and full of instruction. 

Isa. xxiv. This chapter opens with a judgment that is reminiscent of Gen. i. 2 “Behold the Lord maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth the inhabitants thereof . . . . . the land shall be utterly emptied, and utterly spoiled” (Isa. xxiv. 1, 3). When Isaiah would once again refer to this state of affairs, he sums it up in the epithet “The city of confusion (tohu)” (Isa. xxiv. 10), and there can be no doubt but that the desolation here spoken of is the result of judgment. Another example of its usage is found in Isa. xlv. 18 “For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens, God Himself that formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited”. Here the A.V. treats the word tohu as an adverb, “in vain” which the R.V. corrects, reading “a waste”. Whatever rendering we may adopt, one thing is certain, Isa. xlv. 18 declares in the name of Him Who created the heavens, Who formed the earth and made it, that He did not create it TOHU, it therefore must have become so. Even more convincing are two passages other than Gen. i. 2, where bohu is employed, for in both instances the word is combined with tohu. The first passage is Isa. xxxiv. 11. The context is one of catastrophic judgment and upheaval. The presence of such terms as “indignation”, “fury”, “utterly destroyed”, “sword” and “vengeance” in the first eight verses are sufficient to prove this, and one verse is so definitely prophetic of the upheaval at the time of the end, as to leave no option in the mind: 

“And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree” (Isa. xxxiv. 4). 

This passage is almost identical with the language employed by Peter when he speaks of the signs that shall precede the coming of the day of God at the setting up of the new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness (II Pet. iii. 12). The words tohu and bohu occur in Isa. xxxiv. 11, to which all these symbols of judgment point: 

“He will stretch out upon it the line of confusion (tohu) and the stones of emptiness (bohu)”, 

nor it is without significance that unclean birds like the cormorant and the bittern possess the devoted land, that nettles and brambles appear in the fortress, and that dragons, wild beasts, screech owls and satyrs gather there. The whole is a picture in miniature of what the earth “became” in Gen. i. 2. Isaiah’s usage of tohu and bohu is convincing, but “in the mouth of two or three witness every word shall be established”, and accordingly we find the prophet Jeremiah using tohu and bohu in a similar context. 

In the structure of Jer. iv. 5-7 are in correspondence with verses 19-31. 

“The lion is come up from his thicket, and the destroyer of the Gentiles is on his way; he is gone forth from his place to make thy land desolate; and thy cities shall be laid waste, without an inhabitant” (Jer. iv. 7). 

“Destruction upon destruction is cried.” “I beheld the earth, and lo it was without form and void; and the heavens, and they had no light . . . . . broken down by His fierce anger” (Jer. iv. 20-26). Here then are the three inspired occurrences of the two words tohu and bohu, Gen. i. 2; Isa. xxxiv. 11 and Jer. iv. 23. If Gen. i. 2 does not refer to a day of “vengeance” or “fierce anger” should we not have to acknowledge that both Isaiah and Jeremiah by the use of these peculiar words, have misled us? And if once that be our conclusion, inspiration is invalidated, and it does not matter much what Gen. i. 2 means, for our trust is shaken, and Moses too may be wrong! This however cannot be. We have in faith put into practice I Cor. ii. 13, and have founded it blessedly illuminating. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and Moses, Isaiah and Jeremiah speak with one voice, because inspired by one Spirit. Nothing is said in Gen. i. 2 concerning the cause of this primeval judgment, any more than any explanation is offered to explain the presence of the serpent in the Garden of Eden, but there are evidences that can be gathered from various parts of Scripture to make it clear that there was fall among the angels, that Satan is a fallen being, and that the catastrophe of Gen. i. 2 is associated with that fall. Into the gap thus formed, the present six day creation is placed as a “fullness” carrying the Redemptive purpose to the threshold of Eternity, and it is here also the “age-times” begin. 

-------------

(From The Berean Expositor, vol. 41, page 241).

------------