It will be recalled that on two occasions Sarah was taken by a heathen monarch into his harem, and that twice a

miraculous interposition of the Almighty was necessary to save the true seed from contamination (Gen. 12:10-20

and 20:1-18). Whatever estimate we may have formed of the personal character of Jacob, he was as `unblemished'

as Noah or as Job in this respect. It may be objected that Esau was of the same parentage as Jacob and would

therefore be equally `unblemished'. That is so but in appearance at least, Esau was somewhat monstrous, he is

described as being `red, all over like an hairy garment' (Gen. 25:25), a characteristic that persisted in manhood

(Gen. 27:11,16,23). Esau's abnormal appearance, was an outward sign of his inner estrangement from grace. The

epistle to the Hebrews calls him `a profane person' for he despised his birthright, whereas, with all his faults,

Jacob's very acts of deception were because he prized the blessing of Abraham above all else. Moreover, Esau is

called `a cunning hunter', and the word so translated is identical with that used of Nimrod (Gen. 10:9), and is also

the word used eight times over in Genesis 27 in reference `to venison' which occupies so conspicuous a place in the

act of deception. Jacob, with all his faults, was `unblemished', hence his association with Noah and Job as being in

the line of the true seed.

Now the reader may perceive that the reason why Satan afflicted Job as he did, appears to have some definite

purpose behind its apparent insensate animosity. Job was a `perfect' man, unblemished, without spot, in other words

one of the seed of the woman, and so in extreme contrast with the seed of the serpent. Satan therefore had some

fiendish satisfaction in heaping upon Job's devoted head all the loathsomeness of botch and blain. It is commonly

supposed that Job was made to suffer from a disease called elephantiasis, a disease which converted the `perfect'

(aplastos) Job, into an apparent monster. The `boils' with which Job was inflicted are connected with leprosy (Lev.

13:20), and was one of the plagues of Egypt (Exod. 9:9-11) and is called `the botch of Egypt' in Deuteronomy

28:27. There is a blessed hope in Elihu's statement, that upon the provision of a ransom, `his flesh shall be fresher

than a child's: he shall return to the days of his youth' (Job 33:24,25), for when Job's captivity was turned (Job

42:10) and restoration was made to him, one of his daughters was named Keren-happuch, `horn of beauty' or `paint

box', suggesting that Job's flesh had indeed been restored `fresher than a child's'. The subject of the two seeds of

Genesis 12 and 20 (a subject that is in the background of Genesis 3, 4, and 6), which underlies the parable of the

wheat and the tares and provides the key to unlock such problematic passages as `ye are of your father the Devil'

and `Cain was of that wicked one', will find illumination in a careful study of Job, and the book of Job in its turn

will be better understood in the light of this strange yet true doctrine of the ages.

We have found that the word `perfect', as used of Job, provides a key to unlock some of the problems of the

book. Job was one of the true seed, like Noah he was perfect in his generations and consequently was an object of

Satanic enmity. One of the keys to the enigma is sin, and the reader may be pardoned for objecting that there is little

reason to believe that any fresh light upon so fundamental a subject will be forthcoming. Nevertheless we ask all `to

search and see'.

Job's piety and watchful care is manifested in his concern lest his sons had `sinned' when `feasting' on his `day',

and so we find Job offering sacrifices, saying `It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts'

(Job 1:5). We believe that if the majority of believers were asked a series of questions concerning this vital doctrine

of `sin', their answers would reveal that certain scriptural facts that bear upon its meaning had entirely eluded them.

If we turn to the book of Genesis, it would be natural to expect that chata `to sin', or the noun chet or chattath

would meet us in the third chapter, but it is not so. The word in Genesis 4:7, as The Companion Bible and most

commentators agree, should read `a sin offering lieth at the door'. Sin was rampant during the 2,000 years which are

covered by Genesis 2 to 11, yet never once do we meet with the word. The extraordinary fact is that chata `to sin'

meets us for the first time in the book of Genesis in the twentieth chapter. Our interest therefore should be

quickened by this first fact, to go on and discover what the character of the sin was that is so signally emphasized

and what bearing it can have upon Job 1:5. Abraham is found sojourning in Gerah, and we are struck by his opening

words `And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, "She is my sister"`, and we are reminded of the incident recorded in the

twelfth chapter. There, Abraham feared that Pharaoh would forcibly take Sarah into his harem, and if he knew that