The Philistine king did not want to lose the weather gage, so to speak, the advantage of the earlier covenant with Abraham. To prevent that development, he may have journeyed south to Beersheba, which was arguably on the fringes of his own sphere of influence, in hopes of capitalizing on Abraham’s earlier covenant with the Philistines in order to get Isaac on his side—to beat the Hittites at their own game. It is to be noted that Abimelech did not ask Isaac to visit him; he is willing to travel some distance—outside his own domain—to meet with Isaac.
Abimelech actually condemns himself with his own words, does he not, admitting that he recognizes Isaac to be a godly person, but still sent him away! It is also noteworthy that the king has no scruples in using God’s name in his efforts to gain his objectives, something at which modern politicians remain adept as well.
At any rate, I am not sure how peacefully the Philistines sent Isaac away up there in verse 16. Remember, the context of Isaac’s departure from Gerar, as stated in verse 14, is that the Philistines envied Isaac—coveting his wealth. Relations had become strained—as reflected in the frequent and apparently protracted struggles over water rights. But the Philistine diplomats paint the picture in sanguine colors, referring to their “peaceful” relationship. These were consummate politicians.
Now, in the case of Isaac’s Abimelech, the terms of their covenant are much the same, although peace becomes an explicit concern, perhaps because the Abimelech of Isaac’s day feels politically or militarily threatened. Isaac’s Abimelech, however, fails to mention the preservation of the land. Apparently, the Abimelech of Isaac’s day did not have as much regard for the stewardship of the land as did Abraham’s Abimelech. The king says to Isaac,
Peace is an issue, but there is in this case no reference to land management.
