The chapter begins by giving us the age of Abraham at this point in time. He was all of 99 years old. He was 75 years old when he left Haran after the death of his father Terah, and made his way for the first time into Canaan. It was then that he received the first promise of a seed.

Gen 12:2 " I will make of thy seed a great nation".

Also Gen 12:7 " Unto thy seed will I give this land".

The promise was repeated in Ch 13 : 15 "For the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever".

It is re-stated yet again in Ch 15 : 4 "He that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir".

But 11 years went by from the time of the first promise, and still it remained unfulfilled. So it was that Sarah lost patience, and gave Abraham her maid Hagar. As a result, Ishmael was born.

Now, yet another 13 years have passes and still there is no heir for Abraham. Now the Lord reveals Himself again to Abraham. We might get the impression from reading this part of Genesis that Abraham experienced quite frequent divine appearances. But in fact, Gen 17 is only the 5th recorded appearance in a period of 24 years :-

1. Gen 12 : 13 In Ur of the Chaldees

2. Gen 12 : 7 8 After leaving Haran

3. Gen 13 : 14-17 After the departure of Lot

4. Gen 15 : 1-21 After the defeat of Chederlaomer

5. Gen 17 : 1

So, God appeared to him, on average, once every 5 years. No wonder it is said that Abraham lived by faith. He had little else to sustain him over this lengthy period. No Bible as we have. No Holy Spirit to lead him into truth. He moved as the Lord guided him.

And how does God reveal Himself in Ch 17 ?. "I am the almighty God". He is El-Shaddai, the all-powerful one. Is anything too hard for the Lord. Not for an Almighty God. The Lord continues Walk before Me, and be thou perfect. What does it mean to walk before Me ?. It is said of both Enoch and Noah that they walked with God ie that God was their companion as they walked through life. To walk before God is to be conscious of the fact that that the eyes of God are always upon him. Heb 4 says that all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do . But there is surely the assurance also that God is behind us, not only to see our weakness, but also to give support as we travel on our journey.

The last phrase of verse 1 is "and be thou perfect". The idea of perfection in scripture is never that of sinless perfection but rather that of maturity and completeness. Even Paul, in his more mature years as an apostle, realised that he had not yet reached a state of having arrived. He was still pressing toward the mark. He had not yet attained, either were already made perfect. He looked at how far he had come in his Christian life and yet his ambition still was that I may apprehend (lay hold of) that for which I am apprehended of by Christ Jesus. He wanted still to know Him, and the power of His resurrection etc. Perfection, or full maturity, was always something to strive for. This was Paul's great ambition which he had set himself. But was Paul to be alone in this ambition. No, he writes to the Philippians let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded. The mature saints at Philippi were to emulate Paul in his ambition.

In Gen 13 : 2, God says " I will make my covenant between me and thee". We saw that there was a form of covenant in chapter 15, as the divine presence passed between the pieces of the sacrifices. The word covenant as such is not used in Ch 15, but it is most definitely used in Ch 17. Not just Abraham, but all his household and the nation that would follow from him, were to be circumcised. This would mark them out from all other nations in the world. It marked them out as being the people of the Lord.

In verse 5, the patriarch's name is changed from Abram to Abraham. "Abram" means exalted father, but Abraham means father of a multitude. Abraham, being yet childless might have thought You couldn't have thought of a more inappropriate name. How could an old man with a barren wife ever become the father of a multitude.

It is interesting to note how often in the Bible people had their names changed, some by God, others by men.

Jacob (the supplanter) became Israel (a prince with God)

Sarai in Gen 17 : 15 became Sarah (Princess)

Simon became Cephas (a stone)

Joses in Acts 5 was named Barnabus (son of consolation) by the apostles a name befitting his ministry of exhortation as he encouraged the brethren at Antioch.

Saul relinquished his Jewish name to take on his Roman name of Paul.

Returning to Gen 17 :5, the promise now to Abraham is that he would be the "father of many nations". Not just the father of one nation (Israel) but of others beside. Was this fulfilled ?. Well, Ishmael his son became the father of the Ishmaelites known to us as the Arabs of today. Then, by his second wife Keturah, Abraham had a son Midian, the father of the Midianites. His grandson Esau was the forerunner of the Edomites. So Abraham indeed became the father of many nations.

From verse 7 to verse 14, the covenant of circumcision is established. Every man child was to be circumcised when he was eight days old. The Lord Jesus was therefore brought to the temple when He was 8 days old to be circumcised. This was also the proud boast of Saul of Tarsus circumcised the eighth day. The practice was also to be carried out on everyone born in Abraham's household and everyone bought with a price. This would therefore include all his servants . No exceptions were to be allowed and the uncircumcised man was to be cut off from the household.

One can understand then why circumcision was such a major issue in the early church. That church, in its infancy, was comprised mainly of Jews who had adhered to the rule of circumcision. They knew that, in Gen 17, the rite was to be applied to everyone born in Abraham's house and everyone bought with money. Gentile slaves, in Abraham's day, were to be circumcised. So, it is not difficult to imagine why there came to Antioch certain men from Jerusalem who taught the Gentiles at Antioch "Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved". Paul objected to this teaching, to the point where they all had to go up to Jerusalem to determine the matter with the apostles and the brethren.

Was this then what might be called "the General Council" of the Church ?. At this point in time, we must admit Yes, it was. For the decision reached at Jerusalem was to be passed down by letter to Antioch, and the decision was to be adhered to by the saints beyond Jerusalem and Antioch and elsewhere. So is this a pattern still for the Church of today. ? We believe not !!. And how can we be so certain?. We must remember that Acts 15 was still early days in the history of the Church. The New Testament still was not written. But if someone came into our meeting today and said Except ye be circumcised, ye cannot be saved, would we need to convene a general council in order to adjudicate on the matter ?. No, we would simply turn up such scriptures as Galatians and Ephesians and be able to show that circumcision is no longer required.

But what of those companies of believers who are still present with us today who do have district, regional, national, and even international councils to govern them ?. They would argue that the weakness of our assemblies is the lack of central control. They point out, sadly true, that often discipline which is imnposed in one local assembly is waived aside by another. This is indeed a weakness but due to human weakness and not the weakness of the system per se.. But those who hold to central government have seen, to their own ruin, that what they relied upon for their strength, their unanimity of judgment, was also the cause of their downfall. It all goes well when the governing brethren impose what is true and faithful upon all companies, but they can also, as we have seen, impose error on those self-same companies. A right thinking man may then have to make the decision "It is better to obey God rather than men". This has often forced them to withdraw from their fellowship. So it proved in the days of Jim Taylor and the excesses imposed upon the Exclusives. He decreed that those in fellowship should not eat with those without and that through a misinterpretation of Paul's ministry in I Cor 6. The Exclusive companies have been marked by one division after another ever since. The same thing has happened to the Needed Truth regarding the issue of divorce and re-marriage.

But let's return with Paul to Acts 15. We learn how he took with him Titus a Greek. Titus was under some measure of compulsion to be circumcised, but Paul is absolutely adamant. "Neither Titus was compelled", and he adds regarding certain brethren at Jerusalem, to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour. So, was Paul simply being stubborn by refusing to bow to these men in Jerusalem?.

I believe Paul was aware of an even greater truth than that of circumcision he had received the truth of the mystery of Christ and His Church. According to Paul in Ephesians, he had received this mystery "by revelation" ie from the Lord Himself. For nowhere was this truth taught before in the Old Testament. I believe Paul knew this truth when he wrote Galatians, I Corinthians, and Romans, yet he did not teach it publicly until he wrote the later epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians. And what was the crux of this truth of the mystery ?. The Old Covenant which maintained the superiority of the Jew had been set aside. It was God who had built a middle wall of partition between the Jews and the Gentiles. Nowhere was the division seen more clearly than in the rite of circumcision. The Jews despised the Gentiles as uncircumcised Gentile dogs. But in Eph 2, Paul says the middle wall of partition has been broken down, not by man, but by God Himself. Only God who built the wall had the moral right to destroy it. And God was justified in so doing, because the nation of Israel had crucified their Messiah.

If the middle wall no longer exists, then the Jews and the Gentiles are one. No divisions exist between them. They are one body in the Lord, one new man. So, because Paul knew this, at Jerusalem and elsewhere he was able to resist circumcision being imposed upon the Gentile Christians.

So, circumcision, as a rite, has no bearing upon us today, but there are still "ye cannot be saved" doctrines with us still. What of those who say, Except ye be baptised, ye cannot be saved. This is taught by the Church of Christ. We in assembly fellowship believe strongly in baptism, but we are saved by the blood of Christ, by the value of His work alone, and not by anything that we can do ourselves. And what of the saved today, lost tomorrow doctrine. Countless Christians as a result of this doctrine have no assurance of eternal security. But are they are not simply adding something to salvation, and that something is self. Unless I am faithful to the end, I cannot be saved. It is introducing the weakest possible link into the chain of salvation.

Circumcision, under the Old Covenant, was a symbol of the rolling away of the flesh. Israel had to undergo circumcision at Gilgal, before they entered the land. They were professing that the appeal of the world and the flesh had been removed. Often of course, this proved not to be the case. We in the Church do not have to undergo this rite, but it does not mean of course that the flesh can go unjudged in our lives. The New Testament still has "Gilgal" experiences. We find examples in Matthew 18, Gal 2, and Phil 3. In Matthew 18, the Lord speaks of things that might prove a stumbling block in the life of a believer. If thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off and cast them from thee (verse 8). Also, in verse 9, If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. We are to judge then what we do, where we go, and what we see. If there is anything in our lives that would stumble us, it is to be cut out and cast from us. Notice, in this chapter, that we are to have no mercy upon ourselves when it comes to judgment, but when it comes to a brother who has offended us, we give him three chances to repent before we cut him off. First, we tell him his fault in private, then we take along with us two or three to be witnesses to our discussion. Thirdly, and finally, the matter is brought before the Church, and only then is judgment imposed.

The second example of judging the flesh can be found in Gal 2 : 20. There Paul says " I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live". Paul had looked at self, the big I in his life, and his conclusion was, there is only one place for self and that is the Cross. The Cross was a sentence imposed, a judgment carried out, and Paul has imposed a sentence upon himself. But if Paul was crucified, how was he still living ?. Well, he says, the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God. Not faith in, but the faith of the Son of God. In other words, Paul was living his life by that same faith that was seen in the life of the Lord Jesus. I am certain that this crucifixion of self was the very reason why Paul overcame at Jerusalem, and later at Antioch with the problem regarding Peter. Peter had received the three times repeated vision in Acts 10 of the unclean beasts in the sheet. He perceived from this that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were to be used, not just for the Jews, but also for the Gentiles to bring them into salvation. With this assurance, Peter came to the house of Cornelius, preached the gospel to them, saw them saved, and lodged with them. Yet Peter, armed with this knowledge and with this experience behind him, failed at Antioch when he took note of the arrival of certain brethren from James when the church was sitting down to a common meal. He thought it better to move from a table where he was eating with the Gentiles to a table where the Jews were sitting. Barnabus also followed suit, a man who had accompanied Paul to Jerusalem in Acts 15. A simple meal, yet surely the seeds of division were being sown, for by Acts 15, Antioch was beginning to replace Jerusalem as the centre of Christian witness. Paul shows Peter no mercy. I withstood him to the face, says Paul, for he was to be blamed. Paul not only knew the truth of the mystery he also knew the truth of Gal 2:20. Peter, unfortunately, had not judged the flesh to the same extent as Paul, and failed through the fear of men. This had marked him in the palace of Caiphas when he denied his Lord before a servant maid.

Our third "Gilgal" experience is in Phil 3. There Paul writes Beware of the concision. This was his ironic warning to the Philippians to beware of the Judaisers who mutilated the flesh. Rather, Paul claims, We are the circumcision which worship God in spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. Our worship is not in a temple, or in one particular city, but in the Spirit. We worship by the Spirit of God, as the Lord announced to the woman of Samaria in John Ch 4. We worship God in Spirit and in truth. We rejoice in Christ Jesus ie in a man now exalted, who once was here on earth. And we have no confidence in the flesh. He gives himself now as an example of this last statement. He lists seven things that he once prized as a man in the flesh. But now he counts them as loss for Christ. He had made that decision sometime in the past. But now, at the time of writing, he still feels the same. I count (present tense I am still counting), not what things ie the 7 things of verses 5 and 6, but all things as loss that he might win Christ.

It is only after doing this that Paul goes on to describe the ambitions of verse 10 "That I may know Him and the power of His resurrection". Only a man who has judged the flesh in himself could go on to have the spiritual ambitions of the apostle. Again, the power of His resurrection comes before His sufferings and His death, for only a man living in the power of a resurrected life would so incite the world that it would inflict upon him the sufferings and the death which they gave to the Lord Jesus.

From verses 15 to 19 in Gen 17, God has more to say to Abraham regarding his seed and especially now in regard to Sarah his wife. First of all, in verse 15, Sarai, like Abram, is to have her name changed - from Sarai to Sarah. This latter name means "princess". She was to be a mother of nations. Kings of peoples shall be of her.

Abraham's response in verse 17 is that he fell upon his face and laughed. This promise was surely impossible. Here he was, 100 years old just about, with a wife who was barren. This laughter is remarkable, coming from "the father of the faithful". It shows how that the Bible never tries to cover up the failures of some of its most prominent characters. So Abraham failed in Egypt and in Gerar, telling both Pharaoh and Abimilech that Sarah was his sister. And God also records the failures of David, Solomon, and others.

If, thirteen years earlier, Sarah lost patience with God by offering Hagar to Abraham, then here in Ch 17 : 18, Abraham is guilty of the same spirit. He makes a plea for Ishmael "O that Ishmael might live before Thee". He is saying to God, is not Ishmael good enough to be my heir ?. After all, he is one born from the bowels of Abraham and so fulfilled Gen 15 : 4, did he not ?. Abraham is guilty here of accepting second best, rather than waiting for God to provide the best. We too might be guilty of the same. We want God to bless our ways, our thoughts, rather than waiting for God to reveal His ways and His thoughts.

In verse 19, we have the final stage in what we have seen as the progressive revelation of God towards Abraham. Not only will Sarah have a son, but his name is also given. "Thou shalt call his name Isaac". Isaac means he shall laugh, and is almost ironic given the fact that Abraham laughed when told that Sarah would have a child and Sarah herself laughed in Gen 18 : 12, when she overheard the conversation between Abraham and his three visitors, talking about the birth of a son to her.

This, by the way, is an example of some men being named by God before their birth.

So with Ishmael "God hears" because God heard the cry of Hagar as she fled from Sarah.

Jesus Jehovah the Saviour

John - God is gracious

In verse 20, God hears the plea of Abraham for Ishmael and gives him a blessing. He would be fruitful and multiply. "Twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation." Ishmael is the father of the Arab nations which are with us today.

From verse 23 to 27, Abraham carries out the rite of circumcision upon all his household. Note the twice repeated phrase " in the selfsame day". He lost no time in obeying the word of God towards him regarding the covenant of circumcision.