Read the prophetic stories regarding Abraham (_Hist. Bible_ I, 73,
74, 79-81, 84-87, 90-92). Are these stories to be regarded simply
as chapters from the biography of the early ancestor of the Hebrews
or, like the story of the Garden of Eden, do they have a deeper, a
more universal moral and religious significance? Back of the story
of Abraham's call and settlement in Canaan clearly lies the
historic fact that the ancestors of the Hebrews as nomads migrated
from the land of Aram to seek for themselves and their descendants
a permanent home in the land of Canaan. Abraham, whose name in
Hebrew means, "Exalted Father," or as it was later interpreted,
"Father of a Multitude," naturally represents this historic
movement, but the story of his call and settlement in Canaan has a
larger meaning and value. It simply and vividly illustrates the
eternal truths that (1) God guides those who will be guided. (2)
He reveals himself alone to those who seek a revelation. (3) His
revelations come along the path of duty and are confined to no
place or land. (4) For those who will be led by him God has in
store a noble destiny. (5) Blessed are the peacemakers for they
shall be called the children of God. (6) Blessed are the meek for
they shall inherit the earth. Thus this marvelous story presents
certain of the noblest fruits of Israel's spiritual experiences.
Incidentally it also deals with the relationship between the
Hebrews and their neighbors, the Moabites, across the Jordan and
the Dead Sea, for Lot in these earlier stories stands as the
traditional ancestor of the Moabites and Ammonites. It is evident
that, like the opening narratives of Genesis, this story aimed to
explain existing conditions, as well as to illustrate the deeper
truths of life.
Similarly the story of the expulsion of Hagar, it is thought, aims
primarily to explain the origin of Israel's foes, the nomadic
Ishmaelites, who lived south of Canaan. In the inscriptions of the
Assyrian king Sennacherib, Hargaranu is the name of an Aramean
tribe. A tribe bearing a similar name is also mentioned in the
south Arabian inscriptions. The Hagar of the story is a typical
daughter of the desert. When she became the mother of a child, the
highest honor that could come to a Semitic woman, she could not
resist the temptation to taunt Sarah. In keeping with early
Semitic customs Sarah had full authority to demand the expulsion of
Hagar, for in the eye of the law the slave wife was her property.
The tradition of the revelation to Hagar also represented the
popular explanation of the sanctity of the famous desert shrine
Beer-lahal-roi. Like most of the prophetic stories, this narrative
teaches deeper moral lessons. Chief among these is the broad truth
that the sphere of God's care and blessing was by no means limited
to Israel. To the outcast and needy he ever comes with his message
of counsel and promise. Was Abraham right or wrong in yielding to
Sarah's wish? Was Sarah right or wrong in her attitude toward
Hagar? Was Hagar's triumphal attitude toward Sarah natural? Was
it right?
In the story of the destruction of Sodom Lot appears as the central
figure. His choice of the fertile plain of the Jordan had brought
him into close contact with its inhabitants, the Canaanites.
Abandoning his nomadic life, he had become a citizen, of the
corrupt city of Sodom. When at last Jehovah had determined to
destroy the city because of its wickedness, Abraham persistently
interceded that it be spared. Its wickedness proved, however, too
great for pardon. Lot, who, true to his nomad training, hospitably
received the divine messengers, was finally persuaded to flee from
the city and thus escaped the overwhelming destruction that felt
upon it. What was the possible origin of this story? (_Hist.
Bible_ I, 87.) What are the important religious teachings of this
story? Were great calamities in the past usually the result of
wickedness? Are they to-day? Do people so interpret the
destruction of San Francisco and Messina? The great epidemic of
cholera in Hamburg in 1892 was clearly the result of a gross
neglect of sanitary precautions in regard to the water supply. At
that date the cholera germ had not been clearly identified and
there was some doubt regarding the means by which the disease was
spread. Was sanitary neglect then as much of a sin as it would be
now? May we properly say that the pestilence was a calamity
visited on that city as a punishment for its sin of neglect?
Why did the prophets preserve the story of the sacrifices of Isaac?
Compare the parallel teaching in Micah 6:6-8.
With what shall I come before Jehovah,
Bow myself before the God on high?
Shall I come before him with burnt-offerings,
With calves a year old?
Will Jehovah be pleased with thousands of rams,
With myriads of streams of oil?
Shall I give him my first-born for my guilt,
The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
Which is the most important teaching of the story: the importance
of an unquestioning faith and obedience, or the needlessness of
human sacrifice? Does God ever command any person to do anything
that the person thinks wrong?