CHAPTER 11*<\/p>\n
The Tower of Babel (vv. 1\u20139)<\/p>\n
The preceding Table of Nations repeatedly called attention to the distinguishing forms of human variation\u2014ethnic, linguistic, and territorial. The first is probably taken to be a natural outgrowth of the ramified lines of descent from Noah\u2019s three sons. The last is easily explained as a normal development of the geographic dispersal imposed by God on man. But the biblical Narrator is disturbed by the vast diversity of languages that characterizes the human race. Given the Bible\u2019s presupposition that all mankind constitutes one great family traceable to a common ancestry, it becomes necessary to account for the rise of a polyglot humanity. The present narrative deals with this development. Conscious of the misunderstandings, discord, and strife that result from the disruption of communication between human beings, it looks upon the lack of a common language as a calamity that humankind has brought upon itself in consequence of its overweening pride and deliberate defiance of God\u2019s will.
\nThough the story of the Tower of Babel has no parallel or prototype in Mesopotamian literature, it does display an intimate acquaintance with Babylonian construction techniques, a familiarity with some characteristic formulas of cuneiform royal building inscriptions, and a knowledge of certain Mesopotamian traditions. As a matter of fact, it seems to be a deliberate expression of ideas that are in antipodal opposition to some cherished notions of ancient Mesopotamia.
\nThis episode does not contain the names of individuals. A key expression, repeated five times, is \u201call the earth,\u201d for the entire human race is presumed to be sinful. The postdiluvian generations, having learned nothing from history, have proved themselves to be disappointingly out of harmony with God. God must start again, as it were, in a fresh attempt to have His purposes on earth fulfilled. That is the reason why the present narrative, which closes the second universal epoch in human history, is immediately followed by a genealogy that issues in Abraham, the founder of a new nation that is to have a special relationship with God and is to become the divinely wrought instrument for the mediation of His demands to a wayward humanity.
\nThe narrative is almost equally divided between the doings of man (vv. 1\u20134) and the countermeasures of God (vv. 5\u20139). God\u2019s sudden intervention, in precisely the middle verse, signals impending radical change in the situation. Pronouncements about the state of affairs on earth frame the entire episode, with the last verse describing the reversal of the situation portrayed in the first. This turnaround is reinforced by the inversion in verse 9 of the order of the key expressions \u201call the earth\u201d and \u201clanguage\u201d used in verse 1. The symmetrical structure imparts added emphasis to the metamorphosis caused by God\u2019s reactions in that the second part reiterates the phraseology of the first part, often with ironical force. Finally, the Hebrew vocabulary exhibits an unusually large number of assonantal features or verbal correspondences.<\/p>\n
THE MAKING OF BABEL (vv. 1\u20134)<\/p>\n
1. Everyone on earth The reiterated emphasis on the involvement of the totality of humankind in the offense is crucial to the understanding of the episode as the climactic event in the universal history of the Book of Genesis.<\/p>\n
the same language See Comment to 2:20. Hebrew safah, \u201clanguage,\u201d is also repeated five times. Belief in an original universal human language seems to have also been current in ancient Sumer. A fragment of a myth, \u201cEnmerkar and the Lord of Aratta,\u201d relates that the speech of mankind was confounded as a result of strife and jealousy between two gods. Our biblical story views the disruption of communication between human beings as the consequence of man\u2019s placing himself in disharmony with God.<\/p>\n
2. migrated Humankind is envisaged as having been initially nomadic after the Flood. The Hebrew stem n-s-\u02bf, \u201cto travel,\u201d originally meant \u201cto pull up stakes,\u201d as it does in Judges 16:14 and Isaiah 33:20.<\/p>\n
from the east That is, from the vantage point of Canaan. The survivors would actually have migrated from Ararat in a southeasterly direction.<\/p>\n
a valley Rather, \u201ca plain,\u201d referring to that flat alluvial land in southern Mesopotamia between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.<\/p>\n
Shinar See Comment to 10:10. A similar tradition is preserved by Berossus, whose story of the Mesopotamian flood also has the survivors first going to Babylon.<\/p>\n
there Hebrew sham, repeated five times, directs our attention to the central importance of the particular site chosen; at the same time, its sound evokes an association with shamayim, \u201cheavens,\u201d with which the site is supposed to be physically connected, as well as with shem, \u201ca name,\u201d in verse 4.<\/p>\n
3. The Narrator, clearly writing from the perspective of a foreign observer, displays an accurate and detailed knowledge of Mesopotamian construction techniques. The rarity of stone in the plain of Lower Mesopotamia necessitated the use of molded, sun-dried clay as the common building material, an invention that ushered in the epoch of monumental temple architecture. The discovery of the technique of firing the brick in a kiln enhanced its solidity and durability and made possible the erection of multistoried buildings. The use of bitumen for mortar further added to the strength, cohesion, and impermeability of the brick.
\nBitumen is early attested in Mesopotamia. It was found in abundance at Hit on the Euphrates, about 140 miles (225 km.) upstream from Babylon. By contrast, stone was plentiful in Canaan and was widely used for monumental architecture, though sun-dried brick was the norm for common construction. Kiln-fired brick was not used in that region before Roman times; nor was bitumen used as mortar, despite its abundant presence in the Dead Sea.<\/p>\n
Come, let us Hebrew havah expresses both intention and a call to action.<\/p>\n
make bricks The preparation of building materials should follow, not precede, the decision to build. The inversion of the logical sequence reflects the important role of the brick in Mesopotamian architecture, repeatedly encountered in Akkadian texts. One version of their creation story describes primeval chaos as a time when \u201cno brick was laid, no brick-mold was formed.\u201d The Enuma Elish version that refers specifically to the founding of Babylon tells that \u201cfor one whole year they [the gods] molded bricks\u201d (6.60).1 This scene also appears on a cylinder seal that portrays the gods mixing clay, climbing ladders, carrying mortar, and passing bricks to those at the top of the temple. Akkadian building inscriptions, which hail the achievements of the great kings, repeatedly emphasize the making of bricks. Indeed, the molding of the first brick was regarded as an important rite and was accompanied by elaborate ceremonies.<\/p>\n
Brick \u2026 mortar This is an editorial aside expressing wonderment at construction techniques so different from those familiar to the Narrator. The phrase \u201cwith bitumen and burnt-brick\u201d (ina kupri u agurri) is a standard formula in Babylonian building inscriptions.<\/p>\n
4. a tower The reference is certainly to the ziggurat (Akk. ziqquratu), the lofty, massive, solid brick, multistaged temple tower that was the outstanding feature of most Mesopotamian cities and dominated their landscapes. The term is derived from the Akkadian verb zaq\u0101ru, meaning \u201cto build high.\u201d This type of architecture seems first to have developed in Babylonia in the third millennium B.C.E. in the dynasty of Akkad (ca. 2360\u20132180 B.C.E.). Its function, it is generally agreed, was to symbolize a mountain. The sacred mountain played an important role in most religions in ancient times. Rooted in the earth, with its head lost in the clouds, it was taken to be the meeting point of heaven and earth and, as such, the natural arena of divine activity. On its heights the gods were imagined to have their abode. Constituting the obvious channel of communication between the celestial and terrestrial spheres, the sacred mountain was looked upon as the center of the universe, the \u201cnavel of the earth.\u201d
\nMany of the ziggurat names reveal an association with the mountain motif. The ziggurat of Nippur was called \u201cThe House of the Mountain.\u201d At Asshur, there was \u201cThe House of the Mountain of the Universe.\u201d \u201cThe House of the Link between Heaven and Earth\u201d was situated at Larsa. The most famous ziggurat of all, the one at Babylon, is the focus of the present narrative. It was known as the e-temen-an-ki, \u201cThe House of the Foundation of Heaven and Earth.\u201d In the flat, alluvial plain of Lower Mesopotamia, the ziggurat constituted a man-made sacred mountain in miniature, the physical means by which man and god might enter into direct contact with one another.<\/p>\n
with its top in the sky This expression is actually a clich\u00e9 in Mesopotamian building inscriptions, particularly with reference to ziggurats. The Sumerian king, Gudea (ca. 2140 B.C.E.), says of the temple Eninnu that \u201cit lies in heaven.\u201d A text from Nippur addresses a tower \u201cwhose peak reaches the sky.\u201d Hammurabi (ca. 1728\u20131686 B.C.E.) gives himself the epithet \u201craiser of the top of Eanna,\u201d and it is related of him that he built a temple tower \u201cwhose top is sky high.\u201d Esarhaddon (680\u2013669 B.C.E.) says that he \u201craised to heaven the head\u201d of the temple of Asshur and that he \u201cmade high its top up to heaven.\u201d The phrase is most persistently used in respect of the temple of Marduk in Babylon, which was known as the esagila, meaning \u201cthe House of the Lifting Up of the Head.\u201d It is this phrase, \u201cwith its top in the sky,\u201d2 that led to the widespread but unlikely interpretation that the aim of the tower builders was to be able to storm heaven. Generally, the Bible regarded tall towers as symbols of human arrogance, as, for example, in Isaiah 2:12\u201315, 30:25, and Ezekiel 26:4, 9.<\/p>\n
to make a name for ourselves \u201cName\u201d here probably connotes \u201cmonument,\u201d as in Isaiah 56:5. This meaning developed from the fact that the names of most of the important kings of Mesopotamia were associated with great building projects designed to assure the monarch\u2019s eternal fame. The royal name and titles were inscribed on bricks and cylinder seals that were deposited in the foundations of the ziggurats. Thus, a temple inscription of Gudea of Lagash records that, \u201con account of the great name that he made for himself, he was received among the gods into their assembly.\u201d Nebuchadnezzar, who restored the ziggurat at Babylon, records in a commemorative inscription: \u201cThe fortifications of Esagila and Babylon I strengthened, and made an everlasting name for my reign.\u201d<\/p>\n
else we shall be scattered A prime motivation of the builders is said to have been the consolidation of group unity, and that certainly would have been a major result of their labors. Construction carried out on such a colossal scale and involving large masses of people necessitated a centralized authority and a high degree of organization. The resultant monumental edifice would have been a great source of civic pride and would have fostered a spirit of unity. However, in the present context, the stated purpose of the builders, \u201cthat we be not scattered all over the world,\u201d constitutes a direct challenge to the intent of God as expressed in the blessing to postdiluvial humanity: \u201cFill the earth.\u201d Man did not perceive this to be a blessing and so devised means to thwart its fulfillment.<\/p>\n
GOD\u2019S COUNTERMEASURES (vv. 5\u20139)<\/p>\n
5. The LORD came down God does not react capriciously; he investigates man\u2019s doings. The identical anthropomorphism, or depicting of God in human terms, appears again in 18:21 in connection with the divine scrutiny of the situation at Sodom and Gomorrah. This figurative usage implies no limitation on God\u2019s omnipotence, for the divine \u201cdescent\u201d presupposes prior knowledge of human affairs from on high, and God\u2019s subsequent counteraction unqualifiedly exhibits His absolute sovereignty. Rather, there is subtle irony here. Man builds a tower \u201cwith its top in the sky,\u201d where God is popularly thought to dwell. Scripture emphasizes God\u2019s infinite transcendence and incomparable supereminence by having God \u201cgo down\u201d in order to scrutinize the scene.<\/p>\n
man A satirical note is now introduced by the use of Hebrew benei ha-\u02beadam, a phrase heavily charged with the consciousness of man\u2019s earthly origin, his mortality and frailty. In Mesopotamian tradition, the gods erected the temple at Babylon for the greater glory of Marduk, who actually gave the order for its construction. Furthermore, the myth has Babel and its temple being built in primeval times, at the very creation of the world. The biblical Narrator lays stress on the strictly human nature of the enterprise in both its initiative and execution; the emphasis on its postdiluvian origin tacitly nullifies Mesopotamian beliefs.<\/p>\n
had built Thus far. Verse 8 shows that the project remained uncompleted.<\/p>\n
6. Humankind has abused the benefactions of kinship and ready communication for unworthy, vainglorious ends in defiance of God\u2019s will that the entire earth be populated. Unless preventive measures are taken, there will be no limit to man\u2019s arrogant schemes.<\/p>\n
7. Let us, then Hebrew havah, the term employed by men to introduce their project, is now ironically echoed by God in pronouncing its doom. For the plural use of the verb, see Comment to 1:26.<\/p>\n
confound It can hardly be coincidental that navlah, a unique form of the Hebrew stem b-l-l, \u201cto confuse,\u201d is a disarrangement of levenah, \u201cbrick,\u201d the order of the first three consonants being reversed. The device underlines the teaching that a human enterprise that runs counter to the will of God is inherently perverse and doomed to self-defeat.<\/p>\n
8. Thus the LORD scattered them The pathetic futility of man\u2019s rebellious resolve, expressed in verse 4, is laid bare.<\/p>\n
they stopped building The present saga must have been inspired by the spectacle of Babylon and its ziggurat lying in ruins. Such was the case, for instance, after the Hittite raid on the city ca. 1600 B.C.E.<\/p>\n
the city An example of synecdoche, the mention of the part for the whole.3<\/p>\n
9. it was called Literally, \u201cone called its name,\u201d an ironic echo of verse 4. They aspired to \u201cmake a name\u201d for themselves, but succeeded only in attaching the name \u201cconfusion\u201d to their handiwork.<\/p>\n
Babel See Comment to 10:10. The word play babel-balal, approximating \u201cBabel-babble,\u201d in English, hides a subtle satirizing of Mesopotamian notions. Not the \u201cgate of god\u201d as the inhabitants of Babylon interpreted the name, not the navel of the earth, as they conceived their city to be, but a site of meaningless gibberish, the center from which human divisiveness radiated, and the cause of disastrous alienation from God.<\/p>\n
speech \u2026 scattered The episode appropriately concludes with a summary testifying to God\u2019s nullification of human efforts to resist His will. The transformation in the situation of humankind is symbolized by the reversal of the sequence of the two key terms of verse 1.<\/p>\n
From Shem to Abraham: Transition to the Patriarchs (vv. 10\u201332)<\/p>\n
In the foregoing episode the human race again became estranged from God. In the Table of Nations the genealogy of Shem received special attention, an intimation of future developments. These two elements now come together. The focus of the biblical narration decisively narrows to concentrate upon one particular line of descent within the family tree of Shem. This line issues in Abraham, who is the tenth generation from Shem, just as Noah was the tenth generation from Adam. From the scriptural point of view, the birth of Abraham constitutes a turning point in human history.
\nThe present genealogy is closely related to that of chapter 5, which recounts the generations from Adam to Noah. Both genealogies give the age of the father at the birth of his first-born son, the number of years the father lived thereafter, and a formulaic statement that he begat sons and daughters. Also, both lists close with a notable who had three sons. Unlike chapter 5, this chapter omits the summary total of the respective life spans as well as the note about each one\u2019s death. The pervasive, if unarticulated, air of pessimism about the seemingly incorrigible nature of man that rises from the preceding narratives is now relieved by the emphasis on life, on a new birth, on the orderly sequence of the generations, on the possibility of a fresh start for humanity. At the same time, there is a considerable diminution in the human life span as compared with the antediluvians, and procreation now begins at a much younger age than before. For the sake of completeness, the list of the initial five generations from Shem to Peleg is repeated from 10:21\u201325. Thereafter, a further drastic reduction in the duration of life occurs.
\nThe advent of Terah is a climactic event that is set off by the \u02beelleh toledot formula, which also serves to establish the transition from universal to patriarchal history. The text mentions Terah\u2019s three sons because the posterity of each is to be connected with the fortunes of Abraham and his offspring. One intriguing aspect of the genealogy is that some of its names are those of places in the northwestern part of Upper Mesopotamia, the region with which the patriarchs of Israel continued to maintain associations long after Abraham\u2019s migration to Canaan.<\/p>\n
10. This is the line See Comment to 2:4.<\/p>\n
100 This figure is approximate since Shem would now have been 102 according to the data of 5:32 and 7:6.<\/p>\n
Arpachshad Inexplicably, in 10:22 he is the third son of Shem, whereas here he seems to be the first-born.<\/p>\n
18. Reu Probably a shortened form of Reuel, meaning \u201cfriend of God,\u201d a name known from the nineteenth-century B.C.E. archives of Mari, and one held by several biblical figures.<\/p>\n
20. Serug The well-known city of Sarugi, not far north of Haran in the Balikh Valley, is the site of the modern village of Suruc on one of the important Near Eastern trade routes.<\/p>\n
22. Nabor Cuneiform documents record both the personal name Na\u1e2barum and a city Na\u1e2bur. The latter is frequently mentioned and was an important site in the upper Balikh Valley, which had a West Semitic population.<\/p>\n
24. Terah Assyrian sources mention a place-name Til (\u0161a) Tura\u1e2bi situated on the Balikh River not far from Haran and Nahor. The name may well be connected with yarea\u1e25, \u201cmoon.\u201d Several members of Terah\u2019s family, as well as some of the sites connected with him, bear names that are associated with moon worship. Joshua 24:2 explicitly designates Terah as having been an idolater.<\/p>\n
26. 70 years Terah begets posterity at an age at least twice that of all his forebears in the line of Shem. This fact insinuates into the text the motif of prolonged childlessness, a condition that is to be characteristic of his descendants, the patriarchs of Israel.<\/p>\n
Abram This form of the name is consistently used until it is expanded to \u201cAbraham\u201d in 17:5, after which it appears again only in Nehemiah 9:7 and 1 Chronicles 1:26 as required by their respective contexts. No certain, precise parallel to the name Abram has been found so far in Near Eastern sources. It could mean \u201cexalted father\u201d or \u201cthe father is exalted,\u201d which would then make it a variant of Abiram, Abarama, found in Akkadian texts of the nineteenth and eighteenth centuries B.C.E.4<\/p>\n
Nahor He is apparently named after his grandfather.<\/p>\n
Haran This name seems to be derived from the element har, \u201ca mountain,\u201d used in the sense of \u201cmountain-god\u201d in some West Semitic personal names found in Egypt, such as shem-har, ya\u02beakob-har, anat-har.<\/p>\n
THE FAMILY OF TERAH (vv. 27\u201332)<\/p>\n
This section has its own prefatory formula, which gives recognition to the culmination of a historic process of continuous divine selection that began with Adam\u2019s sons. An epochal juncture in the history of humankind has been reached. The formula is an introduction to the biography of Abraham. All the names now mentioned\u2014with one enigmatic exception, Iscah\u2014play a role in the patriarchal narratives.<\/p>\n
27. Lot The origin of this name is unknown.<\/p>\n
28. Haran died This fact is essential for understanding 12:4\u20135.<\/p>\n
Ur of the Chaldeans These were a Semitic people related to, but distinct from, the Arameans. The Hebrew form kasdim is original. The English is based on the Greek rendering, which, in turn, reflects a variant form, kaldu, that arose in the dialects of the Akkadian language as the -sd sound came to be pronounced -ld. The name of the city, as given here and repeated in 15:7 and Nehemiah 9:7, poses a problem. The great city-state of Ur in Lower Mesopotamia has been well excavated. Situated at modern Tell el-Miqayyar near the northern part of the ancient coastline of the Persian Gulf in southern Iraq, its history goes back to the fourth millennium B.C.E. In the course of the third millennium it was one of the dominant city-states in the area and a foremost center of culture, reaching its zenith under the kings of the third dynasty, about 2060\u20131950 B.C.E. However, the rich documentation records nothing about Chaldeans in southern Babylonia before about the beginning of the first millennium B.C.E., and this people did not become the ruling caste until the seventh-sixth centuries B.C.E. Therefore, if \u201cUr of the Chaldeans\u201d refers to this city, the characterization would seem to be an anachronism in our text. Some scholars have noted that the text may refer to one of the sites named Ur in Upper Mesopotamia. These were possibly founded by citizens of the famous city in the south and named after it. An Upper Mesopotamian Ur would have been much closer to Haran, which is central to the patriarchal narratives.5<\/p>\n
29. Sarai The name, changed to Sarah in 17:15, means \u201cprincess\u201d in Hebrew but \u201cqueen\u201d if based on Akkadian sharratu, a term used for the female consort of the moon-god Sin, the principal god of Ur.
\nThough the parentage of Nahor\u2019s wife is given, that of Sarai is not. This omission is so extraordinary that it must be intentional. The Narrator withholds information so as not to ruin the suspense in chapter 20 when Abraham, in order to extricate himself from an embarrassing predicament, reveals that Sarai is his half sister.<\/p>\n
Milcah The name, as vocalized, is a variant form of Malcah, \u201cqueen.\u201d Akkadian malkatu is a title of the goddess Ishtar, who was known as \u201cQueen of Heaven,\u201d daughter of the moon-god Sin.
\nNahor married his niece, the orphaned daughter of his departed brother Haran. The granddaughter of this marriage was Rebekah, who became the wife of Abraham\u2019s son Isaac, as told in 24:24, 27. This is another example of the narrative technique of introducing information into the text with an eye to later developments.<\/p>\n
Iscah The name may derive from the stem s-k-h, \u201cto see,\u201d and be a shortened form of a sentence name, \u201cMay God see (that is, with favor) the child.\u201d There is no information about her. She may have been the central figure of some traditions that are now lost. Ancient lore makes her identical with Sarai,6 but this would contradict the data of 20:12 since she would then be Abraham\u2019s niece, not his half sister.<\/p>\n
30. Sarai is said to be barren, but Milcah is not so described even though she too has no children. Undoubtedly, this note is preparatory to chapter 12. It points up the striking contrast between the impending divine promises to Abraham of abundant posterity and the harsh reality that tries his faith. A deliberate act of divine Providence terminates the prolonged state of childlessness. The resulting offspring is predestined to be the instrument of God\u2019s purposes. This theme recurs in connection with the matriarchs Rebekah and Rachel and, later, with the mothers of Samson and Samuel.<\/p>\n
barren Hebrew \u02bfakarah simply means \u201cchildless\u201d but not necessarily infertile.<\/p>\n
31. Haran is situated some 550 miles (885 km.) northwest of Ur, about 10 miles (16 km.) north of the present-day Syrian-Turkish border on the left bank of the Balikh River. The name means \u201croute, journey, caravan,\u201d and it doubtless derives from the city\u2019s location as an important station along the main international trade routes from Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean Sea. From the Mari archives it is clear that in the eighteenth century B.C.E. Haran was a center of seminomadic Amorite tribes. Like Ur, it was also a center of the moon-god cult. The journey from the southern city of Ur to Canaan would not normally take one as far north as Haran. Before the effective domestication of the camel, a journey across the Syrian desert would be ruled out, and the most likely route would take the traveler up the Euphrates to Mari and then on to Aleppo, where the road turned south to Damascus and led on to Hazor in Canaan. The reason for Terah\u2019s detour to Haran is not given, but it may have had to do with Haran as a focus of the international donkey caravan trade and with the fact that both it and Ur were centers of the moon-god cult. Of course, the problem disappears if a northern Ur is intended. We are not told why the family migrated from Ur in the first place. If Ur was the southern city, the migration could have been prompted by the gradual decline of the city and the increasingly harsh economic conditions, along with overpopulation, known to have been its lot in the course of the Middle Bronze Age (ca. 2100\u20131600 B.C.E.).<\/p>\n
they set out Nahor is not mentioned as being included in the company, yet a series of texts shows him to be closely associated with Haran.7 In fact, the place is called \u201cthe city of Nahor\u201d in 24:10. Perhaps, for some reason, he migrated at a later time.<\/p>\n
32. Terah died A calculation based on the data of verse 26 and 12:4 shows him to have been 145 years of age when Abraham left Haran for Canaan; thus Terah lived on in Haran for another sixty years after Abraham\u2019s departure.8<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 12*<\/p>\n
God\u2019s Election of Abraham (12:1\u201313:18)<\/p>\n
Lekh Lekha<\/p>\n
The story of Abraham opens without an identifying formula or preliminary observation of the type that introduces the Noah narrative. The patriarch bursts upon the scene of history with astounding suddenness. The first seventy-five years of his life are passed over in total silence. God\u2019s call comes in an instant, without forewarning or preparation. It is brief and compelling in its demands, and Abram\u2019s immediate response marks the true beginning of his life. The momentous events unfold with startling rapidity, and any introductory embellishment could only have a diminishing effect.<\/p>\n
THE DIVINE CALL AND THE PROMISES (vv. 1\u20133)<\/p>\n
1. the LORD said to Abram The divine silence that persisted for ten generations is shattered. The voice that first set Creation in motion and that, when last heard by man, brought a message of hope and blessing to the human race (9:8\u201317) resounds once more. This time it is at Haran, where, for some unexplained reason, the intended migration of Terah and family from Ur to Canaan had come to a halt.<\/p>\n
Go forth Hebrew lekh lekha, The preposition l gives the verb h-l-k, \u201cto walk, go,\u201d the sense of \u201cseparating, taking leave of.\u201d1<\/p>\n
your native land Rather, \u201cthe land of your kinsmen.\u201d2 The reference is not to Ur, as in 11:28, but to Haran, precisely as in 24:4.
\nThe enormity of God\u2019s demand and the agonizing nature of the decision to be made are effectively conveyed through the cluster of terms arranged in ascending order according to the severity of the sacrifice involved: country, extended family, nuclear family.<\/p>\n
your father\u2019s house Terah lived on another sixty years after Abram departed from Haran, as is clear from 11:26, 32 and 12:4.<\/p>\n
to the land It is unclear whether Abram knew from the outset the identity of the promised land. It is possible that he continued the westward migration that his father had interrupted (11:31) and arrived in Canaan unaware that he had reached his goal until so informed by God (12:7). Alternatively, God may have revealed the destination as soon as Abram accepted the call. One way or the other, God\u2019s word transformed the trek into a wholly new venture, now under divine guidance and purpose, completely disengaged from the earlier undertaking. The original segment of the journey from Ur to Haran could henceforth be viewed from a different perspective and also be seen as part of God\u2019s scheme of history, so that it is possible to speak of God having brought Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldeans, as in Genesis 15:7 and Nehemiah 9:7, even though the call came in Haran.<\/p>\n
2. God\u2019s call is accompanied by a comprehensive set of promises that contain seven elements. These are:<\/p>\n
(i) I will make of you a great nation That is, great in number and significance.3 The nature of the promise\u2014that it could not be realized in the lifetime of the recipient because of Sarai\u2019s childlessness and the couple\u2019s advanced age\u2014should all have combined to strain credulity to the breaking point. The magnitude of Abram\u2019s act of faith in accepting the divine word is thus implicit in the narrative. Over a thousand years later, it is invoked in a prophetic oration as a challenge to an Israel then plunged into despair and disbelief: \u201cLook back to Abraham your father \/ And to Sarah who brought you forth. \/ For he was only one when I called him, \/ But I blessed him and made him many\u201d (Isa. 51:2).<\/p>\n
(ii) I will bless you You will enjoy material prosperity.4<\/p>\n
(iii) I will make your name great In the ancient Near East, the name was not merely a convenient designation but an expression of the very essence of being. Hence, this promise means not only that Abraham will acquire fame but also that he will be highly esteemed as a man of superior character.<\/p>\n
(iv) you shall be a blessing As a consequence, you will serve as the standard by which a blessing is invoked.5<\/p>\n
3. (v) I will bless those who bless you Those6 who wish you well and who demonstrate solidarity with you will enjoy God\u2019s blessing of well-being.<\/p>\n
(vi) And curse him that curses you He who mistreats you will inevitably incur misfortune. The English translation obscures the distinction between the two different Hebrew verbs employed here. The verb k-l-l, referring to the offender\u2019s action, means \u201cto disparage, abuse, cause harm\u201d; \u02be-r-r, referring to God\u2019s response, has the much stronger connotation of \u201cto place under a ban, to deprive of the benefits of divine providence,\u201d and it is the only term employed in curse formulas. Its power can be gauged by its use in the great covenant-affirming ceremony enjoined in Deuteronomy 27. In other words, because the patriarch will be an unprotected stranger in an alien land, he will have particular need of God\u2019s providential care, and whoever maltreats him will be punished with exceptional severity.
\nIt should be noted that the Hebrew has a contrast in number between \u201cthose who bless\u201d and \u201che that curses.\u201d Radak and others explain this to mean that Abram\u2019s detractors will be few.<\/p>\n
(vii) And all the families of the earth \/ Shall bless themselves by you This rendering understands Hebrew ve-nivrekhu as reflexive. People will take your own good fortune as the desired measure when invoking a blessing on themselves. A more likely translation7 of the verb is as a passive: \u201cshall be blessed through\u2014because of\u2014you.\u201d8 God\u2019s promises to Abram would then proceed in three stages from the particular to the universal: a blessing on Abram personally, a blessing (or curse) on those with whom he interacts, a blessing on the entire human race.
\nThese promises to Abram, given in Haran, make no mention of a gift of land, perhaps so as not to detract from the pure, disinterested act of faith involved in heeding the simple command, \u201cGo forth!\u201d<\/p>\n
ABRAM\u2019S RESPONSE (vv. 4\u20135)<\/p>\n
In silent, unwavering obedience to the divine will, \u201cas the LORD had commanded him,\u201d the patriarch picks himself up and goes forth, accepting his new destiny in perfect faith.<\/p>\n
4. Lot went with him He agreed to go. The mention of Lot prepares the reader for a subsequent episode (chap. 13).<\/p>\n
seventy-five years old Recording the age of the patriarch at crucial moments of his life is a characteristic feature of the narrative.9<\/p>\n
5. his brother\u2019s son Lot The kinship description explains his presence in Abram\u2019s entourage. The oldest uncle assumed the guardianship of the child of his dead brother, which is clear in 14:12.<\/p>\n
wealth \u2026 persons These are mentioned in anticipation of the ensuing narrative (v. 16). Abram\u2019s affluence does not derive from Pharaoh\u2019s gift.<\/p>\n
they set out \u2026 they arrived The verse duplicates the phraseology and structure of 11:31. They make a fresh start, and this time they arrive in Canaan. Although the text does not report the precise details of the route from Haran to Shechem, all available possibilities would have taken them through or near some of the great urban centers of the day. Since Haran lay on the banks of the Balikh River, a tributary of the Euphrates, they most likely traveled southward along the Balikh Valley in order to reach the great east-west arterial road that led from Ur, Babylon, and Accad to Mari, where it branched into two. They then could either have taken the upper branch, leading west to Aleppo, and then veered south past Qatna and Damascus, or they could have continued southward to the oasis of Tadmor (Palmyra) on the lower branch and then turned southwestward along the road to Damascus. Either way, they could have continued on to Hazor, a major commercial and military center, strategically placed in Upper Galilee at the junction of ancient and important roads leading to some of the main cities of Canaan. The narrative is silent concerning the route and the incidents on the journey in order to avoid diverting attention from the primary theme, which is the entry into the land and the first theophany, or divine revelation, that the patriarch experiences.<\/p>\n
ABRAM IN THE LAND (vv. 6\u20139)<\/p>\n
Abram does not stop at Hazor but continues his wanderings until he arrives at Shechem, the true physical center of the country and one of the important cities in the north central mountain region (see Excursus 26). From here he could follow the water-parting route that led through the hill country to Shiloh, Bethel, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Hebron, and Beer-sheba.
\nAbram and the other patriarchs, in their pastoral migrations, generally avoided the well-inhabited areas in the northern part of Canaan and the coastal plain. They likewise kept away from the Plain of Jezreel and the Jordan Valley. By sticking to the central mountain range and the Negeb, they could enjoy a region that was suited to pastoral economy but was sparsely populated. They could wander with their herds without encroaching on the rights of others. At the same time, they were generally on the fringes of urban centers where they could obtain supplies, if need be, and also dispose of their own products.<\/p>\n
6. the site of Shechem Hebrew mekom Shechem. This combination of makom with the name of a city is unique.10 It is very likely that the term here has the special meaning of \u201csacred site,\u201d like the Arabic maq\u0101m. Sacred sites were always desirable stopping places for travelers and pastoral nomads because of their proximity to springs and wells. Nothing in the narrative suggests that Shechem had any prior sanctity for Abram. Only after receiving a divine revelation does he build an altar there; he does not make use of an existing one.<\/p>\n
the terebinth of Moreh Hebrew \u02beelon moreh, undoubtedly some mighty tree with sacred associations. Moreh must mean \u201cteacher, oracle giver.\u201d This tree (or a cluster of such trees) was so conspicuous and so famous that it served as a landmark to identify other sites in the area. The phenomenon of a sacred tree, particularly one associated with a sacred site, is well known in a variety of cultures. A distinguished tree, especially one of great antiquity, might be looked upon as the \u201ctree of life\u201d or as being \u201ccosmic,\u201d its stump symbolizing the \u201cnavel of the earth\u201d and its top representing heaven. In this sense, it is a bridge between the human and the divine spheres, and it becomes an arena of divine-human encounter, an ideal medium of oracles and revelation. Fertility cults flourished in connection with such trees, and this form of paganism proved attractive to many Israelites.11 For this reason, the official religion of Israel forbade the planting of trees within the precincts of the altar, as stated in Deuteronomy 16:21.
\nIt is to be noted that Shechem seems to have been particularly rich in traditions about trees of special significance. Jacob hid idolatrous appurtenances \u201cunder the terebinth (\u02beelah) that was near Shechem\u201d (Gen. 35:4); Joshua \u201ctook a great stone and set it up at the foot of the oak (\u02beallah) in the sacred precinct of the LORD\u201d in Shechem (Josh. 24:26); Abimelech was proclaimed king of that city \u201cat the terebinth (\u02beelon) of the pillar\u201d (Judg. 9:6); and there was also \u201cthe terebinth of the soothsayers\u201d in the vicinity (Judg. 9:37). All these may refer to one and the same tree, although it is not certain that \u02beelon is identical with the other similarly named trees (cf. Hos. 4:12)\u2014the \u02beelah, which is the Pistacia terebinthus and the \u02beallon, which is the quercus. These latter two are used generically, whereas \u02beelon always appears in a specific usage in combination with another term.<\/p>\n
The Canaanites were then in the land \u201cCanaanite\u201d here, as often, is used generically for all the pre-Israelite inhabitants. God promised the land to Abram (v. 7), even though it was then occupied by others.
\nThe particle \u201cthen\u201d has long vexed commentators because of the implication that at the time of the Narrator the Canaanites no longer existed, a situation that did not become a reality until long after Joshua\u2019s conquest. Rashi takes the phrase to mean that the Canaanites were then in the process of conquering the land from its earlier inhabitants, but this is not historically feasible. Ibn Ezra cryptically remarks: \u201cPossibly the Canaanite was at that time taking the land from others, but if this not be the case, then I have a secret explanation, and the man of discretion will keep silent\u201d (yesh li sod ve-ha-maskil yiddom). The supercommentary on this passage by Joseph b. Eliezer Bonfils (Tsafenat Pa\u02bfnea\u1e25, second half of the fourteenth century C.E.) explains Ibn Ezra\u2019s comment as follows: \u201cMoses could not possibly have employed the word \u2018then\u2019 (\u02beaz), for reason demands that the word would have been written at a time when the Canaanite was no longer in the land, and we know that the Canaanite departed only after the death of Moses when Joshua conquered it. Consequently, it would appear that Moses did not write this word here (lefi zeh nir\u02beeh shelo\u02be katav mosheh z\u02beot ha-millah bekha\u02ben), but only Joshua or one of the other prophets wrote it.\u2026 Now since we have to believe in the words of tradition and in the words of prophecy, what difference does it make whether Moses or some other prophet wrote it since the words of all of them are truth and were received by prophecy?\u201d As R. Hezekiah ben Manoah (known as \u201c\u1e24izkuni,\u201d 13th cent. C.E.) noted, the phrase \u201cis written from the perspective of the future\u201d (\u02bfal shem he-\u02bfatid nikhtav).<\/p>\n
7. The LORD appeared This is the first theophany, or divine revelation, introduced by Hebrew va-yera\u02be, as distinct from divine speech to an individual introduced by va-yo\u02bemer (cf. v. 1). This term, which is characteristic of the Genesis patriarchal narratives, is used three times with Abraham (also 17:1; 18:1), twice with Isaac (26:2, 24), and once with Jacob (35:9). The stem r-\u02be-h, \u201cto see,\u201d belongs to the formal vocabulary of prophecy. An early name for a prophet in Israel was ro\u02beeh, \u201cseer\u201d (1 Sam. 9:9), and in the Nifal form the verb is a technical term for divine self-disclosure. It is quite clear, however, that such a usage need not imply any visual accompaniment to the oral communication. Thus, the experience of the boy Samuel in the temple at Shiloh is purely auditory (1 Sam. 3:11\u201314), yet it is described as a vision (Heb. mar\u02beeh, 1 Sam. 3:15). Likewise, the superscriptions to several prophetical books employ the synonymous verb \u1e25azah, \u201cto see, behold,\u201d although what follows is speech alone (cf. Isa. 1:2; Amos 1:1f.; Mic. 1:1f.).<\/p>\n
I will assign this land \u2026 This refers back to verse 1, \u201cthe land that I will show you.\u201d Its identity is now established. More than this, the original promises of nationhood and blessings are now supplemented by the grant of national territory through which those promises may be consummated. This divine declaration, oft repeated, is one of the seminal texts of the Torah. Henceforth, the history and destiny of the Jewish people are inextricably bound up with the promised land.<\/p>\n
He built an altar there In gratitude for the promise of land. Among the patriarchs, acts of worship are always individual, never public. The patriarchs do not take part in any existing cult, and they always build new altars or reuse the one they themselves have previously erected. Significantly, we have no record of an act of worship by them outside the boundaries of the Land of Israel, and Abram refrains from putting up an altar inside the land before it has been divinely identified as the land of promise. It is strange that there is no mention made of a sacrifice being offered.<\/p>\n
8. Legal ownership of the land is not the same thing as actual possession. The nation does not exist, and the patriarchs remain wanderers, ever on the move. Abram journeys on through the central hill country in a southerly direction. His next station is at a point between Bethel and Ai, about 21 miles (33.7 km.) south of Shechem.<\/p>\n
Ai Hebrew ha-\u02bfai. The definite article shows that the place derives its name from a common noun meaning \u201cthe ruin.\u201d The site is generally identified with a conspicuous mound known as et-Tell, about 1 mile (1.6 km.) southeast of Bethel. Excavations have shown that it had been a flourishing town in the Early Bronze Age during the third millennium B.C.E. The place figures prominently in the conquests of Joshua (Josh. 7:2\u20138:28), who is said to have \u201cburned down Ai, and turned it into a mound of ruins for all time\u201d (8:28).<\/p>\n
he built there an altar \u2026 invoked the LORD by name Scripture offers no explanation for the attraction of the particular spot or for the reason for building the altar, but it is important enough for Abram to return there on his way back from Egypt (Gen. 13:2\u20134). Bethel is identified with modern Beitin, which lies about 10.5 miles (17 km.) north of Jerusalem at the junction of the north-south highway with an east-west road. It was the site of an important Canaanite sanctuary to the god El, head of the pantheon, but, as in the case of Shechem, Abram ignores the prior pagan sanctity of the place and builds an altar to his own God YHVH, thus endowing the site with a new religious history. For the history of Bethel, see Excursus 22.<\/p>\n
9. toward the Negeb That is, to southern and southeastern Judah around Beer-sheba, below the central hill country and the Shephelah. The name derives from a root meaning \u201cdry, parched,\u201d indicative of the precarious rainfall in the area and the arid terrain. By now, Abram has covered the entire length of the country from north to south.<\/p>\n
ABRAM IN EGYPT (vv. 10\u201321)<\/p>\n
No sooner does Abram receive the divine blessings than the contrasting reality of the present asserts itself. The promises of nationhood and territory seem to be in danger of miscarrying. Famine drives him from the land, and physical peril threatens him and his wife. But God\u2019s purposes cannot be frustrated by human powers. The hand of Providence is ever ready to deliver those whom He has chosen. The theme of peril and reaffirmation of promises is a recurring one throughout the Book of Genesis.<\/p>\n
10. There was a famine in the land Although famine might sometimes result from plagues of insects, as indicated in Deuteronomy 28:38 and Joel 1\u20132, or from enemy action, as described in 2 Kings 6:25 and 25:3, its primary cause in Canaan would have been prolonged failure of the seasonal rains. The effects of famine there would have been aggravated by the normal inability to produce surpluses and the lack of long-term storage facilities, as well as by the unequal distribution of existing stocks both for social reasons and because of limited means of transportation in a country of such varied topography. Egypt, on the other hand, relied for its rich fertility on the more dependable and predictable rise of the Nile (see Comment to 41:53).
\nIn reality, true famine due to natural causes, as distinct from the threat of famine, is not so common in the Bible.12 The fact, therefore, that each of the patriarchs experiences famine in the land (26:1, 42:1, 43:1) has special significance. In the Book of Genesis, the promised land is not \u201cflowing with milk and honey,\u201d and the divine promises are not intended to bring quiet and repose to their recipients. The realities of nature and of the human landscape are harsh. Living in the land is difficult, sometimes precarious. All this continually impinged upon the religious consciousness of Israel. It generated a heightened sense of dependence on God\u2019s protection and a more intense awareness of His mysterious workings.<\/p>\n
Abram went down The standard phrase for travel from hilly Canaan to low-lying Egypt, just as one \u201cgoes up\u201d in the reverse direction.13<\/p>\n
Egypt The first mention of Egypt as a factor in Israelite history. The narrative prefigures the ambiguity of future relationships\u2014on the one hand as a place of shelter and succor in time of distress, on the other hand as a place of mortal danger. Interestingly, there is no hatred of Egypt in the Bible, despite the slavery and the Exodus. To the contrary, Israel is enjoined: \u201cYou shall not abhor an Egyptian, for you were a stranger in his land\u201d (Deut. 23:8). Notwithstanding repeated prophetic denunciations of Egypt for its duplicity and fickleness in its international relations, Isaiah can envisage a future partnership of Israel and Egypt, and he has God saying: \u201cBlessed be My people Egypt\u201d (Isa. 19:25).<\/p>\n
to sojourn there An excellent parallel to the present story is provided by a report of an Egyptian frontier official from the age of Ramses II. Sent to his superior, the \u201cScribe of the Treasury,\u201d it concerns Edomite shepherds to whom permission was given to cross into Egypt for seasonal pasturing of their flocks in the Delta. It reads: \u201cWe have finished letting the Bedouin tribes of Edom pass the fortress \u2026 to keep them alive and to keep their cattle alive\u201d (ANET, p. 259). The Hebrew stem g-w-r, \u201cto sojourn,\u201d indicates temporary residence. One of the key words in Genesis, it appears in one form or another fifteen times in relation to the wanderings and status of the patriarchs and their descendants, both in the promised land and in Egypt. Everywhere in the Near East the resident alien (Heb. ger) was without legal rights and protection and was wholly dependent upon the good will of the local community. In biblical texts the ger is usually classified along with the deprived and underprivileged of society, such as the orphan and the widow, whom it is forbidden to oppress and to whose needs one must be particularly sensitive.14<\/p>\n
for the famine was severe Only force majeur would have led Abram to leave the land.<\/p>\n
THE KIDNAPPING OF SARAI (vv. 11\u201320)<\/p>\n
As Abram approaches the Egyptian border, he fears that Sarai\u2019s great beauty might tempt some malevolent person to murder him and take her. In order to save his life, he asks his wife to pass herself off as his sister. Sure enough, his fears prove to be well founded. Sarai is spotted by Pharaoh\u2019s officials, who carry her off to the royal palace. Only divine intervention protects her honor, and she returns to her husband unviolated.
\nThe text repeats this incident twice more: in 20:1\u201318 in relation to Abimelech king of Gerar and in 26:1, 6\u201311 in connection with Isaac and Rebekah at the same place and with a king of the same name.15 Modern critical scholarship assumes that the triplet resulted from varying treatments of a single original incident by different sources. It should be noted, however, that the biblical Narrator makes clear that Abram anticipated danger of the sort described in this chapter as a recurring factor in the course of his wanderings from the day he left Haran: \u201cSo when God made me wander from my father\u2019s house, I said to her, \u2018Let this be the kindness that you shall do me: whatever place we come to, say there of me: He is my brother\u2019\u00a0\u201d (Gen. 20:13). According to the literary concepts and the norms of the ancient world, reiteration is a desirable and characteristic feature of the epic tradition. To the biblical Narrator, repetition of the experience serves to emphasize and reinforce his didactic purposes.
\nThere can be no doubt that very ancient traditions lie behind the present narratives. In the first place, no late writer could have invented the idea that Abraham had married his half sister (Gen. 20:12). Such a note could not have originated as a late apologetic in mitigation of Abraham\u2019s misrepresentation about his relationship to Sarai. To assume otherwise is to believe that, in the consciousness of the biblical Narrator, incest was less offensive than a lie told in self-defense! Another point is that both Canaanite and Greek epics provide parallels to the motif of the abduction of the hero\u2019s beautiful wife. From Ugarit comes the story of King Keret who lost his lovely spouse Hurrai (or Hurriya), through whom he was supposed to be destined to carry on his line, and had to mount a military campaign to recover her. From the Greek sphere, there is of course the legend of Helen of Troy, who was twice kidnapped, once in her youth by Theseus and again after she married Menelaus. Her abduction to Troy by Paris was the cause of the Trojan War. It is reasonable to assume that similar sagas circulated about the matriarchs of Israel. These were collected and incorporated into the patriarchal narratives, but with an entirely different perspective and for purposes totally at variance with their Canaanite-Greek analogues.
\nAs to the purposes that motivated the biblical Narrator, it may be presumed that the uncommon beauty of the progenitrix of the people of Israel was a matter of national pride, as were also the comings and goings of the patriarchs at the courts of kings. Another factor may have been the sensuality and immorality of the pagan nations. Finally, and of major concern, is the emphasis on God\u2019s direct, protective intervention\u2014just at the moment when all human resources have failed and it appears that the divine promises are to be aborted. The matriarch is recovered by the action of God, not as a result of warfare waged by the outraged husband.<\/p>\n
11. a beautiful woman Sarai is sixty-five at the time, ten years younger than her husband. Her surpassing beauty is a theme that fascinated Jews of antiquity and has received attention in many sources.16<\/p>\n
12. and let you live Though in shame and dishonor.<\/p>\n
13. Please say This is not an order but a respectful plea.<\/p>\n
you are my sister The biblical heroes are not portrayed as demigods or perfect human beings. They are mortals of flesh and blood, subject to the same temptations and possessed of the same frailties as are all other human beings. Abram, the man of implicit faith in God\u2019s word, is fearful of the evil of which people are capable. In order to save his own life, he appears to place his wife\u2019s honor in jeopardy through misrepresentation of their relationship. Sarai\u2019s collusion may be looked upon as an act of self-sacrifice on behalf of her husband\u2014but how is Abram\u2019s conduct to be judged? Ramban comments as follows: \u201cKnow that our father Abraham inadvertently committed a great sin by placing his virtuous wife in a compromising situation because of his fear of being killed. He should have trusted in God to save him, his wife and all he had, for God has the power to help and to save.\u2026\u201d
\nAs opposed to this critical view, there is the analysis of Radak that Abram is confronted with a moral dilemma, forced to make a choice between two evils. If he discloses the truth he will be killed, and his wife, beautiful and unprotected in an alien society of low morality, will assuredly be condemned to a life of shame and abuse. If, however, he resorts to subterfuge, she may be violated by some Egyptian, but at least husband and wife would both survive. It would have been improper, then, to have relied on a miracle as an excuse for inaction.
\nWhatever may be the shortcomings of Radak\u2019s interpretation, the moral problem that faced the patriarch was very real. His decision involved a conflict between human life and human dignity within a hierarchy of values. The condescending view of some modern commentators that it is unfair to judge Abram\u2019s behavior by the (supposedly) superior moral standards of today is based on a confusion of chivalry with morality.<\/p>\n
sister In using this term, Abram actually resorts to equivocation rather than to outright falsehood because in Hebrew parlance \u201csister\u201d is ambiguous. Apart from its primary denotation of sibling\u2014which, in fact, Sarai was to him (Gen. 20:12)\u2014it is also an expression of love.17 In Egyptian, too, \u201csister\u201d was used of both sweetheart and wife. But there may well be much more to it than this. In the ancient Near East there was a well-known sociolegal institution of \u201cfratriarchy\u201d that existed over a long period of time. Where there is no father, the brother assumes legal guardianship of his sister, particularly with respect to obligations and responsibilities in arranging marriage on her behalf. Therefore, whoever wished to take Sarai to wife would have to negotiate with her \u201cbrother.\u201d In this way, Abram could gain time to plan escape. Of course, this went awry when the Egyptian turned out to be Pharaoh himself.<\/p>\n
go well with me \u2026 remain alive An example of hendiadys, for the two clauses express a single thought, not two separate ideas. This is proven by the contextually unambiguous parallel in Jeremiah 38:20: \u201cthat it may go well with you and your life be spared.\u201d<\/p>\n
14. the Egyptians saw \u2026 Clearly, Sarai did not generally veil her face (see Comments to 24:65 and 38:14f.).<\/p>\n
15. This incident is illuminated by the Egyptian \u201cTale of Two Brothers\u201d (see Excursus 29), in which Bata\u2019s beautiful second wife miraculously comes to the attention of Pharaoh, who has her hunted down and brought to his palace. There he makes love to her, even though he knows she is married.<\/p>\n
Pharaoh The first biblical appearance of this title. His name is not given, nor is that of any other pharaoh, in Genesis or Exodus. The omissions complicate the problem of fixing the chronology of the patriarchal period. The title itself derives from the Egyptian per-o, \u201cthe great house,\u201d already a designation of the royal palace as early as ca. 2500 B.C.E. In New Kingdom times (from the sixteenth century B.C.E. on), it came to be used, by metonymy, for the king, in the same way as \u201cThe White House\u201d can designate the American president or \u201cThe Crown,\u201d the British monarch.<\/p>\n
16. it went well with Abram A double entendre. The phrase cannot be separated from its use in verse 13, while it derives its definition from the following clause. Abram was not killed; in fact, he acquired much wealth, the source of which is not explained. Perhaps Abram was compensated by Pharaoh for the indignity and breach of etiquette on the part of his courtiers in resorting to force rather than negotiation, as custom demanded (cf. 20:14, 16). Mention of Abram\u2019s wealth and possessions also provides the background for the next incident in his life.<\/p>\n
sheep Hebrew tso\u02ben includes goats.18 The two species usually were herded together.<\/p>\n
oxen Hebrew bakar is a generic term for domesticated bovines, and it usually appears as a collective.<\/p>\n
asses Hebrew \u1e25amor19 is the domesticated descendant of the Equus asinus. Here it indicates only the male variety. The ass played a vital role in the Israelite economy as a riding and draft animal, and it was also used for agriculture (cf. Deut. 22:10). Its importance may be gauged from the fact that it is the only unclean animal whose firstling requires redemption.<\/p>\n
she-asses, and camels The riding animals are placed last. The separation of female from male asses reflects the experience of ass-herders. The male has a very powerful sex drive that asserts itself when he scents the presence of a female of the species, even from afar. He then becomes almost uncontrollable. For this reason, the female affords superior convenience and greater ease of handling as a riding animal.20 Possession of many she-asses was a sign of much wealth, as may be seen, for example, in Job 1:3 and 42:12.<\/p>\n
camels The presence of the camel in this and other lists raises a complex problem. The camel appears elsewhere in the patriarchal narratives, but it is not the regular mode of transportation. Its use seems to be restricted to women.21 Abraham sets out for Mount Moriah on an ass; Simeon and Levi find asses, but not camels, among the loot of Shechem; Joseph\u2019s brothers mount asses to go down to Egypt to buy food; Joseph does not send camels to transport his father from Canaan, and there is no reference to camels among the animals sold to Joseph by the hard-pressed Egyptians in return for food. The camel does not figure in Egyptian texts and art until the Persian period. It is conspicuously absent from the published Mari texts from Mesopotamia, which are replete with information about pastoral nomadic groups and their way of life. Thousands of commercial and administrative texts from the Old Babylonian Period (ca. 1950\u20131530 B.C.E.) maintain complete silence on the existence of this animal. All available evidence points to the conclusion that the effective domestication of the camel as a widely used beast of burden did not take place before the twelfth century B.C.E., which is a long time after the patriarchal period.
\nIt cannot be denied, however, that mention of the camel in the Abrahamic and Jacob narrative cycles is integral to the stories, at least in chapters 24 and 31, and cannot be the work of a late glossator. On the other hand, to regard these narratives as anachronistically late productions from a time when the camel was already widely known is to leave unexplained why that beast, which figures so infrequently in biblical historiography, should have been put into the patriarchal stories, while the horse, which figures far more frequently, is totally absent.
\nA solution to the problem may perhaps be sought along other lines. Certain bilingual Sumerian-Akkadian lexical texts from Mesopotamia equate a domesticated animal called \u201ca donkey-of-the-sea-land\u201d with a dromedary, thus proving a knowledge of the latter in southern Mesopotamia in Old Babylonian times (ca. 2000\u20131700 B.C.E.). Moreover, the scribes knew to differentiate between the dromedary and the Bactrian camel, and a Sumerian text from that period mentions the drinking of camel\u2019s milk. The original habitat of the camel seems to have been Arabia. It is likely that the domesticated camel at first spread very slowly and long remained a rarity. A wealthy man might acquire a few as a prestige symbol for ornamental rather than utilitarian purposes. This would explain their presence in Abraham\u2019s entourage, their nonuse as beasts of burden, and their special mention in situations where wealth and honor need to be displayed, as, for instance, in Genesis 24.<\/p>\n
17. afflicted \u2026 mighty plagues Their nature is not explained, but they must have been of the kind that would somehow suggest a connection with Pharaoh\u2019s passion for Sarai, as Ramban suggests. Temporary sexual impotence induced by some severe inflammation or acute infection of the genital area suggests itself (cf. Gen. 20:17f.). Incidentally, there seems to be a word play behind the Hebrew expression, for the stem n-g-\u02bf can mean \u201cto afflict, plague,\u201d as well as \u201cto come into physical contact with, to harass sexually\u201d22 (cf. Gen. 20:6; 26:11; Prov. 6:29; Ruth 2:9).<\/p>\n
18\u201319 His suspicions aroused by the affliction, Pharaoh must have interrogated Sarai, who admitted to her true status. In his scolding of Abram there is a tone of righteous indignation that arouses the sympathy of the reader. Abram does not justify his conduct. His silence may have been dictated by embarrassment; yet it is also possible that the king\u2019s reputation was such as to allow for misgivings that his display of moral rectitude was more the product of his current torments than of deep-rooted conviction.<\/p>\n
20. The text is vague, perhaps deliberately so, as to whether Pharaoh provided guards to accompany the patriarchal clan across the border for its protection and as a sign of honor, as Ibn Ezra suggests, or in order to enforce its expulsion from his territory, as Saadiah maintains.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 13<\/p>\n
RETURN TO THE LAND (vv. 1\u20134)<\/p>\n
1. went up See Comment to 12:10. A similar term is found in the journal of an Egyptian frontier official from the time of Merneptah (end of 13th cent. B.C.E.), designating a journey from Egypt to Asia.1<\/p>\n
into the Negeb The term is here used as a geographic designation, not as a compass direction.<\/p>\n
Lot Having played no role in the events in Egypt, Lot was not mentioned in that connection. His appearance here is due to the ensuing episode. By placing him last in the list, after Abram\u2019s possessions, the text hints at a degree of estrangement.<\/p>\n
2. Fulfillment of the divine blessing of 12:2f. now begins. Abram enjoys great affluence, though how he acquired it is not stated. The possession of metals by pastoralists was particularly important in Canaan. In time of famine, silver and gold, being media of exchange, afforded a measure of security and protection. Although herding and animal husbandry would be their primary occupation, pastoral nomads would often supplement their resources by engaging in subsidiary gainful activities, including commerce. Silver or gold are later mentioned in connection with the purchase of servants and a burial site and with the gifts sent to Isaac\u2019s future bride.2<\/p>\n
3\u20134. Abram renews his spiritual connection with the land by returning to worship at the altar he had previously built (12:8).<\/p>\n
by stages Compare 12:9. He moved from one watering place to another.<\/p>\n
THE SEPARATION OF LOT (vv. 5\u201313)<\/p>\n
No sooner does Abram return than fresh trouble develops. This time it is affluence that poses a threat to family harmony and cohesion.<\/p>\n
5. Lot \u2026 also had \u2026 He constitutes an independent unit, a subgroup within the clan. His wealth is restricted to cattle and camp.<\/p>\n
6. Ecological conditions place a limit on the size of herd and camp. When the latter become too large, there is increasing friction over available pasturage and water.3<\/p>\n
7. between the herdsmen Abram takes action while the discord is still in its initial stage at the lower level and before it can sour relationships between the principals.<\/p>\n
The Canaanites and Perizzites \u2026 This parenthetic note sheds further light on the background of the discord.4 It would seem that the natural resources must have sufficed to sustain two small clans, but there was an additional factor that exacerbated the situation: the area already had a settled population. Strife between pastoral nomadic groups endangers their symbiotic relationship with the indigenous agricultural-urban communities. That explains why both Abram and Lot have to leave the region.<\/p>\n
Perizzites This name is also paired with the Canaanites in 34:30 and in Judges 1:4\u20135. Because Hebrew perazi here means \u201ca hamlet dweller,\u201d as opposed to the inhabitant of a walled city, as in Deuteronomy 3:5, \u201cCanaanites and Perizzites\u201d in these passages may refer, respectively, to those who dwell in walled cities and in open country. However, the Perizzites are otherwise always featured in ethnic lists as the name of a minor pre-Israelite population group. Nothing is known of them from extrabiblical sources.<\/p>\n
8. Abram displays great nobility of character. Although the older man, the uncle, and apparently the erstwhile guardian, he does not insist on seniority or priority of rights. Peace-loving and magnanimous, he selflessly offers his nephew first choice of grazing land and watering places.<\/p>\n
strife Hebrew merivah, as distinct from Hebrew riv (v. 7), is rendered \u201cquarrel.\u201d It cannot be fortuitous that all other usages of merivah in biblical Hebrew refer exclusively to the controversies and grumblings of the people against their leader and against God over the lack of water during the wilderness wanderings.5 Hence, there may well be a verbal subtlety here that not only explicates the prime cause of the quarrels (cf. v. 10) but also contains the submerged judgment of base ingratitude on the part of Lot.<\/p>\n
9. north \u2026 south Literally, \u201cleft \u2026 right,\u201d that is, from the viewpoint of one facing the rising sun.<\/p>\n
10. looked about him Bethel is situated on a hill 2,886 feet (880 m.) above sea level. Less than 1 mile (1 km.) to the southeast is the Burj-Beitin, an elevation that affords a magnificent view of the Jordan Valley.<\/p>\n
well watered That is, fed by streams and brooks and therefore independent of seasonal rainfall for its fertility.<\/p>\n
plain of the Jordan Hebrew kikkar seems to mean \u201cround or oval-shaped\u201d and is used also of bread and weights.6 It is uncertain which part of the Jordan Valley is the kikkar.<\/p>\n
this was before \u2026 A parenthetic note to explain the obvious contrast between the later harsh reality and this lush description. There is also hidden irony here, for Lot\u2019s presumptuous cupidity turns out to be ruinous for him in the long run.<\/p>\n
all the way to Zoar This refers back to the first clause. From 19:20\u201322 it appears that Zoar marked the southern limit of the \u201cplain\u201d (kikkar). On the southeast shore of the Dead Sea lies a city of that name with a continuously recorded history of occupation throughout the First and Second Temple periods, the talmudic and Byzantine epochs, and down to the Crusades.<\/p>\n
like the garden of the LORD A veritable Eden,7 perennially watered.8<\/p>\n
11. So Lot chose for himself He does not defer to Abram, but selfishly selects the most attractive prospect.<\/p>\n
eastward Hebrew mi-kedem, literally \u201cfrom the cast,\u201d9 is here elliptic for \u201cfrom east of Bethel,\u201d where Abram was then encamped, as noted in 12:8 and 13:3.<\/p>\n
Thus they parted Abram\u2019s quick action ensures that the quarrel is settled amicably and without rancor.<\/p>\n
12. in the land of Canaan This indicates a tradition that the \u201ccities of the Plain\u201d lay outside the borders of Canaan (see Comment to 10:19). To what period this applies is unknown, but verses 14\u201315 below revise this situation.<\/p>\n
near Sodom Hebrew \u02bfad often has the meaning \u201cnearby, in the vicinity of,\u201d as in Deuteronomy 2:36 and Judges 4:11.<\/p>\n
13. very wicked sinners Another parenthetic note that prepares the reader for the events of chapter 19. Here it offers the reason for the forthcoming destruction, referred to in verse 10, and carries with it a judgment on Lot\u2019s character. Dazzled by the surface appearance of prosperity, he pays no heed to the moral depravity of his future neighbors.<\/p>\n
THE REAFFIRMATION OF THE BLESSINGS (vv. 14\u201317)<\/p>\n
The earlier promise of national territory in 12:7, in accordance with historic reality, restricted the gift of land to Abram\u2019s posterity. Now the divine promise is reaffirmed and is set forth in language that reflects the fixed legal formulas of land conveyance and donation current in the ancient Near East and widely attested throughout the region from the middle of the second millennium B.C.E. In addition, God bids Abram to perform certain symbolic acts that give legal validation to the title to the land. At the same time, the promise of nationhood is reiterated and given added emphasis through the use of picturesque language.<\/p>\n
14. after Lot had parted The preposition \u201cafter\u201d (Heb. \u02bea\u1e25arei) has a causal as well as temporal function here. There is a direct connection between Lot\u2019s departure and the blessings: Abram\u2019s last link with his father\u2019s house is now severed, and a fresh stage in his life begins. The blessings are exclusively invested in the patriarch and his direct lineal descendants; the future national territory will include the area in which Lot settles. The wickedness of the Sodomites typifies the general unworthiness of the prior inhabitants and provides the moral rationalization for God\u2019s actions in depriving them of the land. This situation is hinted at in 15:16.<\/p>\n
Raise your eyes The same Hebrew expression is behind Lot\u2019s action in verse 10. Lot \u201craised his eyes\u201d but saw only the region of Sodom; Abram \u201craised his eyes\u201d and viewed the entire land.<\/p>\n
look out from where you are See Comment to verse 10. The Genesis Apocryphon 21.8\u201310 has Abram moving to Ramath-Hazor, which is almost certainly Gebel-el-\u02bfAs\u032eur, 5 miles (8 km.) northeast of Bethel, the highest spot in central Israel (3,291 ft., 1,003 m.). The Mediterranean, the hills of Hebron, and even Transjordan can be seen from there.
\nIt is possible that Abram\u2019s surveying of the land has quasi-legal implications. Ancient Roman legal thought recognized a mode of acquisition of property rights \u201cby sight and intention.\u201d Transfer of ownership could be effected by a ceremony in which one party pointed out the boundaries of the land and the other party saw them. It is uncertain, though, whether such an institution also existed in the ancient Near East.<\/p>\n
15. to you and your offspring Abram is included this time, even though it is seemingly inappropriate since he, personally, cannot take possession.10 The language simply follows the legal formulas used in Near Eastern royal land grant documents.<\/p>\n
forever The land is given by God to Israel unconditionally and in perpetuity. As Radak says, \u201cEven though Israel will go into exile, it is destined to return.\u201d Henceforth there exists an inextricable bond between Israel and the land, a bond powerful enough to defy thousands of years of exile.<\/p>\n
16. as the dust of the earth A figure of extraordinary multiplication and diffusion. Parallel texts use the similes of the stars and the sand of the sea to the same effect,11 but \u201cdust\u201d is more suited to the context of the four directions, as also in 28:14.<\/p>\n
17. walk about the land Compare Joshua 24:3. Early Jewish exegesis (Targ. Jon.) understood this traversing of the length and breadth of the land to be a symbolic act constituting a mode of legal acquisition termed \u1e25azakah in rabbinic Hebrew.12 The validity of the formality is discussed in tannaitic sources in connection with this passage. The existence of this practice, in one form or another, is attested over a wide area of the ancient world. In both the Egyptian and Hittite spheres, the king had to undertake a periodic ceremonial walk around a field or a tour of his realm in order to symbolize the renewal of his sovereignty over the land. In Nuzi, in order to enhance the validity of property transfer, the former owner would \u201clift up his own foot from his property\u201d and place the foot of the new owner on it. A reflex of this practice appears to lie behind the ceremony recounted in Ruth 4:7\u20139 and behind the phrasing of some biblical passages relating to Israel\u2019s acquisition of its land, such as Deuteronomy 11:24 and Joshua 1:3f. The same symbol of acquiring land by walking through it is also known from ancient Roman law.<\/p>\n
ABRAM\u2019S DEPARTURE FOR HEBRON (v. 18)<\/p>\n
Abram moved his tent The narrative does not report Abram\u2019s response. The Genesis Apocryphon 21.15\u201319 has Abram touring the entire land before settling finally at Hebron.<\/p>\n
the terebinths See Comment to 12:6. According to Josephus, a very ancient tree13 just northwest of Hebron was famous in Second Temple times (Wars 4.533, Ant. 1.186), and throughout the Middle Ages the \u201cOak of Abraham\u201d was held in great veneration and was the subject of popular legend.<\/p>\n
Mamre The origin of this name is unknown. It seems to be non-Semitic and does not appear outside Genesis. According to Genesis 14:13, 24, Mamre was a distinguished personage allied to Abram. In 23:19, Mamre is another name for the city of Hebron. Apparently, one of the ancient families there and owner of a wood outside the city, Mamre gave his name to the city or at least to one of its important quarters.<\/p>\n
Hebron A strategically placed city in the Judean heartland, lying alongside the north-south water-parting route about midway between Jerusalem to the north and Beer-sheba to the south. Situated about 3,050 feet (930 m.) above sea level, it is surrounded by an extremely fertile countryside, mentioned in Numbers 13:23. According to Numbers 13:22, the city was founded seven years before Tanis in the Nile Delta. This would give a date of ca. 1737 B.C.E. since there is a stela from ca. 1330 B.C.E. commemorating the four hundredth anniversary of the founding of Tanis. The biblical reference must be to the establishment of Hebron as a fortified administrative center, for there is evidence of a settlement on the site as early as the third millennium B.C.E.
\nThe origin of the name is in dispute. It has been connected with the Hebrew stem \u1e25-b-r, \u201cto unite,\u201d signifying a confederacy of four separate settlements; hence its other name, Kiriath-arba, \u201ccity of four,\u201d in Genesis 23:2 and 35:27. Another theory derives it from a Semitic word, \u1e2bbr, meaning \u201ca storehouse, granary.\u201d
\nThe modern Arabic name for the city is al-\u1e24alil, which is short for al-\u1e24alil er-Rahm\u0101n, \u201cfriend of the Merciful One.\u201d This is a reference to Abraham, who has the title \u201cfriend of God\u201d in Isaiah 41:8 and 2 Chronicles 20:7 as well as in early Jewish sources such as Jubilees 19:9 and 30:20 (cf. Targ. Yer. Gen. 18:17). The Arabic name may result from word play, popularly connecting \u1e24ebron with \u1e25aver, \u201cfriend.\u201d
\nHebron has occupied a place of extraordinary importance in Jewish tradition as one of the four holy cities along with Jerusalem, Safed, and Tiberias. It was the first city in which the patriarch Abraham settled, the first in which he bought land, and the burial site of the three patriarchs and their wives, in the Cave of Machpelah. For seven years it was the first capital of Judah and Israel under King David, as told in 2 Samuel 2:1\u20134 and 5:1\u20135.14<\/p>\n
he built an altar there The third erected by Abram.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 14*<\/p>\n
Abram\u2019s Rescue of Lot (vv. 1\u201323)<\/p>\n
Once again the divine promises to Abram seem to be on the verge of miscarrying, this time by the actions of the patriarch himself, who risks his life in battle. A confederacy of four eastern monarchs undertakes a punitive expedition in order to suppress a revolt of vassals in the west. In the course of the action Lot, by virtue of his association with Sodom, is taken captive and his possessions are plundered. On learning the news, Abram, with the help of three allies, immediately musters an armed force and mounts a military campaign to rescue his nephew. He puts the attackers to flight, accomplishes his purpose, and comes into possession of much booty. On his way back he is greeted and blessed by Melchizedek, priest-king of Salem. Abram, for his part, gives him a tithe of the spoils but disdainfully rejects the idea of keeping anything for himself.
\nThis story does not, at first glance, seem to be organically related either to the preceding or following events in the life of the patriarch. In fact, however, the literary connectives are present. Lot is still at Sodom (14:12; 13:12), and Abram still resides by the terebinths of Mamre (14:13; 13:18). There also is the irony inherent in the situation depicted in chapter 13: Lot has greedily picked the best part of the country, but now his choice turns out to have been disastrous, and his very life depends on the selflessness and loyalty of the uncle he has alienated. The next chapter opens with a clear reference to the events of this one, and it, too, has some verbal correspondences with chapter 14.
\nNevertheless, it is certainly true that this chapter constitutes a unique document within the Book of Genesis, and even critical scholars are unable to establish an association with any of the usual hypothetical Pentateuchal sources.
\nThe fact is that Genesis 14 exhibits an unparalleled concentration of unique or rare features of all kinds. It contains the first biblical report of warfare. It projects a remarkable image of Abram as a military chief and hero, not again attested in the patriarch\u2019s biography. It is the only incident in his life that connects him with great historic events that bring him out onto the international stage. He is singularly given the epithet \u201cthe Hebrew\u201d (v. 13). He comes into contact with a Canaanite priest, receives his homage, and, in turn, pays homage to him (vv. 18\u201320). Two uncommon divine titles are used here: \u201cGod Most High\u201d and \u201cCreator of heaven and earth.\u201d The latter never reappears in the Bible, while the former occurs no fewer than four times here (vv. 18\u201320, 22) but is otherwise excessively rare and found only in poetic texts. More than anything else, the unusual spectrum of literary and stylistic peculiarities stamp the chapter as a distinct document within the book. The style is analytic and formal. Its general tone is secular until its final transformation into a religious record. It is replete with detailed information of a historic, geographic, and ethnic nature and contains a succession of double place-names, some hyphenated, some alternating. The contrast between the anonymity of the pharaoh of chapter 13 and the list of royal names here is striking. The four eastern kings are initially introduced in strict alphabetical order (v. 1), even though Chedorlaomer is clearly head of the coalition (vv. 4f., 9, 17), while the names of the four Canaanite kings are arranged in two alliterative pairs, Bera-Birsha, Shinab-Shemeber (v. 2). The name \u201cAbram\u201d occurs precisely seven times, and each of Melchizedek\u2019s two blessings contains seven words. Finally, excluding names, 4.5 percent of the vocabulary of the chapter never recurs in the Bible, while 6.5 percent is rare usage; that is to say, a remarkable 11 percent of the narrative text comprises rare or unique words or phrases.
\nIndubitably, this story is recorded solely on account of the patriarch\u2019s rescue of Lot. Yet the first eleven verses have nothing to do with Abram and his family, and the detailed information preserved therein adds nothing to our understanding of Abram\u2019s motivations and actions that could not have been otherwise conveyed in the usual austere style of Genesis. Accordingly, the only convincing explanation for such an unparalleled accumulation of eccentric features within the compass of a single short narrative is that the biblical Narrator made use of existing independent sources\u2014perhaps some chronicle or epic\u2014and incorporated selections intact into his own composition about Abram. This conclusion also accounts for the several instances of ambiguity and lack of clarity in its present form (e.g., vv. 2, 11), and it solves the riddle of the paired toponyms. In each case, the first place-name is the archaic one, which must have come from the original source, and the second is the later Israelite designation inserted by the biblical writer. Examples of this kind of name change appear in Numbers 32:41f. and Joshua 15:15. Conversely, the absence of a name for the king of Bela (v. 2), in contrast to the other four local monarchs, reinforces the conjecture that behind the biblical account is an independent source, which must no longer have preserved the information. Scripture faithfully adhered to that source; otherwise, the Narrator would surely not have been at a loss to invent a name for him.
\nThis leads to the question of the antiquity and historicity of the core of the narrative. The phenomenon of the double place-names referred to above undoubtedly favors an early date for the original story. The unique title \u201cAbram the Hebrew\u201d (v. 13), never again employed in later texts, points in the same direction. The puzzling epithet, which has no apparent relevance to the course of events, must simply have been transferred from the source used. The same impression emerges from the report of Abram\u2019s three Amorite allies (v. 13). If the term \u201cAmorite\u201d elsewhere stands for the native inhabitants of Canaan in general (Gen. 15:16) or for one of the native peoples who are to be dispossessed by the Israelites (15:21) and whom the latter bitterly fought,1 then a late invention of such a story becomes a very unlikely possibility, particularly since it violates the spirit of legislation in Deuteronomy 7:1ff. and 20:17, forbidding social intercourse and alliances with the native peoples.
\nSo far, however, no external sources have been uncovered that can fit the events depicted in this chapter into the framework of history. True, the names of the eastern monarchs have about them an air of verisimilitude, but they cannot be identified with known historical personages who were contemporaneous with one another. Nor is the identification of all the place-names associated with them assured. The nature of the subjugation of the Canaanite kings to a distant monarch and the exact form that their rebellion took is not stated. Equally uncertain is the objective of the expedition from the east, whether it was solely to suppress a revolt or part of a larger enterprise.
\nWhat are the purposes of Scripture in featuring this story? Undoubtedly, its primary motive is to bring into prominence new facets of Abram\u2019s character. The one who displayed fear and evasiveness in Egypt now shows himself to be decisive and courageous in the promised land. The man of peace knows how to exhibit skill and heroism in battle. He who experienced his nephew\u2019s estrangement unhesitatingly demonstrates self-sacrificing loyalty to him in his hour of need. Abram is a military hero, but he is not glorified as such. He does not initiate the war\u2014others do\u2014and he is drawn into it, acquitting himself magnificently against enormous odds. Notwithstanding the wealth of detail recorded in the chapter, there is little about the war itself\u2014nothing about the size of the opposing foreign armies, the weapons deployed, the mode of transportation, the number of casualties, or the content of the booty\u2014none of the items that are the staple ingredients of ancient Near Eastern war chronicles. Instead, the story serves to emphasize the virtues of loyalty to family, the redeeming of captives, the disdain of material reward, and faith in the power of the few against the many.<\/p>\n
THE INVASION FROM THE EAST (vv. 1\u201311)<\/p>\n
1. Now when \u2026 Hebrew va-yehi bi-yemei, literally \u201cand it was in the days of \u2026,\u201d is usually a date indicator,2 but this translation would leave verse 2 without a subject. The present rendering equates the Hebrew phrase with Akkadian inumi, literally \u201cin the days of\u201d or \u201cwhen.\u201d This makes sense if our Hebrew text is translated from an Akkadian chronicle, as it may well be.<\/p>\n
Amraphel No acceptable alternative to the now abandoned identification with Hammurabi is available.<\/p>\n
Shinar See Comment to 10:10. The Genesis Apocryphon 21.23 and Targum Onkelos both read \u201cBabylon.\u201d<\/p>\n
Arioch Compare Daniel 2:14f. This name corresponds to Arriyuk\/Arriwuk mentioned in the Mari archives (18th cent. B.C.E.) or to Ariukki of the Nuzi documents (15th cent. B.C.E.).<\/p>\n
Ellasar The most likely identification is Assur, the city that gave its name to the land of Assyria. The Hebrew form would correspond to the Akkadian al assur, in which the al indicates that the second element is the name of a \u201ccity.\u201d Another possibility is a place called il\u00e2(n)\u1e63\u00fbr\u00e2, mentioned in the Mari texts. Genesis Apocryphon 21.23 reads kptwk which is probably Cappadocia, that is, central Anatolia (Turkey). Whether an authentic tradition lies behind this last identification is not known.<\/p>\n
Chedorlaomer This name does not appear among the lists of about forty known Elamite kings, but the first element corresponds to kudur in Akkadian, which corresponds to kutir in Elamite, meaning \u201ca servant,\u201d and it appears as a component of several Elamite royal names. The identification of the second element, la\u02bfomer, with the divine name Lakamar is possible, but by no means certain.<\/p>\n
Elam See Comment to 10:22.<\/p>\n
Tidal This is universally recognized to be a Northwest Semitic transcription of the Hittite royal name Tud\u1e2balia\u0161 borne by four kings, the first of whom lived in the seventeenth century B.C.E.<\/p>\n
Goiim A \u201cking of Goiim\u201d is mentioned in Joshua 12:23, but the place-name is otherwise unknown.3 The word may simply be the usual Hebrew word for \u201cnations,\u201d indicating that the name of the hometown of Tidal was lost or that he headed a confederacy of peoples. The ancient versions render simply \u201cking of peoples,\u201d which may be a reference to the motley hordes of northern peoples known in cuneiform texts as the umman-manda from at least ca. 1700 B.C.E. onward.<\/p>\n
2. Sodom \u2026 Zeboiim See Comment to 10:19.<\/p>\n
Zoar See Comment to 13:10. Each of the five cities has its own king. This is the classic Canaanite city-state system that prevailed in Canaan before the Israelite conquest (cf. Josh. 12). The names of the kings were recognized early in Jewish exegesis as lending themselves to midrashic elaboration, each being taken as a reflection of the character or reputation of the possessor.4 Thus, Bera = \u201cin evil\u201d (be-ra\u02bf); Birsha = \u201cwith wickedness\u201d (be-resha\u02bfx); Shinab = \u201cwho hated his father\u201d (sone\u02be \u02beav); and Shemeber = \u201cthe voluptuary\u201d (sam \u02beever).<\/p>\n
Shemeber Genesis Apocryphon 21.25 reads shmy\u02bebd, \u201cmy name is lost\u201d (cf. Sam. shm\u02bebd), due to a confusion of the Hebrew resh (\u05e8) with dalet (\u05d3); compare Comment to 10:4.<\/p>\n
Bela This seems to be the earlier or alternative name of Zoar. In 36:32 Bela is the name of a king.<\/p>\n
3. joined forces Hebrew \u1e25abru, a unique usage apparently meaning \u201cto unite, make an alliance\u201d (cf. a suggested origin of the name Hebron, 13:18). In the face of the common threat, the rebellious cities formed a pentapolis, or five-city confederacy.<\/p>\n
the Valley of Siddim Mentioned again in verse 10 and nowhere else. The definite article with Siddim shows the word to be a noun, not a proper name, but the etymology is obscure. There may be some underlying word play on Sodom, as in Deuteronomy 32:32.<\/p>\n
now the Dead Sea This remark implies that the valley no longer existed at the time of the Narrator. It cannot mean that the Dead Sea had not yet been formed since the body of water is at least 12,000 years old. The only explanation is that the valley lay below the southern bank of the Dead Sea. As a matter of fact, the great disproportion between the 1,300-foot (400-m.) water depth in the north end and the mere 20-foot (6-m.) average in the far south proves that the basin below the Lisan, that tongue-shaped peninsula that protrudes into the sea, is of far more recent formation than the upper part. The Vale of Siddim was what existed before the area was submerged by the encroaching waters of the Dead Sea in historical times.<\/p>\n
Dead Sea The Hebrew name means \u201csalt sea,\u201d and the waters register the highest salt content of any body of water in the world, an average of 32 percent as opposed to the 3 percent average salinity of the oceans.<\/p>\n
4. served \u2026 rebelled The root \u02bf-b-d, like its semantic equivalents, occurs widely in Northwest Semitic languages in reference to the condition of vassalage, as in 2 Kings 18:7 and 24:1. \u201cRebellion\u201d usually began with nonpayment of the annual tribute stipulated in the suzerain-vassal treaty.<\/p>\n
in the thirteenth year Hebrew omits the preposition, as in Genesis 15:16, 27:45, and Exodus 20:11, thus allowing the number to be treated as an ordinal or cardinal. The present rendering is the most natural. Some exegetes understood the rebellion to have lasted thirteen years.5
\nVerses 5\u20137 detail the invasion route followed by the kings from the east. It shows that they traversed the entire length of the \u201cking\u2019s highway\u201d (Num. 21:22) that ran practically in a continuous straight line through the hill country east of the Jordan from north to south. When they reached El-paran they turned west (or northwest?), crossing the Negeb until they arrived at Kadesh-barnea. Here they made another abrupt turn, this time to the northeast, finally reaching the Valley of Siddim. All along the way they struck at various peoples and their settlements. Apparently, before attacking the pentapolis itself, the invaders sought to secure their flanks, protect their supply lines, and ensure their retreat route by neutralizing the hostile forces in the area.
\nThe register of place-names seems to be derived from an ancient geographic list, for it bears close affinity with the Mesopotamian genre of itineraries attested as early as Old Babylonian times (ca. 1830 B.C.E. on).<\/p>\n
5. the Rephaim This people, listed among the early pre-Israelite inhabitants of the land in Genesis 15:20, had all but disappeared by the time of the Exodus, as Deuteronomy 2:20 and 3:11 attest. Popular imagination endowed them with the attributes of aboriginal giants.6 Their habitat was the region of Bashan, the northernmost part of the area east of the Jordan (Deut. 3:13). Elsewhere, the term refa\u02beim refers to the shades of the dead, a meaning that it also has in Phoenician and Punic. The word appears in Ugaritic texts in the singular as the name of a god and in the plural as denizens of the underworld. The connection, if any, between the different meanings of the root is unclear.<\/p>\n
Ashteroth-karnaim Two originally distinct but closely neighboring cities. The first was the ancient capital of Bashan, mentioned in Deuteronomy 1:4 and Joshua 9:10, in the Egyptian execration texts (19th\u201318th cents. B.C.E.), in the topographical list of Thutmose III (ca. 1468 B.C.E.), and in the El-Amarna tablets. The city derived its name from the Canaanite fertility goddess Ashtoreth, referred to in 1 Kings 11:5, 33. Karnaim (lit. \u201ctwin horns\/peaks\u201d) lies about 2 miles (3 km.) north of Tell \u02bfAshtarah, the site of ancient Ashtaroth. When the fortunes of the latter city declined, Karnaim took its place as the capital of Bashan. It gave its name to the Assyrian administrative district of Qarnini after Tiglath-pileser III destroyed Ashtaroth in 732 B.C.E.<\/p>\n
the Zuzim This people, mentioned nowhere else, is called Zamzummim in the Genesis Apocryphon 21.29. If the two indeed be identical, as Rashi states, the coincidence of zamzummim and refa\u02beim in Deuteronomy 2:20 is called into question, unless the former were an offshoot of the latter.<\/p>\n
Ham This may be the city of Huma mentioned in the list of Thutmose III and identifiable with Tell Ham, about 4 miles (6.5 km.) south of Irbid and about 19 miles (30 km.) east of Beth-Shean. The present text of Numbers 32:41 may conceal another reference to the city.7<\/p>\n
Emim According to Deuteronomy 2:10f., they were a race of giants like the Rephaim and received their name, which might mean \u201cfrightful,\u201d from the Moabites who dispossessed them.<\/p>\n
Shaveh-kiriathaim The first element, which only appears again in verse 17, \u201cthe Valley of Shaveh,\u201d may mean \u201clevel, plane.\u201d It might also be a proper name, perhaps of Hurrian origin (cf. 2 Sam. 20:25), after whom a settlement near Kiriathaim was called. The latter is a well-known city in the Moabite tableland.8 Although part of the territory of the Reubenites, it came under Moabite rule and is to be identified with Khirbet el-Qureiye, about 6 miles (10 km.) due west of Medeba.<\/p>\n
6. The Horites This name is usually identified with the Hurrians, a non-Semitic people who emerged into the light of history toward the end of the third millennium B.C.E. in Upper Mesopotamia. They gradually spread throughout the Near East and had a powerful cultural impact on the area, especially on the Hittites. Their presence can be documented among the Hyksos invaders of Egypt in the seventeenth century B.C.E., and a century later there were important Hurrian enclaves in Syria-Canaan. A common designation of Canaan in Egyptian texts of the New Kingdom is \u201cthe land of Hurru.\u201d
\nIt is not easy, however, to make the equation between the Hurrians and the biblical Horites. The latter never appear in the lists of pre-Israelite peoples in Canaan, and they are never located west of the Jordan. According to Deuteronomy 2:12, 22, they were the original inhabitants of the region of Mount Seir, southeast of the Dead Sea, and they were dispossessed and exterminated by the Edomites. The other biblical references (Gen. 36:20ff.; Deut. 2:12, 22) connect them with this area, and the names of many of their chiefs and clans in Genesis 36:20\u201330 are Semitic.
\nThe problem of the identification of the Horites is further complicated by the frequent references to another people called Hivites in the lists of pre-Israelite peoples west of the Jordan. Nothing is known of them from extrabiblical sources, but they appear in places known to have had Hurrian elements in the population. In Genesis 36:2, Zibeon is a \u201cHivite,\u201d but in verse 20 he is dubbed a \u201cHorite.\u201d In Genesis 34:2 and Joshua 9:7, some Septuagint manuscripts read \u201cHorites,\u201d whereas the Masoretic text reads \u201cHivites.\u201d It is possible that \u201cHivite\u201d was simply a local designation for \u201cHorite,\u201d but there is nothing to prove this, and, moreover, it would not solve the problem of the consistent biblical tradition that places the origin of the Horites in the area southeast of the Dead Sea. Until further evidence becomes available, it is best to separate Horites from Hurrians.<\/p>\n
Seir The name means \u201chairy, shaggy,\u201d that is, covered with brush or forest. The hill country stretches southeast of the Dead Sea alongside the Arabah.9<\/p>\n
El-paran Paran appears to be a general name for the wilderness of the eastern Sinai Peninsula in which Kadesh is located, but the identity of El-paran is uncertain. It may be another name for Elath, on the Gulf of Akaba, or a place west of Kadesh.10<\/p>\n
7. En-mishpat, which is Kadesh The full name of Kadesh is Kadesh-barnea, a most important oasis on the southern border of Canaan, which served the Israelites as a leading base during the wilderness wanderings.11 It is to be identified with a group of springs 46 miles (75 km.) south of Beer-sheba and 15 miles (25 km.) south of Nizzanah. The site must have been a cynosure for the pastoral nomads of the Negeb and the Sinai Peninsula. As the name Kadesh indicates, the site was a cult center. En-mishpat means \u201cthe spring of judgment,\u201d a name not otherwise attested, but one that clearly points to its role as a place where the pastoralists would assemble for the adjudication of disputes.<\/p>\n
Amalekites A warlike nomadic tribe associated with the Edomites in Genesis 36:12. In later times it became the hereditary enemy of Israel.12<\/p>\n
Amorites See Comment to 10:16.<\/p>\n
Hazazon-tamar If Hazazon be the earlier name of Tamar or a nearby settlement, then the most likely spot would be the strategically important site, fortified by Solomon, on the southern border of the Land of Israel.13 It is best identified with Ain Husb, about 20 miles (32 km.) southwest of the Dead Sea, the most important highway junction in the northern Arabah.<\/p>\n
8\u20139. Having disposed of any possible threat from the neighboring peoples, the invaders now engage the rebellious center, the pentapolis, which is the main target of the campaign.<\/p>\n
10. The terse description omits an explicit report of victory but leaves no room for doubt that the defenders were totally routed.<\/p>\n
bitumen pits The phrase is unparalleled. Bitumen and asphalt are native to the Dead Sea, which Josephus actually calls the Asphalt Sea.14 Asphalt is found in heavy liquid form in the southern part of the sea.<\/p>\n
threw themselves Hebrew root n-f-l often has this meaning.15<\/p>\n
ABRAM THE WARRIOR (vv. 12\u201316)<\/p>\n
The city of Hebron, where Abram resided, lay outside the path of hostilities, and the patriarch had no reason to intervene. Then the capture of his nephew Lot transformed the situation and moved him to the center of the stage, thereby rescuing the account of the invasion from oblivion. The older tradition is now recast; the annalistic form gives way to the narrative style, and a secular record is turned into a religious document.<\/p>\n
13. Abram the Hebrew The origin and meaning of the term \u02bfivri is unknown, and its use here is a riddle. Three suggestions are to be found in Genesis Rabba 42:13. One connects it with Eber, grandson of Noah, who is mentioned in 10:24 and 11:14; another derives it from Hebrew \u02bfever, \u201cbeyond,\u201d that is, \u201cthe one from beyond [the river Euphrates]\u201d; the third is homiletical and alludes to Abram\u2019s religious nonconformism: \u201cAll the world was on one side (\u02bfever) and he on the other side.\u201d For a more detailed discussion of the term, see Excursus 4.<\/p>\n
Mamre, Eshkol and Aner The first mentioned is also a place-name connected with Hebron in 13:18; eshkol means \u201ca cluster of grapes\u201d and is the name of a wadi near Hebron;16 the meaning of Aner is unknown.17 The three persons were apparently the heads of aristocratic families in Hebron.<\/p>\n
allies Hebrew ba\u02bfalei berit means \u201cthose bound by treaty,\u201d a term not attested elsewhere. Treaties regulating human relationships were a common feature of the ancient Near East. That between Abram and the three Amorites would seem to have been of the parity type, that is, a treaty between equals rather than between superior and inferior. It appears to have involved mutual military obligations.<\/p>\n
Amorite Since his own kinsmen had been attacked, Mamre would have had added incentive for supporting Abram.<\/p>\n
14. Although Lot separated himself from his uncle, the ties of kinship remained intact. Abram performs what in rabbinic parlance is termed the duty of pidyon shevuyim, \u201credeeming those taken captive.\u201d For more on this, see Excursus 5.<\/p>\n
mustered Hebrew va-yarek usually means \u201cemptied out,\u201d especially the sword from its sheath. The usage here is unique and may be elliptical, meaning \u201che armed them\u201d (as in Targ. Jon.), or it may be another military term otherwise unattested.18<\/p>\n
his retainers Hebrew \u1e25anikh is another unique term in the Bible. It occurs as \u1e25nk in the Egyptian execration texts of the nineteenth-eighteenth centuries B.C.E. in reference to armed retainers of Canaanite chieftains, and as \u1e2ban\u00e2ku, armed retainers of a local chief, in a fifteenth-century B.C.E. cuneiform text from Taanach, Israel.<\/p>\n
born into bis household That is, a slave born of a slave. Such were regarded as being more reliable than purchased slaves.<\/p>\n
three hundred and eighteen The fact that this figure is unparalleled in biblical literature and does not conform to any of the usual schematized or symbolic number patterns has been taken as proof of its literal authenticity. However, attention has been drawn to two extrabiblical examples of the number 318, which may suggest its use as a literary device to indicate a large group: a scarab of Amenhotep III (14th cent. B.C.E.) records the arrival of his bride, Princess Gilu\u1e2bepa of Mitanni, together with 317 harem women, making a company of 318 in all; the grand total of all persons who suffered violent death in the course of the four days\u2019 fighting reported in the Iliad comes to 318. It has been noted that 318 is the sum of the twelve prime numbers from 7 to 47, which may explain its use symbolically. It remains to be proved that these two examples are not meant to be precise and that the concept of the prime number was recognized in early times.<\/p>\n
Dan This city represents the northern extremity of the Land of Israel, as such texts as Judges 20:1 and 1 Samuel 3:20 show. It is to be identified with Tell Dan (Tell el-Qadi), about 4 miles (6.4 km.) west of Banias, lying at the foot of Mount Hermon on the international trade route. Excavations have shown that it was founded in the third millennium B.C.E. and was a prosperous and important settlement in the eighteenth century B.C.E. The original name of the site was Laish, which is attested in Egyptian texts of ca. 1850\u20131825 B.C.E. In accordance with the pattern of this chapter, one would expect to read \u201cLaish, which is Dan.\u201d If this latter name dates only from the Israelite conquest in the times of the judges, as Judges 18:27\u201329 claims, then it would here be anachronistic.19<\/p>\n
15. The large armies fielded by the coalition of kings had just completed a long and exhausting campaign. They did not expect to have to fight again and were unprepared for an attack. They encamped for the night, since armies did not generally march after sunset in the ancient world. For his part, Abram had all the advantages of using fresh troops and of a night engagement against an unwary, battle-weary, depleted enemy. By dividing his strike forces and simultaneously attacking from two sides, he was able to achieve complete surprise and so neutralize the effectiveness of the great numerical superiority enjoyed by the coalition of kings.<\/p>\n
deployed against them Hebrew va-ye\u1e25alek \u02bfaleihem, literally \u201che divided himself against them,\u201d is a unique phrase, probably a military term. For the tactic, compare Judges 7:16\u201322 and 1 Samuel 11:11, 13:17.<\/p>\n
Hobah The place has not been located. Genesis Apocryphon 22.10 reads hlbwn, that is, Helbon, which is mentioned in Ezekiel 27:18. It is the modern village of Khalbun, 15.5 miles (25 km.) north of Damascus.<\/p>\n
17. It must have taken several weeks for Abram\u2019s troops to have reached Damascus and beyond and then returned. In the meantime, the king of Sodom has regained his kingdom and now comes out to meet the victorious patriarch. This king alone is mentioned because the rescue of Lot, who lived in Sodom, is the focal point of the narrative; because Sodom was the leader of the pentapolis, always listed first (v. 2; 10:19); and because the people of the city have earlier been characterized as \u201cvery wicked sinners\u201d (13:12). The Narrator deliberately uses the expression \u201ccame out to meet him\u201d because of its inherent ambiguity. Hebrew yatsa\u02be likr\u02beat is a neutral phrase deriving its coloration from the context. It may mean \u201cto greet,\u201d as in Exodus 4:14, 1 Samuel 18:6, and Proverbs 7:15, or, much more frequently, \u201cto confront,\u201d as in Numbers 20:20, 31:13, and Joshua 8:5. The king of Sodom brings no gifts and offers no blessing. As the beneficiary of Abram\u2019s heroism, will he express a word of gratitude, or, true to the reputation of his city, will he practice some deceit? We do not know, and, to heighten the suspense, the narrative breaks off temporarily.<\/p>\n
the Valley of Shaveh Further defined as \u201cthe Valley of the King,\u201d a site mentioned once again only in 2 Samuel 18:18 but with no clue to its location in either text. The relatively broad, level valley formed by the junction of the Valley of Ben-hinnom, west and south of Jerusalem, with the Kidron Valley on the east side, best fits the picture. An ancient tradition found in the Targums takes shaveh in the sense of \u201clevel ground\u201d used as the royal sports arena.<\/p>\n
THE MELCHIZEDEK EPISODE (vv. 18\u201320)<\/p>\n
It is perfectly natural that a returning hero, whose victory has also benefited the entire region, should be officially greeted by a distinguished personage. But the intrusive nature of the report here, interrupting the smooth sequence of verses 17 and 21, is obvious, and was noted by Rashi, Abravanel, and \u1e24izkuni. Its position, which is original and not a later insertion, heightens the tension produced by the sudden appearance of the king of Sodom, whose very name is redolent of evil. It also transforms into a spiritual experience what was up to now a secular incident. Victory in war is not attributed to Abram\u2019s skill and valor but to the will of God, who is the ultimate arbiter of human destiny. It is inconceivable that the biblical Narrator would not have introduced such a note into the story. The artfulness with which the Melchizedek episode is integrated into the narrative is proven by the priest-king\u2019s mention of Abram\u2019s victory and by reference to the \u201cValley of the King\u201d (v. 17), which smooths the way for the appearance of the \u201cking of Salem,\u201d the first element of whose name\u2014Melchizedek\u2014also means \u201cking.\u201d There is a subtle contrast in the uses of the verb y-ts-\u02be, \u201cto go out.\u201d The king of Sodom \u201ccame out\u201d empty-handed to meet his benefactor, and the first word he uttered was \u201cgive!\u201d The king of Salem \u201cbrought out\u201d bread and wine and offered a blessing, even though he may have come to collect his tithe. The name of Melchizedek\u2019s city\u2014Salem (Heb. shalem)\u2014is suggestive of shalom, the peace that Abram\u2019s intervention brought to the region. Finally, the extraordinary title of God used by Abram in his colloquy with the king of Sodom is the name just used twice by Melchizedek.<\/p>\n
Melchizedek Nothing is known of this priest-king who suddenly emerges from the shadows and as suddenly retreats into oblivion, as far as the biblical tradition is concerned. He is patently regarded as monotheist, one of the few select non-Israelite individuals who, in the scriptural view, preserved the original monotheism of the human race in the face of otherwise universal degeneration into paganism. See Excursus 6.<\/p>\n
Salem Hebrew shalem, a place-name attested once again in parallelism with Zion in Psalms 76:3 as the location of the Temple. There is no doubt of its reference there to Jerusalem, and the same identification is generally assumed for this passage too. This is the tradition of the Genesis Apocryphon 23.13, Josephus, Antiquities 1.181, and the Targums. There is no evidence that Salem was the earlier name of Jerusalem. The city is already mentioned in the Egyptian execration texts of the nineteenth-eighteenth centuries B.C.E. as Urushalimu, and in the El-Amarna texts of the fifteenth-fourteenth centuries as Urusalim. The full name originally meant \u201cthe foundation of (the god) Shalim.\u201d
\nThe reference to Salem in Psalms 76:3 is followed by a statement about the destruction of the weapons of war. This suggests that the shortened name of the city is a poeticism to produce the effect of shalom, \u201cpeace.\u201d \u201cJerusalem\u201d has been reinterpreted to mean \u201ccity of peace,\u201d a symbol that later found expression in prophecy in such texts as Isaiah 2:1\u20135 and Micah 4:1\u20134.20 It can hardly be coincidence that King David, who first conquered Jerusalem and converted it into the political and religious center of Israel, named one of his sons Absalom (Heb. \u02beabshalom) and another Solomon (Heb. shelomoh).<\/p>\n
bread and wine Compare 2 Samuel 17:27\u201329.<\/p>\n
priest It is not known whether the fusion of the royal and priestly offices was characteristic of the Canaanite city-states or was peculiar to Salem. In Assyria and among the Hittites, the king was also high priest, but such was not the case in Babylon. The Ugaritic texts do not support the identity of the two offices for that city, but in the Phoenician sphere, at least in the Persian era, the king of Sidon styles himself \u201cpriest of Astarte.\u201d In Israel, the two institutions were conceived as being separated from the beginning (cf. 1 Sam. 2:35). Kingship is part of the divine promises to the patriarchs in Genesis 17:7, 16 and 35:11, but nothing is said of priesthood. The hereditary priesthood long anteceded the establishment of the monarchy, and the priests stoutly resisted royal encroachment upon their prerogatives, as the story in 2 Chronicles 26:16\u201321 shows.<\/p>\n
God Most High Hebrew \u02beel \u02bfelyon, the first biblical usage of either term. \u02beEl is of uncertain etymology, perhaps deriving from a Semitic root meaning \u201cto be strong.\u201d \u02beEl is common to practically all Semitic languages as a general term for \u201cgod.\u201d The feminine form is also current, except in biblical Hebrew, which possesses no word for \u201cgoddess.\u201d From earliest times \u02beel is used outside Israel as the proper name of the deity. In the Bible, \u02beel either simply refers to the one God or is used as a variant for the divine name YHVH.
\n\u02bfElyon, from the root \u02bf-l-h, \u201cto ascend,\u201d expresses the absolute transcendence of God. See Excursus 7 for further comment.<\/p>\n
19. He blessed him He invoked God\u2019s blessing upon the patriarch, an act that recalls 12:1\u20133.<\/p>\n
Blessed be Abram The Hebrew could also mean \u201cBlessed is Abram,\u201d an acknowledgment or affirmation of a reality exemplified by the victory.21<\/p>\n
Creator of heaven and earth This universalistic formula, echoed by Abram in verse 22, well fits the international background of the events. It acknowledges that the processes of human history are under divine guidance.22 See Excursus 8.<\/p>\n
20. gave him a tenth Abram gives Melchizedek a tithe of all the spoils of war. This is a one-time payment analogous to that described in Numbers 31:25\u201341. A tithe payable to the king is known from Ugarit and is listed among the prerogatives of Near Eastern kingship in 1 Samuel 8:15, 17. It has nothing to do with the later annual tithing system of Israel.<\/p>\n
ABRAM AND THE KING OF SODOM (vv. 21\u201324)<\/p>\n
Having discharged his duty to his kinsman and paid his dues to the priest-king, the patriarch wishes to have nothing more to do with Sodom. He disdainfully rejects any idea of profiting personally from the operation.<\/p>\n
22. I swear Literally, \u201cI lift up my hand,\u201d a gesture accompanying oath-taking to this day.23<\/p>\n
23. a thread or a sandal strap That is, a thin or thick cord. The figure is a merism, using contrasting items to express a totality. This particular phrase occurs nowhere else, but analogous expressions are Akkadian \u1e2bamu lu \u1e2bu\u1e63abu, \u201cbe it a stalk of straw or a twig,\u201d and Aramaic min \u1e25am \u02bfad \u1e25u\u1e6d, \u201cstraw or string,\u201d both used in treaty contexts.24<\/p>\n
It is I who made Abram rich Abram did not want it to seem that he had acted out of mercenary considerations. Since part of the spoil had originally come from Sodom (v. 11), he did not want to benefit from tainted possessions (cf. Deut. 23:19). There may be a word play between he\u02bfesharti (root \u02bf-sh-r), \u201cmade rich,\u201d and ma\u02bfaser (root \u02bf-s-r), \u201ctithe\u201d (v. 20).25<\/p>\n
24. my servants Hebrew ne\u02bfarim, literally \u201cyouths,\u201d probably here means \u201cwarriors.\u201d The word is found in Egyptian as ne\u02bfarin, a borrowing from Canaanite in the specialized sense of \u201celite corps.\u201d<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 15*<\/p>\n
The Covenant Between the Pieces (vv. 1\u201321)<\/p>\n
Throughout Hebrew literature the central narrative of this chapter is known by the name ha-berit bein ha-betarim, meaning \u201cthe covenant between the pieces.\u201d This name derives from the description of the covenant ceremony (Heb. berit), the climactic point of which is the passing between the pieces of flesh described in verse 17. Although the Hebrew term used in the text is actually gezarim, the triple use of the stem b-t-r in verse 10 and the terminology of the analogous passage in Jeremiah 34:18f. have influenced popular usage in favor of betarim.
\nThe chapter falls clearly into two parts. The theme of verses 1\u20135 is the promise of posterity; that of verses 7\u201321, the gift of land. The first scene occurs at night (v. 5); the second, at sundown (vv. 12, 17). The first promise is given in \u201ca vision\u201d (v. 1); the second, in \u201ca deep sleep\u201d (v. 12). While it is not clear whether the two pronouncements form one long theophany, as Radak believes, or issue from two distinct and successive experiences, as Ibn Ezra thinks, there is no doubt they form an indissoluble unity. The twin promises are logically interconnected and inseparable, and they appear together repeatedly in the rest of the book.1 Furthermore, the two parts have parallel structures, each comprising three elements: a divine promise (vv. 1, 7), an expression of apprehension by Abram (vv. 2f., 8), and a divine reassurance by verbal and by symbolic action (vv. 4f., 9\u201321). In both sections God introduces His speech with the formula \u201cI am\u201d (vv. 1, 7), and the patriarch\u2019s response begins with the invocation, \u201cO Lord God\u201d (vv. 2, 8) which is an exceedingly rare expression in the Torah. Finally, it is clear that Nehemiah 9:7f. understands the covenant to be the response to Abram\u2019s act of faith in his initial encounter with God, so that verse 6 forms the connecting link between the two parts.
\nChapter 15 exhibits numerous points of contact and verbal correspondences with the preceding one, a phenomenon that extends throughout the entire narrative and cannot be coincidental. Thus, the charge \u201cfear not\u201d (v. 1) answers to the dangers arising out of the combat in chapter 14; God\u2019s self-description \u201cI am a shield\u201d (Heb. magen, v. 1) recalls the God \u201cwho has delivered\u201d (Heb. miggen) Abram\u2019s foes into his hands (14:20); the promised reward (v. 1) is in place of the spurned booty (14:23f.); God makes a covenant (Heb. berit) with Abram, who had relied for security on his human allies (ba\u02bfalei berit, 14:13); the Amorite is to be displaced (vv. 16, 2), and the Amorite had been Abram\u2019s ally (14:13); \u201cDammesek\u201d (v. 2) recalls \u201cDamascus\u201d (14:15), just as the judgment (Heb. dan, v. 14) brings to mind Dan (14:14), and the promise of \u201cpeace\u201d (shalom, v. 15) suggests Salem (shalem, 14:18); bayit (lit. \u201chouse\u201d) appears in verses 2\u20133 and in 14:14; the stem y-ts-\u02be is used twice in each chapter (vv. 5, 7; 14:17f); \u02bf-v-d in verse 13 recalls 14:4, 15; rekhush (\u201cwealth, possessions\u201d) in verse 14 is the same as in 14:11, 12, 16, 21; and the verb \u02bf-v-r in verse 17 connects with \u201cHebrew\u201d (\u02bfivri) of 14:13.<\/p>\n
THE FIRST DIALOGUE WITH GOD: THE PROMISE OF OFFSPRING (vv. 1\u20136)<\/p>\n
1. Some time later Hebrew \u02bea\u1e25ar ha-devarim ha-\u02beelleh, literally \u201cafter these things,\u201d implies a sequence that is not necessarily immediate.2 Here, however, the close connection with the preceding events is unmistakable.
\nThe pattern of the reaffirmation of the promises following moments of trial and danger, as in 13:14ff., is continued. On the present occasion language is employed that is elsewhere reserved for prophetic pronouncements, such as the formula, unique in the Torah, \u201cThe word of the LORD came to.\u2026\u201d3 Similarly, the word for \u201cvision\u201d (Heb. ma\u1e25azeh) derives from the stem \u1e25-z-h, \u201cto see,\u201d which is largely used in connection with the prophetic experience.4<\/p>\n
Fear not The patriarch fears the possibility of revenge by the defeated kings. The phrase \u201cfear not\u201d occurs numerous times throughout the Bible, mainly spoken by God. It is also found in extrabiblical literature in a genre known as \u201coracles of assurance.\u201d These oracles were given to a king before battle. Thus, King Zakir of Hamath and Lu\u02bfath (early 8th cent. B.C.E.) reports receiving an oracle from the god Be\u02bfelshamayn: \u201cDo not fear (Aram, \u02beal tiz\u1e25al), for I have made you king, and I shall stand by you and deliver you from all [these kings who] set up a siege against you.\u201d In like manner, Esarhaddon of Assyria (680\u2013669 B.C.E.) receives an oracle: \u201cKing of Assyria, fear not (Akk. l\u0101 tapalla\u1e2b): The enemy \u2026 I deliver to slaughter.\u201d5<\/p>\n
I am a shield Poetic simile of divine protection, used especially in the Book of Psalms.6<\/p>\n
Your reward This assurance is clearly associated with Abram\u2019s refusal to have any part of the spoils of war,7 mentioned in 14:22ff. The material reward, so disdainfully spurned, is to be vastly exceeded by a recompense of a different kind, even though the prospects were as yet only on the distant horizon.<\/p>\n
2. For the first time Abram speaks to God. In unquestioning obedience to the divine command, he had broken his ties with his family and become a wanderer in a strange land. His life had been repeatedly in danger. The years had rolled by and the promises of progeny had not materialized. Through it all Abram maintained his silence. Now the measure of recurring disappointment and prolonged frustration has reached its limit. The bonds of restraint are broken, and the patriarch bares the bitterness of his soul in a brief, poignant outburst bordering on utter despair.<\/p>\n
O Lord GOD This Hebrew divine title, rarely used in the Torah,8 appears here for the first time. It is used in a context of complaint, prayer, and request. Here the word for \u201cLord\u201d is \u02beadonai, \u201cmy Lord,\u201d not the divine name YHVH, and its use suggests a master-servant relationship. Abram does not permit his vexation to compromise his attitude of respect and reverence before God.<\/p>\n
what can You give me? No material reward can equal the blessing of having children.<\/p>\n
I shall die A poetic usage of Hebrew h-l-k, \u201cto walk, go,\u201d which sees life as a journey to be undertaken.9<\/p>\n
the one in charge of my household Hebrew ben meshek beiti is a unique phrase, the meaning of which is uncertain. See Excursus 9.<\/p>\n
Eliezer Strangely, the name Eliezer is never again mentioned in passages referring to Abraham\u2019s servant (cf. Gen. 24:2ff.).<\/p>\n
3. granted me no offspring Hebrew li, \u201cto me,\u201d is placed in an emphatic position before the verb, so that it carries the sense of \u201cno offspring of my own.\u201d<\/p>\n
will be my heir This statement reflects a society in which a servant can become heir to a childless couple. Numerous ancient Near Eastern documents provide for the adoption of a stranger who inherits the estate in return for the performance of filial duties. These include paying the adoptive parents the proper respect, maintaining the household, taking care of their physical needs and comforts in their old age, and performing the funerary rites at their death. In such cases, the adopted son cannot be deprived of a share of the inheritance even if there are subsequently natural-born sons. Thus, God\u2019s emphatic and unambiguous reply in verse 4 can only mean that the patriarch, despairing of having children, had decided to resort to the adoption of his servant but has not yet acted. God assures him that this will not be necessary.<\/p>\n
5. The oral promise is reinforced by a visual experience. It is not clear whether this is real or part of a dream theophany.<\/p>\n
6. he put his trust in the LORD The scene that opens with fear and depression closes with a firm statement that Abram remains steadfast in his faith in God. The promises must be realized, even in the face of a seemingly recalcitrant reality.<\/p>\n
He reckoned it to his merit God is the subject of the verb.10 Hebrew tsedakah, usually \u201crighteousness,\u201d sometimes bears the sense of \u201cmerit.\u201d The idea is that Abram\u2019s act of faith made him worthy of God\u2019s reward, which is secured through a covenant. This interpretation is supported by Nehemiah 9:7\u20138 and by the similar phraseology in Psalms 106:30f., which refers to the narrative of Numbers 25:6\u201313. The latter tells of the intervention of Phinehas at the affair of Baal-peor, as a result of which he was granted God\u2019s \u201cpact of friendship\u201d\u2014\u201cfor him and his descendants after him a pact of priesthood for all time.\u201d The alternative possibility that Abram regarded \u201cit,\u201d\u2014that is, the promise of posterity\u2014as an expression of God\u2019s righteousness and grace seems less likely.11<\/p>\n
THE SECOND DIALOGUE WITH GOD: THE PROMISE OF NATIONAL TERRITORY (vv. 7\u201321)<\/p>\n
7. I am the LORD This is the first use of this solemn, introductory, self-identifying formula.12 It is not the disclosure of a hitherto unknown name, but an emphasis on the unimpeachable authority behind the accompanying declaration. The style \u201cI am So-and-so\u201d is known from Hittite treaties and Canaanite-Phoenician royal proclamations.<\/p>\n
who brought you out See Comment to 12:1. The entire sentence is suggestive, probably deliberately so, of the opening words of the Decalogue in Exodus 20:2. Biblical usage of the verb \u201cto bring out\u201d is predominantly in reference to the Exodus context. The two pivotal, formative events in the history of the Jewish people are Abram\u2019s exodus from his homeland and the Exodus from Egypt. The relationships between God and Abram and between God and Israel are in each case conditioned and regulated by these divine acts.<\/p>\n
Ur of the Chaldeans See Comment to 11:28, 31.<\/p>\n
to assign this land The divine order to Abram in 12:1\u20133 said nothing of a gift of land, but such had been the original intention of God, unrevealed at the time.<\/p>\n
8. how shall I know The question has to be understood in light of God\u2019s reply in verse 13: \u201cKnow well \u2026\u201d The affirmation of Abram\u2019s trust in God in verse 6 referred to the pledge of offspring, which must obviously materialize in his lifetime. The present query relates to the reiterated promise of national territory (cf. 13:15, 17). Abram is here speaking not as an individual but as the future nation personified. What is to be the process by which that nation will take physical possession of its promised land?<\/p>\n
9\u201317. In response, God contracts a solemn covenant with the patriarch, who becomes the passive beneficiary of His unilateral obligation, unconditionally assumed. It would seem that the form of this covenant is modeled after the royal land-grant treaty common in the ancient Near East. By this instrument a king bestows a gift of land on an individual or vassal as a reward for loyal service.
\nThe text does not explain the elaborate ritual that is followed. Clearly no sacrifice is involved, for there is no altar, no mention of the sprinkling of blood as in Exodus 24:8, and no suggestion that the animals are either eaten or burnt. The meaning of the ceremonials is to be sought elsewhere. The Hebrew term for covenant-making is k-r-t berit, literally \u201cto cut a covenant\u201d (v. 18). The corresponding phrase is very widely used in one form or another in the ancient world. The exact Aramaic equivalents are g-z-r \u02bfdy\u02be, found in the Sfire treaty from Syria, and \u02belt k-r-t, which appears in a magical text from the Arslan Tash in Turkey. The Greek horkia temnein and Latin foedus ferire\/ictum express the same practice. In the Mari texts \u201cto kill a donkey foal\u201d (\u1e2bayarum\/ayarum qat\u0101lum\/\u0161uqtulum) is to conclude a covenant. At Alalakh they \u201ccut the neck of a sheep\u201d (ki\u0161ad\/immerum i\u1e6dbu\u1e2b) for the same purpose. All these analogues demonstrate that the cutting up of the animal was a crucial element in the treaty-making procedure. Its retributive meaning is suggested by the only other biblical parallel. When, in the days of Jeremiah, the nobility of Jerusalem proclaimed a wholesale emancipation of slaves during the Babylonian siege, only to reverse themselves later, the prophet thundered: \u201cLo! I proclaim your release\u2014declares the LORD\u2014to the sword, to pestilence, and to famine; and I will make you a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth. I will make the men who violated My covenant \u2026 which they made before Me, [like] the calf which they cut in two so as to pass between the halves \u2026 they shall be handed over to their enemies, to those who seek to kill them. Their carcasses shall become food for the birds of the sky and the beasts of the earth \u2026\u201d (Jer. 34:17\u201320). The cutting of the animals is thus a form of self-imprecation in which the potential violator invokes their fate upon himself. This is confirmed by the above-cited Sfire treaty, which includes the following clause: \u201cAs this calf is cut up, thus Matti\u02beel and his nobles shall be cut up\u201d (1:40). A similar clause occurs in a treaty between Ashurnirari V of Assyria and Matti\u02beilu of Arpad. The fate of the animal is explicitly projected upon the violator. In the case of the land-grant covenants, the curse would be directed against anyone who interferes with the realization of the suzerain\u2019s promise.13
\nThe ceremony described here in Genesis 15 utilizes contemporary legal forms and procedures but has undergone subtle transformation in the context of the narrative. In contrast to the rest of the patriarchal biography, the event lacks any notice of its locale and of the age of Abram at the time. For the first time in the history of religions, God becomes the contracting party, promising a national territory to a people yet unborn. This pledge constitutes the main historic title of the Jewish people to its land, a title that is unconditional and irrevocable, secured by a divine covenant whose validity transcends space and time.<\/p>\n
9. a three-year-old This is the most likely meaning of the unique Hebrew meshullash (fem. meshulleshet).14 A beast of three years was considered to be full grown and was broken for service. A less likely translation is \u201cthreefold,\u201d meaning three of each species.<\/p>\n
a young bird Hebrew gozal appears again only in Deuteronomy 32:11 as the young of an eagle. Here it probably is a pigeon since this bird is usually paired with the turtledove.15<\/p>\n
10. cut them in two The list of beasts and birds must have suggested at once a covenant ceremony, for Abram knows to slice and arrange the items without being so told. The Hebrew stem b-t-r, \u201cto sever,\u201d contains the same consonants as berit, \u201ccovenant,\u201d and is otherwise used only in the similar context of Jeremiah 34:18f.<\/p>\n
the bird Hebrew tsippor is here a collective.16 The two birds were probably placed face to face. The exceptional nonseverance of the birds may be solely due to their small size (cf. Lev. 1:17), but there may also be some lost symbolism relating to fertility.<\/p>\n
11. The otherwise terse and austere style of the narrative makes it certain that the incident here recorded has special significance. Hebrew \u02bfayit, here taken as a collective \u201cbirds of prey,\u201d is most likely the carrion-eating falcon (cf. Isa. 18:6; Ezek. 39:4). In Egyptian art this bird represents the important god Horus with whom the living king was identified. It is possible, therefore, that the sudden appearance of the birds of prey, and of Abram successfully warding them off, symbolically portends the sharp and menacing change that is to take place in the fortunes of the Israelites at the hands of the Egyptians while it also prefigures their rescue through the merit of the patriarch.<\/p>\n
12. a deep sleep See Comment to 2:21. Here, as in Job 4:13ff. and 33:15f., the abnormally deep sleep is associated with the dread inspired by the awareness of the Divine Presence (cf. Dan. 8:18; 10:9).<\/p>\n
13\u201316. The future as unfolded here holds three successive stages of suffering: alienage, enslavement, and oppression, to be followed by three successive stages of redemption: judgment on the oppressor, the Exodus, and settlement in the promised land. It is obvious that the biblical conception of the origins and growth of the people of Israel\u2014the idea of nationhood resulting from a process of natural proliferation rather than through the amalgamation or confederacy of existing tribes\u2014means that the realization of the divine promises can be envisaged as taking place only after the passage of many years. The nebulous future of the previous promises is now translated into historical time.<\/p>\n
13. Know well The response to the query of verse 8.<\/p>\n
strangers See Comment to 12:10.<\/p>\n
a land not theirs That is, a foreign land, other than the Land of Israel (cf. Jer. 5:19).<\/p>\n
be enslaved Hebrew ve-\u02bfavadum means literally \u201cthey shall serve them,\u201d the subject being \u201cyour offspring,\u201d and the object understood to be the rulers of the foreign land.<\/p>\n
four hundred years This figure presents an unresolved riddle. No indication is given as to the year from which the reckoning begins. Moreover, it does not seem to accord with the mere \u201cfour generations\u201d of verse 16, and it is not identical with the 430-year figure given in Exodus 12:40 as the entire period of time spent in Egypt. Another complication is the absence of any biblical tradition specifying the time that elapsed between the death of Joseph and the commencement of the slavery. Rabbinic exegesis generally understands the 400 years to begin with the birth of Isaac and the 430 years from the day of the covenant.17 According to this interpretation, the 400 years apply to the entire period of alienage. Since 190 years elapsed between the birth of Isaac and the descent of Jacob to Egypt, as can be computed from Genesis 25:26 and 47:9, this leaves 210 years for the entire Egyptian experience. This is not compatible, however, with the plain meaning of Exodus 12:40, which clearly belongs to another strand of tradition. It should be noted, though, that according to the Septuagint, Samaritan, and Syro-Palestinian versions of Exodus 12:40, the figure of 430 includes the years spent in Canaan.<\/p>\n
14. I will execute judgment The reference, of course, is to the plagues, which are so referred to in Exodus 6:6, 7:4, and 12:12.<\/p>\n
great wealth Either in restitution for the years of slave labor or in accordance with the law in Deuteronomy 15:13f. that an emancipated slave must be liberally provisioned by the master.18<\/p>\n
15. A parenthetic reassurance to Abram that the foreordained misfortunes would not occur in his lifetime.<\/p>\n
You shall go to your fathers A unique term for dying. Elsewhere the expression is to \u201clie down with one\u2019s fathers,\u201d as in Genesis 47:30, or to be \u201cgathered to one\u2019s kin,\u201d as in Genesis 25:8, 17. In whatever form, the phrase certainly originates from a belief in an afterlife in which one is reunited with one\u2019s ancestors irrespective of where they are buried. The biblical sources are perplexingly vague and sparse on the issue of afterlife (see Comment to 37:35).<\/p>\n
16. the fourth generation If \u201cgeneration\u201d (Heb. dor) is the span of time between the birth of children and the birth of their parents\u2014an average period of approximately 20\u201325 years\u2014then the phrasing implies at most 100 years, only one quarter of the period prescribed in verse 13. Yet, unless one posits the preposterous notion of a mindless narrator or editor, the two figures must be reconcilable. A study of the Hebrew word dor and its Semitic cognates indicates a very fluid and indeterminate use of the word. Thus, Job lived 140 years after being rehabilitated, a period said to cover \u201cfour generations\u201d (Job 42:16); the \u201cgeneration\u201d that came out of Egypt took 40 years to come to an end (Num. 32:13; Pss. 95:10); two succeeding \u201cgenerations\u201d may exhibit absolute discontinuity (Judg. 2:10; cf. Exod. 1:6ff.); the Assyrian king Shamshi-Adad I reports that seven \u201cgenerations\u201d (Akk. d\u0101ru) elapsed between the end of the kingdom of Akkad and his own reign, which gives 60\u201370 years to a \u201cgeneration.\u201d In light of all this, it is best to take dor as a \u201ccycle of time\u201d or \u201clife span,\u201d just like daur in classical Arabic. There is no fixed biblical calculation for the human life cycle. In Genesis 6:3 it is 120 years, in Isaiah 65:20 it is 100 years, in Psalms 90:10 it varies between 70\u201380 years. In ancient Egypt the ideal life span was 110 years (see Comment to 50:22). The \u201cfour generations\u201d in the present passage may thus be understood as the sum of four life spans, a figure in no way incompatible with the 400 years of the pre-Exodus period.<\/p>\n
the iniquity of the Amorties The fate and destiny of the future people of Israel is to be intertwined with that of other peoples. The history of all mankind is under the moral governance of God. The displacement of the native population of Canaan by Israel is not to be accounted for on grounds of divine favoritism or innate superiority (cf. Deut. 9:4\u20136). The local peoples, here generically called \u201cAmorites\u201d (see Comment to 10:16), have violated God\u2019s charge. The universally binding moral law has been flouted and the inhabitants of Canaan have been doomed by their own corruption, as texts like Leviticus 18:24f. and 20:23f. explicitly aver. Yet God\u2019s justice is absolute. The limit of His tolerance of evil\u2014four generations\u2014has not yet been reached, and Israel must wait until God\u2019s time is ripe.19 Divine justice is not to be strained\u2014even for the elect of God, and even though its application relates to pagans.<\/p>\n
CONSUMMATION OF THE COVENANT (vv. 18\u201321)<\/p>\n
The principal party, here God, passes between the pieces. He is represented by the smoke and the fire,20 which are frequent symbols of the Divine Presence. As in a legal document, the nature of the instrument of transfer is defined, its promissory clause is specified as concerning a grant of land, and the extent of the territory involved is delineated in geographic and ethnographic terms.<\/p>\n
18. a covenant See Comment to 6:18.<\/p>\n
the river of Egypt The southwestern boundary of Canaan is generally depicted as the \u201cWadi (Heb. na\u1e25al) of Egypt,\u201d21 which is to be identified with Wadi el-\u02bfArish. This marks the boundary between the settled land and the Sinai desert. The unique \u201criver of Egypt\u201d here is not the Nile, which is called ye\u02beor in the Bible, as in Genesis 41:1f., Exodus 2:3, 5, and elsewhere, but must be its most easterly arm, which then emptied into Lake Sirbonis near Pelusium, not far from Port Said. It is probably the same as Shihor mentioned in Joshua 13:3, Jeremiah 2:18, and other biblical texts.<\/p>\n
the great river See Comment to 10:15\u201319.22 The geographic boundaries given here represent a generalized ideal that cannot be reconciled with any historic reality of the past. They include Tyre-Sidon, Lebanon, and Byblos, which the Davidic-Solomonic empire, even at its height, never encompassed, as 1 Kings 5:1, 4 and 8:65 show. Moreover, the conquests of David aimed at asserting political and economic control beyond the borders of Israelite settlement, but there was no attempt to dispossess the local population and to settle Israelites in their stead.<\/p>\n
19\u201321. This list constitutes a register often pre-Israelite peoples who presently inhabit the promised land. This is the most comprehensive of the seventeen such lists scattered among the historical books. Some of these feature seven ethnic groups, others six or five, and one only three.23 The origins of these lists are obscure, as is the reason for their diversity in number, order, and content. The fact that the Jebusites invariably appear in the final position may betoken David\u2019s capture of Jerusalem, which was the culmination of his conquests.
\nThe present register features some peculiarities. The Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, and Rephaim appear in no other list, while the Hivites, featured in all the others, are here inexplicably excluded.
\nThe extraordinarily complex ethnic situation that these lists reflect is matched by the no less than thirty-one city-states that Joshua encountered in this tiny country, as listed in Joshua 12. The explanation for this remarkable political phenomenon lies in the almost irresistible centrifugal forces produced by accidents of topography and climate. Within the narrow belt between the sea and the desert, about 100 miles (ca. 161 km.) in width and 160 miles (ca. 258 km.) in length from Dan to Beer-sheba, are to be found no less than four parallel longitudinal zones, each of which undergoes considerable internal modification. The coastal plain gives way to the central mountain region, which. in turn, yields abruptly to the Jordan Valley, only to be succeeded by the Transjordan plateau. The extremes of altitude are astonishing. The mountains of Lebanon rise to a height of 8,300 feet (2,531.5 m.) above sea level, and the deepest point of the Dead Sea lies about 2,500 feet (762.5 m.) below the surface of the Mediterranean. This topographic complexity has its counterpart in climatic diversity. The intensity and direction of the winds and air movements, the seasonal rainfalls, the deposits of dew, the daily variations in temperature\u2014all are subject to wide-ranging regional fluctuations.
\nIn light of all this, it is not surprising that, in the long history of the country, its fate was never tied to the fortunes of one people, and never has any people succeeded in imposing unity upon it from within\u2014never, that is, with the solitary exception of the people of Israel during the biblical period, during the Seeond Jewish Commonwealth, and today, a truly extraordinary phenomenon.<\/p>\n
19. Kenites See Comments to 4:1, 22. They were a seminomadic tribe of metal workers, wandering in the southern part of the land and connected both with the Midianites and the Amalekites.24 They gave their name to part of the Negeb (1 Sam. 27:10).<\/p>\n
Kenizzites The name indicates a Hurrian origin, but this people had close ties with the Edomites, as is clear from Genesis 36:4, 11, 15, 42. They were later absorbed into the tribe of Judah or at least some of their most important clans were, and they provided one of the minor judges of Israel.25<\/p>\n
Kadtmonites These are mentioned in no other biblical ethnographic source. They may well be identical with \u201cKedemites\u201d (Heb. benei kedem), \u201ceasterners,\u201d a general term for the tribes that roamed the Syro-Palestinian desert from Aram in the north down to the Red Sea.26 In the south of Canaan, the Kedemites were associated with Amalekites and Midianites. They were also famous for their wisdom.<\/p>\n
20. Hittites See Comment to 10:15.<\/p>\n
Perizzites See Comment to 13:7.<\/p>\n
Rephaim See Comment to 14:5.<\/p>\n
21. Amorties See Comment to 10:16.<\/p>\n
Canaanites See Comment to 9:18.<\/p>\n
Girgashites \u2026 Jebusites See Comment to 10:16.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 16<\/p>\n
Sarah, Hagar, and the Birth of Ishmael (vv. 1\u201316)<\/p>\n
CONCUBINAGE (vv 1\u20136)<\/p>\n
Ten years have elapsed since Abram parted from his father (v. 3). Throughout this decade of frustrated hopes his wife has suffered in silence. Now the impatience of the infertile Sarai has reached a critical point. Since the divine promises in chapter 15 did not specify that she herself was to be the mother of Abram\u2019s offspring, in her desperation she takes the initiative and resorts to the device of concubinage.<\/p>\n
1. The opening verse furnishes the basic information essential to the understanding of the drama. The issue is Sarai\u2019s infertility; the dramatis personae, Sarai and Hagar; their respective social status, wife and maidservant.<\/p>\n
bad borne him no children Previously, in 11:30, she had been described as \u201cbarren.\u201d The subtle change in phraseology insinuates a note of submerged expectation that derives from the foreknowledge of the writer.<\/p>\n
She had Hebrew ve-lah emphasizes Sarai\u2019s proprietary rights. The maid attended primarily to the personal needs of her mistress and apparently was not the common property of husband and wife.1<\/p>\n
Egyptian maidservant The stress on her origin2 may have ironic significance in light of the prediction in the \u201ccovenant between the pieces\u201d that the descendants of Abram were to be enslaved and oppressed in Egypt. The very name Hagar suggests a word play on Hebrew ger, \u201cstranger,\u201d and the same Hebrew stem \u02bf-n-h, used here of \u201charsh treatment\u201d in verses 6, 9, and 11, is employed in the prediction of 15:13 as well.<\/p>\n
Hagar The name suggests a connection with Arabic hajara, \u201cto flee,\u201d and may mean \u201cfugitive.\u201d3 A people named \u201cHagrites,\u201d mentioned in Psalms 83:7 and 1 Chronicles 5:10, 19ff., appears to have been pastoralists and to have roamed the Syro-Arabian desert. Classical Greek writers mention the Agraioi or Agreis, whose domicile was northern Arabia, and there may be a connection between Hagar and these people.<\/p>\n
2. kept me from bearing In ancient times barrenness was imputed to the woman, not the man, although God was seen to be its ultimate cause.<\/p>\n
perhaps I shall have a son Hebrew \u02beibbaneh contains a double entendre, suggesting both the stem b-n-h, \u201cto build,\u201d and ben, \u201ca son.\u201d Akkadian ban\u0302 similarly may mean \u201cto build\u201d and \u201cto engender.\u201d Here, as in many cultures, family and posterity are depicted in terms of a house.4<\/p>\n
through her The custom of an infertile wife providing her husband with a concubine in order to bear children is well documented in the ancient Near East. The laws of Lipit-Ishtar (early 19th cent. B.C.E.) deal with the case of a harlot who produces children for the husband of a barren wife; these become his heirs. An Old Assyrian marriage contract (19th cent. B.C.E.) stipulates that if the wife does not provide him with offspring within two years she must purchase a slave woman for the purpose. The provision of a concubine slave for bearing children is taken for granted in the laws of Hammurabi in the specific case of a wife who is a priestess and is thus barred from giving birth.5 In Sarai\u2019s case, it is unclear whether she had fully despaired of ever having children of her own or whether her action reflects the widespread popular belief that a woman who is unable to conceive may become fertile by adopting a child.<\/p>\n
Abram heeded As Ramban points out, Abram took Hagar solely in response to his wife\u2019s urging, not out of lust. Hebrew va-yishma\u02bf contains a hint of yishma\u02bf-\u02beel (vv. 11, 15).<\/p>\n
4. her mistress was lowered in her esteem This is a natural consequence of a situation in which barrenness is regarded as a disgrace. Ancient law codes reflect the diminished social position of the barren wife. Ur-Nammu (2112\u20132095 B.C.E.) mentions the case of a slave woman who, \u201ccomparing herself to her mistress, speaks insolently to her\u201d or strikes her, and Hammurabi\u2019s laws deal with the situation of the female slave-concubine who \u201chas claimed equality with her mistress because she bore children.\u201d6 See Comment to verse 6.<\/p>\n
5. The wrong done me On Hebrew \u1e25amas, see Comment to 6:11.<\/p>\n
is your fault By giving Hagar to Abram, Sarai has relinquished her exclusive authority over her, and it is Abram\u2019s responsibility to control her behavior.<\/p>\n
6. Sarai treated her harshly The laws of Ur-Nammu prescribe that the insolent concubine-slave have \u201cher mouth scoured with one quart of salt,\u201d while Hammurabi prescribes that she be reduced to slave status and again bear the slave mark. The Hebrew verb used here implies that Sarai subjected Hagar to physical and psychological abuse. It carries with it the nuance of critical judgment of her actions. According to Ramban, \u201cthe matriarch sinned by such maltreatment, and Abraham too by permitting it.\u201d<\/p>\n
HAGAR AND THE ANGEL (vv. 7\u201314)<\/p>\n
As between Sarai and Hagar, there is no doubt as to where the sympathies of the Narrator lie. God, the guardian of the weak and the suffering, reveals Himself to the lowly Egyptian maidservant, bringing her a message of hope and comfort.<\/p>\n
7. An angel of the LORD This is the first appearance of an angel in biblical literature. See Excursus 10.<\/p>\n
on the road to Shur Hagar fled in the direction of her native land, for Shur is elsewhere described as being \u201cclose to Egypt.\u201d Since shur (Aram, shura) means a wall, the reference is most probably to the wall of fortifications built in the eastern Delta along the line of the present-day Isthmus of Suez in order to protect Egypt from the incursions of Asiatics. The \u201cProphecy of Neferrohu (Neferti),\u201d purporting to derive from ca. 2650 B.C.E., already mentions the \u201cWall of the Ruler\u201d to be built so that \u201cthe Asiatics will not be permitted to come down into Egypt.\u201d The Story of Sinuhe (zoth cent. B.C.E.) likewise speaks of the \u201cWall of the Ruler made to oppose the Asiatics and to crush the Sand-Crossers.\u201d
\nIn the Hebrew, the \u201cspring on the road to Shur\u201d contains a play on words: \u02bfayin may mean \u201can eye\u201d as well as \u201ca spring,\u201d and shur can mean \u201cto see\u201d and also \u201ca wall.\u201d The verb sh-u-r is used together with \u02bfayin in poetic texts. The place where Hagar takes refuge thus suggests \u201ca seeing eye.\u201d She calls God El-roi, \u201cGod of seeing,\u201d and the well after the \u201cLiving One Who sees me\u201d (v. 13)7<\/p>\n
8. The angel knows who she is. His encounter with Hagar is not fortuitous but deliberate and purposeful.<\/p>\n
10\u201312. This is the first of several such instances of an announcement by a divine messenger predicting the birth and destiny of one who is given a special role in God\u2019s scheme of history.8 This event anticipates the divine promise to the patriarch in 17:3\u20136 that he will be the father of many nations.<\/p>\n
10. increase your offspring Ishmael is to become the father of twelve tribes and of a great nation.9 The fulfillment of the promise is later recorded in 25:12\u201318.<\/p>\n
11. Ishmael The name means \u201cGod hears.\u201d It originated as an indication of a divine response to the prayer of the parents for a son or as a prayer name expressing the hope that God may heed the infant\u2019s cry for help. It has turned up in the Mari texts. Here the name is given a special twist and is interpreted as \u201cGod has paid heed to your suffering.\u201d This constitutes a unique phrase in the Hebrew, it being an amalgam of two distinct idioms. Generally, God \u201csees (r-\u02be-h) suffering,\u201d as in Genesis 29:32 and Exodus 4:31, and \u201cheeded (sh-m-\u02bf) their outcry,\u201d as in Exodus 3:7 and Deuteronomy 26:7.<\/p>\n
12. a wild ass of a man Like the wild ass among the beasts, so are the Ishmaelites among men. In their nature and destiny they call to mind the sturdy, fearless, and fleet-footed Syrian onager (Heb. pere\u02be), who inhabits the wilderness and is almost impossible to domesticate. Jeremiah describes the wild ass of the desert: \u201csnuffing the wind in her eagerness, whose passion none can restrain.\u201d10 Hagar, the abused slave woman subjected to the harsh discipline of her mistress, will produce a people free and undisciplined.<\/p>\n
His band against everyone This prediction reflects the unceasing tension that exists between the sedentary and nomadic populations in the Near East.<\/p>\n
alongside of all his kinsmen The idea seems to be that the Ishmaelites and related tribes will live in close proximity to each other. Hebrew \u02bfal penei may also express defiance and hostility, and the phrase could as well be translated \u201cat odds with all his kinsmen.\u201d11<\/p>\n
13. Hagar the slave is spiritually stirred by her revelatory experience. She has become conscious of God\u2019s concern for the downtrodden.<\/p>\n
she called the LORD Literally, \u201cshe called the name of YHVH.\u201d The name is inextricably bound up with existence and with the nature and character of the Being who bears it (see Comment to 1:5). Hagar gives expression to her personal discovery by designating God after the particular aspect of His providence that she has experienced.<\/p>\n
El-roi The vocalization of the second element occasions a marvelous ambiguity that permits the following translations of the name: \u201cGod of seeing,\u201d that is, the all-seeing God; \u201cGod of my seeing,\u201d that is, whom I have seen; \u201cGod who sees me.\u201d Most likely, the several meanings are intended to be apprehended simultaneously.12 When God \u201csees,\u201d it is, of course, that He shows His concern and extends His protection; when Hagar \u201csees,\u201d she experiences God\u2019s self-manifestation.<\/p>\n
\u201cHave I not \u2026\u201d The difficulties in the Hebrew text are formidable, but the statement combines the \u201cseeing\u201d on the part of both Hagar and God in both senses of the word.<\/p>\n
14. Beer-labai-roi This is either a newly coined name or the reinterpretation of an old one. In the latter case, the original meaning was probably \u201cthe well belonging to the clan of Roi.\u201d Arabic \u1e25ayy means \u201ca clan,\u201d13 and Roi could be a proper name. The well is mentioned again only in connection with Isaac, in Genesis 24:62 and 25:11.
\nVerse 7 calls it a \u201cspring of water\u201d instead of \u201ca well,\u201d and the same interchange of terms is found in 24:11, 13. Strictly, a spring (Heb. \u02bfayin) is a subsurface water source that discharges with a perceptible current at ground level through a natural opening. A well (Heb. be\u02beer) is an excavated hole that permits underground water to be brought to the surface by a pitcher or a bucket. Since wells may be dug for greater convenience in the vicinity of springs, the two terms could be used interchangeably. It is also possible that Hebrew be\u02beer could have had a wider connotation than what is understood by the modern English term \u201cwell.\u201d As a matter of fact, Anglo-Saxon wylla or wella, means a spring and also a well.<\/p>\n
15. The narrative is very terse. It takes for granted that Hagar returned to Sarai, as bidden. Significantly, it is Abram who named the child, not Hagar, thus implying that he legitimated him (cf. 21:11; 25:9). It is noteworthy that the image of Ishmael in the Bible, as distinct from later Jewish literature, is by and large not a negative one. He is not an inveterate enemy of Israel. In fact, there seems to have been some intermingling between the tribe of Simeon and the Ishmaelites, for the clans of Mibsam and Mishma are associated with both, as proved by Genesis 25:13 and 1 Chronicles 4:25. The Ishmaelites do not appear among the victims of David\u2019s raids into the south lands, even though these incursions encroach upon their habitat, as is clear from 1 Samuel 27:8 and Genesis 25:18. David\u2019s sister married \u201cJether the Ishmaelite,\u201d according to 1 Chronicles 2:17, and among the administrators of crown property under David were \u201cObil the Ishmaelite\u201d and \u201cJaziz the Hagrite,\u201d according to 1 Chronicles 27:30f.<\/p>\n
16. Hagar bore Ishmael Psalms 83:7 and 1 Chronicles 27:30f. suggest some association between the Hagrites and Ishmaelites, and Genesis 25:15 and 1 Chronicles 5:19 record Jetur and Naphish among the clan lists of both peoples.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 17<\/p>\n
The Covenant in the Flesh (vv. 1\u201327)<\/p>\n
Sarai\u2019s desperate stratagem has failed. Thirteen more years pass, and God\u2019s promises still remain unfulfilled. We learn nothing of Abram\u2019s activities during the intervening period. The biblical Narrator focuses solely on those events that bear upon the destiny of the nation yet to be born. Suddenly Abram receives a series of divine communications that not only reaffirm the assurances of posterity and national territory but also broaden their scope and add a note of specificity. In addition, Abram and Sarai both receive new names. The high point of the chapter comes with the introduction of the law of circumcision, \u201cthe covenant in the flesh.\u201d
\nThe section divides into four parts, artistically set forth in a carefully designed arrangement as follows:<\/p>\n
(1) Verses 1\u20138
\n(3) Verses 15\u201322
\nAbram is to be the progenitor of numerous nations and of kings. His name is changed.
\nSarai is to be the progenitor of numerous nations and of kings. Her name is changed.
\n(2) Verses 9\u201314
\n(4) Verses 23\u201327
\nThe law of circumcision is set forth.
\nThe law of circumcision is carried out.<\/p>\n
The \u201ccovenant in the flesh\u201d has much in common with the \u201ccovenant between the pieces\u201d of chapter 15, presupposing and supplementing it in various ways. The covenant ceremony there described is the basis for the key term berit, \u201ccovenant,\u201d which the Narrator employs more than a dozen times in this chapter. Here, moreover, this covenant is thrice redefined as an \u201ceverlasting covenant\u201d (vv. 7, 13, 19). In the earlier passage Abram is a passive recipient of God\u2019s unilateral obligation. Now God summons him to be an active partner in the covenant. In both sections the revelation opens with the divine, self-introductory formula, \u201cI am \u2026\u201d (15:7; 17:1). Both promise a son, but here, for the first time, the matriarch is specifically designated as the future mother (15:4; 17:16, 19, 21). Both chapters promise numerous progeny (15:4f.; 17:4ff.) and national territory, but here the latter is to be \u201can everlasting possession\u201d (15:18; 17:8). Finally, both sections record the patriarch\u2019s emotional reaction to God\u2019s announcement (15:3, 8; 17:17).
\nThe connection between chapters 15 and 17, which was recognized early, is reflected in a later biblical prayer that interweaves citations from both: \u201cYou are the LORD God, who chose Abram, who brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans and changed his name to Abraham. Finding his heart true to You, You made a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, and Amorite, the Perizzite, the Jebusite, and the Girgashite\u2014to give it to his descendants\u201d (Neh. 9:7f.).<\/p>\n
THE CHANGE OF ABRAM\u2019S NAME (vv. 1\u20138)<\/p>\n
1. the LORD Since this is the sole appearance of the name YHVH in this chapter, as opposed to nine usages of \u02beelohim, the exception must be purposeful. The idea is to leave no doubt that the name \u201cEl Shaddai\u201d is to be identified with YHVH. This accords exactly with Exodus 6:2f., \u201cI am the LORD (YHVH). I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai.\u2026\u201d Use of the name YHVH forges an immediate link with the covenant of chapter 15 made by God under that name.<\/p>\n
I am \u2026 For this introductory, self-identifying formula, see Comment to 15:7.<\/p>\n
El Shaddai Although this divine name is usually translated in the English versions as \u201cGod Almighty,\u201d there are no convincing traditions as to its meaning and little etymological justification for this particular rendering. See Excursus 11.<\/p>\n
Walk in My ways Literally, \u201cWalk before Me\u201d (cf. 6:9). As the corresponding Akkadian phrase ina ma\u1e2br\u012bya ittallak indicates, this expression seems originally to have been a technical term for absolute loyalty to a king. It appears in Assyrian land-grant documents in which the monarch rewards his subject with a grant of land in perpetuity. In the Bible, to \u201cwalk before God\u201d takes on an added dimension. Allegiance to Him means to condition the entire range of human experience by the awareness of His presence and in response to His demands.<\/p>\n
and be blameless The phrase is a near synonym of the preceding clause. Because Hebrew tamim is often used in ritual texts in the sense of \u201cwithout blemish,\u201d as for instance in Leviticus 1:3, 10, rabbinic tradition, in Genesis Rabba 46:1, connects the term to the following law of circumcision. In this view, circumcision removes the \u201cblemish\u201d from the male person by making him a whole being, so to speak, in his relationship to God.1<\/p>\n
3. threw himself on his face An expression of awe and submission in the presence of the Lord.2<\/p>\n
4. father of a multitude of nations In the narrow sense, the reference may be to the Ishmaelites, Edomites, Midianites, and several other peoples descended from Abraham, according to the genealogical lists of Genesis 25 and 36. However, the phrase has a more universal application in that a larger segment of humanity looks upon Abraham as its spiritual father.<\/p>\n
5. The expansion of his name from \u201cAbram\u201d to \u201cAbraham\u201d is in harmony with the patriarch\u2019s extended role. In light of the great importance with which the Bible invests name-giving generally, a change of name is of major significance and symbolizes the transformation of character and destiny.3 In the psychology of the ancient Near Eastern world, a name was not merely a convenient means of identification but was intimately bound up with the very essence of being and inextricably intertwined with personality (see Comment to 1:5). The inauguration of a new era or a new state policy would frequently be marked by the assumption of a new name on the part of the king. A classic example is the case of Amen-hotep IV of Egypt, whose change of name to Akh-en-aten testified to the revolutionary new theology that he imposed on his people. The Bible records several examples of name changes for leading personalities.<\/p>\n
Abram \u2026 Abraham See Comment to 11:26 and Note. Henceforth the patriarch is referred to invariably by the expanded form of his name, which carries with it an intimation of his God-given destiny. The meaning imposed upon the name Abraham\u2014\u201cthe father of a multitude of nations\u201d\u2014is not etymological but is obtained by giving a literalistic twist to the initial divine promise in Genesis 12:2, \u201cI will make your name great,\u201d that is, your name Abram will be enlarged by the addition of a syllable. The anomalous grammatical formulation supports the midrashic nature of the interpretation. It is possible that, by means of word play, the consonants ABRHM were interpreted as shorthand (called notarikon in postbiblical Hebrew) for ABiR (\u201cmighty one\u201d) and Hamon (\u201cmultitude\u201d) + goyiM (\u201cnations\u201d), as Ibn Ezra suggests.4<\/p>\n
6. kings The same promise recurs in verse 16; 35:11. In the context of the times, kingship is the consummation of the process of national development. The Davidic dynasty is the fulfillment of this promise.<\/p>\n
7. to be God to you So again in verse 8. This phrase belongs to the formal language of the covenant and recurs frequently in the Bible. God elects Israel to be His special people; He demands exclusive allegiance in return.5<\/p>\n
to you and to your offspring to come This expression occurs six times in this chapter (vv. 72, 8, 9, 10, 19) and also appears in 35:12 and 48:4 in connection with the covenantal promises. It too is legal terminology, as shown by the Aramaic legal papyri from the Jewish military colony at Elephantine (Aswan), Egypt (6th\u20135th cents. B.C.E.). The inclusion of the phrase in documents relating to the devolution of property upon the death of the owner assured that the real estate automatically passed on from generation to generation without restriction.<\/p>\n
8. an everlasting holding A phrase used again in 48:4. National ownership of the land is to be eternal, like the covenant itself. As Radak remarks, \u201cEven though the people might be exiled from it for a while, yet it remains their inalienable possession, and they will return to it.\u201d<\/p>\n
I will be their God Compare verse 7. The association of the Jewish people, the Land of Israel, and God is indissoluble and constitutes the rock on which Jewish civilization is built.<\/p>\n
THE LAW OF CIRCUMCISION (vv. 9\u201314)<\/p>\n
God\u2019s promises demand an active response from their recipients. Circumcision is both a token of God\u2019s covenant and a symbol of the Jew\u2019s consecration and commitment to a life lived in the consciousness of that covenant (see Excursus 12). The law of circumcision that now follows is the first mitsvah in the Torah that is specifically directed to Abraham and his descendants.
\nThe section comprising verses 10\u201314 appears to derive from a collection of laws. The introductory phrase, \u201cSuch \u2026\u201d (Heb. zo\u02bet, \u201cThis is \u2026\u201d) is characteristic of scores of laws in ritual texts (cf., e.g., Exod. 12:43; Lev. 6:2, 18), while the formulation in the second person plural shows that the section originally belonged in a legal setting, addressed to an entire community and not to an individual. As a matter of fact, the entire passage can be read as a coherent unit independent of those phrases formulated in the singular. This proves that the latter were added to the original when the legal extract was incorporated intact into our narrative.<\/p>\n
9. As for you This is the counterpart of \u201cAs for Me\u201d in verse 4.<\/p>\n
10. every male This restriction intentionally excludes the practice of clitoridectomy, or female circumcision, found in many parts of the world.<\/p>\n
11. the sign An outward, physical reminder of the existence of the covenant, like the rainbow after the Flood. See Comment to 9:12\u201317.<\/p>\n
12. eight days The radical reinterpretation of the common practice of circumcision from a pubertal or nuptial rite to a covenantal rite is reinforced by the unique shift of the operation to the eighth day after birth. The incidental result, noted in a midrash, is that the rite becomes more humane because it avoids the physical and psychological effects attendant upon the performance of circumcision at a more mature age.6 The eighth day is particularly significant because the newborn has completed a seven-day unit of time corresponding to the process of Creation. In like manner, Exodus 22:29 stipulates that the first-born of an animal is dedicated only on the eighth day after birth, and Leviticus 22:27 lays down that an animal is not fit for sacrifice before that day.<\/p>\n
who is not of your offspring This explanatory note is unique among the numerous passages that mention the \u201coutsider\u201d (Heb. ben nekhar). It is occasioned by the recurring reference to \u201cyour offspring\u201d in this chapter.<\/p>\n
13. marked in your flesh \u201cFlesh\u201d is here most likely a euphemism for \u201cpenis,\u201d as in Leviticus 15:2ff. and Ezekiel 16:26 and 23:20. The ineradicable nature of circumcision symbolized the enduring, irrevocable nature of the covenant.<\/p>\n
14. his foreskin That is, his own foreskin. Where the father fails to fulfill his duty, the responsibility falls upon the individual himself when he reaches maturity.<\/p>\n
shall be cut off There are thirty-six instances of this formula in the Torah, all of them listed in Mishnah Keritot 1:1. The punishment, known as [hik]karet in rabbinic parlance, is peculiar to ritual texts and is largely confined to offenses of a cultic and sexual nature. The Torah gives no definition of karet, and no analogy exists in Near Eastern sources. In most texts the impersonal, passive form of the verb is used, as here, so that not only the type of punishment but also the executive authority is uncertain. In Leviticus 20:1\u20136 the active first person is used with God as the subject of the verb: \u201cI will set My face against that man and will cut him off from among his people.\u201d This reasonably leads to the assumption that karet is not a punishment enforced in the courts, but a penalty left to divine execution. Such is the understanding of the term in rabbinic literature, where it means specifically premature death (Sifra Emor 14:4; MK 28a; TJ Bik. 2:1 [64c]) and, according to some, also childlessness (cf. Lev. 20:18\u201320). Certainly, the general idea is that one who deliberately excludes himself from the religious community cannot be a beneficiary of the covenantal blessings and thereby dooms himself and his line to extinction.<\/p>\n
THE CHANGE OF SARAI\u2019S NAME (vv. 15\u201322)<\/p>\n
Abram\u2019s name change is connected with the law of circumcision. That of Sarai must therefore be separately recorded.<\/p>\n
15. Sarai \u2026 Sarah No interpretation of the matriarch\u2019s name is given, but the succeeding blessing about \u201ckings\/rulers\u201d who will issue from her suggests an implicit midrash based on word play, for Hebrew sar, \u201cprince, ruler,\u201d is often paired with melekh, \u201cking.\u201d Further, there may well be an oblique reference to Sarah as the progenitrix of the future Israel, for in Genesis 32:29 that name is said to derive from Jacob\u2019s having \u201cstriven with beings divine and human.\u201d The Hebrew verb stem used there is s-r-h.
\nIn fact, the revised form sarah is simply a modernizing of the archaic sarai, the second syllable being an old Semitic female ending.7<\/p>\n
17. threw himself on his face Compare verse 3.<\/p>\n
and laughed The laughter foretokens the name of the son of destiny that Sarah will bear him (v. 19). Is it the laughter of joy, surprise, doubt\u2014or perhaps a little of each?<\/p>\n
Can \u2026 or can \u2026? The double question essentially describes two conditions that in combination produce a state of affairs that is manifestly inimical to the notion of Abraham and Sarah producing a child.<\/p>\n
18. by Your favor Hebrew lifnei seems to have this meaning in other texts (cf. Gen. 10:9; 27:7; Hos. 6:2). Abraham fears for the life of Ishmael because God\u2019s words appear wholly to exclude the boy from the benefits of the covenant.<\/p>\n
19\u201321. God reassures Abraham, point by point.<\/p>\n
19. Isaac Hebrew yits\u1e25ak is a verbal form meaning \u201cHe laughs.\u201d It is almost certainly an abbreviation (\u201chypocoristicon\u201d) of an original, fuller theophoric form yits\u1e25ak-\u02beel, \u201cEl laughs,\u201d after the pattern of yishma\u02bf-\u02beel. The full form is never found in the Bible, nor is any other proper name ever compounded with this stem. Nevertheless, all three biblical traditions relating to the birth of Isaac (cf. 17:19; 18:12; 21:6) emphatically connect the name with human laughter. The explanation for all this is twofold. On the one hand, there is a deliberate dissociation from the pagan, mythological origin of yits\u1e25ak-\u02beel, which reflects the laughter and merriment of the gods, something entirely devoid of moral and historical significance. On the other hand, the laughter of God in the Bible, by contrast, invariably expresses His reaction to the ludicrous attempts of men to act independently of His will and in defiance of it (Pss. 2:4; 37:13; 59:9). The repeated laughter of humans in connection with the birth of Isaac is, in a sense, the inverse of God\u2019s laughter, for it is a questioning of divine sovereignty (cf. 18:14). The person of Isaac, therefore, represents the triumph of the power of God over the limitations of nature. No wonder he receives his name from God Himself.8<\/p>\n
20. Ishmael \u2026 heeded See Comments to 16:3, 11. Although Ishmael is not to be Abraham\u2019s spiritual heir, he too receives God\u2019s blessing and has his own destiny to pursue.<\/p>\n
twelve chieftains Corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel. They are listed in 25:12\u201316.<\/p>\n
21. at this season next year Compare 18:10, 14; 2 Kings 4:16.<\/p>\n
22. God was gone Literally, \u201cwent up,\u201d implying that God had \u201ccome down\u201d9 to speak with Abraham. The latter verb frequently occurs in a context of divine self-manifestation, so that its antonym, \u201cto go up,\u201d means the termination of divine communication.<\/p>\n
THE LAW OF CIRCUMCISION CARRIED OUT (vv. 23\u201327)<\/p>\n
Without delay, \u201con that very day,\u201d Abraham fulfills the divine command and circumcises the entire male population of his household. The concept of kinship here is that of the residential unit, whether interrelated familially or not. Abraham\u2019s household constitutes an inclusive community henceforth united by the common symbol of circumcision as a newly adopted rite, deriving from a divine command and not from tradition. However, it is clear from verse 21 that heirship to the covenant promises is to be based on an exclusive matrilineal principle.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 18*<\/p>\n
The Character of Abraham; The Nature of God (vv. 1\u201333)<\/p>\n
Va-Yera\u02be<\/p>\n
The chapter divides into two distinct parts. Verses 1\u201315 tell of the appearance of angelic visitors to Abraham, while verses 17\u201333 deal with the intended divine visitation upon Sodom and Gomorrah. Verse 16 effects the transition between the sections. Although the two topics appear to be discrete, they are closely interconnected. The first carries a message of life and posterity, the second of death and everlasting destruction. Both reveal the nobility of Abraham\u2019s character; both disclose the workings of divine Providence.
\nNot only is the chapter a unity, it also has several points of contact with the preceding narrative and is, in fact, dependent upon it. Abraham, whose name does not appear until verse 6, is repeatedly referred to as \u201che\u201d and \u201chim\u201d; his identity is clear only from chapter 17. Sarah\u2019s childlessness is assumed to be a known fact and is not mentioned, although her advanced age is emphasized. The statement of 17:9f. that the covenant in the flesh is to be continued and reaffirmed generation after generation has its counterpart here in verse 19 in the moral legacy that Abraham is to bequeath to his offspring. Finally, there is much similarity between the incredulous laughter of Abraham in 17:16\u201321 and that of Sarah in verses 10\u201314 of the present chapter.<\/p>\n
HOSPITALITY TO STRANGERS (vv. 1\u20138)<\/p>\n
1. The LORD appeared to him This is the only example of this formula being used without some verbal declaration immediately following. Here, it seems to be a general statement followed by a detailed description of theophany or divine self-revelation, mediated in this instance through angelic messengers.1 Unlike the previous theophanies, this one is not accompanied by an act of worship or the building of an altar; in actual fact, hospitality to strangers itself becomes an act of worship. As the Talmud puts it, \u201cHospitality to wayfarers is greater than welcoming the Divine Presence\u201d (Shab. 127a).<\/p>\n
the terebinths of Mamre That is, in the area of Hebron. These have been discussed in the Comment to 13:18.<\/p>\n
as the day grew hot Toward noontime. The Bible does not know of the atomizing of time into separate units and contains no precise vocabulary for its division into hours, minutes, and seconds. A particular time of the day is designated by a subjective experience such as a cooling breeze, the degree of the sun\u2019s heat, or the dawning of light.2<\/p>\n
2. Looking up, he saw The wayfarers appear with startling suddenness at a time of the day when people would not normally be out.<\/p>\n
three men There seems to be nothing superhuman about their appearance. Abraham perceives them to be human, as do the people of Sodom (19:5). They are repeatedly designated \u201cmen,\u201d although they are also called \u201cangels.\u201d3 Their arrival as a group of three is without analogy in the Bible. Chapter 19:1 mentions \u201cthe two angels,\u201d which suggests that the third was manifestly different. Indeed, Abraham speaks to, and is in turn addressed by, one of them directly (vv. 4, 10). Perhaps the other two are his attendants.<\/p>\n
he ran Abraham does not wait for them to approach but takes the initiative in offering hospitality.<\/p>\n
bowing to the ground A gesture of honor and respect reinforced by the reference to himself as \u201cyour servant.\u201d4<\/p>\n
3. The English translation obscures some difficulties in the Hebrew text. The verbs in verse 3 are in the singular, indicating that only one of the three strangers is spoken to, whereas those in verses 4\u20135 are in the plural. Genesis Rabba 48:9, Rashi, and Ramban explain that Abraham addresses himself to the leader but that his invitation applies to all three. Another problem is the opening vocative, which is in the plural, \u02beadonai, with a final long vowel, the use of which is otherwise reserved for God. Rabbinic opinion in Shevu\u02bfot 35b is divided as to whether \u02beadonai is in this instance secular or sacred. Rashi and Ibn Ezra understand it to mean \u201cMy lords\u201d; Maimonides renders it \u201cMy Lord.\u201d5 Since it is clear that the patriarch at this point is unaware of the true identity of the strangers, the present vocalization serves as an indication to the reader that the three \u201cmen\u201d are no ordinary wayfarers.<\/p>\n
4\u20138. Abraham\u2019s openhearted, liberal hospitality to the total strangers knows no bounds. He has water brought for them to bathe their feet, a much appreciated comfort to the traveler with his sandal-like footwear and the pervasive dust of the roads (cf. Judg. 19:21). He invites them to rest under \u201cthe tree,\u201d probably one of the famous local terebinths. He promises to fetch \u201ca morsel of bread\u201d but prepares a lavish feast. The Talmud remarks, \u201cSuch is the way of the righteous; they promise little but perform much\u201d (BM 87a). In asking Sarah to bake cakes, Abraham specifies the use of \u201cchoice flour,\u201d that is, the finest and choicest of wheat flour, the type from which meal offerings were later brought to the sanctuary.6 He himself selects the calf for the main dish, a rare delicacy and a sign of princely hospitality among pastoralists. He provides curds and milk, the basic products of a pastoral economy. Curds are the coagulated state of the fatty part of the milk, corresponding to the modern leben or yogurt. Milk was highly esteemed in the ancient Near East and was offered to the gods. It was regarded as a source of vitality and possessor of curative powers. Abraham personally serves the strangers this rich fare and stands close by, ready to attend to their needs.<\/p>\n
as they ate Early exegesis, as represented by Josephus (Ant. 1.197), Targum Jonathan, and the Talmud, would not accept the notion of angels partaking of food and understood the phrase to mean that they only gave the appearance of eating (BM 86b).7<\/p>\n
THE ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT SARAH (vv. 9\u201315)<\/p>\n
9. Where is your wife Sarah? As noted by Rashbam, the question is merely a rhetorical device for the purpose of politely opening a conversation about Sarah. See Comment to 3:9.8<\/p>\n
10. The divine promise has been unfolding in stages. First, in 15:4, Abraham was assured that his heir would be a natural-born son; then, in 17:16\u201321, he was assured that Sarah would bear this child; now a time limit is set for the fulfillment of the promise.<\/p>\n
Then one said The translation \u201cone\u201d is justified by the singular Hebrew verb, following the plural of verse 9.<\/p>\n
I will return The supernatural character of the visitors now asserts itself. The statement is not meant to be literal. It simply means, as Ramban noted, that by this time next year the prediction will have been fulfilled.<\/p>\n
next year Compare 17:21. The phrase ka-\u02bftt \u1e25ayyah recurs only in 2 Kings 4:16f. and in a similar context. Its exact meaning is uncertain. The first element is \u201cat the\/this time.\u201d The second is taken by Rashbam, Bekhor Shor, and Radak to be the postbiblical \u1e25ay(y)ah, \u201ca pregnant woman.\u201d The phrase would then refer to the nine months of pregnancy. Alternately, \u1e25ayyah could also simply mean \u201clife,\u201d as in Ezekiel 7:13 and Job 33:18, 20.<\/p>\n
11. The verse gives the background to Sarah\u2019s reaction.<\/p>\n
the periods of women Literally, \u201cthe way of women.\u201d The phrase refers to the menstrual cycle, just as it clearly does in 31:35. Mention of this fact is intended to indicate that the emergence of the people of Israel is an extraordinary event. Its life and destiny are under God\u2019s special guidance and are not subject to what seem to be the ordinary norms of history.<\/p>\n
12. Sarah laughed See Comment to 17:17, 19.<\/p>\n
enjoyment Hebrew \u02bfednah is now known to mean \u201cabundant moisture\u201d and is an exact antonym of \u201cwithered.\u201d<\/p>\n
13. Then the LORD said As explained in Excursus 10, God and His angels often speak interchangeably.<\/p>\n
to Abraham The patriarch maintains a discreet silence.<\/p>\n
old as I am The reference to Abraham\u2019s advanced age is tactfully omitted.9<\/p>\n
15. Sarah lied The Bible does not gloss over the human failings of national heroes. See Comment to 12:13.<\/p>\n
she was frightened No wonder, for she had laughed not out loud but to herself, and her innermost thoughts had been read!<\/p>\n
16. This statement deftly and smoothly forges the link between the first scene and the next, firmly closing the one and delicately intimating the other.<\/p>\n
looked down toward Sodom They must have been standing at some vantage point within walking distance from Hebron from which the Dead Sea region was visible.10<\/p>\n
THE ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT SODOM (vv. 17\u201322)<\/p>\n
God now makes Abraham privy to one of His historic decisions. Ten generations earlier He had disclosed His secret purposes to Noah (6:12f.), but only in order to save the man\u2019s life. Here foreknowledge permits Abraham to plead disinterestedly for other people\u2019s lives. One is reminded of the words of Amos in 3:7, \u201cIndeed, My Lord GOD docs nothing \/ Without having revealed His purpose \/ To His servants the prophets.\u201d Jeremiah, in 23:18, expresses the same notion when he refers to the one \u201cwho has stood in the council of the LORD, \/ And seen and heard His word.\u201d In the case of the prophets, the divine foretelling is an expression of God\u2019s love for humanity, meant to warn of impending calamity in the hope of bringing about repentance and the enhancement of the human condition. Such was the case, for instance, in the Book of Jonah. In this prior revelation to Abraham of God\u2019s intentions toward Sodom, both the patriarch\u2019s humanity and God\u2019s morality are put to the test.
\nAbraham is granted this singular privilege because he symbolizes the future Jewish nation, which is destined to become a source of blessing to other nations. As such, he cannot avoid direct involvement in the fortunes of humanity at large. At the same time, he is the repository of those eternal values of righteousness and justice that constitute \u201cthe way of the Lord.\u201d God relies upon him to transmit this heritage to his posterity, which is the indispensable precondition for the fulfillment of the divine promises. The lessons of Sodom and Gomorrah, the judgment of God, and the actions of Abraham exemplify the principles of justice and righteousness, divine and human.<\/p>\n
19. singled him out He enjoys a special degree of intimacy with God. For this nuance of Hebrew y-d-\u02bf, see Comment to 4:1.<\/p>\n
instruct In the Bible the education of the young is the responsibility of parents. The Hebrew phrase, not usually used in this context, literally means \u201che will enjoin \u2026 after him.\u201d Used here, it implies a charge made in anticipation of death and indicates that the inculcation of moral values constitutes the richest and most enduring of legacies.11<\/p>\n
20\u201322. The sin and cataclysmic punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah have converted the names of those two cities into a permanent metaphor of human wickedness and divine retribution.
\nThe first hint of the immorality of their inhabitants was the bare observation in 13:13 that they were \u201cvery wicked sinners against the LORD.\u201d The narrative now speaks of \u201coutrage\u201d and \u201coutcry\u201d (so also 19:13). These two terms are identical; the Hebrew stems z-\u02bf-k and ts-\u02bf-k are simply dialectical variants of each other. They connote the anguished cry of the oppressed, the agonized plea of the victim for help in the face of some great injustice. In the Bible these terms are suffused with poignancy and pathos, with moral outrage and soul-stirring passion. God heeded the \u201coutcry\u201d (Heb. tse\u02bfakah) of His people against the harsh slavery of Egypt in Exodus 3:7; His \u201canger blazes forth\u201d when He hears the \u201coutcry\u201d of the ill-treated widow and orphan in Exodus 22:21\u201323; and to the prophet Isaiah, in 5:7, an \u201coutcry\u201d is the absolute negation of justice and righteousness: \u201cAnd He hoped for justice, \/ But behold, injustice; \/ For righteousness, \/ but behold, an outcry.\u201d Tse\u02bfakah is especially used in connection with the suffering of the poor and the impoverished victims of avaricious exploitation.12
\nThe sin of Sodom, then, is heinous moral and social corruption, an arrogant disregard of basic human rights, a cynical insensitivity to the sufferings of others. The prophet Jeremiah identified Sodom with adultery, false dealing, and the encouragement of evildoers\u2014all without any feelings of contrition (23:14)\u2014while Ezekiel sums up the situation as follows in 16:49: \u201cOnly this was the sin of your sister Sodom: arrogance! She and her daughters had plenty of bread and untroubled tranquility; yet she did not support the poor and the needy. In their haughtiness, they committed abomination before Me; and so I removed them.\u2026\u201d The indictment of Sodom lies entirely in the moral realm; there is no hint of cultic offense, no whisper of idolatry. As with the Flood story, the Sodom and Gomorrah narrative assumes the existence of a universal moral law that God expects all humankind to follow. The idea that there is an inextricable connection between the social and moral behavior of a people and its ultimate fate is one of the pillars upon which the entire biblical interpretation of history stands.<\/p>\n
21. I will go down to see See Comment to 11:5. This stated intention is an element in the motif of theodicy, or the vindication of divine justice, that is essential to the Sodom narrative. As the wickedness of the city appears to reach intolerable proportions, God personally investigates the situation. The fate of the inhabitants of Sodom is not yet sealed. At this point, the humanity of Abraham is put to the test.<\/p>\n
22. This seemingly intrusive note is really connected with verse 16. Here it makes for a slight pause in the narrative, as though to insinuate the idea of Abraham briefly struggling with himself as to whether he should plead the cause of Sodom or, like Noah before him, remain indifferent to the fate of his fellow beings.<\/p>\n
EXPOSTULATION WITH GOD (vv. 22\u201333)<\/p>\n
Until now Abraham has spoken with God three times (Gen. 15:2, 8; 17:17). On each occasion his personal welfare has been the sole subject of discourse. Now a change takes place. The next dialogue with God involves a concern for the welfare of others, total strangers. Abraham displays an awareness of suffering and an ability to respond beyond his immediate personal interests. He shows himself to be a moral man, a compassionate person. His behavior at this moment makes him the paradigm of \u201cthe just and the right,\u201d qualities that are to characterize his descendants (v. 18). As the Talmud in Betsah 32b observes: \u201cWhoever is merciful to his fellow beings is without doubt of the children of our father Abraham; whoever is unmerciful to his fellow beings certainly cannot be of the children of Abraham our father.\u201d
\nAbraham now stands before God to plead for the lives of depraved pagans. He senses kinship with the people of Sodom and feels himself involved in their fate. The ensuing dialogue assumes that the man of faith is not expected to accept morally absurd behavior with silent resignation. God rules the pagans, judges their deeds, decides their fate, and executes His decisions. His universality finds expression, above all, in His punishment of pagans for moral corruption because He is the architect of a societal pattern that is universal in scope. Because God is universal and omnipotent, humankind needs assurance that His almighty power is not indiscriminately applied and that He is not capricious like the pagan gods. A Mesopotamian composition known as the \u201cPoem of the Righteous Sufferer,\u201d dating from about the middle of the second millennium B.C.E., presents the complaint of a pious man whose world has crashed about him, despite his punctilious attention to the cultic demands of his gods. This man deplores the fact that the gods do not operate according to any intelligible norms: \u201cWhat is good in one\u2019s sight is evil for a god. \/ What is bad in one\u2019s own mind is good for his god. \/ Who can understand the counsel of the gods in the midst of heaven? \/ The plan of a god is deep waters, who can comprehend it? \/ Where has befuddled mankind ever learned what a god\u2019s conduct is?\u201d (ANET, p. 435). By contrast, Abraham\u2019s struggle to apprehend the nature of God\u2019s purposes assumes that God must act according to a principle that man can try to understand. That principle is the passion for righteousness. \u201cShall not the Judge of all earth deal justly?\u201d he protests. It is this faith in God\u2019s justice that gives rise to the argument with God, whose intent to destroy Sodom appears to raise serious conflict with the patriarch\u2019s conviction about His moral governance of the world.
\nThe patriarch\u2019s contention that the innocent not be made to suffer along with the guilty is clear enough. More complicated is his second request that the entire city be spared for the sake of an innocent minority. This is no longer a simple appeal to the attribute of justice but a call for divine mercy. It carries with it two implications: Indirectly it asserts that there is a greater infraction of justice in the death of an innocent few than in allowing a guilty majority to escape retribution; it assumes that the merit of a minority is powerful enough to overcome the wickedness of the majority. These are major themes in later biblical literature because divine mercy can also be divine tolerance of evil, a problem of serious dimensions to prophet and sage alike.13 The second issue, the question of individual versus communal responsibility, has a long history of controversy.
\nAbsent from the Sodom and Gomorrah narrative, as well as from the Flood story, is the theme of repentance. Just as Noah did not call upon his contemporaries to repair their ways, neither Abraham nor the messengers warn the people of Sodom of the impending disaster in the hope of arousing them to atonement. This is in sharp contrast to the story of Jonah, in which the reluctant prophet gives the sinful city of Nineveh forty days\u2019 notice of the punishment about to descend upon it, and the penitent response of the contrite citizens succeeds in averting the evil decree.
\nThe theme of repentance plays a major and indispensable role in the theological outlook and religious teachings of the great literary prophets. They pound away at it incessantly, lamenting the inability of the people to understand and accept it. Repentance becomes part of the great prophetic vision about \u201cthe end of days.\u201d But it is not to be found in the Noah and Sodom narratives. These belong to the earliest traditions of Israel and derive from a time before the doctrine of repentance had been developed.<\/p>\n
23. came forward That is, to present his case. The Hebrew n-g-sh is often used in this courtroom sense.14<\/p>\n
24. within the city The narrative concentrates on Sodom because, being the metropolis, it was representative of all five cities of the Plain.15<\/p>\n
27. but dust and ashes Abraham approaches God with profound deference and humility, displaying unsurpassed human greatness.<\/p>\n
32. ten Abraham has reached the limit of the ability of a righteous individual to outweigh the cumulative evil of the community. Ten is a round and complete number that symbolizes totality. Ten persons thus constitute the minimum effective social entity.16<\/p>\n
33. returned to his place That is, to Hebron.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 19*<\/p>\n
The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (vv. 1\u201335)<\/p>\n
Events now move rapidly toward a horrifying but retributive climax. The drama unfolds through quickly paced scenes that are presented in three parts: the demonstration by the Sodomites of their irredeemable evil; the deliverance of Lot; the devastation of the region. In an epilogue we are told of the incestuous act of the daughters of Lot.
\nThe scenes form an integral unit, for the acts of incest would be unintelligible without the preceding events. The desperate deed of Lot\u2019s daughters is a direct result of both the cataclysm and the death of their mother. The beginning and the end form an inclusion, or envelope-like pattern.<\/p>\n
ARRIVAL OF THE ANGELS AT SODOM (vv. 1\u20135)<\/p>\n
1. sitting in the gate The gate of a large city usually comprised towers and guardrooms and a large area where people could sit. An example is the city gate uncovered at Tell Dan, which has a stone bench 15 feet (4.6 m.) long around the wall of one of its towers. The gate area in an ancient Near Eastern city served as a civic center where the affairs of the community would be conducted in full view of, and with full participation of, the citizens.1 Here gossip would be exchanged and disseminated, business transacted, and justice dispensed. Many of the legal documents from Nuzi close with the formula, \u201cThe tablet was written after the proclamation in the entrance of the gate.\u201d<\/p>\n
2. house Lot lived formerly in a tent \u201cnear Sodom\u201d (13:12). Now he has become a townsman and resides in a house inside the city (cf. vv. 4, 10f.). Although he has changed his style of life, he still preserves the virtue of hospitality that is characteristic of a pastoral society generally, and particularly of a member of Abraham\u2019s family.<\/p>\n
be on your way early The strangers are urged to get out of town before the people of Sodom become aware of their presence.2<\/p>\n
No These messengers are unafraid. Moreover, they must test the inhabitants to learn whether or not their evil reputation is in fact deserved (cf. 18:21). Normally, it would be unthinkable for a stranger to have to lodge in the open for want of hospitality.3<\/p>\n
the square Biblical Hebrew re\u1e25ov is not a street but a broad open square or plaza.4<\/p>\n
3. a feast Hebrew mishteh denotes wine drinking.<\/p>\n
unleavened bread Hebrew matsah is a flat cake baked before the dough has had time to rise. It can be very quickly prepared for unexpected guests.5<\/p>\n
4. the men of Sodom The phrase is a descriptive note. The townsfolk live up to their unsavory reputation; they are true men of Sodom as described in 13:13 and 18:20f.6<\/p>\n
young \u2026 to the last man The choice of words is very deliberate. Not a single decent individual can be found (cf. 18:24\u201332).<\/p>\n
5. be intimate That is, commit homosexual rape upon them (cf. Judg. 19:22). From such texts as Leviticus 18:22, 24 and 20:13, 23, it is clear that homosexuality is regarded as one of the abhorrent perversions of the Canaanites. In this instance, the sin is compounded by aggression. A rabbinic interpretation, found in Tosefta Sotah 3:11f. and elsewhere, suggests that the affluent people of Sodom selfishly adopted a deliberate policy of maltreating strangers in order to discourage visitors to the city and thus not to have to share their prosperity with others.<\/p>\n
LOT\u2019S MORAL RESISTANCE (vv. 6\u201311)<\/p>\n
Lot is true to his code of honor. Hospitality was a sacred duty, according the guest the right of asylum. Lot is faced with a moral dilemma, for his own morals infringe upon the standards of Sodom. Tacitly, though unequivocally, the narrative declares that all socially approved actions and all societal values must be subordinated to the higher obligations of the divinely ordained moral order.<\/p>\n
8. This was an age in which a patriarch possessed absolute power (patria potestas) over the members of his clan, and daughters were held in low esteem. Lot\u2019s desperate stratagem reflects this system of values. By the standards of a later age, the nobility of his intentions is dulled by his willingness to surrender his daughters to the fury and lust of the mob (cf. vv. 16, 29).<\/p>\n
who have not known a man Lot is not appealing to the passions of the men of Sodom but is underscoring the seriousness with which he treats the value of hospitality. Verse 14 shows that the two girls were betrothed but not yet married. The Mesopotamian law codes make it clear that betrothal was as sacrosanct as a consummated marriage. The Akkadian phrase corresponding to our Hebrew is \u0161a zikaram la id\u016b, \u201cwho has not known a male.\u201d It is similarly used in legal formulation to describe a woman engaged to be married and still living in her father\u2019s house. Her violator incurs the death penalty.7<\/p>\n
9. The fellow Literally, \u201cthe one,\u201d a contemptuous epithet. Lot is reminded of his isolation and his alien status. Being a ger, he is without legal rights and protection and is entirely dependent on the goodwill of the local community (see Comment to 12:10). There is a touch of irony in this, for Lot had, by stages, integrated himself into Sodom\u2019s society. First he merely \u201cpitched his tents near Sodom\u201d (13:12). Then \u201che had settled in Sodom\u201d (14:12). It was solely on his account that the city had earlier been saved by Abraham (14:14). Now he lives in a house there and \u201csits in the gate\u201d where the city elders gather. His daughters are about to intermarry with local men. Yet, despite his best efforts, he cannot fully assimilate into Sodom\u2019s society, and when it comes to the test, he finds he is an outsider after all.<\/p>\n
11. blinding light Hebrew sanverim occurs again only in 2 Kings 6:18 in a similar context. The Aramaic Targums understand it to mean a dazzling brightness.8 The people of Sodom did not suffer the usual kind of sightlessness (ivvaron) but a sudden, immobilizing, blazing flash of light.<\/p>\n
helpless The stem l-\u02be-h, essentially means \u201cnot to be able.\u201d9<\/p>\n
THE DELIVERANCE OF LOT AND HIS FAMILY (vv. 12\u201316)<\/p>\n
12. Sons-in-law \u2026 This is simply a list of possible relatives, not of Lot\u2019s actual family. The mention of sons-in-law before sons is strange.<\/p>\n
13. the outcry In 18:20f. the guilt of the city is still to be proved. Now its guilt is established beyond all doubt. Its punishment is inevitable.<\/p>\n
14. went out That is, to where his intended sons-in-law lived.<\/p>\n
who had married This rendering, which is that of the Septuagint, assumes that Lot had two married daughters in the city. The Hebrew, however, does not use a defined verb, which leaves open the possibility that the reference is to his prospective sons-in-law.<\/p>\n
as one who jests Their fault lies not in their disbelief but in their lack of seriousness, which reveals their insensitivity to the enormity of the moral evil about them.<\/p>\n
15. remaining daughters Or, \u201cyour two daughters who are here.\u201d10<\/p>\n
16. Lot\u2019s deliverance is an act of divine grace undeserved by any merit on his part, as verse 29 indicates. Perhaps his hospitality to strangers was a contributory factor.<\/p>\n
17. Flee The stem m-l-t is repeated five times (vv. 17\u201321) in a word play on the name Lot.<\/p>\n
Do not look behind you That is, do not linger.<\/p>\n
the hills That is, to the highlands of Moab.<\/p>\n
18. my lord Hebrew \u02beadonai is here treated by many commentators as nonsacred. Others understand it as a direct plea to God.<\/p>\n
20\u201322. a little place Hebrew mits\u02bfar is a play on tso\u02bfar (Zoar) in verse 22. It is intended to explain, by popular etymology, the change in place-name from the original Bela (14:2). For the locale of the city, see Excursus 13.<\/p>\n
THE CATACLYSM (vv. 23\u201339)<\/p>\n
Here, and in all subsequent references to Sodom and Gomorrah, the biblical narrative focuses upon the moral significance of the events. For this reason, the description of the catastrophe is terse to the point of obscurity. This brevity, and the absence of external sources from the biblical period, renders any reliable reconstruction of the details all but impossible. Greek and Latin authors who mention the subject are extremely late and may have drawn their information from Jewish sources; they are not necessarily witnesses to independent traditions. Moreover, even the location of the cities cannot be pinpointed (see Excursus 13). No archaeological remains exist or can be identified to provide material for scientific investigation. The ruined cities have vanished without leaving a trace.
\nGeologists have ruled out the possibility of volcanic eruption in this region. The most obvious explanation of the cataclysm is an earthquake. Nowhere in the text is this clearly mentioned, not even in the many passages that use the stem h-f-kh (vv. 21, 25, 292). Nor are we helped by the fact that every biblical mention of the noun form mahpekhah, \u201coverthrow,\u201d is in a context that refers to Sodom. The Hebrew h-f-kh, which simply means to \u201ctransform completely,\u201d is a general term for destruction without specifying the means. Still, the earthquake theory is the most plausible. The entire Jordan Valley is part of the Syrian-African Rift, a gigantic fracture in the crust of the earth caused by a series of geological spasms. It stretches from Syria in the north, down the Arabah to the Gulf of Akaba, through the Red Sea to the Upper Nile Valley and on to Lake Nyasa in East Africa. In this Sodom story we may well be dealing with a description of one of the last earthquakes that shaped the lower Jordan Valley area in historical times.
\nIt is well known that fissures formed by quakes often allow heat and gases to escape from the earth. Lightning, frequently present during earthquakes, would have ignited the sulfur and bitumen existing in the area (14:10). A catastrophic conflagration would result (cf. Deut. 29:22). This would explain the utter ruination of the cities, the extinction of their inhabitants, and the obliteration of all vegetation in the region (v. 24), as well as the smoke that Abraham saw rising from the land (v. 28).<\/p>\n
24. the LORD \u2026 the LORD The repetition, like the phrase \u201cout of heaven,\u201d dramatizes the conviction that what occurred was not a meaningless accident of nature but a purposeful event, the expression of God\u2019s direct intervention in human affairs in order to redress the balance of justice.<\/p>\n
sulfurous fire Sulfur is Latin for \u201cburning stone,\u201d or \u201cbrimstone\u201d in Old English.11 The fire here, like the water in Noah\u2019s day, may have a symbolically purgative function as it does in the narrative of Numbers 16:35 and in the law of Numbers 31:23. It may also be a metaphor of divine anger, as in Deuteronomy 32:22 and Isaiah 65:5.<\/p>\n
26. looked back She lingered in flight and was overwhelmed by the spreading devastation.<\/p>\n
a pillar of salt The tradition, preserved in Deuteronomy 29:22, describes ruination of the soil by sulfur and salt (cf. Zeph. 2:9). Radak notes that Lot\u2019s wife would thus have suffered the same fate as the other inhabitants. \u201cShe wholly disappeared in a blanket of salt; yet popular notion has her body turning into salt and still recognizable,\u201d writes Bekhor Shor. This idea must have been suggested by some grotesque salt-rock formation in the vicinity of the Dead Sea. The pre-Christian book, The Wisdom of Solomon (10:4), says, \u201cA pillar of salt stands as a memorial to an unbelieving soul\u201d; and Josephus (Ant. 1.203) claims to have seen it in his day. The origin of the salt tradition must lie in the presence of Mount Sodom (Jebel Usdum), the base of which is a ridge of rock salt that extends for about five miles (8 km.). The salt, too, may have a symbolic function; in the ancient Near East, a site was strewn with salt as a mark of eternal desolation in punishment for disloyalty and a breach of a treaty (e.g., Judg. 9:45).12<\/p>\n
27\u201329. The previous narrative about Abraham, interrupted by the events at Sodom, now resumes. His dialogue with God having ended on an uncertain note, Abraham now hastens to his vantage point (18:16) to learn the outcome of his intercession. Alas, Sodom could not boast often righteous souls.<\/p>\n
THE BIRTH OF MOAB AND AMMON (vv. 30\u201338)<\/p>\n
The concluding section of the chapter describes the origin of the peoples of Moab and Ammon. Behind this strange narrative lie some authentic historical memories.
\nSince throughout most of their common history relations between Israel and these peoples were generally unfriendly, it is unlikely that a tradition about their kinship to Israel would be invented. By the same token, their connection with the clan of Lot, Abraham\u2019s nephew, must be genuine and is independently confirmed by their appellation \u201csons of Lot\u201d in Deuteronomy 2:9, 19 and Psalms 83:9. The portrayal of Ammon and Moab as brothers, as in Deuteronomy 23:3, must reflect either an original common descent or a period when the two peoples were united by treaty obligations. Such a condition is often referred to in the Near East by the term a\u1e2b\u1e2b\u016btu, \u201cbrotherhood.\u201d
\nMoabite and Ammonite inscriptions confirm that they both spoke kindred Semitic languages that were much closer to Hebrew than to Aramaic. According to our narrative, the two peoples appear on the scene of history rather late, as indicated by their absence from the Table of Nations in chapter 10. Archaeological surveys have determined that around 1900 B.C.E. Transjordanian civilization was extinguished. Sedentary life in the area did not resume on a firm basis until about the end of the fourteenth century B.C.E. A century later, when Israelites were just settling in Canaan, Moab and Ammon were already organized as monarchies in Transjordan. This is in harmony with the inference from our story that Israel is younger than these two.
\nIt is difficult to understand the point of this episode since neither people plays any role in the patriarchal narrative. A theory that it expresses Israelite contempt for its traditional enemies is hardly likely to be correct. If this were the motivation, then surely a scandalous origin for Esau-Edom, the inveterate and implacable national enemy, would also have been invented, rather than have him be the son of Isaac and Rebekah. Nothing in our story suggests hostility. The daughters do not act out of lust. Lot, who is entirely unaware of what is happening, receives no blame. The later hostility to Moab and Ammon finds expression in the law prohibiting Israelite intermarriage with them, but the proscription in Deuteronomy 23:4f. is conditioned on Israel\u2019s wilderness experience and is not based on the incestuous origin of these peoples. Indeed, their right to live peaceably in their respective homelands is acknowledged as God-given in Deuteronomy 2:9, 19. It should also be remembered that King David is descended from a Moabite woman, a fact clearly attested in Ruth 4:17\u201322.<\/p>\n
30\u201331 We do not know why Lot was afraid to stay in Zoar. Perhaps earth tremors continued to be felt there. Later Jewish sources have preserved a tradition that all five cities\u2014including Zoar\u2014were destroyed.13 This would explain why Lot\u2019s daughters believed the catastrophe to be universal.<\/p>\n
32. drink wine The implication is that Lot would never have been a conscious partner to such an act.<\/p>\n
maintain life There is no way of knowing if their intent was the renewal of the entire human race, as Genesis Rabba 51:10 sees it, or just the perpetuation of their father\u2019s name, as Radak believes. There is no explicit condemnation of the actions of the two girls; but their anonymity implies censure.<\/p>\n
37. Moab A popular etymology based on Hebrew me-\u02beavi, \u201cfrom [my] father.\u201d14<\/p>\n
38. Ben-ammi Literally, \u201cson of my [paternal] kinsman.\u201d The name reflects the fact that the Ammonites are generally called in the Bible benei-\u02bfammon, a form that also appears in the first complete Ammonite inscription that has turned up.15
\nThe two sons are born, and nothing more is heard of Lot. His story ends on an inglorious and ironic note. At the beginning of the chapter he was willing to let the virginity of his daughters be forcibly defiled, without even informing them, in order to save lives. Now, in order to \u201cmaintain life,\u201d his daughters have lost their virginity by forcing themselves upon him without his knowledge.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 20*<\/p>\n
Abraham, Sarah, and Abimelech (20:1\u201321:34)<\/p>\n
Following the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham resumes his wanderings. Once again Sarah is taken away by force, this time to the harem of Abimelech, king of Gerar, who has been misled into believing that she is the patriarch\u2019s sister. She is saved from dishonor only by divine intervention.
\nThe story is strongly reminiscent of the couple\u2019s earlier encounter with Pharaoh in Egypt. Here it serves to complete a literary framework. The first kidnapping of Sarah occurred after receiving the initial divine promise of posterity. The second takes place after the last such promise.
\nThe chapter as a whole is closely connected with the preceding. The opening phrase presupposes a knowledge of Abraham\u2019s residence at Mamre-Hebron; the maltreatment of the alien, characteristic of the Sodomites, is feared to prevail at Gerar as well; the willingness to trade a close female relative in a desperate bid for physical safety is a motif common to both stories; the questioning of the nature of divine justice is the theme of Abimelech\u2019s dialogue with God as it was with Abraham\u2019s. And, just as Lot was saved by the merit of Abraham, so is the king of Gerar. The patriarch plays the role of intercessor in both narratives.<\/p>\n
THE KIDNAPPING OF SARAH (vv. 1\u20132)<\/p>\n
Abraham journeyed from there This phrase has no immediate antecedent, but it must refer to the district of Mamre-Hebron, which has been Abraham\u2019s sole place of domicile since Lot\u2019s separation. The identical word mi-sham, \u201cfrom there,\u201d occurs twice earlier with the same point of reference (18:16, 22).<\/p>\n
the region of the Negeb Compare 12:8f. The northern Negeb in the Beer-sheba Basin possesses arable soil and some cover of vegetation. Seasonal, seminomadic, pastoral occupation of the area is archaeologically attested for the period between the Early and Middle Bronze Ages (21st\u201319th cents. B.C.E.).<\/p>\n
Kadesh and Sbur The line between the oasis of Kadesh and the Egyptian defense wall in the eastern Delta of the Nile (see the Comments to 14:7 and 16:7). This line constituted the southern-most limits of Abraham\u2019s wanderings. He \u201csettled,\u201d that is, made a prolonged stay, in this region.<\/p>\n
sojourning in Gerar At some point the patriarch left the Kadesh-Shur grazing region to visit the royal city of Gerar. No reason is given for this journey. He may have wanted to trade pastoral products and purchase supplies in the city, or the rich pasturelands in the vicinity may have been an attraction.1 (The location of Gerar has already been discussed in the Comment to 10:19.) It is to be noted that Abraham does not \u201csettle\u201d but only \u201csojourns\u201d (va-yagor) here, indicating a change of status. He is an alien (ger), unprotected and subject to maltreatment.<\/p>\n
2. Forewarned by his previous experience on alien soil, as described in 12:10\u201320f., Abraham now takes the initiative in passing off Sarah as his sister. He does not ask her for permission to do so.<\/p>\n
Abimelech This is a fairly common ancient West Semitic personal name. It appears as \u02beabmlk in the Ugaritic texts and as abimilki, king of Tyre, in the El-Amarna correspondence (second half 14th cent. B.C.E.). It also appears as an Israelite name that means \u201cmy father is king.\u201d2<\/p>\n
had Sarah brought to him She is now nearly ninety years of age (17:17)! What interest, then, did Abimelech have in her? According to rabbinic fancy, \u201cher flesh was rejuvenated, her wrinkles smoothed out, and her original beauty was restored\u201d (BM 87a). Without doubt, from the Narrator\u2019s point of view, this would be consistent with the miraculous renewal of her vitality by divine grace so that she may bear a child. However, on this occasion the text is pointedly silent about Sarah\u2019s beauty. In light of the subsequent relations between Abraham and Abimelech (21:22\u201332), it is quite possible that the king\u2019s goal was an alliance with the patriarch for purposes of prestige and economic advantage.<\/p>\n
GOD\u2019S ADMONITION TO ABIMELECH (vv. 3\u20137)<\/p>\n
In a dream revelation the king is charged with the forcible abduction of a married woman. Abimelech defends his innocence on two grounds: he has not had sexual relations with her; information about her married state was withheld from him by the parties concerned. The charge of abduction is neatly ignored. God counters the first argument by asserting that it was He who prevented the violation of Sarah. As to the second, the king\u2019s integrity is put to the test. Now that he knows the truth, he must at once restore the woman to her husband.<\/p>\n
3. in a dream Throughout the ancient world, Israel included,3 the dream was accepted as a vehicle of divine communication. Here it has a straightforward, admonitory function, as in 31:24, and no interpreter is needed.<\/p>\n
4. The Narrator injects himself into the movement of the argument.<\/p>\n
approached her A euphemism for sexual relations. In accordance with the narrative technique, the reason for Abimelech\u2019s abstention is withheld here and revealed only later (v. 6).<\/p>\n
O Lord \u02beAdonai is used, and not the divine YHVH, probably because the king is not of the Abrahamic faith (see Comment to 18:3).<\/p>\n
will You slay \u2026 Like Abraham in the preceding story, the king appeals to God\u2019s justice.<\/p>\n
people That is, my household (cf. vv. 7, 17f.). Hebrew goy usually means \u201cnation,\u201d but on rare occasions it has the more restricted sense of \u201cpeople,\u201d \u201cfolk,\u201d or \u201cgroup.\u201d4 The literal rendering \u201cnation\u201d cannot be ruled out, however, because according to the widespread conception of the times, the monarch and his people constituted a unified entity. The king was regarded as embodying divine blessing, and the well-being of his people was directly dependent upon his personal welfare (cf. v. 9, \u201cupon me and my kingdom\u201d).<\/p>\n
5. heart \u2026 hands That is, sincerity of intention and rectitude in behavior.<\/p>\n
6. God affirms only the unintentionality of the possible adultery, nothing else.5<\/p>\n
I kept you from \u2026 How this happened is not disclosed until verses 17\u201318.<\/p>\n
sinning against Me Israelite law regards adultery as an offense against divinely given standards of morality and not merely as a violation of the husband\u2019s proprietary rights. The latter was the general view of the ancient Near Eastern law codes (cf. 39:9).<\/p>\n
7. he is a prophet Hebrew navi\u02be is used here in the Bible for the first time. A term of uncertain origin, it is widely believed to be connected with Akkadian nab\u00fb, \u201cto call.\u201d Assyrian kings were entitled \u201cthe one called,\u201d that is, called by the gods. The form navi\u02be in Hebrew could either signify \u201cone who receives the (divine) call\u201d or \u201cone who proclaims,\u201d a \u201cspokesman.\u201d The last meaning is favored by such texts as Exodus 4:15f. and 7:1, and generally by the prophetic role as described in the Bible. The prophet is the spokesman for God to man; but intercession before God in favor of man is also an indispensable aspect of his function.6 Moses frequently acts in this capacity, and so do Samuel, Amos, and Jeremiah. It is primarily in this sense that Abraham is here designated \u201ca prophet\u201d (cf. Pss. 105:15). He has already demonstrated his intercessory role in the case of Sodom. In addition, like the later prophets, he has been made privy to God\u2019s purposes (18:17ff.; cf. Amos 3:7).<\/p>\n
he will intercede for you By forcibly abducting Sarah, Abimelech has made Abraham an aggrieved party. It is only fitting that the one wronged should intercede in behalf of the wrongdoer. Moses similarly prayed for his sister Miriam, who had defamed him (Num. 12:13), and Job beseeched God on behalf of his three friends who had misjudged him (Job 42:8).<\/p>\n
you shall die The excuse of inadvertence will no longer be tenable.<\/p>\n
ABRAHAM\u2019S DEFENSE (vv. 8\u201313)<\/p>\n
The dream makes such an impression on the king that he convokes his council of state, whose members are thoroughly alarmed by his report. Abraham is summoned. Confronted by Abimelech, he tries to defend himself.<\/p>\n
9. so great a guilt Literally, \u201ca great sin,\u201d a phrase that reflects ancient Near Eastern legal terminology found in Akkadian documents from Ugarit and in Egyptian marriage contracts. The \u201cgreat sin\u201d is adultery. All four other biblical occurrences of the term appear in reference to idolatry (Exod. 32:21, 30f.; 2 Kings 17:21), for which the text often uses the metaphor of marital infidelity.<\/p>\n
11. In a situation where no legal sanction or reward is enforceable, the ultimate restraint on evil, as well as the supreme incentive for good, is the consciousness of the existence of a higher power who demands certain standards of conduct. With the assumption that no such \u201cfear of God\u201d was present in Gerar, Abraham believed that the king would have him killed in order to avoid committing adultery. This would be a far graver offense to him than the murder of the husband who was an alien and so outside the protection of the law.
\nThe phrase \u201cfear (of) God\u201d is used overwhelmingly in connection with situations that involve norms of moral or ethical conduct.7 Its application is universal, transcending religious or national divisions. It is not synonymous with conscience for, by definition, the desired norms of conduct are conceived as being God-given rather than deriving from any presumed, intuitive discrimination of right and wrong.<\/p>\n
12. she is in truth my sister This excuse undoubtedly reflects a sensitivity to resorting to falsehood, even in self-defense. Still, the statement itself must be factual as well as a tradition of great antiquity. As noted in the Comment to 12:13, it is inconceivable that a late author would invent a tale ascribing to the patriarch a practice abhorrent to the sexual morality of Israel as it found legal expression in the Torah codes (Lev. 18:9, 11; 20:17; Deut. 27:22); otherwise, we are led to the preposterous assumption that an incestuous marriage was a lesser offense than falsehood in the eyes of the biblical Narrator.<\/p>\n
my father\u2019s daughter though not my mother\u2019s While abhorrence of incest is nearly universal, the definition of prohibited kinship marriage varies widely among societies. Where descent is traced solely through one parent, mating between half-siblings is often socially acceptable and is not considered consanguineous. The story of Amnon and Tamar in 2 Samuel 13:13 and the fulminations of Ezekiel 22:11 show that such a practice persisted in Israel despite the law.<\/p>\n
13. made me wander That is, gave me the command, \u201cGo forth from your native land and from your father\u2019s house\u201d (12:1).<\/p>\n
whatever place The danger was seen as a recurring one. The kidnapping of women for the royal harem was feared to be widespread and customary, not an exceptional experience.8 No special insult to Abimelech was intended.<\/p>\n
He is my brother The absence of children would lend credence to her claim.<\/p>\n
ABIMELECH\u2019S RESTITUTION AND ABRAHAM\u2019S INTERCESSION (vv. 14\u201318)<\/p>\n
14. Abraham, the injured party, receives reparation from the king.<\/p>\n
took \u2026 gave Underlying this phrase is a technical, judicial formula known from Akkadian texts (leq\u00fb\/na\u0161\u00fb \u2026 nad\u0101nu) in connection with royal transfer or conveyance of property.9<\/p>\n
15. settle No longer will he be an alien in Abimelech\u2019s realm.<\/p>\n
16. your brother The king may be using the term sarcastically or simply going along with the pretence because Sarah, presumably, knows nothing of his dreams and of his altercation with Abraham.<\/p>\n
a thousand pieces of silver Either the worth of the gifts listed in verse 14 or a separate award to Sarah.<\/p>\n
vindication Hebrew kesut \u02bfeinayim, literally \u201ca covering of eyes,\u201d is a unique phrase of uncertain meaning. Taken literally, it could be a recommendation that in the future Sarah should not appear in public with uncovered face so that her beauty will not be a temptation to men. Interpreted figuratively, the phrase tells us that the payment is a recognition that Sarah\u2019s honor was not violated, and so the eyes of others are henceforth closed to what has occurred and she will not be an object of scorn.10 It is quite likely that some ancient legal formula, not yet discovered, is being used here.<\/p>\n
17\u201318. bore children \u2026 closed fast every womb These terms are euphemisms to express that Abimelech and his household enjoy restoration of sexual vigor after experiencing a period of sexual dysfunction.11<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 21<\/p>\n
This chapter consists of three separate episodes. The first, verses 1\u20137, deals with the birth of Isaac; the second, verses 8\u201321, describes the disruptive events in the patriarch\u2019s family that led to the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael; and the third, verses 22\u201334, tells of relationships between Abraham and the Philistine king Abimelech.
\nThe first two episodes form a unit, the one flowing smoothly into the other even though they are separated by a span of a few years. The blend is consolidated by means of a neat stylistic device. Isaac, the focus of attention, appears six times, and the stem ts-\u1e25-k, of which his name is compounded, is used suggestively three times (vv. 62, 9). By contrast, Ishmael\u2019s name never occurs, an omission that betokens his fading from the scene of patriarchal history. Yet the nondescript term \u201cthe boy\u201d (Heb. ha-na\u02bfar) by which he is referred to also appears six times and the stem sh-m-\u02bf, of which the name Ishmael (Heb. yishma\u02bf\u02beel) is compounded, is allusively employed three times (vv. 12, 172).
\nThe last incident, which is connected with the topic of chapter 20, presupposes a knowledge of the previous encounter between Abraham and Abimelech. It assumes that the reader knows who Abimelech is and that he has treated Abraham decently (20:15ff.; 21:23). The account of the stolen well, Abimelech\u2019s plea of blamelessness, and the restoration of the property to the patriarch parallels the monarch\u2019s kidnapping of Sarah, his protestation of innocence, and her return to Abraham (20; 21:25ff.). Abimelech made Abraham a gift of sheep and oxen, and Abraham reciprocates (20:14; 21:27); the identical formula, \u201ctook and gave,\u201d is used in both cases.
\nIn light of the close connection between chapters 20 and 21:22\u201334, the first two stories would appear to be intrusive. Yet a closer look reveals that their present position is intentional and purposeful. The relief of Sarah\u2019s infertility through the birth of a son is juxtaposed with the removal of the infirmity that afflicted Abimelech\u2019s household, thereby enabling the women to give birth (20:17f.). This close association of motifs is underscored by the use of the name Sarah to close the preceding chapter and to open the present one. Finally, the action of both the second and third episodes centers around a well in the Beer-sheba area.<\/p>\n
THE BIRTH OF ISAAC (vv. 1\u20137)<\/p>\n
A full quarter of a century has passed since Abraham first heard the divine call promising him great posterity (12:4; 21:5). During the course of this period he received repeated affirmation of this pledge but experienced constant disappointment and faced periodic crises that threatened to make its fulfillment impossible. Now, at last, God\u2019s word comes to fruition.<\/p>\n
1. took note The same idiom is used in connection with the birth of Samuel (1 Sam. 2:21). In both cases the newly born infant is a child of destiny. The Hebrew stem p-k-d connotes the direct involvement or intervention of God in human affairs.1 This can be of a providential nature, or it can be judgmental or redemptive. The verb is a leitmotif of the divine promises of national redemption from Egyptian slavery. The birth of Isaac thus marks a new and momentous stage in the unfolding plan of history. The multiplicity of descriptive terms for the event in verses 1\u20132 further emphasizes its extraordinary nature.<\/p>\n
as He had promised The reference is to 17:16.<\/p>\n
2. at the set time Compare 17:21 and 18:10, 14.<\/p>\n
3. Isaac The name prenatally fixed by God. This is why Isaac is the only patriarch who does not undergo a change of name. The meaning and origin of \u201cIsaac\u201d have been discussed in the Comment to 17:19.<\/p>\n
4. eight days old He is the first person reported to have been so circumcised. This fact emphasizes his role as the one true heir to the Abrahamic covenant. His spiritual destiny is thereby distinguished from that of Ishmael who was circumcised at the age of thirteen (17:25).<\/p>\n
had commanded Referring to 17:12.<\/p>\n
5. a hundred years old The chronological note resonates with the incredulity of Abraham expressed in 17:17.<\/p>\n
6. The laughter is now joyous, in contrast to the earlier laugh of skepticism recorded in 17:17 and 18:12ff.<\/p>\n
7. This utterance of Sarah has the form of a song. It consists of three short clauses of three words each. The forms of the verbs as well as the rare stem m-l-l seem to indicate that the words of Sarah had their origin in an ancient poem.<\/p>\n
Who would have said Hebrew millet may perhaps contain a play on m-l-l, \u201cto circumcise.\u201d<\/p>\n
children The plural is merely indicative of species (cf. \u1e25ittim, \u201cwheat,\u201d pishtim, \u201clinen\u201d).<\/p>\n
THE EXPULSION OF HAGAR AND ISHMAEL (vv. 8\u201321)<\/p>\n
Discord over inheritance rights soon mars the joy over Isaac\u2019s arrival. Sarah wishes to exclude Ishmael from any part of the paternal estate by having him and his mother driven out, but Abraham, sensitive to the moral issue, hesitates to agree to her request. He gives his consent reluctantly and only at the behest of God. Abraham\u2019s action is warranted only because of God\u2019s extraordinary intervention for his own historical purposes; otherwise, it would be immoral.<\/p>\n
8. was weaned The age at which infants are weaned varies in different societies. In Egypt and Assyria breast-feeding often lasted three years;2 similarly in Israel, at least in Second Temple times (2 Macc. 7:27). One rabbinic statement limits the practice to twenty-four months, while another mentions a period of four or five years (Ket. 60a). Because lactation delays the onset of menstruation, the prolongation of nursing was widely used as a contraceptive technique.
\nWeaning marked the completion of the first significant stage in the life cycle of the infant and was therefore a festive occasion.<\/p>\n
9. playing He was either amusing himself or playing with Isaac. One rabbinic interpretation of Hebrew metsa\u1e25ek has Ishmael ridiculing the fuss made of Isaac and asserting his own claim to first-born status with its right to a double share of the paternal estate.3<\/p>\n
10. The legal position of Ishmael is quite clear. Sarah had undertaken to recognize as her own the male offspring of the union of Abraham with Hagar, a match that she herself had initiated and imposed on her husband (16:2). Abraham, for his part, undoubtedly recognized Ishmael as his legitimate son, a fact repeatedly attested by a variety of earlier texts (16:15; 17:23, 25f.) and affirmed here (v. 11) as well as later on (25:9, 12). Did this status assure Ishmael automatic inheritance rights even after the birth of Isaac? Sarah\u2019s formulation of her demand and the extreme length to which she was prepared to go point to an affirmative answer. The laws of Hammurabi (par. 170f.) and of the still earlier Lipit-Ishtar (par. 25) implicitly make inheritance rights a legal consequence of the father\u2019s acceptance of the infant as his legitimate son. There is no doubt that Ishmael was entitled to a share of Abraham\u2019s estate. The key to Sarah\u2019s demand lies in a clause in the laws of Lipit-Ishtar where it is stipulated that the father may grant freedom to the slave woman and the children she has borne him, in which case they forfeit their share of the paternal property (cf. Judg. 11:1\u20133). Sarah is asking Abraham to exercise that legal right (cf. 25:6).4<\/p>\n
11. Fatherly love and moral considerations deter Abraham from giving his consent.<\/p>\n
12\u201313. God prompts Abraham to agree. The Narrator feels it necessary for God to justify His actions so as to remove any suggestion of moral taint. He does so on two grounds: The line of Abraham is to be continued solely through Isaac; Hagar and her son will not be left to an uncertain fate in the wilderness, for a great future awaits Ishmael. There is a delicate shift here from Sarah\u2019s motivation to God\u2019s. Her sole interest is to safeguard her son\u2019s inheritance. God is concerned with the question of posterity and His ultimate purposes.<\/p>\n
12. God said to Abraham Apparently in a night vision, since it is at once followed by \u201cearly next morning.\u201d<\/p>\n
14. over her shoulder This refers only to the bread and water container. Ishmael, who is now at least sixteen years old, could hardly have been carried by his mother.5<\/p>\n
child Hebrew yeled can be used for a youth and is interchangeable with na\u02bfar, which can also refer both to a baby and to a grown man.<\/p>\n
sent her away Hebrew shilla\u1e25 is used for divorce as well as for the emancipation of slaves.6<\/p>\n
she wandered Presumably, she set out for her native Egypt but lost her way.7<\/p>\n
Beer-sheba See below, verse 31.<\/p>\n
15. When the water was gone Had she not lost her way, her original supplies would have been adequate.8<\/p>\n
17. God heard That is, heeded. The phrase is equivalent to the meaning of the name Ishmael.<\/p>\n
called to Hagar from heaven Both sons of Abraham are saved at a critical moment by an angelic \u201cvoice from heaven\u201d (cf. 22:11).<\/p>\n
18. Unlike Isaac, Ishmael is promised only nationhood, not national territory.<\/p>\n
19. opened her eyes She suddenly becomes aware of the existence of the well.<\/p>\n
20. a bowman The tradition that the Ishmaelites were professional marksmen is preserved in Isaiah 21:17, which speaks of the bows of Kedar\u2019s warriors. Kedar is a son of Ishmael in the list of Genesis 25:13.<\/p>\n
21. the wilderness of Paran See Comment to 14:6. Ishmael was earlier described as \u201ca wild ass\u201d (Heb. pere\u02be, 16:12), so there may be a word play between paran and pere\u02be.9<\/p>\n
ABRAHAM\u2019S PACT WITH ABIMELECH (vv. 22\u201334)<\/p>\n
Abraham\u2019s encounter with Abimelech is reported with such an economy of detail that the background is obscure. Clearly it is told not for its own sake but for other reasons. It projects a fresh image of the patriarch. Now that his life\u2019s dream is fulfilled and his posterity assured, he possesses a new sense of confidence. No longer does he exhibit timidity and evasiveness in dealing with royalty; he negotiates as an equal. Moreover, Abraham reaches a new stage in his relationship to the promised land. He makes his first acquisition\u2014a well at Beer-sheba\u2014and his rights are acknowledged and guaranteed by the king. Finally, the narrative provides folk etymology for the name Beer-sheba and an explanation of its origin as a cult center in Israel.
\nDespite its paucity of detail, the composition of this story, like the previous two in the chapter, is artful. Each of the names of the two principal characters, Abraham and Abimelech, occurs exactly seven times; there are seven ewe lambs; both the verb \u201cto swear\u201d (vv. 23f.) and the name Beer-sheba contain the same Hebrew stem as the word for \u201cseven\u201d (sh-v-\u02bf).<\/p>\n
22. At that time That is, soon after the expulsion of Ishmael (cf. 38:1).<\/p>\n
Abimelech His royal title is deliberately omitted in order to underline that he and Abraham are equals.<\/p>\n
Phicol The presence of the army commander suggests a military expedition.<\/p>\n
said to Abraham The ensuing details make clear that the entire action takes place in the Beer-sheba region. Hence, Abraham must have left Gerar for this place after the episode recounted in Genesis 20.<\/p>\n
God is with you An acknowledgment of Abraham\u2019s success and power.10<\/p>\n
23. deal falsely Hebrew tishkor. This is the only biblical use of the verb in the Kal conjugation. The same verb occurs repeatedly in the eighth-century B.C.E. Sfire treaty with the specific technical sense of being guilty of a breach of contractual obligation. Accordingly, what Abimelech is suggesting is a pact of mutual nonaggression.<\/p>\n
kith and kin The Hebrew compound phrase nin ve-nekhed, literally \u201cson and grandson,\u201d simply means \u201cposterity\u201d or \u201cforever.\u201d11<\/p>\n
as loyally as \u2026 This refers back to 20:14\u201316.<\/p>\n
24. I swear it The laconic reply suggests that Abraham has something on his mind.12<\/p>\n
25. seized Hebrew g-z-l, \u201cto rob,\u201d can be used of real estate.13 They had prevented Abraham from enjoying free access to water for his herds.<\/p>\n
27. If the animals given to Abimelech simply reciprocate the king\u2019s earlier gift to Abraham (20:14), then the absence of slaves is significant. The patriarch does not deal in this kind of human traffic. It is also possible that the beasts are part of the pact-making ceremony (see Comment to 15:9\u201317).<\/p>\n
29\u201331. The seven ewes are obviously not part of the traditional ceremony but a separate transaction. By accepting them as a gift, the king publicly acknowledges Abraham\u2019s ownership of the well.<\/p>\n
31. Beer-sheba The name can mean either \u201cwell of oath\u201d or \u201cwell of seven.\u201d Our narrative, as does the parallel story in connection with Isaac (Gen. 26:23\u201333), fuses both meanings. On the place itself, see Excursus 14.<\/p>\n
32. the land of the Philistines See Excursus 15.<\/p>\n
33. Abraham The name does not appear in the Hebrew but is present in the ancient versions.14<\/p>\n
a tamarisk A tall, shady tree that grows deep roots, requires little water, and is particularly suitable to the sandy soils of the northern Negeb area. We are not told why Abraham planted the tree. It may have served to memorialize the pact, as Bekhor Shor suggests. More likely, it is linked to the act of worship. There is no suggestion that the place has any prior sanctity. The patriarch does not make use of existing cultic objects. The phenomenon of the sacred tree has been discussed in the Comment to 12:6.<\/p>\n
the Everlasting God Hebrew \u02beel \u02bfolam as a divine epithet is unique in the Bible. It provides an excellent illustration of the way in which a pre-Israelite liturgical term has undergone a monotheistic transformation. E1 was the name of the god who was head of the Canaanite pantheon. The Ugaritic texts stress his antiquity and eternity (cf. 51.IV.24, 42f.; 68.10), and the title \u02beel \u1e0fu \u02bfolam, \u201cE1 the eternal one,\u201d has turned up in a fifteenth-century B.C.E. inscription from the hand of a Canaanite miner in Serabi\u0331t el-Kh\u0101dem in the Sinai Peninsula. However, Hebrew does not allow the use of a proper name in the construct state joined to a noun. Hence, \u02beel in the phrase \u02beel \u02bfolam can no longer be the proper name of a god but means simply \u201cGod.\u201d The phrase has become an attribute or epithet of YHVH, \u201cthe Everlasting God.\u201d<\/p>\n