Sports fans know there is a world of difference between a rerun and an instant replay. A rerun is simply seeing the same thing over again while an instant replay is seeing something over, usually much more carefully. While reruns are historically interesting, athletic winners have been chosen on the basis of instant replays. This difference is critical when considering Genesis 25. Critics have tended to view the events recorded here as a bad rerun of similar events in Abraham's life and have even questioned there historicity of these events in Isaac's life. Yet, if one views it as an instant replay, the conclusion is quite different. Genesis 26 is the only chapter devoted exclusively to Isaac (he's mentioned in others, but not the primary focus). It's almost as if Isaac's entire life can be summed up in the events described here, all of which strikingly parallel events in Abraham's life.

"There was a famine in the land, subsequent to the earlier famine that occurred in the days of Abraham. Isaac went to Abimelech king of the Philistines at Gerar. The Lord appeared to Isaac and said, "Do not go down to Egypt; settle down in the land that I will point out to you. Stay in this land. Then I will be with you and will bless you, for I will give all these lands to you and to your descendants, and I will fulfill the solemn promise I made to your father Abraham. I will multiply your descendants so they will be as numerous as the stars in the sky, and I will give them all these lands. All the nations of the earth will pronounce blessings on one another using the name of your descendants. All this will come to pass because Abraham obeyed me and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." Genesis 26:1-5

Early in Abraham's life a famine set in motion events which greatly shaped the life of the patriarch. Likewise, a famine occurred early in Isaac's life. This famine was different from the one in Abraham's life, even on face value. Obeying God's instructions, Isaac migrated to Gerar, hoping to avoid the famine and preserve his large herd of cattle. He then decided to go to Egypt, in disobedience to God's instructions. So far as the Bible records, this is the first time God spoke to Isaac, and He chose this time to reiterate the Abrahamic covenant, making it Isaac's covenant as well. This blessings of the covenant were, to some degree, a result of Abraham's faithfulness and obedience to God, but was mostly based upon God's faithfulness to Abraham. Isaac had witnessed this in Chapter 22. Verse 5 implies that it was necessary for Isaac to believe God's promise, accept it as a personal relationship, and live obediently as his father had. The first step in this life of obedience was to remain in Gerar, which Isaac did. God has no grandchildren. Isaac was God's man in his own generation. He could not claim the promises of God through his parentage.

"When the men of that place asked him about his wife, he replied, "She is my sister." He was afraid to say, "She is my wife," for he thought to himself,

"The men of this place will kill me to get Rebekah because she is very beautiful."

"After Isaac had been there a long time, Abimelech king of the Philistines happened to look out a window and observed Isaac caressing his wife Rebekah. So Abimelech summoned Isaac and said, "She is really your wife! Why did you say, ‘She is my sister’?" Isaac replied,

"Because I thought someone might kill me to get her."

"Then Abimelech exclaimed, "What in the world have you done to us? One of the men might easily have had sexual relations with your wife, and you would have brought guilt on us!" So Abimelech commanded all the people, "Whoever touches this man or his wife will surely be put to death." Genesis 26:7-11

What? Again? Yes! Sadly, the same old sin of deception raised its ugly head. The sins of the father are visited on the son because the son learned at Daddy's knee. Frightened for his own safety, Isaac tried to pass off his wife as his sister, willingly risking Rebekah's purity for his personal protection.

Both Abraham and Isaac sinned before Abimelech and both were rebuked by the Philistine ruler. Both had a beautiful wife and feared for their own safety, thinking they might be killed so that someone could marry their wife. Both lied to saying their wife was their sister and neither seemed to recognize the gravity of their sin or fully repent of it.

While the similarities are many, the differences cannot be overlooked because they verify that two different deceptions took place in Gerar. There are clearly two different "Abimelechs" in these events. More than half a century had passed since Abraham's deceit. The custom of the day dictated that sons were often named after their grandfathers, but Abimelech might have been a hereditary title. Abraham's policy of deception was established before he entered into any danger (Genesis 12:11-13; 20:13). Abraham introduced Sarah as his sister from the outset. Isaac, however, waited until he was approached concerning Rebekah. At this point his confidence left him, and he resorted to a lie (verse 7).

Moses did not record if Rebekah played an active role in this deception. One of the reasons I believe that the Bible is true is that it portrays men of faith as flawed humans and shows pagans acting nobly, which is very much like the world in which I live. Abimelech learned of the deception by observing Isaac and Rebekah together and recognizing rather unsibling-like intimacy. His ethics were apparently higher than Isaac's. This Abimilech did not need God to threaten him; he viewed the taking of a man's wife as sin of great consequence. I'm going to hazard to guess this ethic had been passed down from his ancestor who learned it in the incident with Sarai. Perhaps also learned from his ancestor, Abimelech 2 ordered that Isaac and Rebekah not be harmed; they were even encouraged to remain in the desmesne. The deception was rebuked and then forgiven.

In spite of Isaac’s deception, God poured out His blessings on him. Abimelech failed to recognize Isaac’s prosperity as the blessing of God; he saw Isaac as a powerful figure who threatened him and worried his people. In fact, they seem to have recognized that a dynasty was forming.

Digging a well was considered a claim of ownership to the land on which it was located because it enabled a man to sustain herds there. Rather than recognize this claim, the Philistines sought to wipe it out by filling up Abraham's wells. Wells were a great asset in such an arid land, but to allow such a claim to remain unchallenged was something the Philistines could not allow. Now Abimelech tersely suggested Isaac leave Gerar (verse 16), which Isaac did. The meek would inherit this land, but in God’s good time.

Isaac developed a strategy of refusing to stay where there was conflict and hostility. He left Gerar, but to sustain his herds with abundant water, he re-opened Abraham's wells and dug more. If the well produced water and did not produce conflict, Isaac remained in the area. While Isaac may not have realized it for some time, the disputes over the ownership of the wells served to guide him in the direction of the land of promise. To Isaac these wells were a necessity for survival, but to the Philistines these were a claim to the land. Opposition was thus a humanly explainable, divinely ordained means of guidance.

In the valley of Gerar Isaac dug a well that produced "living water," that is, water that originated from a spring—running water. The Philistine herdsmen disputed with the herdsmen of Isaac over it, so Isaac moved on. Another well was dug and disputed (verse 21). Finally Isaac dug a well to which there was no opposition. He was probably far enough from Philistine territory that they had lost interst, but Isaac called the well "Rehoboth" (hope) because this seemed to be the place God had designated for him to settle. As Abraham had done with Lot, Isaac settled disputes by giving preference to the other party.

"From there Isaac went up to Beer Sheba. The Lord appeared to him that night and said, "I am the God of your father Abraham. Do not be afraid, for I am with you. I will bless you and multiply your descendants for the sake of my servant Abraham."

Then Isaac built an altar there and worshiped the Lord. He pitched his tent there, and his servants dug a well." Genesis 26:23-25

Up to this time Isaac’s settlement decisions were based upon availability of abundant water and the absence of hostilities. However, having found both, Isaac moved to Beersheba and the move is not explained. This may signify a change in Isaac's spiritual maturity. Circumstances had previously shaped most of his decisions, but Beersheba was the first place that Abraham had gone with Isaac after they came down from the "sacrifice" on Mount Moriah (Genesis 22:19). Isaac knew that God had promised to give him the land promised to his father Abraham. Perhaps he had finally come to see that through all the opposition over the wells he had dug, God had been guiding him back to the land of promise where Abraham had walked in fellowship with God. God had previously been "driving" Isaac through opposition; now it seems, Isaac was willing to be led.

The decision proved to be the right one, for God immediately spoke words of reassurance. In verse 25, we learn that Isaac built an altar and called upon God BEFORE he pitched his tent and dug a well. Previously the touchstone for knowing the will of God had been circumstances—sufficient water with no opposition. Here, the sequence of events was reversed. Isaac settled after he spoke to God.

I see a great lesson in faith and guidance here. God's people belong in God's presence. The place for Christians to abide is wherever intimacy, worship and communion with God are most possible. We should dwell there and be reassured of God's provision for our needs. Spiritual needs are primary; materials needs can thus be considered last (Matthew 6:33).

"Isaac asked them, "Why have you come to me? You hate me and sent me away from you." They replied, "We could plainly see that the Lord is with you. So we decided there should be a pact between us – between us and you. Allow us to make a treaty with you so that you will not do us any harm, just as we have not harmed you, but have always treated you well before sending you away in peace. Now you are blessed by the Lord." Genesis 26:27-29

There's a different hue to events after this point -- the blessings and guidance of God were far more evident in Isaac's life. The nobles of the area paid a state visit to Isaac, who didn't particularly appreciate the attention. The situation was unusual. When he was in very close contact with Abimelech and the Philistines, the blessing of God on Isaac was present (verse 12) and the people responded with envy and animosity. Abimelech asked Isaac to leave the country. Now they were willing to come all this way simply to enter into a treaty with Isaac? Why?

Isaac's conduct while with the Philistine's hadn't been praiseworthy -- he lied about his wife and passed her off as his sister. I doubt the Philistines thought his prosperity was due to divine blessing. They probably attributed it to good luck. Now that Isaac’s priorities were changed and his life operating along spiritual guidelines, the blessing of God was evident. God's covenant with Abraham was understood as having passed to his son, at least in a practical way. Abimelech recognized God's blessings upon Isaac and a favorable relationship with a blessed one was highly desirable.

"That day Isaac’s servants came and told him about the well they had dug. "We’ve found water," they reported. So he named it Shibah; that is why the name of the city has been Beer Sheba to this day.

Surely Beersheba was the right place for Isaac. All indicators pointed that way, but serving God does not guarantee a trouble-free life of rose-strewn paths. Esau would bring Isaac and Rebekah great grief. Trouble remains a part of the Christian experience, sometimes as a result of our own sinfulness and sometimes because it is common to mankind.

Critics see little or nothing new or authenic in the events of Isaac's life, but I hope that serious Christians won't be so enamored of the literary scholars. Recognize Isaac for what he was -- a son following in the footsteps of a great, but imperfect father. God made a covenant with Abraham and confirmed it with Isaac. Abraham lied about his wife to Abimelech 1 and Isaac repeated this sin before Abimelech 2. Abimelech 1 sought a treaty with Abraham, seeking God's hand of blessing was upon him. Years later, Abimelech 2 did likewise with Isaac.

Isaac's life serves as a commentary on the Christian life. God employs a long and extensive process in our lives to bring us, first, to Him, and then to maturity. We too enter a covenantal relationship with God, instituted by Jesus Christ when He shed His blood on Calvary to provide for our forgiveness from sin, establishing our salvation (Luke 22:19-20).

Everyone must begin his relationship at the place of personal relationship with God through acceptance of the covenant He has offered. From there, we embark upon a spiritual voyage that is very similar to that of previous saints. When we are able to look back over our lives from the vantage point of eternity, I suspect we will be amazed how similar our path has been compared to Isaac and others. There are no shortcuts in the sanctification process.

The passage is an awesome challenge to me as a parent. Our children must walk in our footsteps if they are to be a part of the kingdom of God. They begin at the same point we did, coming to a personal relationship with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. They must be allowed to make the same mistakes we did in order to come to a more mature faith and trust in God.

I would prefer that my children not make the same mistakes I did, and I hope it is not necessary. Yet I must acknowledge that Isaac walked a path nearly identical to Abraham's. Despite our personal preferences, Christian parents must allow our children to fail in order to grow in the way that God has purposed because our children cannot begin to relate to God based upon our walk. They must start at the beginning. fresh and new!

We can best help our children by making certain that our footsteps are ones we'd want them to walk in. If our children’s lives are to mirror our own, what an awesome responsibility we have as parents to walk a path of obedience and submission to the will of God.

This brings us to a cold hard look at the effects of sin on the modern church. Are you as bothered as I am that God did not come down on Abraham and Isaac harder for their deception? Deception is in and God hates a lying tongue (Proverbs 6:17), but He barely seemed to confront them on it. Why?

Lying was a symptomatic sin for these men. It stemmed from deeper issues, which God was more interested in addressing. They resorted to deception because of unbelief or lack of faith. They were afraid because they had an inadequate concept of God. They did not grasp the sovereignty and omnipotence of God as s to believe that God could protect them under any and every circumstance. Having solved the problem of too little faith, the sin of deception was not an issue later on. I think we sometimes become preoccupied with "symptom sins", rushing around the church trying to stomp these out when in fact we need to address our lack of faith, which is a problem not just for the unsaved, but also for the truly saved.

A friend of mine once took over a successful and succeeding (yes, there can be a difference) company from its founder. The board of directors had decided that this man was "old school" and needed to be retired. George knew what was coming and knew that whomever popped to their feet at a critical moment would be the person who won that vote and the person who won that vote would become the new CEO that day. So did the CEO and founder. Despite his best efforts, George got to his feet second (it's on tape!), but the chairman of the board took a deep breath, waited a beat and called on George because he had already decided who he wanted as the future CEO. George admits that he felt incredible smugness at being called first, at knowing that his motion would be the critical move to change the direction of the company.

Some people view the doctrine of divine election as operating in the same way. They see God as the chairman of the board Who knows who is going to do what and, on the basis of His prior knowledge, He chooses the person who will do what He desires. The chosen under such a system may feel the same smugness about their "calling" as George did on that afternoon when he was recognized by the chairman.

Another view of election places the matter almost entirely in man’s hands. In its most blatant form it is stated: God votes for us; Satan votes against us; and we cast the deciding vote.

Neither of these views is completely consistent with the Biblical doctrine of election. No Old Testament passage puts the whole matter into its proper perspective more clearly than Genesis 25. The Apostle Paul agreed, choosing to use these events in Romans 9 as the best illustration of the doctrine of divine election.

Abraham took another wife, Keturah. Scholars debate whether this marriage took place after Sarah's death or before. Keturah was referred to as a concubine in 1Chronicles 1:32, which also fits nicely with the word "concubines" in verse 6 of our passage. In Amorite society (and Abraham was an Amorite), a concubine held a position somewhat above that of a slave, yet she was not free, nor did she have the status or rights of a wife. The master had sexual relations with the concubine. Her children held an inferior status to those born of a wife, but they could be elevated to the position of a full heir at the will of the master. Why would Keturah be called a concubine unless Sarah were still alive and this marriage was of a lesser type? The sons of this union were said to have been "sent away" (verse 6), which would hardly be true of the children of a full marriage, but it would be completely consistent with the children of a concubine. These children would have been sent away in just the same fashion as Ishmael. According to the Code of Hammurabi the sons of a concubine could be sent away, the compensation for which was the granting of their full freedom. Abraham was very old by the time Sarah died, so any children born after that time would be considered more of a miracle than Isaac. Let's be realistic here! Abraham was, in fact, the father of many nations, but it was through Isaac that the blessings and promises of the Abrahamic Covenant would be realized.

Yes, Abraham was a polygamist! This does not mean the Bible condones polygamy! It simply means that Abraham was a sinner! Let's not kid ourselves. All human beings are sinners, even the heroes of the faith.

Consistent with his faith in the promises of God, Abraham gave gifts to his children and sent them off, out of Isaac's way (verse 6) and then, after a rich and full life, Abraham died. He was 175. Why wasn't Ishmael included among those who received gifts while he was living? I don't know. Ishmael did return for his father's funeral with Isaac's cooperation (verse 9). Abraham had always had a special place in his heart for his first son. Reluctantly and under great pressure, Abraham sent him away. Abraham would have been content for God’s purposes and promises to have been fulfilled in Ishmael. He petitioned God to look with favor upon this boy (17:18). God refused to substitute this child of self-effort for the child of promise, but He did promise to make him a great nation. Verses 13-16 record the names of the sons of Ishmael, who were the 12 promised princes. Once again God kept His promise to His servant Abraham.

Ishmael died at the age of 137 and was buried. Notice that he was not said to have been placed in the cave of Machpelah, for this was a monument of hope for the people of the promise. The land of Canaan was not to be the possession of Ishmael nor his descendants; his people settled from Havilah to Shur (Genesis 25:18).

The process of election has been apparent in the previous verses. God chose Sarah, not Hagar or Keturah, to be the mother of the child of promise. God likewise chose Isaac long before he was ever born to be the heir of Abraham. While Abraham had several wives/concubines and many children, only Isaac was to be the one through whom the promised blessings would come. Isaac married Rebekah when he was 40, but it was 20 years later before she bore children. Isaac interceded with God on Rebekah’s behalf and she became pregnant in answer to his prayers (verse 21). During her pregnancy Rebekah was perplexed by the intense struggle that took place within her womb, so she inquired of God to determine the reason.

It turned out she was pregnant with twins who were destined not to get along. Each of the children would be the father of a nation of people and one would prevail over the other. Of these two sons, the older would not, as was the custom, become preeminent. Normally, the first-born son would have been the heir through whom the covenant blessings would have passed. While the father could designate a younger son to be the owner of the birthright (Genesis 38:13-20), this was an exception, not the rule. Also, the oldest son could sell his birthright, as Esau eventually did.

This prophecy is significant revelation not only for Rebekah but for Christians today because it indicates the principle of divine election. Before the birth of the children God determined that it would be the younger child who would possess the birthright and thus be the heir of Isaac so far as the covenant promises were concerned (Romans 9:10-12).

While we must acknowledge that God in His omniscience knew all of the deeds of both these sons from eternity past, Paul wrote that the choice of Jacob over Esau had nothing to do with their works. Jacob was chosen in the womb and without regard to the works he would do in the future. In other words, God’s election was not based upon "foreknowledge" as it is sometimes taught. God’s choice was determined by His will, not by man’s works. Personally, I think that Esau was the more likeable of the two. He was at least honest, while Jacob was a con artist. Certainly, Isaac found Esau more pleasant and ethical.

Esau was born first, and he came from the womb red and hairy. Jacob came forth from the womb grasping the heel of his brother. Jacob’s name was suggested by the Hebrew word for ‘heel.’ Later events, such as the barter of the birthright in verses 27-34, indicate that the name, taken in its negative sense, referred to Jacob’s grasping and conniving nature.

The boys had very different dispositions. Esau seems to have been a masculine, outdoor-type man who loved to do the things a father could take pride in. He was a skillful hunter, and he knew how to handle himself in the outdoors. (As an Alaskan woman I can appreciate that type of man because those are the type of men I grew up with and who still live around me today). Jacob was entirely different. Instead of being aggressive, daring and flamboyant like Esau, Jacob appears to have been quiet and pensive and more interested in staying at home than making physical conquests. Oh, he had ambition to get ahead, but he just wasn't into hunting and living rough. In the solitude of his tent Jacob could mentally reason out how to get ahead without getting his hands dirty and without taking dangerous risks.

The second factor which tended to separate the two sons was the divided loyalty between their parents. Isaac seems to have been the outdoor-type himself; at least he had an appetite for the wild game that Esau brought home (verse 28). Esau was the kind of son that Isaac could proudly take with him wherever he went. Rebekah, on the other hand, favored Jacob. She probably thought Esau was crude and uncultured. Jacob was a much more refined person, gentle and kind, the type of son a mother would be proud of. Besides, Jacob probably spent more time at home than Esau did. Each parent seems to have identified too much with a particular son, thus creating divisions which would be devastating. This favoritism also brought about disharmony between Isaac and his wife. Later Rebekah was to conspire with Jacob to deceive her husband (chapter 27).

Then there was the underhanded means by which Jacob wrested the birthright from his brother. While Esau had been out in the field, Jacob was at home preparing a stew. Weary and famished, though hardly at death’s door, Esau was enticed by the fragrant aroma of the meal. Esau greedily pled for some of "that red stuff" (nutritional anthropologists suggest it was a lentil soup). Rather than showing his brother the hospitality due even a stranger, Jacob saw an opportunity to gain advantage. Here Jacob’s greedy, grasping disposition rose to the forefront.

"But Jacob replied, "First sell me your birthright."

"Look," said Esau,

"I’m about to die! What use is the birthright to me?"

"But Jacob said, "Swear an oath to me now." So Esau swore an oath to him and sold his birthright to Jacob.

I think Esau thought it was a joke or something that could be casually bantered about, but Jacob made him swear a solemn oath declaring the sale of the birthright, showing that he had no appreciation for spiritual and eternal things (Hebrews 12:15-16).

The birth of Ishmael taught Abraham that God's blessings were not wrought by self-effort, but by trusting God. In Jacob's life, tricking his brother into selling his birthright served the same purpose. Jacob struck a shrewd bargain, but it was not the means for God's blessing.

It's fairly impossible to avoid the fact that this chapter clearly teaches the principle of divine election. Out of all of Abraham's sons, God chose Isaac to be the heir of promise rather than Ishmael, Zimran, Jokshan or Medan. Sarah, not Hagar or Keturah, was to mother the child of promise. God’s choice was not determined by His knowledge of the good works that the chosen would later accomplish. Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, and Jacob all had very visible faults, exemplified by by less than sterling conduct. At times pagans even appeared more righteous than they (Abimelech in Genesis 20).

While Christians are chosen "unto good works" (Ephesians 2:10), it is not because of our good works that we are chosen. Jacob was chosen before his birth without regard to future deeds (Romans 9:11). In theological terminology, God "elects" men and women "unconditionally" without regard to our past or future actions. Our selection is pure grace.

Some conclude from this fact that those who are not among the elect are forever lost because God did not choose them. There is truth in this statement (Proverbs 16:4; Revelation 17:8; 1Peter 2:6). While election to salvation is never on account of works, election to eternal damnation is. The emphasis of the Word of God is not that men go to Hell because God did not choose them, but that men suffer eternally because they have not chosen God.

Moses stressed that truth in Genesis 25. The principle of election is clearly evident here, yet, at the conclusion of the account Moses did not report that Esau sold his birthright because God had predetermined this to happen, but because Esau "despised his birthright" (verse 34).

Election is unconditional. God chooses men because of His love and grace, not because of man’s future good deeds. While good works do not earn election to a place of blessing in God’s program, evil deeds are adequate reason for rejection by God.

The message of the whole Bible tells us that all of us deserve the eternal wrath of God for our sins (Romans 3:10-18, 23; 6:23), but the gospel informs us that God has provided a solution for the sins of mankind through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross of Calvary because Jesus bore the punishment we deserve (Romans 3:21-26; 2Corinthians 5:21). God chose those who are saved in eternity past (Acts 13:28; 16:14; Ephesians 1:11), but it is also true that those who are saved have personally believed in Jesus Christ as their Savior. Every person who calls upon Him for salvation will be saved (John 1:12-13; Romans 10:13).

Like Isaac, the world we live in prefers the Esaus and dislikes the Jacobs. Consider the media's models. They are not Jacobs, but Esaus, macho tough guys who grab all the gusto they can get and are willing to trade off eternity for a beer or a some other short-lived physical pleasure.

While we cannot condone that hedonism, it is worth noting that the biggest "crook" in this passage is a believer. Esau may have been crude and impulsive, but he was honest. I'm ashamed to admit that I know many Christian businesspeople and quite a few Christian employees are are crooked in the same way that Jacob was. We call ourselves shrewd, but that's just a ephemism for unethical practices. Often these Christians are quite convinced of the importance of the ends that they will seek success by any means and feel justified by their achievement.

Jacob valued the birthright more than Esau did; he valued it so highly he was willing to stoop to any level to obtain it. How often do we justify sinfully-earned money by giving it to a worthy cause -- be it church, missions, or the poor. The goal is never more important than godliness (Romans 8:29; Ephesians 4:15). Jacob needed half a lifetime to learn that blessing results from prevailing with God, not over men.

We too, Christians, must learn this lesson!