A Wife for Isaac
by
Philip du Nard
Genesis 23-24
In Gen. 23, God sees fit to give us the details of Sarah's burial arrangements after her death. Abraham is in the land of promise among the "sons of Heth" who were a branch of the Canaanites and though he believes that God will one day give this land to his descendants, he presents himself to them as a "stranger and sojourner" among them.
Perhaps one of the most striking things about this chapter is the tremendous amount of respect that the sons of Heth show Abraham throughout this transaction involving a burial place for Sarah and Abraham's actions indicate this respect was mutual. In verse 6, Abraham is told, " Hear us, my lord: thou [art] a mighty prince among us: in the choice of our sepulchres bury thy dead; none of us shall withhold from thee his sepulchre, but that thou mayest bury thy dead. Later, in verse 11, after Abraham has made a choice and has offered payment, Ephron the Hittite says, "Nay, my lord, hear me: the field give I thee, and the cave that [is] therein, I give it thee; in the presence of the sons of my people give I it thee: bury thy dead." Abraham ulitimately prevailed upon him to accept payment but, seemingly, Ephron would have given up some real estate for nothing for Abraham's sake.
Yet, when we come to chapter 24, and the time has come to find a wife for Isaac, the son of promise, we read in verses 1-4, "And Abraham was old, [and] well stricken in age: and the LORD had blessed Abraham in all things. And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh: And I will make thee swear by the LORD, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell: But thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac."
The world and our flesh would say that considering the friendly spirit that existed between Abraham and the Canaanites of that day that there should have been no barriers raised in the realm of marriage. Such barriers would be considered artificial and manmade and a hindrance to peaceful relations and good understanding among various peoples. In our day, at worst, Abraham would be accused of bigotry despite the fact that it is evident he was not hateful or arrogant toward the sons of Heth and, at best, of harboring some rather rigid, outdated, and quaint notions about marriage. And, in light of the situation, it might have seemed the most practical and natural thing to do to find a wife for Isaac among such good, friendly, people. But Abraham was not using feelings of sociablility as a guide but the long range purposes of God, in other words, the Word of God. It is a challenge for believers to do this when our carnal minds are focused only on the present and what we can perceive with our five senses, in other words, our feelings. But Abraham's commandment was later written into Israelite law (Deut. 7:1-4) so it was a matter of principle and not just personal preference on Abraham's part that he made this command.
As we ponder the seriousness with which Abraham treated this matter, we sense that much is at stake here and that a wrong decision could potentially ruin the future, not only for his generation, but for future generations of his posterity as well. For Isaac to marry into the Canaanite line apparently would have changed the whole picture. Satan is ever watchful for an opportunity to subvert God's plan.
Abraham's servant had some questions and concerns. If it was so important that Isaac marry within his own people, what was the servant to do if the woman would not come back with him to the land of Canaan? Was Isaac to go back to where Abraham had come from? The answer was no. Abraham also knew and believed God's promise to him regarding the land. Abraham's decisions concerning his son were all based on his faith in God's faithfulness and his desire to conform to what God had revealed to him concerning his future and that of his descendants. Sometimes this necessitated making decisions that seemed inconvenient and impractical.
The reader should recall from our discussion of chapter 18 of Genesis that God said of Abraham,, "For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him."Sometimes we can develop an appreciation for the relative significance of something contained in the Scriptures when we give consideration to what is omitted. Abraham undoubtedly instructed his son Isaac and the rest of his household in many things pertaining to the way of the Lord but the details of this are not given. It is all the more significant, therefore, that the one command of Abraham's that we find recorded on the pages of Holy Scripture for all subsequent generations to behold are guidelines pertaining to who Isaac was to marry and who he was not to marry. This must be no small matter.
When we also consider that the apostle Paul wrote In I Corinthians 10:11 that "Now all these things happened unto them ( that is, the patriarchs and the Israelites) for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore, let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall," then it is wise for us to consider that Abraham's action is also written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the world (or age) are come that is , it is written for us, today. To not take heed to these things is, according to Paul, to risk falling in some way. Therefore, the fact that there are no longer any Canaanites that we know of does not enable us to take the convenient position that the principle behind Abraham's instructions is no longer in force.
During the 20th century when racial barriers were being broken down that had long existed by custom and law, the Bible was used to both promote and oppose this trend and of concern to some Christians was whether or not the Bible had anything to say about racial intermarriage. In the instance above, the question might have been, did Abraham forbid Isaac and did Moses forbid the Israelites from marrying someone of a particular race or ethnicity, or, rather, someone of a particular religion and, in either case, what is the application for today? This has been hotly debated. It is well to note that either application is scorned by the world but, ironically, in a supposedly secular society, giving it strictly a relgious application seems to generate less condemnation and reproach than giving it a racial one.
The first part of this question is the most easily answered. Abraham forbad Isaac to marry into a particular ethnic group. Moses forbad the Israelites to intermarry with certain named nationalities or ethnic groups. There are several examples in Scripture which will need to be examined that have led Christians to take the position that the practical effect of the law was to simply forbid Israelites from marrying outside the true faith. To be sure, there were religious or spiritual ramifications for the nation.Deut. 7:3. This commandment may not have had anything to do with skin color but we must realize that the way Christian teachers have typically modified the law in accordance with what they believe to be the spirit of the law is not precisely how God's law expresses the principle set forth here and we must be careful about the kind of exceptions we might feel justified in attaching to God's law. In this instance, the law does not say, don't marry someone who does not worship Jehovah, but rather, don't marry someone of a particular ethnic or national background, period. While we might think that the examples of Ruth and others present us with an exception--and such examples need to be studied more closely to see if that actually is the case--the actual law itself does not present us with any exceptions. The way in which those "exceptions" are most often presented has the practical effect of making the law of none effect altogether in the minds of Christians. Also, there are passages in the New Testament Scriptures that are thought to either abolish this particular principle or modify its application which would need to be examined. In Psalm 119:27, the psalmist writes, "Make me to understand the way of thy precepts." He knew the precepts and could quote them but he had to pray and be taught of God in order to understand their "way" or application and so must we.
A topic such as this raises many questions. Since this is primarily a book study rather than a topical one, rather than look at this subject exhaustively at this time, there are just a few remaining thoughts that I would present at this time, Throughout the church age when the emphasis has been on taking the gospel of salvation to all peoples of the earth in accordance with God's plan, Christian people have tended to ask, what do these examples in Scripture mean for the church or body of Christ? To a certain extent that is right and proper. But as we near the kingdom age and the significance of Israel in the plan of God comes to the forefront, we should be asking ourselves what significance do these examples have for the many Israel nations and peoples of Christendom that we have identified as being physically descended from Abraham? Do not father Abraham's instructions have some timeless wisdom for them as a race of people set aside by God? Did not God promise to write His laws on the hearts of His Israel people? This should cause us to see these laws and examples from a different perspective than what is generally the case in Christian churches. While there are hatemongers to be sure, should we fall for the line that to raise such questions is evidence of hatred?
Next: Jacob and Esau
`