5/05/19 Genesis 11:10-32 “The genealogy from Shem to
Abraham”
Genesis
11:10 – These [are] the
generations of Shem: Shem [was] an hundred
years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the
flood:
generations – towlᵉdah
(descendants; genealogies) Translated “generations” 38 times and “birth” once
in Exodus 28:10.
Shem – “name”
Noah was 500 when he started having sons
(Genesis 5:32); the flood commenced in Noah’s 600th year (Genesis
7:11) and finished in Noah’s 601st year (Genesis 8:13). If Shem is
100 years old when he has his first son 2 years after the flood, then Shem must
have been born either 97 or 98 years before the flood; therefore
Shem is not the first-born. (Most likely, given that he was born soon after the
first-born, Shem is the second-born son.)
Most of Ch.11 is the genealogy of Shem down
to Abram (Abraham) at which stage we then move into the commencement of the
elect nation of Israel (yet not named as such until after Jacob is born and
then renamed Israel in Genesis 32:28 with the children of Israel first
mentioned in Genesis 32:32.
Genesis
11:11-26 – 11And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. 12And Arphaxad
lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah: 13And Arphaxad lived after he
begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters. 14And Salah lived thirty years,
and begat Eber: 15And
Salah lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three years, and begat sons
and daughters. 16And
Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg: 17And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and
thirty years, and begat sons and daughters. 18And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu: 19And Peleg lived after he begat
Reu two hundred and nine years, and begat sons and daughters. 20And Reu lived two and thirty
years, and begat Serug: 21And Reu lived after he begat Serug
two hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters. 22And Serug
lived thirty years, and begat Nahor: 23And Serug
lived after he begat Nahor two hundred years, and
begat sons and daughters. 24And
Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah: 25And
Nahor lived after he begat Terah
an hundred and nineteen years, and begat sons and daughters. 26And Terah
lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and
Haran.
This is basically the line of descent from
Shem to Abraham. It is more complete than the previous nations genealogies of
Ch.10, clearly because the line of Shem is the most significant line from the
point of view of God’s chosen people, and the one line that satan will try the
hardest to destroy.
Apart from noting the various names, there
is little we can get from this scripturally other than in order for Abraham to
be born, all these earlier ones had to live and have sons.
From the birth of Arphaxad
to the birth of Abram (Abraham) was 290 years.
Shem lived for 600 years, and died 35 years
after Abraham died.
Noah lived for 950 years, 350 of them after
the flood, and died 58 years after Abraham was born.
The lives of Noah, Shem and Abraham
overlapped for 58 years. Jewish tradition says that they knew each other for 39
years.
Shem died 50 years after Jacob was born and
Abraham died 15 years after Jacob was born.
However, note that all these figures assume
that Abraham was the first-born of Terah, but this
causes problems with years adding up. See Genesis 11:32 below for further on
this issue.
Genesis
11:27 – Now these [are]
the generations of Terah: Terah
begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.
Abraham is the son of Terah
and the brother of Haran who was the father of Lot (who is therefore Abraham’s
nephew).
Genesis
11:28 – And Haran died
before his father Terah in the land of his nativity,
in Ur of the Chaldees.
before – face; person;
before and behind; toward; forward; in front of; in (or from) the presence of;
in the face of; from before the face of. Here it may read “in the presence of”.
It looks like it is saying that Haran died chronologically before his father,
but it really means that Terah was still alive and
present when Haran died. The conclusion is the same but for different reasons.
nativity – kindred; birth;
offspring; relatives
He died in the place where he was born, or
with the people of his family, his kindred.
Ur of the Chaldees – Chaldea or Chaldaea was a Semitic-speaking nation that existed between
the late 10th or early 9th and mid-6th centuries BC, after which it and its
people were absorbed and assimilated into Babylonia. It was located in the
marshy land of the far southeastern corner of
Mesopotamia and briefly came to rule Babylon. (Wikipedia)
The Chaldeans are noted as a nation that
stole Job’s camels after killing all but one of the herdsmen.
Job 1:17 – While he [was] yet speaking,
there came also another, and said, The Chaldeans made out three bands, and fell
upon the camels, and have carried them away, yea, and slain the servants with
the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
Genesis
11:29 – And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram’s wife [was] Sarai;
and the name of Nahor’s wife, Milcah,
the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the
father of Iscah.
Abram – “exalted
father”
Nahor – “snorting”
Sarai – “princess”
Milcah – “queen”. This
name may be associated with Ishtar who was also known as the queen of heaven.
Sarai was Abram’s half-sister, daughter of Terah by another wife. Milcah is the
daughter of Nahor’s brother, therefore Nahor married his niece. Today we would consider this as
risking inbred problems, but apparently the gene pool in each person was more
diverse and also less likely to have genetic defects.
Iscah is Haran’s
daughter and Lot is the son of Haran; thus Lot and Iscah are brother and sister. There is no further mention
of Iscah. The question has to be asked: why was she
mentioned in the first place?
Some say that she is actually Sarai, but
Sarai was the sister of Abraham (half-sister from different mothers) according
to Genesis 20:12 – And
yet indeed [she is] my sister; she [is] the daughter of my
father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife. Thus Sarai is clearly the daughter of Terah.
Genesis 11:31 says that Sarai is the
daughter-in-law of Terah, yet doesn’t name her as
niece or daughter. Those who say that Sarai is Iscah
maintain that a grand-daughter may be termed daughter; this is possible but not
likely given that Abraham calls her his sister.
Iscah is believed to be
the origin of the name Jessica.
Genesis
11:30 – But Sarai was
barren; she [had] no child.
That Sarai is barren is being noted
carefully here, as this will become an issue when she is told that she will
have a son. The later incident appears to suggest that having a son was not
possible at her time of life (Genesis 18:9-15), yet here it states that she
wasn’t able to have a child when first married.
Genesis
11:31 – 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 unto Haran, and dwelt there.
Haran (1) – הרן Haran
Haran (2) – חרן Charan
A group of people destined to become the
beginnings of God’s people now leave the others of their kind (and language);
they are Terah, Abram and Sarai, and Lot. Ur of the
Chaldees was in Mesopotamia (which generally followed the Euphrates River and
also the Tigris in its lower reaches). Travelling to Canaan would mean going
south east toward what would later become Israel.
Genesis
11:32 – And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.
Terah lived for 205
years. A straightforward reading of Genesis 11:26 indicates that Abraham was
born when Terah was 70 years old. Genesis 12:4 says that Abraham was 75 when
they left Haran. This means that Terah must have been
145 when Abraham departed, yet that means that Terah
lived for 60 more years after Abraham departed. Even Acts supports Abraham only
leaving once Terah was dead.
Acts 7:2-5 – 2And
he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto
our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran, 3And
said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into
the land which I shall shew thee. 4Then
came he out of the land of the Chaldæans, and dwelt
in Charran: and from thence, when his father was
dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell. 5And he gave him none
inheritance in it, no, not [so much as] to set his foot on: yet he
promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after
him, when [as yet] he had no child.
It is possible that Abraham was not the
eldest son of Terah. Genesis 11:26 says that Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram,
Nahor, and Haran. Is Abram
mentioned first because he is the significant son here (as Genesis 5:32 has
Shem as the first-named son of Noah when he could not have been the first-born
son)? This would then mean that Abraham was born after Noah died, and that Shem
died before Abraham died. Of all these alternatives, this one is the most
likely. Or did the numbers get written out incorrectly? One source suggests
that Terah lived to 105 and not 205, but this would
have Terah dead 43 years before Abraham departed
Haran; again this is unlikely. Some suggest that Terah lapsed back into idolatry when Abraham was 75, thus
considering Terah to be dead in his sins again, but
this is also not a likely interpretation.
And, as
there is some space left (about 3 pages in all!), I decided to look at the
profile of the typical calvinist, both false teacher and brainwashed convert.
Firstly the
profile of those most likely to convert to the false teachings of calvinism.
The typical
calvinist convert is generally
(a) an
immature Christian (yet not necessarily a young person in age). Such a person
is often unable to efficiently discover just where in the Bible to look for
passages that might assist him to test all things for himself. This person may
look for a person who seems to know the Bible well for assistance.
(b) a
person of low self-esteem. Such a person tends to not take a stand on what he
believes personally if it might appear to oppose what a seemingly more mature
“Christian” might be saying.
(c) a
Christian who has a strong desire to be a better Christian. This person knows
he lacks understanding and is drawn toward the person who seems to have a good
biblical understanding and appears willing to mentor the immature Christian.
(d) often
well-educated but not necessarily wise. This person sees knowledge as authority
and seeks to know more about the Bible for the authority it might give him. He
sees the mentor-type as one who speaks with authority and seeks the same
authority.
The person
just described is very susceptible to false teachers who can say all the right
words and can appear very knowledgeable. If something doesn’t sound quite
right, he will rarely argue because he feels inadequate for such defence of
that of which he is unsure. Because he doesn’t know the Bible very well yet, he
tends to take the false teacher’s statements at face value, not questioning
them because they do sound sort of alright. And he rarely checks the Bible for
himself (without the guidance of the false teacher), mainly because he doesn’t
know how to. (And the last thing a calvinist will generally teach him is how to
check him out!)
The ideal
church background for this to occur is
(a) a
church leaning toward fundamentalism or biblical standards. This church places
high value on knowledge of the Bible and prides itself on being more biblical
than the others. Such a church is easy to fool because it thinks highly of
itself already.
(b) a
church where the leadership is very dogmatic and forceful. This church usually
encourages its members to believe in the “party line” of the church. Its
doctrines are considered to be right; therefore its
members will be judged upon their adherence or otherwise to the doctrines
taught. If the doctrines taught are good, then the members will have a good
knowledge of biblical truths. On the other hand, if its doctrines are false,
then it’s more a case of the blind leading the blind, and both fall into the
ditch.
(c) a
church where members aren’t encouraged to ask questions that may demonstrate
lack of support for the doctrines taught by the church. This church believes
that the best doctrine is the one already taught and considers any hint of
disagreement as a sign of the weak Christian. A good member (and therefore a
good Christian) is one who agrees with the doctrine of the leadership.
(d) a
church which has small group studies led by acceptably approved (that is,
approved by the leadership) mature Christians. Those members of this church
that appear to adhere to the party line and give good support to the leadership
are judged suitable mentors. This also permits those who are good at acting out
the part of a good Christian to be approved. Knowledge is more important than
understanding; therefore those who are good at
agreeing with the leadership are also considered good mentors.
(e) a
church where it is considered highly desirable or even essential that mature
Christians mentor less mature Christians. This is good in many churches, yet
can also be a problem if the approved mentors are also false teachers
pretending to be good Christians (that is, they are tares).
This church
is often seen as a strong church, yet its true strength will depend upon just
who’s in charge at the time. If leadership dictates the direction, not the
Bible itself, then everything depends on how the leaders interpret biblical
doctrines. The members of this church must agree in principle with the
doctrines of the church (as taught by the leaders) or else be seen to be a
disruptive element. This church encourages younger Christians to learn from
older Christians. It also is seen as a church with a strong sense of community;
that is, individuals who do not toe the party line are seen as divisive.
Uniformity of belief is important. Tares, though, if they know all the right
words, may be labelled as good Christians.
These
Christians and churches described above are perfect for calvinist tares to
evangelise toward the false doctrines of calvinism. Such calvinist false
teachers
(a) are often
people who have the appearance of solid maturity, both as people and as
Christians. In a church where toeing the party line is important, they are able
to fool all but those who dare read their Bibles for themselves. Even the
pastor is often susceptible to their alleged biblical knowledge, for many
pastors really only know what they have been taught about the Bible in Bible
school etc.
(b) will be
able to quote many selected Bible verses (but may not know what any others quote).
These people are good at putting their point of view across as long as you
don’t introduce verses that they don’t know (or don’t want to know!). They also
like to control the topic so, if you change the topic, they’ll bring you back
to their favourite topics or possibly find someone else to talk to.
(c) appear
to have a genuine concern for the wellbeing of others. They’ll invite the
younger or immature Christian to BBQs or outings, or meals, fishing trips, or
anywhere, in fact, where they can monopolise the other person without
interference from anyone else who might know the Bible better. If the other
person has problems, they’ll be there, ready to be a shoulder to lean on. If
there’s special outings such as 4WD ventures or boating or other outdoor
activities, they’ll be there; such activities generally permit discussion of a
more private nature one-on-one.
(d) these
people may be considered natural choices for leadership of small study or
prayer groups, ideal situations for them to work without a lot of opposition.
Brainwashing is often best carried out individually or in small groups.
(e) may or
may not actually know that they are false teachers. Some will genuinely believe
that they are right, because they were once upon a time brainwashed themselves
by a mentor. These ones cannot see how their mentors could ever be wrong. Some,
though, will be aware that what they teach is not scriptural, yet they still
teach it because they have too much pride to admit that they could be wrong.
And some yet again will teach it because they have a desire to destroy the
Christian church.
(f) can
never admit that they are wrong. They were probably converted to calvinism
because of their low self-esteem and the need to feel special. Such people are
afraid of losing the special feeling that belonging to an elite group such as
the calvinist elect gives them. Admitting that they were wrong would bring back
their low self-esteem and defeat everything that calvinism has given to them.
Even proving that they are wrong will not usually change their stubborn stand
for calvinism.
(g) usually
support each other. Like freemasons, calvinists will stand up for the integrity
of other calvinists, because together they stand, divided they fall. This is
one characteristic that stands out with calvinists: they seek the company of
like-minded people, avoiding like the plague the need to have to mix with other
lesser beings such as non-calvinists. Calvinism is a good example of
gang-warfare. They will usually only take on the opposition if they may be
assured of sufficient numbers and/or firepower to win.
(h) in a
church will not be openly calvinist until they are assured that they have
victory in their grasp. They will even deny calvinist beliefs until the
majority of the church is on their side. Like cowards they fight from concealed
cover, hitting out and then hiding behind their seeming “support” for the
non-calvinist doctrines of their church.
In order to
defeat calvinists the Christian must
(a) know
and understand his Bible well. He must be able to search the scriptures,
testing all things in order to hold fast to that which is true.
(b) be
prepared to admit that he doesn’t know all things. Those who already “know all
things” cannot be taught. Thus he must be teachable.
(c) ask the
other person to explain his teachings from the Bible alone. Calvinists. while
claiming to believe in the Bible alone, rarely in fact do so. Asking a
calvinist to explain something from the Bible alone will often cause the
calvinist to find another easier person to work with.
(d) be
prepared to give good reason (from the Bible) as to what he believes in. His
defence against false teachers is that they must also be able to demonstrate
from the Bible alone why he is wrong (if indeed he is). If a calvinist says
that the Bible clearly or consistently teaches no free will for man, then
require that he demonstrate exactly where it says this without any twisting of
biblical meaning (and without referring to any calvinist heroes of the faith
such as MacArthur or Piper).
Churches
and Christians today are under attack from false teachers. In particular,
fundamentalist or Bible-believing churches are a prime target for calvinist
false teachers. It takes discernment to weed out the calvinists from the others
because they are very good at pretending to be Christians. Like tares among the
wheat, they are hard to pick out until their fruit is revealed, and often that
is too late for the church they have targeted. Churches must be active in
observing their members and assessing them properly before the problems get out
of hand. Once a tare reveals his teaching (that is, his fruit), it is usually
too late for that church and possibly most of the people who belong.
List of all my posts on this site
Hoppers Crossing
Christian Church homepage