Abraham was indeed her husband he would probably remove that obstacle from his path by taking Abraham's life.

The sequel we know, `The LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai his wife'.

Much the same thing happened again at the court of Abimelech. He too `sent and took Sarah' and once again the

Lord intervened, saying to Abimelech in a dream `Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast

taken; for she is a man's wife' (Gen. 20:3). It is in the reply made by the Lord to Abimelech that we meet with two

words, tom `integrity', the same word that in a slightly different form is translated `perfect' in Job 1:1, and with the

word `sin':

`Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against Me:

therefore suffered I thee not to touch her' (Gen. 20:6).

Abimelech also recognized the enormity of his deed saying to Abraham `What hast thou done unto us? and what

have I offended (chattath) thee, that thou hast brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin (chataah)?' (Gen.

20:9). Here Abimelech recognizes that even though his motive had been pure, his action would have been `sin'.

The same is confirmed by the words of the Lord in Genesis 20:6. (In connection with this special aspect of `sin' it

should be noted that the only ones who are called `sinners' in the book of Genesis were the men of Sodom, Gen.

13:13). The next occurrence of the word chata is found in the words of Jacob, `I bare the loss' recorded in Genesis

31:39, which the reader will see is not pertinent to our enquiry. We have to leap from Genesis 20 to Genesis 39

before we meet the verb again. And what will the offence be that is thus singled out for such distinctive treatment?

It is found in Joseph's reply to the inducements of Potiphar's wife, `How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin

against God?' (Gen. 39:9).

Moreover, consider the very peculiar interruption of the narrative that takes place at Genesis 37:36:

`And the Midianites sold him into Egypt unto Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh's, and captain of the guard'.

The narrative is interrupted by the recorded events of Genesis 38, which have no reference whatever to Joseph or

to Egypt, and the thread of the story is picked up again in Genesis 39:1, where we read `And Joseph was brought

down to Egypt; and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him of the hands of

the Ishmeelites which had brought him down thither'. The interpolation of Genesis 38 is therefore intentional.

When we read its contents we are struck with the evident contrast that is intended between Judah and Joseph. Judah

was convicted righteously of dealings with a (supposed) harlot, the evidence being the pledge he had given, his

signet, bracelets and staff (Gen. 38:15-18,25,26). Joseph was most unrighteously condemned because of the

`evidence' given by Potiphar's wife, `he left his garment with me' (Gen. 39:18). We should be dull of hearing

indeed if we failed to perceive that `sin' in Genesis has particular reference to interference, in type at least, with the

purity of `the seed'. This does not in any way alter the fact that all transgression is sin, we are simply facing the fact

that where we might have expected the word to be used in Genesis, the fact is, that for wise purposes to which we

will do well to give heed, sin is particularly associated with the corruption of the true seed and, of necessity, the

corruption of the Messianic line. The very fact that in Genesis 3 the judgment pronounced upon the woman has to

do with `sorrow' and `conception' and `bringing forth children', points to the same direction. The fact that in the

New Testament Cain is said to be `of that wicked one' is a further weight in the scale, as is the fact already noted

that the only people who are called `sinners' in the whole book of Genesis, are the `men of Sodom' (Gen. 13:13).

But this is not all. Why should Job have been so anxious lest his sons had `sinned' on the `feast day'? The word

`feast' is derived from the Hebrew word shathah `to drink', a word that meets us in the story of Noah (Gen. 9:21).

There, Noah is discovered by his son overcome with the wine produced in the new conditions that governed the

earth after the Flood. Details are purposely withheld, but when Noah awoke from his drunken sleep he prophetically

cursed an unborn child - Canaan! If we are guided by the recorded sin of Reuben, we shall arrive at the answer to

our question `who was Canaan's mother'? The Canaanites are most evidently an accursed people, `the seed of the

Serpent', and it is this persistent attempt in Genesis chapters 3,6,9,12 and 20 to find an entry into this world for the

false seed that illuminates the opening verses of the book of Job, and with it sheds a light upon the conflict of the

That the Saviour Himself intended his disciples to believe that there were two seeds in the earth, and that one of

them was sown by `the enemy' the devil, the parable of the wheat and the tares is proof. The Divine explanation of