As biblical history unfolds, we will see what this means: the creator God\u2019s world has been broken
\nand ruined by human pride and rebellion. God intends to use Abram and his family as the instrument of rescuing and restoring his broken creation.
\nBruce Waltke, in his magisterial Old Testament Theology, describes the call of Abraham this way: \u201cGod makes seven promises to Abraham pertaining to the irruption of his kingdom.\u201d God\u2019s command, \u201caccompanied by seven promises, pertains to three expanding horizons that en nuce present God\u2019s salvific program.\u201d The expanding horizons are pictured in concentric circles beginning with Abraham in the first circle (2000 BC), the nation of Israel in the second (1400 BC), and all families in the third (present day). The description of a sevenfold promise is an unfortunate mistake. It misses and obscures the literary structure, which divides the promises into two foci, an aspect corresponding directly to the later distinct and double foci of chapters 15 and 17. Furthermore, \u201cthe expanding horizons\u201d obscure the fact that there is a twofold, not threefold, structure. God blesses both Abraham and the nations in relation to Abraham (singular). The picture of concentric circles in three stages is not part of this text.<\/p>\n
The First Three Promises: For Abram<\/p>\n
The promises given to Abram as an individual focus on nationhood, blessing, and a great name. First, Abram will become a great nation. Now, you cannot have a great nation without land, without territory, without a place for a large number of people to live and call home. So the idea of land is implied in this promise, and the Lord makes this explicit in Genesis 12:7: \u201cThe LORD appeared to Abram and said, \u2018To your offspring I will give this land.\u2019 \u201d The promise of land is also implicit in the first command: \u201cGo from your country!\u201d One cannot become a great nation and inhabit territory without first becoming distinct from the land and nation where one starts out.
\nThe confirmation and promise of land or territory for the future nation in 12:7 appears in a chiastic structure showing Abram\u2019s response to the divine promises. On either side of the divinely revealed confirmation in 12:7 is the obedience and worship of Abram. Genesis 12:8 and 9 speak of Abram building an altar and calling out in the name of Yahweh and pitching his tent. The altar and the tent characterize Abram\u2019s activities in Canaan. Note that the altar is mentioned only in connection with sojourning in Canaan (Gen. 12:7, 8; 13:4, 18; 22:9 [2\u00d7]). There is no altar during his sojourns in Egypt or in Gerar\u2014only half truths, lies, and troubles. We saw above that Canaan is depicted in Edenic language as a mountain sanctuary. Now we see Abram fulfilling an Adamic role: he offers sacrifice as a priest and worships God in this mountain sanctuary. The only occurrence of the word \u201caltar\u201d prior to Genesis 12 is in Genesis 8:20, where Noah, the second Adam, offers sacrifice to the Lord after the judgment of the flood. Therefore the activity of Abraham offering sacrifice on an altar in the mountain sanctuary of Canaan reinforces his role as an Adamic figure. The tent simply emphasizes that the fulfillment of the promises and the permanent situation has not yet arrived.
\nThe second promise given to Abram as an individual is blessing. As the narrative unfolds, we will see what blessing means and will return again to this topic. The third promise is that God will make Abram\u2019s name great. There are possible royal overtones to this promise, as Bill Arnold notes:<\/p>\n
Yahweh will make Abram\u2019s name \u201cgreat,\u201d which is more than a promise of renown or acclaim. Rather, in contrast to the tower-builders at Babel, who pathetically strove for permanence themselves by building a name in their own strength (11:4), to have a great name given to one by God in the Hebrew Scriptures is to be viewed as a royal figure (2 Sam 7:9).<\/p>\n
Arnold is right. The promise to Abram is similar to the one given to David when God makes a covenant with him: \u201cNow I will make your name great, like the names of the greatest men of the earth\u201d (2 Sam. 7:9). This fits with the clear and direct reference to kings coming from Abraham and Sarah (Gen. 17:6, 16). It also matches the fact that Abram is a royal figure due to his Adamic role. As Alexander notes, Abram is never called a king, but the king of Gerar treats him as an equal, the inhabitants of Hebron designate him a \u201cprince of God\u201d (Gen. 23:6), and his military exploits in Genesis 14 place him on a par with kings. We may also add that in Psalm 105:15 (= 1 Chron. 16:22), Abraham is called an \u201canointed one\u201d\u2014that is, king.
\nGenesis 14, in fact, presents a surprising figure, Melchizedek, who is a king-priest, and the narrator describes Abram as identifying with him. The events of Genesis 14 are important to the depiction of Abram and his role as \u201cking-priest.\u201d The narrative introduces four major rulers of the east: Amraphel, king of Shinar; Arioch, king of Ellasar; Chedorlaomer, king of Elam; and Tidal, king of Goiim. These kings come to punish Canaanite rulers who have refused to pay the required tribute exacted in conquests fourteen years earlier. They defeat various groups, including five kings ruling cities in the plain south of the Dead Sea: Bera, king of Sodom; Birsha, king of Gomorrah; Shinab, king of Admah; Shemeber, king of Zeboiim; and the unnamed king of Bela, that is, Zoar. The defeat involves the abduction of Lot, who by this time was living in Sodom. Abraham stages a dramatic rescue, attacking the four kings at night with only 318 men from his household and his Amorite allies, Mamre, Aner, and Eshcol. As Abram returns from his victory over the four kings, he is met by two kings: the king of Sodom and the king of Salem (= Jerusalem):<\/p>\n
After Abram returned from defeating Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King\u2019s Valley).
\nThen Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abram, saying,<\/p>\n
\u201cBlessed be Abram by God Most High,
\nCreator of heaven and earth.
\nAnd blessed be God Most High,
\nwho delivered your enemies into your hand.\u201d<\/p>\n
Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.
\nThe king of Sodom said to Abram, \u201cGive me the people and keep the goods for yourself.\u201d
\nBut Abram said to the king of Sodom, \u201cWith raised hand I have sworn an oath to the LORD, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth, that I will accept nothing belonging to you, not even a thread or the strap of a sandal, so that you will never be able to say, \u2018I made Abram rich.\u2019 I will accept nothing but what my men have eaten and the share that belongs to the men who went with me\u2014to Aner, Eshcol and Mamre. Let them have their share.\u201d (Gen. 14:17\u201324 NIV)<\/p>\n
The two kings represent two different types of kingship. The king of Sodom represents the notion that one acquires goods and rules by might: might makes right. It is the normal pattern of kingship in Canaan\u2014an absolute ruler uses his position to aggrandize himself. Melchizedek, king of Salem, represents a different kind of kingship. He acknowledges a supreme God who is Creator\/Possessor of everything. Therefore all rule must acknowledge the sovereignty of the Most High God and must consider that everything one owns is a gift from him. He is a servant of the Most High God; his kingship is based on the worship of this God. Abram does three things: (1) he identifies the Most High God as Yahweh, (2) he gives a tenth to Melchizedek, and (3) he refuses to accept from the king of Sodom any of the goods that are his by right as the spoils of war. In other words, he identifies with the kind of king-priest rule that Melchizedek represents. Abram is thus adopting the king-priest role originally given to Adam and now given to him.<\/p>\n
The Second Three Promises: For the Nations<\/p>\n
The second group of three promises offers blessing (or cursing) for the nations of the world through their relation to Abram (and his family). First, God promises to bless those (plural) who bless Abram. Second, the same promise is stated negatively: God will curse the one (singular) who slights or treats Abram lightly. Then, in a summary statement, Abram is told that all the clans of the earth will be blessed through him. Blessing both begins the three promises and ends them. Note also that God will bless the ones who bless Abram but will curse the one who treats him lightly. Why the shift from plural to singular? God is hoping that there will be many who bless and few who curse Abram. The shift from plural to singular emphasizes the generosity of God in his plan of rescuing and saving a world that has reverted to chaos and death.
\nScholars debate the last promise, \u201cIn you all the clans of the earth will be blessed.\u201d The exact function of the niphal form of the verb brk (\u201cbless\u201d) is in question. Two main options are advanced by scholars. One construes the niphal form as passive (i.e., \u201cIn you all the clans of the earth will be blessed\u201d); the other reckons the niphal form to be reflexive (i.e., \u201cIn you all the clans of the earth will bless themselves\u201d). Both options are grammatically possible. The niphal form of brk (\u201cbless\u201d) is found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible only two times (Gen. 18:18; 28:14), both reiterations of the promise in Genesis 12:3. What exacerbates the debate is that two further iterations of the promise in Genesis are constructed with a hithpael form of brk (\u201cbless,\u201d Gen. 22:18; 26:4), and another two allusions or echoes of Genesis 12:3 elsewhere are also constructed with the hithpael form of the verb (Ps. 72:17; Jer. 4:2). Only three instances of the hithpael form of brk occur in the Hebrew Bible, and these are entirely independent of Genesis 12:3 (Deut. 29:18; Isa. 65:16 [2\u00d7]).
\nThe hithpael form in itself may function to indicate a passive, reflexive, reciprocal, or middle (involving speech action, it may be rendered \u201cutter a blessing\u201d). The passive function is relatively infrequent. There may be strong temptation to argue from the instances of the hithpael\u2014and especially from the occurrences outside Genesis that are not allusions to or reiterations of Genesis 12:3\u2014that the instances in the niphal form should be considered reflexive as well and that the traditional interpretation as passive, reflected by the Septuagint and New Testament (cf. Acts 3:25; Gal. 3:8), be abandoned. Another approach is to argue that the niphal forms and hithpael forms have distinct meanings.
\nWilliamson argues against interpreting the niphal forms as reflexive, while allowing the hithpael forms their primary reflexive force, as follows:<\/p>\n
The fact that the promises are explicitly related to the person of Abraham rather than to his name constitutes a serious problem for those who wish to interpret the verb reflexively. A further difficulty is that the context anticipates that the nations will participate in Israel\u2019s blessing (in v. 3a, what is expected to be the norm is expressed by the plural); thus merely wishing for such blessing would be \u201cdecidedly anti-climactic\u201d (Dumbrell 1984: 70). Moreover, an exclusively reflexive interpretation of this text would appear to be exclusively ruled out also by the related texts in which the niphal is employed. This is most transparent in Genesis 18:18, where a statement concerning a mere wish expressed by other nations would hardly explain Abraham\u2019s international significance. It seems unlikely, therefore, that these occurrences of the niphal form of brk should be interpreted reflexively, despite the presence of the hitpael in Genesis 22:18 and Genesis 26:4. But how then are these occurrences of the hitpael to be explained?
\nOne plausible way to account for the latter is by giving the niphal a \u201cmiddle\u201d sense (i.e. \u201cwin\/find blessing\u201d). This translation has the advantage of incorporating both a passive and reflexive meaning, which may help explain why the compiler of Genesis allowed both forms of the verb to stand unaltered in the final text. Moreover, if a middle rather than a passive sense were intended, this would also explain why the more common passive verb forms (qal passive participle or pual) of brk were not employed. Furthermore, as Dumbrell (1984: 71) correctly points out, \u201cSuch a sense would also be more congruent with the general Old Testament position on mission, whereby the nations are consistently presented as seekers, coming in to a reconstituted Israel.\u201d
\nHowever, even if the niphal does carry this idea of \u201cto find blessing,\u201d this still leaves unexplained the distribution of the two forms of brk in the relevant texts. Why is the niphal used in Genesis 12:3; Genesis 18:18 and Genesis 28:14, but the hitpael in Genesis 22:18 and Genesis 26:4? Rather than assuming that the final editor used these different verb forms arbitrarily, or was somehow reluctant to impose uniformity on his text because of underlying source material, it is worth examining more closely how the niphal and hitpael are used in these particular texts. A close comparison suggests that, rather than being used synonymously, each verb form has a distinct nuance (Williamson 2000a; 227\u2013228). Where the niphal is deployed, a less direct situation is implied: the one through whom the nations will acquire blessing is Abraham (or in the case of Gen. 28:14, primarily Jacob). In contrast, in contexts where the hitpael is found, the channel of blessing is the promised \u201cseed\u201d through whom the anticipated blessing will be communicated directly (cf. Ps. 72:17; Jer. 4:2). Thus the hitpael form of the promise may be understood as action done on one\u2019s own behalf (i.e. a \u201cbenefactive reflexive,\u201d IBHS, \u00a726.2e) and translated as \u201cin your seed all the nations of the earth will acquire blessing for themselves,\u201d whereas the niphal may be understood as middle, \u201cthrough you all the families of the earth will experience blessing.\u201d<\/p>\n
Williamson\u2019s arguments against a reflexive value for the niphal forms are cogent and sound. His proposition that the choice of the form of the verb is probably not arbitrary is also valid. Nonetheless, the notion that in the instances of the niphal the blessing is communicated less directly than in the instances of the hithpael is less than satisfying and flounders on the fact that the \u201cseed\u201d is part of the proposition in Genesis 28:14, despite the caveat of Williamson.
\nThe analysis of Chee-Chiew Lee is better and moreover is, in general, backed up by the exhaustive and exhausting study by Keith N. Gr\u00fcneberg on Genesis 12:3 and its reiterations in the Old Testament. Lee says,<\/p>\n
I take the Niphal to be passive (\u201cthey shall be blessed\u201d) and the Hitpael to be estimative-declarative reflexive (\u201cthey shall declare themselves as blessed\u201d) for the following reasons. First, although there is definitely a semantic overlap between the pairs of words (\u05d4\u05ea\u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05d5\/\u05e0\u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05d5 ,\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5\/\u05d0\u05d3\u05de\u05d4 ,\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\/\u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05e4\u05d7\u05d4) in Gen 12:3b and its reiterations, it can be established that the variations are intentional and bear a slight difference in nuance. For example, \u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05e4\u05d7\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d3\u05de\u05d4 [sic] is used in Gen 12:3b as a link to Genesis 1\u201311, especially to Genesis 10\u201311. \u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05e4\u05d7\u05d4 occurs five times in Genesis 10, of which it occurs four times together with \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9, portraying how each clan of people eventually evolved into a nation. It is also used in Gen 28:14 as an inclusio to Gen 12:3b. To show further the continuity of the later reiterations of this blessing with the Table of Nations (Genesis 10), Gen 18:18; 22:18; 26:4 use \u05d2\u05d5\u05f2 \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 instead of \u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05e4\u05d7\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05de\u05d4. As \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 carries strong political overtones, it is therefore natural to use it with \u05d0\u05e8\u05e5, which has stronger political connotations than \u05d0\u05d3\u05de\u05d4. Second, the patriarchal narrative repeatedly portrays how other people are blessed or cursed by God on account of Abraham and his descendants (examples include Abimelech, Laban, Potiphar, Pharaoh, and Egypt). Furthermore, Laban declared himself as blessed by God due to Jacob (Gen 30:27). Nowhere in the narrative do we see people actively seeking blessing for themselves by their association with Abraham or invoking his name as a formula and paradigm of blessing as a middle or direct reflexive reading would entail. Therefore the passive Niphal and the estimative-declarative Hitpael best fit the context of Genesis. This understanding of the force of the Niphal and the Hitpael is essential to our understanding of how the motif of the blessing for the nations is developed later.<\/p>\n
As in the case of Williamson, Lee\u2019s arguments against a reflexive niphal are also cogent, but Lee\u2019s explanation of the motivation for using either hithpael or niphal better suits the contextual and linguistic data in the text of Genesis. We conclude, then, that the niphal forms are passive (\u201cthey shall be blessed\u201d) and that the hithpael are estimative-declarative reflexive (\u201cthey shall consider\/declare themselves as blessed\u201d).<\/p>\n
BLESSING<\/p>\n
In the first three verses of Genesis 12, the word \u201cblessing\u201d occurs five times. As Dumbrell notes, the choice and use of the term is doubtless deliberate, playing on the notion of the power of the word. His comment is apt:<\/p>\n
In Gen. 12:2a God blesses Abram and here the notion of blessing is bound up with nationhood and fame. As a result Abram is thus to be the embodiment of blessing, the example of what blessing should be (v. 2b). God will bless those who rightly recognize the source of Abram\u2019s blessing (3a), and then finally in 12:3b Abram becomes the mediator of blessing for mankind.<\/p>\n
What is actually meant by \u201cblessing\u201d? Blessing is connected with life, just as cursing brings death. So what would blessing mean in the ancient Near East in Abraham\u2019s time? Does \u201cblessing\u201d mean a full, long life, the good life in the sense of having good health, having a big family to look after one as a senior, attaining business success (i.e., big flocks and herds or crops that are abundant), acquiring land, having power and victory over one\u2019s enemies? If we convert these ideas into our modern society, what would blessing mean? Does blessing mean staying healthy, attaining business success, being surrounded by a circle of friends (on Facebook?), having influence and power, having a big house and car, having better sex?
\nBruce Waltke explains that \u201cthe term \u2018to bless\u2019 (brk) with God as subject denotes procreative largesse and victory, accompanied with a sense of loyalty to the future generations (Gen. 1:28; 26:24; 27:27\u201329).\u201d Significantly, however, he adds that \u201cit also connotes redemption, a relationship with God that transforms the beneficiary and provides security.\u201d Dumbrell notes this important aspect too. As Abraham\u2019s life unfolds, we begin to see what blessing means. Blessing operates in the context of a covenant relationship with God. Blessings are the manifestation of faithfulness, fidelity, and solidarity in relationships whereby one\u2019s natural and personal capacity to fulfill God\u2019s intention and purpose is advanced and furthered. God\u2019s word to Abram is powerful, enabling the calling to be fulfilled.<\/p>\n
CURSE AND BLESSING<\/p>\n
In our study of Genesis 12:1\u20133, we just noted that the word \u201cblessing\u201d occurs five times in that text (Gen. 12:2 [2\u00d7], 3 [3\u00d7]). What is interesting and noteworthy is that the antonym \u201ccurse\u201d (\u2019\u0101rar) occurs precisely five times in Genesis 1\u201311 (3:14, 17; 4:11; 5:29; 9:25). H. W. Wolff has pointed out the significance of the curse in Genesis 1\u201311. The curse in 3:14 brought the loss of freedom and power, as well as certain defeat and humiliation (for the serpent). In 3:17, the curse effected an alienation between humans and the soil. Further, in 4:11, Cain was cursed from the land, resulting in estrangement from human society as he became a nomad and wanderer. Noah\u2019s curse of Canaan brought further degradation and shame, as Canaan was to be the lowest of slaves. Cumulative deprivation and increasing loss is therefore associated with the word \u201ccurse,\u201d bringing man from Eden to Babel. The fivefold repetition of the word \u201cblessing\u201d in Genesis 12:1\u20133 indicates that the call of Abram will change this situation: broken relationships are to be potentially and progressively repaired. The ruptured relationships that had developed between man and God and man and man are to be eventually restored. The new powerful word calling Abram out of Ur is to annul the curse of chapters 1\u201311.
\nThere is, then, in Genesis 12:1\u20133 a causal relationship between the first group of three promises and the second group of three promises. God\u2019s plan to bless Abram and his family is a means to bring blessing and salvation to all the nations. Paul House comments appropriately on the divine choice of Abram and the decision to bless him and his family: \u201cElection here does not exclude or condemn anyone. Rather it works exclusively as a benefit to a world that has no intention of doing what is right.\u201d<\/p>\n
ABRAM AND THE CITY OF GOD<\/p>\n
The call of Abram in Genesis 12:1\u20133 consists of two commands (\u201cgo\u201d [12:1] and \u201cbe\u201d a blessing [12:2]). Each command is followed by three promises. The first promise is \u201cI will make you into a great nation,\u201d and the last promise is \u201cAll the clans\/families of the earth will be blessed in you\u201d (12:1, 3). We need to pay attention to the terms used here to describe both the people of God and the other peoples of the world. God promises to make Abram into a great \u201cnation\u201d; this is the word g\u00f4y in Hebrew. The other people groups of the world are called \u201cclans\u201d or \u201cfamilies\u201d; here the Hebrew term is mi\u0161p\u0101\u1e25\u00e2.
\nFirst, consider the term g\u00f4y, or \u201cnation.\u201d It is highly unusual for this term to be applied to the people of God. There is in the language of the Old Testament a completely consistent usage: the word \u02bbam is almost always reserved for Israel. It is a kinship term that expresses effectively the closeness of the family\/marriage relationship between God and Israel established by the covenant made at Sinai (Exodus 24). On the other hand, the word g\u00f4y is the standard term for the communities or other societies in the world, excluding Israel. So consistent is this use, that when we see something different, we need to ask why. For example, there are instances where the term g\u00f4y is applied to Israel in a pejorative sense. Sometimes Israel is called \u201cnation\u201d and not \u201cpeople\u201d because the author may wish to communicate that because of her wickedness, Israel is behaving as if she were not the people of God. Her actions and attitudes indicate that she is like those communities who have no special status as the chosen people of God (e.g., Judg. 2:20).
\nWhy, then, in Genesis 12 does God speak of Abram becoming a great g\u00f4y, or nation? The basic meaning of g\u00f4y is an organized community of people having governmental, political, and social structure. This word contrasts with the derogatory term for the other nations, mi\u0161p\u0101\u1e25\u00e2, in Genesis 12. This word refers to an amorphous kin group larger than an extended family and smaller than a tribe.
\nThe background of Genesis 12 is chapters 10 and 11. There we have the history of Babel, where we see a complete confidence and naive optimism about human achievement and effort. Man is at the center of his world, and he can achieve anything. This philosophy comes under divine judgment in Genesis 11 and results in the nations being lost and scattered over the face of the earth (Gen. 10; 11:9). By contrast, Genesis 12 presents a political structure brought into being by the word of God, with God at the center and God as the governmental head and rule of that community. In other words, we have the kingdom of God brought into being by means of the covenant (i.e., the covenant between God and Abram). Hence, we have kingdom through covenant.
\nThe promise in Genesis 12:3 is cited or quoted several times in later texts of the Old Testament. In Genesis 28:14, the nations of the world are also called mi\u0161pa\u1e25\u00f4t, to form an inclusio with Genesis 12:3 and mark off a literary section. However, in Genesis 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; Jeremiah 4:2; and Psalm 72:17\u2014the five other texts directly referring to Genesis 12:3\u2014the nations of the world are called by the more common and normal term, g\u00f4yim. This shows that the author has a real purpose in Genesis 12:3 in using the term mi\u0161pa\u1e25\u00f4t: he wants to indicate that the kingdoms of this world will never amount to anything; only the kingdom of God will last forever. The author\u2019s choice of terms emphasizes that the family of Abram is a real kingdom with eternal power and significance, while the so-called kingdoms of this world are of no lasting power or significance.
\nThis interpretation is backed up by the work of Eberhard Ruprecht, a German scholar who has detected in the promises that the Lord made to Abram a royal ideology. What Abram was promised in Genesis 12 was the hope of many oriental monarchs (cf. 2 Sam. 7:9; Ps. 72:17).
\nThe word in Hellenistic Greek that best conveys this meaning is the term polis, or \u201ccity.\u201d In our modern world we tend to think of cities as great centers of population in contrast to the rural areas, which by definition are sparsely populated. In contrast to the modern notion, the term \u201ccity\u201d in the first century conveyed the idea of an organized community with governmental headship and appropriate political and social structure\u2014what we normally convey by the English word state. Thus the promises of God to Abram really did entail the city of God, and the author to the Hebrews is accurately explaining for his readers the author\u2019s intended meaning in Genesis 12. Abraham was to go to a country that God would indicate to him and reside there\u2014even if as an alien and a stranger: he was awaiting \u201cthe city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God\u201d (Heb. 11:10).
\nIn Genesis 15 and 17, the great promises to Abram will be enshrined in a divine-human covenant between God and Abraham. For now, in chapter 12, we note that although the context, expressions, idioms, and language are completely different from the creation narrative and the image of God in Genesis 1:26\u201328, the ideas are identical. Abram (and the nation that comes from him) constitutes an Adamic figure, indeed the last Adam, since there are no major new starts after this. God intends to establish his rule over all his creation through his relationship with Abram and his family: kingdom through covenant. Through blessing Abram and his descendants, the broken relationship between God and all the nations of the world will be reconciled and healed. As we will soon see, the covenant entails not only a relationship with God that can be described as sonship but also a relationship to the rest of creation that entails kingship in establishing the rule of God.<\/p>\n
8<\/p>\n
THE COVENANT WITH ABRAHAM (2)<\/p>\n
The larger story of Scripture begins with a creator God who is the Maker of our world and all that is in it. Humans are the crown of his work. Moreover, human creatures differ from all other creatures: we alone have been made as the image of this creator God, entailing a covenant relationship with God and with all creation that results in a particular role and special tasks in the world. The first humans, however, rebelled against the creator God. As a result, there is chaos and discord in the creation at every level, bringing destruction and death.
\nThe destructive path chosen by the first humans led continually downward until divine intervention was required. God judged the human race and made a new beginning with Noah and his family. Noah is portrayed as a new Adam. As soon as the dry land appears out of the chaos of waters, Noah is placed there and commanded to be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 9:1); that is, he is given Adam\u2019s commission or mandate. Eventually, however, the family of Noah ends up in the same chaos and corruption as the family of the first Adam.
\nSo God makes another new start, with Abram and his family. Abraham and his family, called Israel, are another Adam, who will be God\u2019s true humanity. The seed of Abraham, Israel, is in fact the last Adam, because there will be no major new starts for the human race from this point. Israel will display to the rest of the world within its covenant community the kind of relationships\u2014first to God and then to one another\u2014as well as stewardship of the ecosystem, that God originally intended for all humanity. In fact, through Abraham\u2019s seed God plans to bring blessing to all the nations of the world. In this way, through the family of Abraham, through Israel, his last Adam, he will bring about a resolution of the sin and death caused by the first Adam. The fact that the blessing to the nations through Abraham and his family included dealing with the sin and death caused by the first Adam is not plainly stated until much later, such as in the passages relating to the suffering servant in Isaiah (Isa. 42:1\u20139; 49:1\u201313; 50:4\u20139; 52:13\u201353:12).
\nEarlier, we noted four key points in the Abraham narratives:<\/p>\n
1. Giving the promise: The call of Abram (Genesis 12)
\n2. Making the covenant: The promise of descendants and land (Genesis 15)
\n3. Affirming the covenant: The sign of circumcision (Genesis 17)
\n4. Abraham\u2019s obedience and confirmation of the promises by oath (Genesis 22)<\/p>\n
In chapter 7, we considered the call of Abram and the promises given to him, recorded in Genesis 12. Now, in Genesis 15, the divine promises are enshrined in a covenant between Yahweh and Abram that is affirmed and upheld in Genesis 17. We need to trace the development of the covenant relationship between God and Abram and the progress of Abram\u2019s faithfulness and love in this relationship.<\/p>\n
MAKING THE COVENANT: THE PROMISE OF DESCENDANTS AND LAND (GENESIS 15)<\/p>\n
The literary structure of Genesis 15 is clear. The text is divided in half, and each half has an identical pattern and structure. First, the Lord reveals himself to Abram (by vision) and makes promises. Second, Abram responds in complaint, asking about the fulfillment of God\u2019s promises. Third, God expands and extends his revelation a second time, affirming and reiterating his promises. Each half, then, has a (chiastic) tripartite structure in which the first and last parts are matching. The promises in the first half are centered on the gift of descendants; the promises in the second half are centered on the gift of land. The covenant, therefore, enshrines the promises given in Genesis 12, with a focus on the fulfillment of the first three promises in Genesis 12:1\u20133, that is, a focus on the divine promises particularly to Abram himself.<\/p>\n
Outline of Genesis 15
\nPart 1\u2014Seed\/Descendants
\n15:1\u20136
\na God reveals himself and makes promises
\n15:1
\nb Abram\u2019s complaint and question
\n15:2\u20133
\na\u2032 God\u2019s revelation and confirmation
\n15:4\u20136
\nPart 2\u2014Land
\n15:7\u201319
\na God reveals himself and makes promises
\n15:7
\nb Abram\u2019s complaint and question
\n15:8
\na\u2032 God\u2019s revelation and confirmation
\n15:9\u201319<\/p>\n
GOD\u2019S PROMISES AND ABRAHAM\u2019S FAITH (GEN. 15:1\u20136)<\/p>\n
Genesis 15 begins with the words \u201cafter these things,\u201d referring to the victory over the four kings from the east recorded in chapter 14. Thus, sometime following the defeat of these kings, Yahweh communicates to Abram by means of a vision. The translation in the King James Version, followed by such newer versions as the NKJV and NIV, can be greatly improved at this point. The KJV rendering is as follows:<\/p>\n
After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. (Gen. 15:1)<\/p>\n
First, the italicized \u201cam\u201d indicates a verbless clause in Hebrew, and the italicized \u201cand\u201d denotes a word not in the original text. The KJV construes the original Hebrew as one verbless clause with \u201cI\u201d as subject and \u201cthy shield\u201d and \u201cthy exceeding great reward\u201d as the predicate. This is not a likely or plausible reading of the Hebrew text. The fact that \u201cand\u201d is not in the text signals a new, separate verbless clause in which \u201cyour reward\u201d is subject and \u201cvery great\u201d is the predicate. The lack of a clause connector (asyndeton) is not unusual in such a sequence of verbless clauses. God commands Abram not to be afraid. This is backed up by two statements: (1) God will protect him, and (2) God will reward him.
\nBoth the command and the promises relate directly to the events of chapter 14. Will the \u201cfour big bad guys from the east\u201d be back next year to take their vengeance on Abram? Certainly, the fear of reprisal is both real and significant. Yahweh will be Abram\u2019s shield. He will protect Abram from possible retaliation. Second, at the end of Genesis 14, Abram took none of the spoils of the victory that were his by right. He wanted his sources of wealth to come from the Lord and not from the king of Sodom. So Yahweh promises Abram that he will reward him. He is not saying that he, Yahweh, is Abram\u2019s reward instead of the spoils of victory. He is saying that he will give something to Abram that will compensate for the fact that he took none of these spoils. That this is the correct interpretation is clear from Abram\u2019s response. He says, \u201cWhat will you give me?\u201d not \u201cHow will you be my reward?\u201d Abram is exasperated: Yahweh has made big promises, but he is anxiously waiting for the beginning of this great nation to reveal itself by the birth of at least one baby.
\nYahweh responds to Abram\u2019s complaint with another night revelation. Asking Abram to count the stars, if he is able, Yahweh promises that Abram\u2019s descendants will be as numerous as the sand on the seashore or the stars of the night sky. At this point, all the Lord is doing is repeating the promise in grandiose terms. Yet Abram is hanging on to this. Genesis 15:6 could be rendered, \u201cNow Abram was believing in Yahweh, and he credited it to him as righteousness.\u201d Kenneth Mathews describes the discourse grammar involved:<\/p>\n
The syntax of the verb w\u0115he\u2019\u0115min diverts from the typical pattern found in past tense narrative. The force of the construction conveys an ongoing faith repeated from the past. The author is editorializing on the events reported, not including Abram\u2019s faith in the chain of events as a consequence of the theophanic message.<\/p>\n
Thus Genesis 15:6 reports that Abram is, as a general rule, still strapped into the roller coaster and hanging on to his ride of faith.
\nAn alternative view is that the waw-consecutive perfect w\u0115he\u2019\u0115min, due to its imperfective aspect, marks prominence pragmatically and so indicates something such as the climax in the narrative sequence. Following this view, 15:6 would be the climax of the sequence in Genesis 15:1\u20136. New research on the Hebrew verbal system supports this interpretation even if read as a conjunction plus simple past tense. William Dumbrell speaks of Abram\u2019s act\/attitude as a response of further trust.<\/p>\n
THE COVENANT-MAKING CEREMONY (GEN. 15:7\u201319)<\/p>\n
Verse 7 begins the second half of Genesis 15, and again Yahweh communicates to Abram, repeating the promise of land made clear and explicit in Genesis 12:7. Again, Abram is exasperated: How will he know for sure that this promise will be fulfilled? So far in his experience, there is no evidence of its reality. Again, Yahweh repeats his promise, but he does so by enshrining it within a covenant.
\nThe ceremony or ritual described here is somewhat strange. Nonetheless, as Genesis 15:18 clearly states, this ceremony formalizes a covenant between God and Abram. The normal or standard terminology \u201cto cut a covenant\u201d (k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet) is used. The interpretation of this mysterious rite is much discussed. The ceremony of covenant making involves an oath in which the covenant partners bring the curse of death on themselves if they are not faithful to the covenant relationship and promises. Walking between the animals cut in half is a way of saying, \u201cMay I become like these dead animals if I do not keep my promise(s) and my oath.\u201d Scholars describe this as a self-maledictory oath, that is, an oath where one brings the curse of death on oneself for violating the covenant commitments. The detail with which Covenant-making ceremonies are described varies from text to text. The covenant making in Jeremiah 34:18\u201320 is also explicit about walking between the pieces of the animal sacrificed for the rite:<\/p>\n
Those who have violated my covenant and have not fulfilled the terms of the covenant they made before me, I will treat like the calf they cut in two and then walked between its pieces. The leaders of Judah and Jerusalem, the court officials, the priests and all the people of the land who walked between the pieces of the calf, I will deliver into the hands of their enemies who want to kill them. Their dead bodies will become food for the birds and the wild animals. (NIV)<\/p>\n
In the vision given to Abram, a \u201csmoking firepot and a blazing torch\u201d pass between the dead pieces. What would these represent? When we remember that Genesis was a book given to the Israelite people at the time of entering the land of Canaan, we can see from that perspective\u2014that is, after the exodus event\u2014that smoke and fire are symbols of God\u2019s presence. The angel of the Lord first appeared to Moses in the flames of a burning bush (Ex. 3:2). During the desert journey, God appears as a cloud of smoke and fire (Ex. 13:21). At Mount Sinai, his presence is manifested by smoke and fire (Ex. 19:18; 20:18). The fact that only God passes between the pieces is quite remarkable and shows that the promise depends on him and him alone.
\nThere may, however, be more to this mysterious rite than that. One commentator, Gordon Wenham, stirred my thinking with the following questions:<\/p>\n
While this interpretation could explain the phrase, \u201cto cut a covenant,\u201d it leaves many features of this rite unexplained. It does not explain the choice of these particular animals. Why are only sacrificial types selected? Why must they be three years old? Why are the birds not cut up? Why does Abram drive off the birds of prey? Finally it must be asked whether a divine self-imprecation is really likely. Is it compatible with OT theology for God to say \u201cMay I die, if I do not keep my word\u201d? Divine oaths generally take the form, \u201cAs I live, says the LORD\u201d (cf. Num. 14:21).<\/p>\n
Wenham further notes that every kind of clean sacrificial animal used in Israel\u2019s worship was involved. He suggests that the animals represent Israel. The birds of prey represent the attacks of foreign nations. Abram defends his descendants against foreign attackers. Similarly, Gideon sacrificed a seven-year-old bull to represent the seven years of Midianite oppression (Judg. 6:1, 25). Later on, the deliverance of the exodus is explained as God keeping his oath to Abraham (Ex. 2:24; Deut. 9:5). The animals are three years old, representing the three generations spent in Egypt. The fire and smoke passing between the animal halves represents God walking in the midst of his people (Lev. 26:12).
\nRecent scholarship has backed away from viewing the ceremony as a self-maledictory oath. Correlating the rite in Genesis 15 with the rite in Jeremiah 34 led some to date the Genesis narrative to Jeremiah\u2019s time rather than to the period appropriate to the patriarchs (ca. 2000 BC). Significant articles by Gerard Hasel and Richard Hess have attempted to show that the account in Genesis 15 corresponds better to cultural evidence known from second millennium BC texts than to that from the neo-Assyrian and Aramaic treaties of the first millennium. This attempt is only partially fruitful, as the data have become somewhat skewed in the ensuing exegesis. Hasel claims,<\/p>\n
Jer 34:18\u201319, however, is definite and clear on one point: Only one covenanting party, namely, \u201cthe princes of Judah, the princes of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, the priests, and all the people of the land\u201d (vs 19) passed between the parts of the cut bull-calf. The similarity between Jer 34:18\u201319 and Genesis 15:17 rests in the fact that in each case one party passed between the pieces.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, Hasel is entirely mistaken. The only parties making the treaty in Jeremiah 34:8\u201322 are the persons listed in 34:19. This was not a covenant made between these parties and God. It was a covenant made by these parties before God (34:15), and in failing to release their slaves, they violated the Mosaic covenant. It is the Mosaic covenant that is between the people and God. That is the clear meaning of 34:18. So in Jeremiah 34, all the parties making the treaty pass between the pieces, and in Genesis 15, only God passes between the pieces. The slaves may have been beneficiaries of the covenant made by the leaders and the people, but they were not parties to the covenant. Mathews\u2019s commentary is an excellent example of research that builds on the studies by Hasel and Hess but like them ends up \u201cthrowing the baby out with the bathwater.\u201d
\nIt is necessary and useful to cite Mathews in full and to critique this confusion of the data in important texts dealing with covenants:<\/p>\n
The word \u201cpieces\u201d (beter) appears in the similar ritual described in Jer 34:18\u201319. Often scholars appropriate the rite of Jeremiah 34 as the template for explaining the practice in Genesis 15. Two wordplays describe the practice in Jeremiah. A calf was \u201ccut\u201d (k\u0101rat, v. 18) into pieces, formalizing a covenant that was \u201ccut\u201d (\u201cmade,\u201d NIV, i.e., \u201cto cut a covenant,\u201d k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet) between God and the leadership of Judah regarding the freeing of Hebrew slaves. Because they acted treacherously, the people are deemed \u201ctransgressors\u201d (h\u0101\u2018\u014db\u0115r\u00eem, NIV \u201cthe men who have violated,\u201d v. 18) who had \u201cwalked between\u201d (h\u0101\u2018\u014db\u0115r\u00eem, v. 18) the parts signifying acceptance of the sanctions of transgressing the covenant. The threat of death, like the gruesome results of the slaughtered calf, awaited them (v. 18). The Lord threatens that \u201cthe birds [\u2018\u00f4p] of the air\u201d will feast on the violaters\u2019 dead flesh (v. 20). This imprecatory aspect of the symbolic slaying has parallels with Assyrian and Aramaic vassal treaties of the first millennium. For this reason Genesis 15 is usually dated at the time of Jeremiah or later.
\nThere are, however, significant differences between the practices in the patriarchal account and Jeremiah that make doubtful this conclusion. Although the Jeremiah passage involves the slaughter of a calf and mentions birds, the practice in chap. 15 calls for several animals. Also the description of the ritual cleaving in 15:10 uses the term b\u0101tar (NIV \u201ccut in two\u201d) instead of Jeremiah\u2019s word k\u0101rat (NIV \u201cmade\u201d) occurring in the idiomatic expression \u201ccut a covenant\u201d (34:18). Also importantly, the threat of curse for failure to observe the covenant is not explicit in chap. 15. When read in light of Jeremiah 34\u2019s imprecatory character, it may be implied that God submits to his own self-imprecation by passing through the parts. It is difficult, however, to reconcile this idea of God theologically and impossible to explain how the imprecation could be carried out. More promising are the examples of second-millennium texts from Alalakh involving an oath by a superior that is confirmed by slaying a lamb or sheep. If the Abram incident compares to these promissory oaths, Genesis describes a covenant pledge undertaken by God that is formally ratified by animal slaughter (cp. Ex. 24:3\u20138).
\nThere are still significant features of Genesis 15 that diverge from the oath rituals at Alalakh. The number and sort of animals and the halving procedure of chap. 15 have no parallel yet found in the ancient Near East. Although the rite of chap. 15 ostensibly affirms the covenant oath, the prophecy that follows (vv. 13\u201316) hints at an emblematic significance attached to the rite\u2019s peculiarities. From hindsight we know that the prophecy previews Israel\u2019s Egyptian bondage, exodus, and conquest. Most agree that the smoking firepot and burning torch represent the Lord, a picture corresponding to the pillar of cloud and pillar of fire indicating the presence of God in the wilderness (e.g., Ex. 13:21\u201322). The \u201cbirds of prey\u201d Abram disperses indicate a threat against the slaughtered animals. \u201cBirds of prey (\u2018ayi\u1e6d) differ from the general terms for \u201cbirds\u201d (\u1e63ipp\u00f4r, v. 10; \u2018\u00f4p, Jer 34:20) by their ravenous character (Isa. 18:6; Jer 12:9) and are unclean. In the context of the prophecy (vv. 13\u201316), the animal portions represent Abram\u2019s descendants, and the birds of prey are the nation (Egypt) that enslaves them. The appearance of Abram as defender of the animal portions may refer to his obedient piety that confirmed his loyalty and ensured Israel\u2019s future (e.g., 22:16\u201318) or his intercessory function as prophet (e.g., 18:16\u201333; 20:7, 17). Since Abram does not walk through the pieces, he is not under obligation to the Lord to realize the promises. By the passing of the firepot through the severed pieces, the Lord\u2019s presence with enslaved Israel symbolically ensures the preservation and deliverance of Abram\u2019s descendants.<\/p>\n
An exhaustive analysis of all texts in the Old Testament dealing with covenants (such as the present study) reveals, first, that certain features of covenant making are constant throughout this period of time (2000\u2013400 BC) alongside a changing typology of covenant documents and, second, that alongside the constant and standard features of covenant making, each instance may have its own peculiar variations. In addition, since the authors considered the details of the rituals to be background information that their audiences already understood, no single passage includes all the features of covenant making. Each narrator relates only what is relevant to his purpose in the context of his storyline. A full picture of the constant features of covenant making can be derived only by consideration of all covenant-making contexts.
\nAbram belongs to ca. 2000 BC and Jeremiah to 600 BC. Standard features are common to both of these covenant-making rituals. An animal is cut, and covenant-making parties pass or walk between the pieces of the dead animal. Both texts employ the standard terminology k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet, \u201cto cut a covenant.\u201d These commonalties attest to age-old cultural data in the ancient Near East. The Old Testament is part of that cultural data even if no other texts from the Near East specifically mention \u201chalving an animal.\u201d Why should the accounts describe what is assumed by the culture and is therefore unnecessary to describe in most instances? The texts from Alalakh discussed by Hess do not provide all the details either. One text mentions cutting the neck of a lamb (rather than halving it and walking between the pieces), but it is clearly a self-maledictory oath. The covenant partner curses himself if he takes back what he is giving in the property grant of the treaty.
\nIn Genesis 21:22\u201334, Abram and Abimelech make a treaty together, which we have already discussed. The ceremony is not described in detail. We are told, \u201cAbraham took sheep and oxen and gave them to Abimelech, and the two men made a covenant\u201d (21:27 ESV). Presumably, they cut the animals in half and then walked between the pieces just as in Genesis 15 and Jeremiah 34. (Or maybe they cut the necks as in the Alalakh texts? Either way, the ceremony still involved a self-maledictory oath.) Such culturally understood details need not be described in full for the readers. The animals were not gifts to Abimelech, because Abraham set aside seven ewe lambs as a gift (Gen. 21:28\u201330). This was unusual, and Abimelech called for an explanation. Abraham told him they were a witness that he had dug the disputed well. So here, too, we see features that are constant to covenant making alongside features that suit a peculiar set of circumstances.
\nPossibly quite similar to the covenant making of Genesis 21 is a document from Mari, ca. eighteenth century BC. This brief text reads as follows: \u201cI had a donkey foal, the young of a she-ass, slaughtered, I (thus) established peace between the Haneans and the Idamara\u1e63.\u201d Here a suzerain has sent his lieutenant to supervise a covenant-ratification ceremony between two of the suzerain\u2019s vassals. The ceremony or ritual itself is not described in full. Why should it be? Mathews\u2019s comment, therefore, that \u201cthe number and sort of animals and the halving procedure of chap. 15 have no parallel yet found in the ancient Near East\u201d has little value. No details are provided in Genesis 21 either, but they are in Genesis 15 because the fact that only one party passes between the pieces is remarkable. The details are important in this text and are therefore given in full.
\nThe differences adduced by Mathews between Jeremiah 34 and Genesis 15 only prevent correct interpretation of Genesis 15. The vocabulary differences that he lists are due to the author\u2019s wordplay in Jeremiah 34 on the one hand and the prophetic symbolism Yahweh wished to convey by the ceremony in Genesis 15 on the other. Nonetheless, both texts use the same standard covenant-making terminology. A calf in Jeremiah 34 is more suitable to a covenant made at a national level. Similarly, oxen and sheep are used in the ceremony between Abraham and Abimelech in Genesis 21. The animals in Genesis 15, however, are chosen for a specific symbolism, as explained by Wenham and appropriated by Mathews. Thus, the evidence does not indicate that we are mistakenly \u201cappropriating the rite of Jeremiah 34 as the template for explaining the practice in Genesis 15.\u201d
\nThat the idea of God taking a self-maledictory oath is difficult theologically only shows that we should exercise restraint in imposing on the text our notions of what is possible and right for God. It is also difficult to reconcile theologically that God asks Abraham to offer Isaac as a sacrifice in Genesis 22. May not a critical approach to the text preclude the narrator\u2019s right to build mystery and tension into his storyline?
\nWhile Mathews asserts that in Genesis 15 the concept of a self-maledictory oath is not explicit, this argument bears no weight. If one can boldly interpret the symbolism of the special features of the ceremony as Mathews does, why not the standard features that are constant in the Old Testament for more than 1,500 years? It seems that a concern to defend a conservative dating for Genesis 15 against interpretation by more critical scholars has resulted in a skewed picture of its meaning.<\/p>\n
CONCLUSION<\/p>\n
Ray Vander Laan has nicely expressed the powerful communication of the covenant-making ritual in Genesis 15:<\/p>\n
What an awesome God we have! What incredible love he has for his creatures!
\nImagine! The Creator of the universe, the holy and righteous God, was willing to leave heaven and come down to a nomad\u2019s tent in the dusty, hot desert of Negev to express his love for his people.
\n\u201cBring me a heifer, a goat and a ram \u2026 along with a dove and a young pigeon,\u201d God told Abraham. Then, when those animals had been sacrificed and laid out on both sides of their shed blood, God made a covenant. To do that, he walked \u201cbarefoot,\u201d in the form of a blazing torch, through the path of blood between the animals.
\nThink of it. Almighty God walking barefoot through a pool of blood! The thought of a human being doing that is, to say the least, unpleasant. Yet God, in all his power and majesty, expressed his love that personally. By participating in that traditional, Near Eastern covenant-making ceremony, he made it unavoidably clear to the people of that time, place and culture what he intended to do.
\n\u201cI love you so much, Abraham,\u201d God was saying, \u201cand I promise that this covenant will come true for you and your children. I will never break My covenant with you. I\u2019m willing to put My own life on the line to make you understand.\u201d
\nPicturing God passing through that gory path between the carcasses of animals, imagining the blood splashing as he walked, helps us recognize the faithfulness of God\u2019s commitment. He was willing to express, in terms his chosen people could understand, that he would never fail to do what he promised. And he ultimately fulfilled his promise by giving his own life, his own blood, on the cross.
\nBecause we look at God\u2019s dealings with Abraham as some remote piece of history in a far-off land, we often fail to realize that we, too, are part of the long line of people with whom God made a covenant on that rocky plain near Hebron. And like those who came before us, we have broken that covenant.
\nWhen he walked in the dust of the desert and through the blood of the animals Abraham had slaughtered, God was making a promise to all the descendants of Abraham\u2014to everyone in the household of faith. When God splashed through the blood, he did it for us.
\nWe\u2019re not simply individuals in relationship to God, we\u2019re part of a long line of people marching back through history, from our famous Jewish ancestors David, Hezekiah, and Peter to the millions of unknown believers; from the ancient Israelites and the Jewish people of Jesus\u2019 day to the Christian community dating from the early church. We\u2019re part of a community of people with whom God established relationship in the dust and sand of the Negev.
\nBut there\u2019s more. When God made covenant with his people, he did something no human being would have even considered doing. In the usual blood covenant, each party was responsible for keeping only his side of the promise. When God made covenant with Abraham, however, he promised to keep both sides of the agreement.
\n\u201cIf this covenant is broken, Abraham, for whatever reason\u2014for My unfaithfulness or yours\u2014I will pay the price,\u201d said God. \u201cIf you or your descendants, for whom you are making this covenant, fail to keep it, I will pay the price in blood.\u201d
\nAnd at that moment, Almighty God pronounced the death sentence on his Son Jesus.<\/p>\n
AFFIRMING THE COVENANT: THE SIGN OF CIRCUMCISION (GENESIS 17)<\/p>\n
The covenant between God and Abraham made in Genesis 15 is affirmed and upheld in Genesis 17. The precise relationship between Genesis 15 and 17 is debated. Before this relationship can be adequately articulated, however, we must consider the literary structure of this text, the exegetical details of the text, and its context in the flow of the narratives dealing with Abraham.<\/p>\n
LITERARY STRUCTURE<\/p>\n
As with Genesis 15, the literary structure of Genesis 17 is clear. Again, the text is divided in half, and each half has an identical pattern and structure. Again, the Lord communicates to Abram, presumably in a vision, although this is not explicit in the text, as it is in Genesis 15. Yahweh begins by expressing his intention to affirm his covenant promise concerning descendants. Abram responds by falling on his face. God speaks further about his promises of both descendants and land. He prescribes circumcision to Abraham as a covenant sign. Then the pattern is repeated. Yahweh expresses his intention to bless Sarah with progeny. Again, Abraham falls on his face. God speaks further and announces in particular the birth of a son to Sarah in about a year\u2019s time. The section ends with Abraham obeying the instructions concerning circumcision for himself, Ishmael, and his entire household.<\/p>\n
Outline of Genesis 17
\na Yahweh\u2019s intention to confirm his oath about progeny
\n17:1\u20132
\nb Abram falls on his face
\n17:3
\nc God promises descendants and the gift of land
\n17:4\u20138
\nd The sign of circumcision given
\n17:9\u201314
\na\u2032 Yahweh\u2019s intention to bless Sarah with progeny
\n17:15\u201316
\nb\u2032 Abraham falls on his face
\n17:17\u201318
\nc\u2032 God promises a son from Sarah
\n17:19\u201322
\nd\u2032 The sign of circumcision practiced
\n17:23\u201327<\/p>\n
EXEGESIS IN CONTEXT<\/p>\n
Just as the covenant making in chapter 15 came in response to the events preceding in chapter 14, so the covenant confirmation in chapter 17 comes in response to the events in chapter 16, where Sarai and Abram seek descendants through Hagar. In Genesis 17:1, Yahweh appears to Abram and says, \u201cI am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless\u201d (ESV, NIV). Our attention is focused on several things in this text.<\/p>\n
The Revelation of El Shaddai<\/p>\n
First, Yahweh reveals himself as El Shaddai (\u201cGod Almighty\u201d). This is the first occurrence of this divine name in the Scriptures. In an attempt to determine the meaning of the Hebrew term shaddai, scholars have argued over the origin of the word and have come to a stalemate. Its meaning, however, can be determined quite well from the usage of the word. This name for God is associated especially and particularly in the Old Testament with the lives of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It seems that this name was given to encourage faith because of the disparity between the covenant promises and the reality of the situation in which they found themselves at that time. Thus, in this context, Yahweh is the God who intervenes powerfully. It is customary in the Greek Old Testament to translate El Shaddai by \u201calmighty\u201d (\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1), and this expresses the meaning very well. As noted previously, the Abram narratives are presented as a new creation. Out of the post-Babel chaos portrayed by the nations and peoples of the world lost and scattered in the earth, and by the deadness and infertility of Abram and Sarai\u2019s bodies, the word of God to Abram is a powerful word bringing something out of nothing.<\/p>\n
Walking before God<\/p>\n
Second, El Shaddai commands Abram, saying, \u201cWalk before me!\u201d (\u05d4\u05ea\u05d4\u05dc\u05da \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9). What does it mean to walk before someone? John Walton carefully analyzes the use of this expression throughout the Old Testament:<\/p>\n
The Qal (G) stem and Hithpael (HtD) stem occurrences may be considered together because there are related contexts that express the same meaning by using the variant form (cf. Qal usage in 1 Kings 9:4 and Hithpael usage in 2 Kings 20:3). The collocation of verb and preposition occurs nearly thirty times in a wide variety of contexts. These occurrences may be classified as follows:<\/p>\n
1. People as Object of the Preposition
\n1. God as pillar of cloud going before Israel (Ex. 13:21; etc.) [G]
\n2. God going before Israel into the land (Deut. 1:30; 31:8) [G]
\n3. The Army going before the priests and the priests before the ark around Jericho (Josh. 6:9, 13) [G]
\n4. Used parallel to \u201crear guard\u201d (Isa. 52:12; 58:8) [G]
\n5. The purpose of Jacob\u2019s gifts to Esau (Gen. 32:21) [G]
\n6. Actual role-conduct of Samuel (1 Sam. 12:2) [HtD]
\n7. Expected role-conduct of new priestly line (\u201cbefore my anointed\u201d 1 Sam. 2:35) [HtD]<\/p>\n
2. God as Object of the Preposition
\n1. Expected role-conduct of Davidic kings (1 Kings 2:4; 8:23, 25; 9:4; 2 Chron. 6:16; 7:17) [G]
\n2. Actual role-conduct of Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:3; Isa. 38:3) [HtD]
\n3. Expected-actual role-conduct of the Patriarchs (Gen. 17:1; 24:40; 48:15) [HtD]
\n4. Expected role-conduct of priests (1 Sam. 2:30) [HtD]
\n5. Anticipated role-conduct of psalmist who has been delivered (Ps. 56:13 [14]; 116:9) [HtD]<\/p>\n
The results of Walton\u2019s careful study may be summarized as follows. When God walks before someone, this expression means to give guidance and protection. Conversely, when people walk before God, it means that they serve as his emissaries or diplomatic representatives. In Genesis 17:1, God commands Abram to walk before him. Thus, Abram is to be God\u2019s agent or diplomatic messenger and representative in the world. When the world looks at Abram, they will see what it is like to have a right relationship to God and to be what God intended for humanity.
\nTo see the significance of the geographical location of the land promised to Abraham and to grasp its importance for the promises given to Abram in Genesis 12, consider a map of the ancient Near East, showing travel routes (figure 8.1):<\/p>\n
Figure 8.1 Map of the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n
Canaan, the land promised to Abram, is a minuscule piece of property about thirty miles wide and one hundred miles long. The superpowers of the ancient world were on either side: Egypt to the west and Mesopotamia (Assyria and Babylon) to the east. Most of the area between Canaan and Mesopotamia is desert. The only functional routes for commerce and travel between the great superpowers of the ancient world go through the tiny country given to Abram. In modern terms, Abram and his family are to be settled along the central spine of the internet in the ancient world. All the communication, commerce, and trade back and forth between Egypt and Mesopotamia will pass through Canaan. And when it does, what are the travelers and traders supposed to see? They are supposed to witness a group of people who demonstrate a right relationship to the one and only true God, a human way of treating each other, and a proper stewardship of the earth\u2019s resources. God calls Abram to be a light to the nations. This is the beginning of his plan to bless all the nations through Abram and his family. Thus the command \u201cwalk before me\u201d correlates directly with the command in 12:3 to be a blessing to the nations.
\nThe divine command to Abram in Genesis 17:1 is actually twofold: (1) walk before me, and (2) be blameless. The Hebrew word rendered \u201cblameless\u201d is t\u0101m\u00eem. This adjective comes from a root meaning \u201ccomplete,\u201d \u201centire,\u201d or \u201cwhole\u201d and denotes a \u201ctotality without any diminution.\u201d Although the adjective t\u0101m\u00eem and the closely related adjective t\u0101m are not infrequent terms in the Old Testament (t\u0101m\u00eem occurs approximately ninetyone times and t\u0101m fifteen times), use in reference to humans is uncommon since most of the instances concern animals for cultic use. In fact, in all of Genesis, t\u0101m\u00eem is found only here (17:1), in reference to Abram, and in 6:9, in reference to Noah\u2014both Adamic figures according to the narrator\u2019s literary techniques:<\/p>\n
Noah was a righteous man. He was blameless [t\u0101m\u00eem] in his contemporary circles. (Gen. 6:9)<\/p>\n
The adjective t\u0101m\u00eem is also collocated with righteous (\u05e6\u05b7\u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05e7) in Job 12:4, where Job protests that he, a completely righteous man, has become a laughingstock (cf. Prov. 11:5). Moreover, t\u0101m\u00eem is collocated with \u05d9\u05b8\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05e8 (\u201cupright\u201d) in Deuteronomy 32:4 and Job 12:4. Thus, God is calling Abram to be morally blameless and impeccable, honest and sincere in the covenant relationship.
\nAs a matter of fact, however, when we consider the narratives concerning Abram to this point, we note that Abram has been less than honest and sincere in his dealings with others. Already in 12:17\u201320, when Abram and Sarai sojourned in Egypt during a period of famine in Canaan, Pharaoh complained that Abram\u2019s ruse calling Sarai his sister was less than truthful. Again, in chapter 16, when the plan to have an heir through Sarai\u2019s maidservant Hagar results in contempt for Sarai, Abram tells his wife that this is her problem and that she can deal with Hagar however she wants. Hagar and Ishmael are driven away into the wilderness with scant provision. This conduct, too, is far from impeccable. And the command of God given in chapter 17 does not remove this trait from Abram\u2019s subsequent behavior. In chapter 20, when he sojourns in the country of the Philistines, again he represents Sarah in public as his sister, and Abimelech, the king, charges Abraham with being deceptive in this matter. In chapter 21, Abraham and Abimelech make a treaty. Abraham complains that he has been mistreated by Abimelech\u2019s people over the matter of a well he had dug, but Abimelech counters that this is the first he has heard of it. This, too, is not impeccable behavior among the nations. God must have been embarrassed to own Abraham as his emissary and prophet (Gen. 20:7), the one who would intercede for Abimelech so that he would not die as a penalty for his adultery.
\nThe author of Genesis is at pains to show that, in the course of time and in the passing of generations, little things become big things. So later, in Genesis 26:6\u201311, Isaac also represents his wife Rebekah as his sister; only this time what was a \u201cwhite lie\u201d or half truth in the mouth of his father (Sarah was, in fact, a half sister of Abraham) becomes a black lie in his mouth. In the third generation, Isaac\u2019s son Jacob in turn is a complete deceiver and shyster. And Jacob, who deceived his father by means of a coat and a goat, is in turn deceived by his sons by means of a coat and a goat. To be sure, Abram has had an altar in Canaan and has called out (i.e., proclaimed) in the name of Yahweh. He has been an ambassador for his God, but he has not represented his God with complete integrity.
\nThe circumstances of chapter 16 are important motivation for the covenant confirmation in chapter 17. Genesis 17:2 begins with the verb w\u0115\u2019ett\u0115n\u00e2, a form almost certainly to be identified as a first-person singular modal, which in direct sequence with the commands of the previous verse marks a purpose or result clause: \u201cWalk before me and be blameless so that I may make my covenant between me and you.\u201d Obedience is expected of Abram in the covenant relationship. Already in Genesis 12, when Yahweh called Abram and gave him such great promises, there were commands: \u201cGo\u201d and \u201cBe a blessing!\u201d Chapter 15 reiterated the great promises and enshrined them in a covenant. Abram has not demonstrated full integrity, and so, in chapter 17, God comes to affirm\/uphold his covenant and emphasize, among other things, the need for an obedient son in Abram\u2019s Adamic role.<\/p>\n
The Giving of the Covenant<\/p>\n
Third, an exegetical question related to walking before God that cannot be ignored is the sense of the verb n\u0101tan (\u201cgive,\u201d \u201cmake\u201d) when b\u0115r\u00eet is the direct object. The analysis of Paul Williamson must be cited in full since he challenges the view adopted here:<\/p>\n
If one understands Genesis 17 in terms of a reaffirmation of the covenant formally ratified in Genesis 15, the deployment in Gen. 17:2 of the imperfect inflection of the verb \u05e0\u05ea\u05df [n\u0101tan] is rather puzzling. As Wenham tellingly admits, \u201cit is not immediately obvious in what sense God needs to give a covenant to Abraham, as it has already been inaugurated (\u05db\u05e8\u05ea \u2018cut\u2019) in 15:18.\u201d Wenham resolves this difficulty by resorting to the most popular synchronic interpretation, suggesting that here (Gen. 17) the concern is the confirmation or ratification of the covenant with stress on the human response (summed up in the phrase \u201cwalk before me and be blameless,\u201d and explicated in the demand to circumcise every male) rather than merely on the divine initiative. The difficulty of the long delay (ca. 14 years) between the covenant\u2019s establishment by God and the stress on its inherent obligations on man has already been underlined. The reason why the obligatory aspects were not clarified much earlier is somewhat obscure; if these two passages simply describe two aspects\/stages of the one covenant, why did God wait so long to elaborate upon the human partner\u2019s responsibilities? Surely the theological effect would have been the same had Genesis 15 already alluded to the intrinsic responsibilities on Abraham\u2019s part? If, on the other hand, a redactor is blamed for this literary enigma, the rationale for separating two such intimately related passages has not been adequately explained. Surely the redactor could have incorporated the Hagar episode into the narrative at a more suitable place\u2014for example, before the latter half of ch. 15\u2014and amalgamated the J and P accounts of the covenant\u2019s institution. Thus the anticipated \u201cgiving\u201d of the covenant in Genesis 17 does not sit easily with either the standard synchronic or diachronic explanations; the former offers no rationale for the unnecessary delay in revealing the covenant\u2019s obligatory aspects, whereas the latter challenges the literary competence of the redactor(s).
\nDumbrell understands the sense of \u05e0\u05ea\u05df (in 17:2) to be \u201csetting the covenant in operation.\u201d By this he means the realization of the covenant of Genesis 15 in the form of activated promises. Thus Gen. 17:2 should presumably be understood: \u201c\u2026 so that I may set in motion my covenant between me and you and greatly increase your numbers.\u201d Such a translation is certainly supported by Labuschagne\u2019s lexical study of \u05e0\u05ea\u05df; he contends that the basic connotation of the verb is the act through which an object or matter is set in motion. Further support for this interpretation is found in the fact that \u05e0\u05ea\u05df, when used in association with promised covenant blessings, heralds their realization or fulfilment. Fulfilment of the gift of \u201cland\u201d is heralded in 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:7, 18; 17:8, and implicitly in 15:2. In 17:5, 6 and 20 the verb relates to the promise of international (or in Ishmael\u2019s case, national) significance. The focus in 17:16 is the promised son. This leaves 17:2, which in the context seems to relate to the promise of Abraham\u2019s phenomenal expansion (17:2b; cf. 12:2; 13:16; 15:5); this, as we have seen, is undoubtedly a major theme in Genesis 17. Thus \u05e0\u05ea\u05df in Gen. 17:2 may suggest the setting in motion of the covenant promise(s) in question: viz. Abraham\u2019s phenomenal expansion (as the latter half of the verse seems to imply).
\nHowever, even if it is correct to interpret the verb \u05e0\u05ea\u05df as heralding the implementation of fulfilment of covenant promises, the legitimacy of identifying the covenant announced in Genesis 17 with the covenant already inaugurated in ch. 15 cannot simply be assumed. This still fails to take adequate cognisance of the different promissory emphases of the two chapters. The promissory focus of the covenant established in ch. 15 is the inheritance of the land by Abraham\u2019s innumerable offspring\u2014an aspect of the promissory programme which, though reiterated in the context of ch. 17 (v. 8), was certainly not implemented until very much later (and after at least one additional divine-human covenant; viz. the Sinaitic). However, the primary focus of the covenant \u201cset in motion\u201d in Genesis 17 does not appear to be Abraham\u2019s national inheritance, but rather his international significance. Thus the fact that the prospect of nationhood appears to assume a rather subsidiary position in ch. 17 seriously weakens the case for understanding the \u201ccovenant of circumcision\u201d as merely another step towards the implementation of the covenant promises recorded in ch. 15. At the very least there is a difference in emphasis in these two chapters which any attempt to correlate the two records must take into account and seek to explain.
\nHowever, it is possible that, though overstating his case, Dumbrell is correct to see a continuum between Genesis 15 and 17; the emphasis in ch. 17 on Abraham\u2019s descendants clearly provides a literary and theological lynchpin. This pericope leaves the reader in no doubt that Abraham\u2019s international significance must not be isolated entirely from the prospect of his national inheritance. Both expectations are related in some way; indeed, given the order both here and elsewhere, Abraham\u2019s international significance appears to be somehow contingent upon the prospect of nationhood having first been realized.<\/p>\n
To determine the sense of n\u0101tan b\u0115r\u00eet, Williamson rightly wrestles with the relationship of Genesis 15 and 17. Much in his discussion is helpful. He contributes to the discussion by noting the emphasis in chapter 17 on the nations. He correctly notes the prominence in this text; the focus on \u201cbecoming nations\u201d is, in fact, in both halves of the chapter, and it relates to both Abraham and Sarah:<\/p>\n
As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. (Gen. 17:4\u20136 NIV)<\/p>\n
I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her. (Gen. 17:16 NIV)<\/p>\n
Ishmael is promised both nationhood and royalty:<\/p>\n
And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. (Gen. 17:20 NIV)<\/p>\n
In Genesis 17, the royal ideology of the promises in Genesis 12:1\u20133 comes to the fore, and it seems that not only will Abraham be a blessing to the nations but he will also become more than one nation\u2014in fact, a multitude of nations. No wonder Paul speaks of \u201cthe promise to Abraham and to his seed that he would be the inheritor of the world\u201d (Rom. 4:13). He would inherit more than the land of Canaan; he would inherit the world.
\nNonetheless, the exegesis of Williamson is faulty because of inadequate attention to linguistic matters, reliance on secondary sources for lexical studies of strategic words, overreaction to the faults of Dumbrell\u2019s interpretation, and his own skewed definition of covenant making. Thus, he argues in the end that chapters 15 and 17 are two separate but related covenants.
\nApart from Genesis 17:2, the expression n\u0101tan b\u0115r\u00eet is found elsewhere only in Genesis 9:12 and Numbers 25:12. According to semantic theory in linguistics, in most languages nouns and verbs not only have a specific field of meaning but also operate in a hierarchy of related words in semantic domains. A verb higher up the hierarchy can usually be used as a substitute for one lower down. Thus n\u0101tan is employed as a substitute for h\u0113q\u00eem in both Genesis 9:12 and 17:2. This substitution is a natural stylistic variant since both the flood narrative and Genesis 17 are dominated exclusively by the expression h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet rather than k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet. The expression h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet is found in Genesis 9:9, 11, 12, 17; 17:7, 19, 21, whereas k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet is not found at all in these contexts. Thus Dumbrell\u2019s proposal for n\u0101tan (acceded to by Williamson in the main) is not far off the mark at all, and linguistic principles can account appropriately for both the sense and the usage. The usage in Numbers 25:12 also fits these data. God gives the priesthood to Aaron and his descendants in Exodus 29. Due to the act of Phineas in Numbers 25, God affirms the covenant of priesthood to the grandson of Aaron. So even here, n\u0101tan b\u0115r\u00eet is an equivalent for h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet.
\nThe first-person pronominal suffix on \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea is also part of the discussion on the relationship of Genesis 17 to 15. Note again Williamson\u2019s assessment of the claims of Dumbrell:<\/p>\n
In over half of its occurrences in ch. 17 (including its first occurrence in the pericope) \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea has a first person singular possessive pronoun attached (vv. 2, 4, 7, 10, 13, 19 and 21). It has been inferred, on the basis that the covenant is so introduced in this chapter, that \u201cmy covenant\u201d is to be identified with the covenant previously mentioned in ch. 15. This inference, however, does not bear up under close scrutiny. A number of telling criticisms can be levelled against it.
\nThe fact that the Noahic covenant (cf. Gen. 6:18; 9:8\u201317) is also enigmatically (so McEvenue) introduced in the same manner (i.e. \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9) seriously undermines the suggestion that the pronominal suffix points to an already established covenant. By analogy the \u201ccovenant\u201d referred to in Gen. 6:18 must also be a reaffirmation of an already established covenant. However, prior to this there is not even a hint of a covenant being established in the book of Genesis. The reference to \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea in Gen. 6:18 reflects not just the first occurrence of the noun in the flood narrative, but the first explicit reference to covenant in the Pentateuch as a whole. Thus to what pre-existing covenant could Gen. 6:18 possibly allude?
\nDumbrell\u2019s conjecture, that the allusion in Gen. 6:18 is to an original covenant with creation, allegedly reflected in the opening chapters of Genesis, lacks firm exegetical support and therefore remains unconvincing. While Dumbrell is undoubtedly correct in recognizing several clear echoes of the creation narrative in the Noahic covenant, his conclusion\u2014that Genesis 1\u20133 must accordingly portray an antedeluvian covenantal relationship\u2014is a non sequitur.<\/p>\n
These arguments are, apparently, Williamson\u2019s strongest. We have already seen that his analysis of the expressions n\u0101tan b\u0115r\u00eet and h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet is flawed and, moreover, is based on data from Moshe Weinfeld rather than from his own exhaustive examination of the primary sources. We have also seen\u2014and will see again shortly in considering chapter 17\u2014that there are fundamental ways of describing covenants in the narratives of Scripture without actually using the term \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea. Furthermore, Williamson provides no exegesis of Genesis 1\u20133 to substantiate the claim that no covenant is found there. Nor does he provide an adequate explanation for the variant expressions and terms used in Genesis 6\u20139 and 17. Therefore his claims constitute begging the question.
\nDumbrell\u2019s proposal that the instances of the pronominal suffix on \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea in Genesis 17 points to an already established covenant is noteworthy. The noun \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea has a first-person singular pronominal suffix in forty-seven instances in the Old Testament. It is remarkable that thirteen of these\u2014more than one-quarter\u2014occur in two texts: Genesis 6\u20139 and 17. Linguistically, a pronominal suffix makes the noun definite, and the grammatical function may be an anaphoric (i.e., a backward-pointing) reference. Careful examination of all instances in the Old Testament shows that in every case but one the reference is anaphoric and refers to an already established covenant. It seems that Dumbrell\u2019s proposal is on solid ground and that the thesis of Williamson flies in the face of the linguistic data.
\nWe may be confident, then, that just as Genesis 6\u20139 is an affirmation of God\u2019s covenant with creation in Genesis 1\u20133, so Genesis 17 is an affirmation of God\u2019s covenant with Abraham initiated in Genesis 15. Genesis 15 and 17 correlate respectively with the first three promises and the second three promises of 12:1\u20133. Abraham has shown a great deal of interest in God\u2019s promises to bless him personally with fame and nationhood, but these promises are foundational to the second three promises to bless all the nations through Abram, and Abraham has not shown any interest in being a blessing to the nations. So Williamson is quite right to note the international emphasis in Genesis 17. Abraham\u2019s response to the revelation in Genesis 17 is clear:<\/p>\n
Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself, \u201cShall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?\u201d And Abraham said to God, \u201cOh that Ishmael might live before you!\u201d (Gen. 17:17\u201318 ESV)<\/p>\n
Abraham is quite skeptical about the divine plan and urges God to consider his own attempt to implement God\u2019s plan in Genesis 16: \u201cIf only Ishmael might live under your blessing!\u201d There is room, indeed, in the blessings promised for Abraham\u2019s son Ishmael to develop into a nation that entails great chieftains, but the covenant will be upheld with a son born only to Abraham and Sarah in about a year\u2019s time. Abraham laughs at this. He can see how the divine plan would work through Ishmael, but how would life come out of a couple whose bodies are both dead. Yet this is precisely the theme of chapter 17\u2014\u201cI am God Almighty. Walk before me and be blameless.\u201d The reason for the fourteen-year lapse between chapter 15 and chapter 17 is that Yahweh wants a covenant relationship in which Abraham really knows and understands who he is and is faithful and loyal in precisely that level of understanding. Not until Abraham has tried everything in his own strength and is completely powerless will he know God as El Shaddai.
\nIn the course of discussing the relationship of Genesis 15 and 17, Williamson notes from T. D. Alexander parallels between Genesis 9 and 17, as seen in table 8.1:<\/p>\n
Table 8.1 Parallels between Genesis 9 and 17
\nExpression
\nNoahic Covenant
\nAbrahamic Covenant
\n\u05d4\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea
\n9:9, 11, 17
\n17:7, 9, 19, 21
\n\u05e0\u05ea\u05df \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea
\n9:12
\n17:2
\n\u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d6\u05e8\u05e2\u05da \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05da
\n9:9
\n17:7, 8, 9, 10, 19
\n\u05d1\u05de\u05d0\u05d3 \u05de\u05d0\u05d3
\n7:19
\n17:2, 6, 20
\n\u05dc\u05d3\u05e8\u05ea\u05dd
\n6:9; 9:12
\n17:7, 9, 12
\n\u05d5\u05e0\u05db\u05e8\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e0\u05e4\u05e9 \u05d4\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0
\n9:11
\n17:14
\n\u05e4\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4
\n8:17; 9:1, 7
\n17:20
\n\u05d4\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05d3
\n6:10
\n17:20
\n\u05d1\u05e2\u05e6\u05dd \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4
\n7:13
\n17:23, 26
\n\u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d6\u05db\u05e8
\n6:19; 7:3, 9, 16
\n17:10, 12, 23<\/p>\n
What these parallels show, rather than aiding and abetting the Documentary Hypothesis, is that the narrator is at pains to portray both Noah and Abraham as Adamic figures. The command to Adam to \u201cbe fruitful and multiply\u201d is passed on to Noah and becomes for Abraham a promise with the adverb \u201cexceedingly\u201d added to it.
\nIn chapter 17, God renames both Abram and Sarai. Abraham\u2019s name is changed from Abram, \u201cexalted father,\u201d to Abraham, \u201cfather of a multitude\u201d (of nations). Sarai\u2019s name is changed to Sarah. Although both are dialectical variants meaning \u201cprincess,\u201d as Waltke notes, \u201cSarai, her birth-name, probably looks back on her noble descent, whereas Sarah, her covenantal name, looks ahead to her noble descendants.\u201d Williamson believes this is cause for distinguishing Genesis 15 and 17 as separate covenants:<\/p>\n
One of the most obvious aspects distinguishing the two covenant chapters is the introduction of new names for both Abraham and Sarah in ch. 17. It is significant that not only are these name-changes unmentioned in Genesis 15, but also that their non-usage prior to Genesis 17 is perfectly matched by the consistency of their usage after their introduction in the latter chapter.
\nIn that these new names are given covenantal significance in ch. 17, their non-introduction in ch. 15 would imply that the covenant recorded there served a different purpose\u2014or at least had a distinct emphasis. Again, this inference is confirmed by a careful analysis of each chapter. Genesis 15 stresses Abraham\u2019s role as the progenitor of a single nation who would inherit the Promised Land, whereas Genesis 17 stresses Abraham\u2019s role as the \u201cfather\u201d of a multitude of nations who would inherit the promised blessing (cf. 17:4\u20136, 16). Thus the name-changes in ch. 17 subtly alert the reader to the fact that the scope of the two covenant passages in the Abrahamic narrative is not the same.<\/p>\n
The scope of chapter 17 is bigger than chapter 15 because it is characteristic of the Abraham narrative as a whole for God to answer every question with bigger promises. God also uses cultural means to communicate to his people who he is and what he wants in the relationship, such as a covenantal name change. But this need not be seen as any reason to consider Genesis 15 and 17 as different covenants.<\/p>\n
The Covenant Beneficiaries<\/p>\n
Fourth, in verses 7b and 8b of chapter 17, note that the covenant is with Abraham and his descendants:<\/p>\n
And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God. (ESV)<\/p>\n
Yahweh will be the God of Abraham and the God of his descendants. He will be their God. The italicized words constitute the first instance in Scripture of the Covenant Formula (at least the first half of it). We find the full formula first in Exodus 6:7:<\/p>\n
I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God. Then you will know that I am the LORD your God, who brought you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. (NIV)<\/p>\n
Attention was first drawn to the formula by Rudolf Smend. Elmer Martens\u2019s book God\u2019s Design is a wonderful exposition of this phrase in the Scriptures. As the scholarly study of Rolf Rendtorff has shown, sometimes only the first half of the formula is found (A), sometimes only the second half (B), and sometimes the entire formula (C).<\/p>\n
Formula A: I will be your God
\nFormula B: You will be my people
\nFormula C: I will be your God, and you will be my people (= A + B)<\/p>\n
Rendtorff concludes his analysis of the Covenant Formula as follows:<\/p>\n
It therefore emerges under the most diverse aspect that in important sectors of the Hebrew Bible the covenant formula is an element of theological language which is introduced in a highly conscious manner. It expresses in an extremely pregnant way God\u2019s relationship to Israel and Israel\u2019s to God. At the same time, it combines with other terms, above all \u201ccovenant\u201d and \u201cchoose,\u201d as well as other elements of theological language.\u2026 In many cases it binds these elements together and interprets them afresh, or creates new theological coherences through their association.<\/p>\n
Thus, at the heart of the covenant is this relationship: \u201cI will be their God, and they will be my people.\u201d Although this phrase occurs here in Genesis 17, where the term \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea abounds, in many passages of the Bible the identical phrase or words occur where the term \u201ccovenant\u201d is not found, and it always signals covenant as the subject and topic of discussion. Significant examples are 2 Corinthians 6:16 and Revelation 21:3:<\/p>\n
What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said:<\/p>\n
\u201cI will live with them
\nand walk among them,
\nand I will be their God,
\nand they will be my people.\u201d (2 Cor. 6:16 NIV)<\/p>\n
And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, \u201cBehold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.\u201d (Rev. 21:3 ESV)<\/p>\n
Neither Paul nor John employs the word \u201ccovenant,\u201d but the Covenant Formula communicates this idea powerfully as they describe and discuss the new covenant in these texts.<\/p>\n
The Covenant Sign<\/p>\n
Fifth, Abraham is given a covenant sign. In the Old Testament, it is common for a covenant to be accompanied by a physical sign, although by no means is a physical sign a necessary or obligatory part of covenant making. We saw that the rainbow was the sign of the covenant with Noah, and later the Sabbath is the sign of the covenant with Israel at Sinai. Abraham is commanded to practice circumcision as the physical sign of the covenant that God was confirming between him and his descendants (Gen. 17:9\u201314).
\nThe central question here is, What does circumcision indicate or signify? According to Genesis 17:14, this sign defines membership in the covenant community: \u201cAny uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant\u201d (NIV). The question remains, however: How does circumcision signify or symbolize belonging to the covenant community?
\nUnfortunately, the Christian church has had largely mistaken ideas and understandings of the rite of circumcision, mainly because the proper background to the meaning of this rite was not adequately researched. O. Palmer Robertson, for example, in his otherwise helpful work on the covenants, proposes that circumcision means cleansing. This is based on the gratuitous assumption that for the people in question, \u201cthe hygienic act of the removal of the foreskin symbolized the purification necessary for the establishment of a covenant relation between a holy God and an unholy people.\u201d Other cultures circumcised children at puberty as a rite of passage from childhood to manhood. Abraham and his descendants are to circumcise children at eight days old. Correct understanding must be illuminated by the background of the ancient Near East and\u2014in view of the connection between Abraham and Egypt and between Israel and Egypt\u2014by the Egyptian background in particular.
\nThe best research to date on this topic has been advanced and summarized by John D. Meade. After demonstrating that the most plausible background\u2014the common milieu criterion\u2014for understanding both Abraham\u2019s and Israel\u2019s circumcision is Egypt, Meade draws his conclusion, which should be cited in full:<\/p>\n
First, and most importantly, God adds the rite of circumcision to an already existing covenant relationship (cf. Gen. 15:18, where the Hebrew verb \u05db\u05e8\u05ea means to initiate a covenant). What does circumcision contribute to this covenantal relationship? The answers to this question have ranged between viewing Abraham\u2019s circumcision as a reminder to God to keep his promise of posterity to a multi-valent meaning including malediction and consecration. This study accedes with the latter of these conclusions.\u2026 Egyptian circumcision was an initiation rite for priests.
\nSecond, just as the king-priest was the son of the god in Egypt, and was consecrated to him through circumcision, Israel as the first born son of Yahweh (Ex. 4:22\u201323) has undergone and will undergo circumcision (Josh. 5:2\u20139) in order to be consecrated to his service. We cannot delve into the biblical language of sonship and image in this paper, but it is interesting to note that the Egyptian background would reveal to Israel that they indeed belonged to Yahweh as his first born Son, since they had undergone circumcision just as the Pharaoh.
\nThird, only the priests were obligated to be circumcised in Egypt, but in Israel every male was to be circumcised on the eighth day (Gen. 17:12), signifying that Abraham\u2019s family consists of priests. Later in the story Israel is called a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Ex. 19:6). The phrase \u201choly nation\u201d also means consecrated to God or belonging to God and would complement the meaning of kingdom of priests. As a kingdom of priests, circumcision is the appropriate sign for the people of Israel, for it will remind every male Israelite that he is a priest, specially consecrated to Yahweh and his service.
\n[Thus] circumcision in Egypt means affiliation or identification with the deity and consecration to his service. The rite was obligatory for all priests to the deity, while the evidence suggests that circumcision was not forced upon the laity.\u2026 although formal differences existed between the Egyptian rite and the Israelite rite, these differences actually functioned as the grounds for significant theologizing in Israel. In Israel every male baby is consecrated or devoted to God at eight days old. The family of Abraham and Sarah were to be signified as the priesthood of Yahweh from birth.<\/p>\n
The comment of Henry Morris is also helpful:<\/p>\n
Furthermore, it was primarily a sign only to the individual concerned, his parents, and his wife. It was not a sign to be shown to people in general, but was uniquely personal. To his parents it would confirm that they had been faithful in transmitting the seed to the son with whom God had blessed their union, and that they were trying to follow God\u2019s will in training him. To his wife, it would give assurance that he indeed was a descendant of Abraham, to whom she could joyfully submit in the marriage relation, in faith that God would bless their home and their children. To the man himself, it would be a daily testimony that he and his family were consecrated to the God of Abraham and that they shared in his calling and ministry to the world.<\/p>\n
Contrary to the culture in the ancient Near East, where males were circumcised as adults or at puberty, males in Abraham\u2019s family were to be circumcised just after birth, at eight days old. Mathews connects this with the day of atonement:<\/p>\n
In the cult seven days of uncleanness were counted for the new mother, followed by the infant\u2019s circumcision on the eighth day and the thirty-three days of purification of the mother (Lev 12:2\u20134). The eighth held special meaning as the day of atonement or dedication to the Lord (e.g., Exod 22:30; Lev 9:1; 14:10, 23; 15:14, 29; 22:27; 23:39; Num 6:10; Ezek 43:27).<\/p>\n
This explanation is inadequate. The eighth day derives its significance from the account of creation, where God made the world in six days and rested on the seventh. Since the seventh day is indefinite, the eighth day is the beginning of the new creation, and this fits with the new creation imagery connected with Abraham as a new Adam.
\nMeredith G. Kline has proposed a negative meaning for this rite. Like the dismembering ritual in Genesis 15:7\u201318 (cf. Jer. 34:17\u201320), circumcision graphically portrayed the covenant curse of excision and threatened the cutting off of descendants (Gen. 17:14). Although other nations besides Israel practiced circumcision, the Israelites were the only nation to completely cut off and remove the foreskin. Thus the negative meaning is that circumcision symbolizes being cut off from the covenant community for disloyalty to the covenant demand to \u201cwalk before me and be blameless\u201d (Gen. 17:1). This negative aspect of circumcision is clearly supported in the text by 17:14, already cited.
\nThus, circumcision was a ritual required by Abraham and his family signifying membership in the covenant community. Negatively, the person who remained uncircumcised would be cut off from the covenant community. Positively, circumcision symbolized complete devotion to the service of God as a priesthood. The covenant sign underlines Abraham\u2019s Adamic role as a priest in his calling to bring blessing to the nations. Paul, in Romans 4:11, rightly sees the obedience of Abraham described in Genesis 17:23\u201327 as an expression of the righteousness of faith that according to 15:6 characterized his relation to Yahweh. And Robert D. Bergen rightly notes, \u201cWith the sign of the covenant now on his body, Abraham was qualified to father the covenant child.\u201d<\/p>\n
ONE COVENANT OR TWO?<\/p>\n
The NIV Study Bible has a table entitled \u201cMajor Covenants in the Old Testament\u201d (p. 19), which lists the divine dealings with Abraham as two covenants, described as Abrahamic A and Abrahamic B. Abrahamic A corresponds to Genesis 15 and is characterized as a royal grant; Abrahamic B corresponds to Genesis 17 and is characterized as a suzerain-vassal treaty. Support for this view has been provided by the doctoral dissertation of Paul R. Williamson. Williamson has also written a more general work on all the biblical covenants, where he condenses the technical treatment given of the Abrahamic covenant in his doctoral thesis. Williamson summarizes previous analyses of Genesis 15 and 17 as follows:<\/p>\n
Scholars operating from a diachronic perspective generally consider the \u201cstages\u201d of the Abrahamic covenant to be a literary construct as opposed to chronologically distinct events. This literary construct, it is suggested, has developed from the amalgamation of different sources or traditions that allegedly lie behind the final form of the Abraham narrative. Thus understood, Genesis 15 and 17 are simply variant accounts, from different periods, of what is essentially a single event or episode in the Abraham saga. The idea of distinct or chronologically separate stages in the establishment of the Abrahamic covenant has been introduced artificially by the editorial process that took place during the compilation of the Abraham cycle. Thus what originally were two separate accounts of a single Abrahamic covenant now appear as two chronologically distinct stages in the covenant relationship.
\nHowever, as well as involving several unwarranted presuppositions with respect to the literary and theological differences between Genesis 15 and 17 (see Williamson 2000a: 81\u201395), such diachronic analyses fail to explain the inclusion of these two covenant pericopes in the final form of the Abraham narrative. The latter must be addressed, for\u2014unless one uncritically assumes a somewhat piece-meal and incoherent process of final redaction\u2014each of these chapters makes its own distinct theological contribution to the narrative as a whole.
\nFrom a synchronic perspective, those who hold to a single Abrahamic covenant typically understand its staged revelation in terms of Abraham\u2019s developing relationship with Yahweh. Opinion is divided over when the covenant is initially established (i.e. whether in Gen. 12 or Gen. 15), but it is agreed that subsequent chapters focusing on God\u2019s promises to Abraham simply confirm and amplify the same covenant. Thus understood, Genesis 17 is not an alternative account of the establishment of the Abrahamic covenant, but is either a renewal of the previously established covenant, or the next phase of its development, in which its promissory aspects are supplemented with important, but previously undisclosed, obligatory dimensions.
\nHowever, the problem with these suggestions is that they fail to explain the long time lapse between these two \u201cstages\u201d of covenant-making, or to account adequately for the significant differences between Genesis 15 and 17\u2014both in terms of their covenantal framework and their promissory emphases.<\/p>\n
Two approaches are described: diachronic and synchronic. Those who follow a diachronic approach are critical scholars whose methodology includes form, redaction, and source criticism. Those who follow a synchronic approach accept the text in its canonical form. Williamson\u2019s description (although not the precise terms diachronic and synchronic) is indebted to John Barton, Reading the Old Testament, but his use of diachronic and synchronic as technical terms may be confusing. As a technical term, diachronic study is a purely genetic study of the compilation of sources. In literal, ordinary usage, diachronic means \u201cdevelopment through time\u201d while synchronic means \u201cat the same time.\u201d Thus, in the nontechnical use of the term, the idea of God responding to Abraham\u2019s developing faith and understanding of the divine revelations given to him would better be described as diachronic. Williamson\u2019s problem with the long lapse between these two \u201cstages\u201d of covenant making or the differences between Genesis 15 and 17 will be addressed shortly.
\nAfter discussing Genesis 15 and 17 separately, Williamson concludes with the following summation:<\/p>\n
It is clear from the above analysis that the covenants mentioned in Genesis 15 and Genesis 17 are manifestly different in both nature (temporal\/eternal; unilateral\/bilateral) and primary emphases (national\/international). The suggestion that they are simply two stages of the one covenant is seriously undermined by the inexplicable gap of some thirteen years between them, and by the consistent projection of the covenant in Genesis 17 into the future (lit. \u201cI will give my covenant\u201d [Gen. 17:2]; \u201cI will establish my covenant\u201d [Gen. 17:7 my trans.]). Both these anomalies, as well as the significant differences between the two covenant chapters, suggest a more plausible synchronic explanation: these chapters focus on two distinct, but related covenants (Williamson 2000a: 212\u2013214).
\nSuch a conclusion is further suggested by the fact that the different emphases in Genesis 15 and 17 mirror the two separate strands set out in the programmatic agenda of Genesis 12:1\u20133. Genesis 15 concentrates on the divine promise to make Abraham a \u201cgreat nation\u201d (Gen 12:2), whereas Genesis 17 focuses more on the divine promise that through Abraham \u201call the families of the ground will experience blessing\u201d (Gen. 12:3 my trans.). Thus understood, two distinct covenants were established between God and Abraham. The first (established in Gen. 15) solemnly guaranteed God\u2019s promise to make Abraham into a \u201cgreat nation.\u201d The second covenant (anticipated in Gen. 17, but not yet established) similarly guaranteed God\u2019s promise to bless the nations through Abraham and his \u201cseed.\u201d<\/p>\n
Williamson\u2019s arguments that Genesis 15 and 17 constitute separate covenants appear to be more weighty than they actually are.
\nThe reading of the Abraham narratives that we have just presented (Genesis 12 = the giving of the promise; Genesis 15 = the making of the covenant; and Genesis 17 = the affirming of the covenant) is not possible for Williamson for a number of reasons. First, he does not allow the expressions \u201ccut a covenant\u201d (k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet) and \u201caffirm\/uphold a covenant\u201d (h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet) to have distinct meanings, as explained here and also substantiated in usage. His analysis is based on data from Weinfeld (instead of his own analysis of primary sources) in reaction to Dumbrell\u2019s interpretation, which does require modification. This is a fundamental linguistic point that affects one\u2019s interpretation. Williamson offers no satisfactory explanation of why the phrase \u201cto affirm a covenant\u201d occurs consistently in chapter 17 as opposed to the more usual expression elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. In fact, Williamson\u2019s arguments frequently work against him:<\/p>\n
It may be argued that the allusion in Exod 6:4 (in the case of Abraham) is actually to Gen. 17:8, an explicit confirmation of the covenant\/promise ratified formally in Gen. 15:18. However, this patently fails to take adequate account of the particularly striking allusions to Genesis 15 in the sixth chapter of Exodus.<\/p>\n
It is strange that Williamson does not see that if Genesis 15 and 17 are one covenant, his counterargument has just been removed.
\nSecond, in both of Williamson\u2019s works his analysis is focused on exegesis of chapters 15 and 17, and he does not adequately discuss the flow of the plotline in the Abraham narratives as a whole. The different divine revelations to Abraham are given in direct response to Abraham\u2019s developing and growing faith, obedience, and understanding over the years of God\u2019s commands, promises, and revelations. This is a genuine diachronic approach and should not be confused with Williamson\u2019s use of the term \u201cdiachronic approach\u201d for critical reconstructions of the editorial history of the text.
\nThere is a chronological growth and progression in Abraham\u2019s faith, obedience, and understanding of God\u2019s dealings with him. The argument that Genesis 15 concentrates on the divine promise to make Abraham a \u201cgreat nation\u201d (national), whereas Genesis 17 focuses more on the divine promise that through Abraham \u201call the families of the ground will experience blessing\u201d (international) is part of a real contribution made by Williamson, but the differences may be overstressed. Both chapter 15 and chapter 17 speak of \u201cland\u201d and \u201cseed.\u201d It is interesting to note that chapter 17 speaks in a number of places about giving the land to Abraham and giving him a son (17:8, 16), which belong to the blessing to Abram and not to the blessings through him to the nations.
\nSince the promises God makes in chapter 12 focus first on blessings to Abraham and then on blessings through him to the nations, it is logical that in Abraham\u2019s own life he would be interested in seeing how the first part would be fulfilled before he would demonstrate interest in knowing how the second part would be fulfilled. Thus chapters 15 and 17 develop the promises in chapter 12 in the same order in which they were given to Abraham.
\nWilliamson argues that \u201cthe suggestion that [chapters 15 and 17] are simply two stages of the one covenant is seriously undermined by the inexplicable gap of some thirteen years between them.\u201d This is an astonishing statement. The thirteen-year gap between Genesis 15 and 17 is supplied by chapter 16, the narrative of the attempt by Abraham and Sarah to achieve the fulfillment of God\u2019s promise through human efforts and machinations. The story of Hagar is an adequate reason for a delay in confirming and bringing into Abraham and Sarah\u2019s experience the historical reality of what was promised. It also shows the need to broaden Abraham\u2019s horizons beyond himself and his family to his calling to bring blessing to the nations. Abraham\u2019s failure in this respect is characteristic of the rest of the history of Israel right down to the time of Jesus\u2019s own disciples.
\nThe argument that chapter 15 is a temporal covenant and chapter 17 an eternal covenant is based on an argument from silence. Chapter 17 says that the covenant is eternal (17:7, 13, 19), but no such thing is said in chapter 15. This is also begging the question because if chapters 15 and 17 are referring to the same thing, then the statement in 17 about the covenant being eternal would also apply to 15. Note that in chapter 15 the covenant grants \u201cland\u201d to Abraham (15:18\u201321), and in chapter 17 this is referred to as an \u201ceternal possession\u201d (17:8). God\u2019s promises get bigger and better all the way through the Abraham narratives, but this is no reason to argue for separate covenants.
\nThe argument that the covenant in chapter 15 is unilateral and the one in chapter 17 is bilateral is based on a misunderstanding. The traditional language describing covenants as being either unconditional or conditional is inadequate. We would argue that God guarantees the faithfulness of both partners in the Abrahamic covenant but still requires faithful obedience on the part of Abraham to bring the blessing to the nations promised in the covenant. The biblical metanarrative is about God seeking in Adam an obedient son from beginning to end. Chapters 15 and 17 are one and the same covenant, and together these texts present a full-orbed holographic image of the one covenant.
\nReading chapter 17 from Williamson\u2019s perspective also presents other difficulties. If the covenant there is not the one in chapter 15, then the occurrences of the word \u201ccovenant\u201d are referring to the covenant God is about to establish. In 17:9, God asks Abraham to keep his covenant. In 17:10, he explains that the covenant involves circumcision. Then in 17:11, he says that this is for a covenant sign. This seems to reduce the covenant keeping to a covenant sign. If chapter 17 is affirming the covenant in chapter 15, then a sign is supplied for the Abrahamic covenant in general. If, however, chapter 17 is instituting a separate covenant, then the human obligation is reduced to being a covenant sign. This reading does not provide a satisfactory understanding of the text.
\nWilliamson\u2019s approach is flawed because later texts in both Old and New Testaments never refer to God\u2019s dealings with Abraham as \u201ccovenants\u201d\u2014in the plural. Never in all the historical summaries in the Old Testament (e.g., Nehemiah 9) is there a reference to two Abrahamic covenants. There is only one covenant with Abraham, confirmed to Isaac and Jacob.
\nThe final coup de gr\u00e2ce for the double-covenant theory is provided by the literary structure of the Abrahamic narratives. First, we must note that T. D. Alexander\u2019s doctoral dissertation proposed a literary structure of chapters 12\u201320 of Genesis in which the narrative was split in two (12\u201315 and 17\u201320) on the basis of chiasm. This literary structure is key to interpreting the narrative in terms of two covenants with Abraham. Byron Wheaton has shown that the analysis of Alexander was incomplete. There are unique features in the narrative binding chapters 12 and 15; 12 and 17, and 12 and 22. Similarly, unique features connect 15 and 12; 15 and 17, and 15 and 22; unique features connect 17 and 12; 17 and 15, and 17 and 22; and finally, unique features connect 22 and 12; 22 and 15, and 22 and 17, as shown in figure 8.2.<\/p>\n
Figure 8.2 Relationships of Genesis 12; 15; 17; and 22<\/p>\n
An example of a unique feature is the fact that the image of offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven is shared only by chapters 15 and 22 (15:5; 22:17). What Wheaton has shown is that the analysis of Alexander is incomplete and that the four chapters are completely interlocked as one. One cannot separate chapters 12\u201315 from 17\u201320 or 22. The promises in chapter 12, the covenant in chapter 15, the affirmation of the covenant in chapter 17, and the confirmation by mighty oath in chapter 22 are all one covenant, and the narratives cannot be bifurcated as Alexander claimed or as his doctoral student Williamson attempted to further prove.<\/p>\n
ABRAHAM\u2019S OBEDIENCE AND GOD\u2019S MIGHTY OATH<\/p>\n
GENESIS 18\u201319<\/p>\n
A short time\u2014no more than two to four months\u2014after the covenant confirmation in Genesis 17, Abraham is visited by three men at Hebron. Turns out that the mysterious strangers are Yahweh and two of his agents or messengers; the text describes this visitation in the same way that we find in earlier communications from God (\u201cThe LORD appeared to Abram\u201d). In Genesis 15, the communication came by way of a vision. In Genesis 12:1, 7, and 17:1, the manner of divine revelation is left unspecified. Here God appears to Abraham as a human.
\nAbraham urges the strangers to accept hospitality, and they accede to his request. While the men are eating and Abraham is serving them, they ask him where Sarah his wife is at that moment. Abraham answers curtly, \u201cHere in the tent.\u201d No doubt, cultural protocol in the ancient Near East would not allow men to address a man\u2019s wife directly. A conversation of sorts can be arranged with her behind the door of the tent. Suddenly, the verb of speaking switches from third-person plural to third-person singular, and the speaker repeats the promise (of becoming [a] great nation[s]) made particular and specific in Genesis 17 of a son given through Sarah within a year. Sarah laughs at this. The narrator informs us that she is not only postmenopausal but is no longer enjoying physical relations with her husband: they are just that old. Yahweh asks Abraham why Sarah laughed, since nothing is impossible for him, and again he repeats his promise of a son born through her. Although the question is directed to Abraham, it is really intended for Sarah, who, out of fear, denies that she laughed. Thus, here Sarah lies out of fear, just as her husband, Abraham, lied out of fear when he entered Egypt and falsely declared that Sarai was only his sister.
\nThe interchange between the Lord and Sarah is important background to the next scene in this episode. The visitors depart, heading for an \u201coverlook\u201d of Sodom with a Scots send-off by Abraham (i.e., he walks with them partway). Again, Yahweh opens the conversation, this time with these words:<\/p>\n
The LORD said, \u201cShall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?\u201d (Gen. 18:17\u201318 ESV)<\/p>\n
Yahweh opens with a rhetorical question\u2014should he hide (lit. \u201ccover\u201d) his plan (of judging the cities of the plain) from Abraham? Of course not! Verse 18 expresses the motivation or reasons why Yahweh needs to be open and transparent. First, the statement that Abraham will become a great nation corresponds to the first set of promises in Genesis 12:1\u20133; second, the statement that all the nations of the earth will be blessed in him corresponds to the second set of promises in Genesis 12:1\u20133. The first set of promises was enshrined and solemnized in the covenant made in Genesis 15, while the second set was emphasized in the covenant confirmation of Genesis 17. Thus these two statements circumscribe the fact that God has a covenant relationship with Abram, and this type of relationship especially requires integrity, that is, openness and transparency in the context of faithfulness and loyal love. These are the precise characteristics that Abraham and his wife, Sarah, have not shown in relationship with fellow humans or God, as is evidenced by the call to be blameless in Genesis 17:1 and by the lie of Sarah in Genesis 18:15. The rhetorical question, then, shows that Yahweh is modeling for Abraham and Sarah the kind of covenant relationship he would like to have with them.
\nThis interpretation is clear as Yahweh goes on to explain his motivation for revealing to Abraham his plan (still veiled, as far as the reader is concerned):<\/p>\n
\u201cFor I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.\u201d Then the LORD said, \u201cBecause the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know.\u201d (Gen. 18:19\u201321 ESV)<\/p>\n
Several points in these verses must be either clarified or stressed. Normally in Hebrew prose, when the words \u201cjustice\u201d and \u201crighteousness\u201d are coordinated, they form a single concept or idea: social justice. This is a figure of speech known as a hendiadys, one concept expressed through two words. The word pair becomes an idiom expressing a single thought that is both different from and greater than just putting the two words together. One cannot determine the meaning of this expression by analyzing \u201cjustice\u201d and \u201crighteousness\u201d individually. Later on in the Old Testament, this word pair becomes a way of summarizing the requirements and stipulations of the Mosaic covenant, which in turn are an expression of the character of Yahweh. This context defines what is meant here by social justice, in contrast to how the term might commonly be used today.
\nAccording to the syntax of the clause in Genesis 18:19, \u201cpracticing social justice\u201d is the manner in which Abraham and his family are \u201cto keep the way of Yahweh.\u201d And this \u201cway of Yahweh\u201d has already been clearly shown to Abraham. Yahweh began by modeling for Abraham the openness and transparency that is necessary in a covenant relationship, namely, what it means to be blameless (\u201cShall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?\u201d).
\nIn the flow of the narrative plot structure, as Abraham begins to plead with Yahweh not to destroy the righteous with the wicked in an attempt to avert destruction of the cities of the plain\u2014and save Lot\u2014he is taking his very first steps in practicing social justice, and this is also the beginning of being a blessing to the nations. Thus, the instruction of Genesis 17 is effective in shifting his focus from the first three promises of Genesis 12:1\u20133 to also give attention to the second three: \u201cIn you all the nations of the earth will be blessed.\u201d
\nThe reader is invited to compare and contrast Genesis 14 and 18, since in both of these events Abraham is seeking to rescue his nephew Lot, who is in trouble. Genesis 18, however, differs significantly from Genesis 14, where Abraham with his 318 household servants rescues Lot from the marauding kings. Here Abraham faces not the big bad boys from the east but Yahweh himself, God Almighty. It is God who is determined to judge the wicked cities. To rescue Lot this time, Abraham must abandon his own shrewd schemes of subterfuge (surprise attack by night, Gen. 14:15). Instead, he must buy into the \u201cway of Yahweh\u201d\u2014that is, the character of Yahweh himself\u2014in the covenant relationship. He must embrace \u201cthe way of Yahweh\u201d and practice social justice. He cannot call for mercy on Lot solely on the basis that he is a relative. He must plead for \u201cthe righteous\u201d as a group and call on God as a just Judge who would not destroy the righteous along with the wicked. Thus he intercedes as a priest for the nations on the basis of God\u2019s own character. Yahweh is patient as Abraham intercedes and gradually reduces the required number of righteous people in the city six times from fifty to just ten. Apparently, there were only six people who might deserve to be called righteous: Lot, his wife, and his two daughters and their fianc\u00e9s (for the divine agents of judgment sought to extract them from the city before the destruction). As the sorry story of Lot at the end of Genesis 19 shows, Abraham succeeded in saving two entire (future) nations: Moab and Ammon. Abraham is beginning to be a blessing to the (other) nations.<\/p>\n
GENESIS 22<\/p>\n
Another episode emphasizing the connection between Abraham\u2019s obedience and the fulfillment of the covenant promises is Genesis 22:15\u201318. After the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19, Abraham sojourns for a time in Gerar, a Philistine territory, and the events recorded in Genesis 20 are almost identical to his sojourn in Egypt in Genesis 12:10\u201320. Finally, in Genesis 21, a son is born to Sarah, named Isaac in memory of the fact that both parents laughed at the promises of God. Abraham also makes a covenant, or treaty, with Abimelech concerning ownership of wells in Genesis 21 (which was discussed earlier).
\nThen in Genesis 22, Abraham is tested by God and asked to offer Isaac, the son of promise, now an adolescent or young man, as a sacrifice. This is a difficult request to understand, whether for Abraham or for the reader of the narrative. Isaac is now the center of his father\u2019s affections and love. Timothy Keller considers Genesis 22 \u201cthe second call of Abraham\u201d (in relation to Genesis 12 as the first call):<\/p>\n
Abraham got another call from God. And it could not have been more shocking.<\/p>\n
Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.\u2026<\/p>\n
This was the ultimate test. Isaac was now everything to Abraham, as God\u2019s call makes clear. He does not refer to the boy as \u201cIsaac,\u201d but as \u201cyour son, your only son, whom you love.\u201d Abraham\u2019s affection had become adoration. Previously, Abraham\u2019s meaning in life had been dependent on God\u2019s word. Now it was becoming dependent on Isaac\u2019s love and well-being. The center of Abraham\u2019s life was shifting. God was not saying you cannot love your son, but that you must not turn a loved one into a counterfeit god.<\/p>\n
Keller hits the nail on the head. Abraham is blessed by God, but his covenant relationship with God must be more important than the blessings of God; that is, he must desire God himself and not simply desire God for his gifts or promises. He must seek God as a greater treasure than what he gives or promises.
\nIn the course of the Abraham narratives, the narrator is redefining what blessing means. The narrative plot structure invites us to compare and contrast Abraham and Lot in the matter of blessing. By the cultural standards of their time, both men are blessed. They have children and families. Abraham was satisfied, in fact, with just Ishmael as the beginning of becoming a great nation (Gen. 17:18). They have flocks and herds and camels. Lot becomes an alderman on the town council of Sodom, the leading city of the five in the plain. Abraham and, vicariously, Lot have victory over their enemies. Yet the narrator makes plain that Lot\u2019s path is spiraling downward: (1) Lot lifted up his eyes (13:10); (2) Lot chose for himself (13:11); (3) Lot moved his tent toward Sodom (13:12); (4) Lot was dwelling in Sodom (14:12); (5) Lot sat in the gate of Sodom (i.e., he was an alderman on the town council, 19:1). Lot is successful by the standards of the time, but he is unaware that by his choices he is destined for destruction. Such \u201cblessings\u201d are empty without a covenant relationship with God.
\nWhen Abraham is prepared to sacrifice Isaac, at the moment he is ready to slay his son, Yahweh\u2019s messenger stops him in the act. Then Abraham notices a ram caught in the bushes and offers it instead.<\/p>\n
And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven and said, \u201cBy myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, and in your offspring [seed] shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.\u201d (Gen. 22:15\u201318 ESV)<\/p>\n
As Keith Gr\u00fcneberg notes, \u201cGen 22:16\u201318 is the only promise to Abraham explicitly containing a divine oath.\u201d In addition, the verbs in the promises are both emphasized by free infinitives, rendered in English by \u201csurely.\u201d By a mighty oath God affirms his promises given in Genesis 12, solemnized by covenant in Genesis 15, confirmed in Genesis 17, and also mentioned in Genesis 18:19. If anything, this is the strongest statement of a guarantee by God. Yet the fulfillment of these promises is clearly connected to the obedience of Abraham. Again, the comments of Gr\u00fcneberg are apt concerning the obedience of Abraham:<\/p>\n
Only evidence that Abraham will give up what is most precious in response to God\u2019s call when there seems no advantage to him in so doing will establish that he has pure motives in his response to God.\u2026
\nAbraham\u2019s obedience is not blind, a matter merely of outward performance or of submission to arbitrary divine whims. It rather stems from his relationship with a God who does provide (v 14) and remains faithful to his promises (vv 16\u201318), who is working for good even when demanding something painful or puzzling.\u2026
\nHuman obedience does not enable something other than can come from God\u2019s promise; rather Abraham\u2019s actions become a further grounding for the promise alongside God\u2019s free decision.<\/p>\n
Abraham\u2019s obedience is the obedience of faith, that is, obedience as faithful, loyal love in the context of a covenant relationship. God has made commitments, obligations, and promises, but these are not to be fulfilled without an obedient son in the covenant relationship.
\nGenesis 22:17 deals a decisive blow to Williamson\u2019s proposal that Genesis 15 and 17 represent distinct and separate covenants, the former unilateral and the latter bilateral, since this verse specifically connects the promise that Abraham\u2019s seed will be as myriad as the stars of the sky and the sand on the seashore with Abraham\u2019s obedience. Gr\u00fcneberg notes, \u201cThe promise that Abraham\u2019s offspring will be as numerous as the stars is found at 15:5 and 26:4 (and also Ex. 32:13); comparison with the sand of the shore is found at 32:13 [12]. The double comparison in 22:17 is unique.\u201d The focus on seed in Genesis 22:16\u201318 is similar to Genesis 17, but the promise of seed as numerous as the stars connects specifically with Genesis 15. Thus, there is only one covenant, and one cannot simplistically say that this covenant is unilateral. The traditional terminology of conditional versus unconditional covenants needs to be overhauled. One must pay attention to the flow of the plot in the Abraham narratives. In Abraham\u2019s roller coaster of faith, just as the events of Genesis 16 motivate the covenant confirmation in Genesis 17, so the abysmal sellout of his wife, Sarah, in Genesis 20 precipitates the need for the test and the affirmation by mighty oath in Genesis 22.
\nIncluded in the mighty oath is a reiteration of the last promise of Genesis 12:1\u20133, \u201cAnd in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice,\u201d this time tying it to Abraham\u2019s obedience. Three grammatical issues in the Hebrew text require attention:<\/p>\n
\u05d5\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b2\u05db\u05d5\u05bc \u05d1\u05b0\u05d6\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05e2\u05b2\u05da\u05b8 \u05db\u05b9\u05bc\u05dc \u05d2\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d9\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b8\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5<\/p>\n
w\u0115hitb\u0101r\u0103k\u00fb b\u0115zar\u02bb\u0103k\u0101 k\u014dl g\u00f4y\u00ea h\u0101\u2019\u0101re\u1e63<\/p>\n
all the nations of the earth will be blessed through your seed (Gen. 22:18)<\/p>\n
First, what is the semantic value of the hithpael of b\u0101rak? There is an ancient tradition\u2014as old as the Septuagint\u2014that construes the form as passive. More recent scholarship, however, such as one finds in the exhaustive study of Gr\u00fcneberg, argues for a \u201cspeech action hithpael,\u201d meaning \u201cutter blessing.\u201d Nonetheless, Benjamin Noonan has demonstrated that the linguistic foundation of the research by Gr\u00fcneberg is unsound. There is no evidence from other languages related to Hebrew to support Gr\u00fcneberg\u2019s contention that the hithpael of b\u0101rak functions as a speech-action middle. The clear meaning of the hithpael would be a reflexive of the declarative-estimative function found in the base form, the piel. Thus, the hithpael of b\u0101rak should mean, \u201cto consider or declare oneself blessed,\u201d and this semantic value works well in this context.
\nAlso significant is determining the exact function of the beth preposition on the suffixed noun \u201cyour seed.\u201d Ernst Jenni has written a magisterial work analyzing all 15,570 instances of beth according to linguistic principles. Fundamentally, \u201cthe beth preposition indicates two correlates, x and y, such that x refers to y.\u201d The first correlate x is related to the second correlate y; therefore y is the point or standard of reference. The particular function of beth in this text is what Jenni calls a beth communicationis, a subcategory of the beth realization. What this jargon means in simple terms is that y is a person, animal, or thing (beth realization), and that y speaks indirectly for x (beth communicationis). Thus, the \u201cseed\u201d of Abraham will speak indirectly for the nations\u2014that is, the nations will utter blessing through, or better, \u201cin the name of,\u201d the \u201cseed\u201d of Abraham. This analysis appears to assume a speech-action middle. With the analysis of the hithpael given by Noonan, the beth is simply instrumental: the nations consider\/declare themselves blessed by or through Abraham\u2019s seed. In this way, the passive and \u201cdeclarative-estimative hithpael\u201d are virtually the same thing. The overall thrust of Genesis 22:16\u201318 is nicely summed up by Gr\u00fcneberg:<\/p>\n
22:18 does not deny that the nations will gain blessing: by implication it affirms it. But its main thrust is to stress Israel\u2019s own prosperity. This prosperity, it suggests, is grounded in three things: the divine promise, Abraham\u2019s faithful obedience, and Israel\u2019s own ongoing commitment to Yhwh\u2014maintaining his law, worshipping at Jerusalem, and acknowledging herself entirely dependent on him for her life.<\/p>\n
His conclusion is also based on the focus on Moriah (= Jerusalem) in Genesis 22 and the mention of t\u00f4r\u00e2 in Genesis 26:5.
\nThird, what is the referent of \u201cyour seed\u201d in Genesis 22:17\u201318? The problem arises from the fact that, like the noun in English, the noun \u201cseed\u201d in Hebrew can be construed as either a collective singular (a bag of seed) or a unitary singular (a seed as opposed to seeds). Jack Collins made an exhaustive analysis of all the data and discovered the following principles in determining whether the intended meaning is a collective or a unitary singular: (1) when \u05d6\u05b6\u05e8\u05b7\u05e2 serves as a collective for \u201coffspring or posterity\u201d in general, the verbs are commonly singular, although the plural is found a number of times; (2) when \u05d6\u05b6\u05e8\u05b7\u05e2 denotes \u201cposterity,\u201d the pronouns (independent pronouns, object pronouns and suffixes) are always plural; and (3) when \u05d6\u05b6\u05e8\u05b7\u05e2 indicates a specific (individual) descendant, it appears with singular verb inflections, adjectives, and pronouns.
\nAccording to these grammatical principles, the final clause of Genesis 22:17 appears to be set apart from what proceeds. T. D. Alexander comments as follows:<\/p>\n
A striking feature of the final clause is the way in which it does not begin with a vav-consecutive; rather it is introduced by the imperfect verb \u05d9\u05b4\u05e8\u05b7\u05e9\u05c1 preceded by a non-converting \u05d5. This syntactical arrangement leaves open the possibility that the \u05d6\u05b6\u05e8\u05b7\u05e2 referred to in the final clause differs from that mentioned in the first part of the verse. Whereas the first \u05d6\u05b6\u05e8\u05b7\u05e2 obviously refers to a very large number of descendants, the second would, following Collins\u2019 approach, denote a single individual who is victorious over his enemies.
\nThis latter reading of 22:17 has implications also for 22:18a which states: \u05d5\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b2\u05db\u05d5\u05bc \u05d1\u05b0\u05d6\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05e2\u05b2\u05da\u05b8 \u05db\u05b9\u05bc\u05dc \u05d2\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d9\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b8\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5 (\u201cand all the nations of the earth will be blessed through your offspring\u201d). If the immediately preceding reference to \u201cseed\u201d in 22:17 denotes an individual, this must also be the case in 22:18a, for there is nothing here to indicate a change in number. The blessing of \u201call the nations of the earth\u201d is thus associated with a particular descendant of Abraham, rather than with all those descended from him.<\/p>\n
The same syntactical arrangement can be noted in Genesis 24:60. There is also an allusion to Genesis 22:17b\u201318a in Psalm 72:17: \u201cMay all nations be blessed through him.\u201d According to the context of the psalm, the individual mentioned here through whom all nations shall be blessed is a royal figure. Alexander explains:<\/p>\n
While the psalm\u2019s title associates it with Solomon, its contents clearly envisages a king whose reign surpasses by far that of Solomon. Indeed, this future monarch is described as ruling the entire earth, bringing deliverance to the oppressed by defeating their enemies (cf. Ps 72:4\u201314).<\/p>\n
So Paul\u2019s argument in Galatians 3:16 that the text speaks of \u201cseed\u201d and not \u201cseeds\u201d appears to be based upon solid exegesis of the Hebrew Scriptures.<\/p>\n
GENESIS 26<\/p>\n
The last of the six promises of Genesis 12:1\u20133 is again repeated in 26:1\u20135, and here, too, as in 22:18, it is connected with Abraham\u2019s obedience:<\/p>\n
Now there was a famine in the land\u2014besides the previous famine of Abraham\u2019s time\u2014and Isaac went to Abimelech king of the Philistines in Gerar. The LORD appeared to Isaac and said, \u201cDo not go down to Egypt; live in the land where I tell you to live. Stay in this land for a while, and I will be with you and will bless you. For to you and your descendants I will give all these lands and will confirm the oath I swore to your father Abraham. I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because Abraham obeyed me and did everything I required of him, keeping my commands, my decrees and my instructions.\u201d (Gen. 26:1\u20135 NIV)<\/p>\n
After Isaac has obtained land, wealth, and water, Genesis 26:24 repeats the connection with Abraham:<\/p>\n
From there he went up to Beersheba. That night the LORD appeared to him and said, \u201cI am the God of your father Abraham. Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I will bless you and will increase the number of your descendants for the sake of my servant Abraham.\u201d
\nIsaac built an altar there and called on the name of the LORD. There he pitched his tent, and there his servants dug a well. (Gen. 26:23\u201325 NIV)<\/p>\n
In Genesis 26, the narrator depicts Isaac following in his father\u2019s footsteps. While he does not go down to Egypt, he does\u2014like his father\u2014sojourn in Gerar (Philistine territory), lie about his wife, gain victory in the matter of wells, and conclude a treaty with Abimelech at Beersheba. As Janzen notes, \u201cThe compact rehearsal of Isaac\u2019s life in this chapter shows his vocation to be largely one of consolidating the trail Abraham has blazed by retracing many of its episodes.\u201d Four times Yahweh links the promises to Abraham (26:3, 5, 24 [2\u00d7]).
\nIn the divine revelation in Genesis 26:2\u20135, Yahweh promises to \u201cbe with Isaac,\u201d that is, to protect him and give him success in his undertakings. This is the first time God makes such a promise to a patriarch, although Abimelech observed this of Abraham in 21:22, and (another?) Abimelech observes it of Isaac in 26:28. The promises of blessing, descendants, and land made to Abraham are given to Isaac. Note that the promise of lands chiastically surrounds the promise of descendants in an a-b-a pattern.
\nYahweh promises to \u201caffirm the oath\u201d that he swore to Abraham. The expression is h\u0113q\u00eem \u0161\u0115vu\u02bb\u00e2 and is directly equivalent to h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet\u2014only, the object is \u201coath\u201d and not \u201ccovenant.\u201d The use of \u201coath\u201d is probably a direct reference to the oath in 22:16\u201318, which confirms in a mighty way the covenant established in chapter 15 and upheld in chapter 17. The \u201coath\u201d therefore stands for the covenant but refers especially to Genesis 22:16\u201318. The reference to descendants as numerous as the stars is a direct reference also to 15:5, although this is taken up in 22:17, and the promise that \u201cthrough your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed\u201d connects with the emphasis of Genesis 17 and its modification in 22:18.
\nThis last of the six promises of Genesis 12:1\u20133 is given five times in the narratives of Genesis: 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14. In 12:3, the prepositional phrase is \u201cin you\u201d; in 18:18, the prepositional phrase is \u201cin him.\u201d Both pronouns refer directly to Abraham. In 22:18 and 26:4, the prepositional phrase is changed to \u201cin\/through your offspring.\u201d Abraham has been faithful, loyal, and obedient in the covenant relationship. Henceforth, the blessing of the nations depends on the prosperity of Israel. In 28:14, God is speaking to Jacob and says \u201cin you and in your offspring.\u201d Genesis 28:14 is the only other place apart from 12:3 that speaks of the peoples of the world as mi\u0161pa\u1e25\u00f4t (\u201cclans\u201d); all other reiterations use the term g\u00f4y\u00eem (\u201cnations\u201d). This is because 28:14 forms a kind of inclusio with 12:3 in the narrative structure. Conversely, Chee-Chiew Lee says, \u201cTo show further the continuity of the later reiterations of this blessing with the Table of Nations (Genesis 10), Genesis 18:18; 22:18; 26:4 use \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 instead of \u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05e4\u05d7\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05de\u05d4.\u201d Genesis 28:14 is also the only place in which we have \u201cin you and in your offspring\u201d\u2014both the pronoun referring to the patriarch and the term \u201coffspring,\u201d or \u201cdescendants\u201d\u2014because, as a patriarch, Jacob is the last person to whom the promise can be both through him and also through his family. After the patriarchs, the blessing comes through the nation descended from them: Israel.
\nThe repetition of the promises to Isaac is concluded by connecting their fulfillment to the obedience of Abraham in 26:5, as we also see in 26:24. This text is clear: \u201cThrough your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because Abraham obeyed me and kept my charge (i.e., his obligations to me), my commands, my decrees, and my laws.\u201d The four terms mi\u0161mart\u00ee, mi\u1e63w\u014dt\u0101y, \u1e25uqq\u00f4t\u0101y, and t\u00f4r\u00f4t\u0101y are all characteristic of the Mosaic covenant because this narrative was written (by Moses) to instruct Israel: blessing for the nations depends on their obedience.<\/p>\n
GENESIS 35<\/p>\n
Before concluding our discussion on the connection between fulfillment of the promises and Abraham\u2019s obedience, we may observe how a remarkable twist is added when the promises are later repeated to Jacob. After his exile with Laban, he returned to the land of Canaan and lived at Beersheba, where Abraham and Isaac had lived. From there God called him to go north toward Haran to revisit Bethel, where God had first revealed himself to him in the dream of the ladder to heaven. As Gordon Wenham comments,<\/p>\n
Just as Abraham\u2019s three-day pilgrimage to sacrifice on Mount Moriah climaxed in the most categorical reaffirmation of the promises in his career, so, too, Jacob\u2019s sacred journey is crowned with the strongest statement of the promises that he ever heard. And it is to this revelation that Jacob looked back at the end of his life when he blessed Ephraim and Manasseh in 48:3\u20134.<\/p>\n
The content of the revelation is expressed in Genesis 35:9\u201313:<\/p>\n
After Jacob returned from Paddan Aram, God appeared to him again and blessed him. God said to him, \u201cYour name is Jacob, but you will no longer be called Jacob; your name will be Israel.\u201d So he named him Israel.
\nAnd God said to him, \u201cI am God Almighty; be fruitful and increase in number. A nation and a community of nations will come from you, and kings will be among your descendants. The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I also give to you, and I will give this land to your descendants after you.\u201d Then God went up from him at the place where he had talked with him. (NIV)<\/p>\n
The command to be fruitful and increase shows that Jacob, like Abraham and Isaac, inherits the role of a new Adam and that Canaan is a new Eden. Then, the promises of descendants and land are specifically and strongly vouchsafed to him. There is an interesting twist, however, to the promises. Jacob is told that a nation and an \u201cassembly,\u201d or \u201ccongregation,\u201d of nations will come from him. We already know that a nation will come from him. But what could it mean that \u201ca company of nations\u201d will come from him? This cannot refer to the \u201ctribes\u201d of Israel, for this would not satisfy the Hebrew term g\u00f4y\u00eem, which refers to the groups of peoples in the world as politically and socially structured entities with government. Nor could it be a reference to the later development when Israel was split into two kingdoms. Two kingdoms are not exactly a company of nations. In the context of the later narrative, it can only portend the inclusion of the Gentiles in the community under the blessing promised through Abraham. As Lee notes in a careful exegetical study of this text,<\/p>\n
Paul Williamson argues that the metaphorical usage of \u05d0\u05d1 \u201cfather\u201d to portray the idea of counselor, protector, or benefactor in the Hebrew Bible suggests that Abraham\u2019s fatherhood here goes beyond genealogical linkage and implies that Abraham shall be a spiritual benefactor of many nations, \u201cthe mediator of God\u2019s blessing to them.\u201d The nuance between the promise made to Abraham in Gen 17:4\u20135 and its reiteration to Jacob in 35:10\u201312 is as follows: while Abraham becoming \u201cthe father of many nations\u201d may still be fulfilled through other physical descendants of Abraham, Jacob becoming \u201ca nation and a company of nations\u201d can only be fulfilled beyond his physical descendants.<\/p>\n
It could be reasonably argued that the promise of Abraham becoming the \u201cfather of many nations\u201d is fulfilled by the nation of Israel, the descendants of Ishmael (Gen. 25:12\u201318), the descendants of Abraham\u2019s second wife, Keturah (25:1\u20135), and the descendants of Esau (36:1\u201319, 31\u201343), Moab (19:37), and Ammon (19:38). This is a common understanding, as Lee points out, but the statement in Genesis 35:11 does not permit this. What we can observe is that there appears to be a pattern in God\u2019s dealings with the patriarchs. God makes big promises. He promises that Abraham will become a great nation and have Canaan as his possession\u2014this much is already revealed in chapter 12. Abraham would have been happy to begin the great nation with Ishmael, fathered through Hagar, and wait for future descendants to gain possession of the land. Yet God had to make plain to him in Genesis 17 that the nation would come from his union with his wife, Sarah. The pattern, then, is that the human perception of God\u2019s promises, great as they are, almost always forms a stunted vision of what God really has in mind and in store for his people.
\nIt should also be noted in passing that Genesis 35:11 repeats the promise of Genesis 17:6 that kings as well as nations will come from Abraham and now Jacob. This thread will be picked up later, but it is the divine intention for Abraham and his family, and only human perception will stunt this vision for the future as well.
\nTwo further texts in the Old Testament may possibly be considered either citations or allusions to the last promise of Genesis 12:3\u2014Jeremiah 2:4 and Psalm 72:17. If they are genuine allusions, they connect the Abrahamic covenant to the Davidic covenant and the new covenant, respectively. Thus they will be discussed later when the Davidic and new covenants are considered.<\/p>\n
TENSIONS IN THE METANARRATIVE<\/p>\n
Significant tensions have been introduced into the plot structure of the metanarrative in the unfolding of Abraham\u2019s story. The larger story began with creation and the first man in covenant with the Lord God as obedient son and royal vicegerent over the world. Human disobedience brought chaos and death. God made a new start after the flood with a brand new world and a second Adam. Here, too, we saw that the human partner was unfaithful in the covenant relationship. Divine grace alone preserves the world.
\nSo out of the chaos that led to Babel, God begins another new creation with another new Adam, Abraham and his family. Abraham is depicted in the narratives as a new Adam placed in Canaan, a new Eden. From the metanarrative to this point, we now know that the human partner not only will not but cannot be faithful in the covenant relationship. We also now know that a fresh, new start is a nonsolution to the original problem of human disloyalty and disobedience that resulted in the arrival of death in the creation.
\nNevertheless, God calls Abram and makes huge promises concerning blessing in his life and salvation for the entire world through him. Later, in Genesis 15, these big promises are strengthened by a covenant, although Abram still has nothing to show from God\u2019s word. Although this covenant is patterned in general after ancient Near Eastern treaties, strangely, God undertakes the self-maledictory oath for both partners in the covenant. This is completely unheard of in Abraham\u2019s world and introduces another tension. Since we know that the human partner will not demonstrate complete devotion and full obedience within the covenant relationship, God seems to be guaranteeing only his own death at this point. How can God die? We understand how this works from the end of the story, but at this stage, we must allow this tension in the narrative.
\nYet as Genesis 17:2 shows (as well as subsequent texts, such as Gen. 18:19; 22:18; 26:5, where God upholds his covenant [later confirmed by a mighty oath]), God still requires an obedient son in the covenant relationship and bases fulfillment of the promises not only on himself but also on Abraham\u2019s obedience and, indeed, on the future obedience of Abraham\u2019s family, Israel. In sum, Abraham was an imperfect covenant partner and badly represented Yahweh to the world of that time in a number of ways. His lack of complete devotion and obedience points to the fact that another is coming who will be obedient in every respect.
\nThere are theological tensions as well as tensions in the narrative plot structure. We wonder how another divine-human covenant relationship can survive, given that disloyalty is endemic in the human partner\u2014that is, the human partner is unfaithful by nature. The narrative assures the reader that this covenant is undergirded by the mighty promises of the Almighty. God guarantees the covenant promises, and yet he also requires an obedient son in the covenant relationship.
\nAll these tensions are important to the later plot structure of the metanarrative, and we must not attempt to remove them through eisegesis. They must be allowed to stand. We must let the text stand over us; we must not stand over the text to judge what can and cannot be allowed in the story.<\/p>\n
THE PURPOSE OF THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT: HOW THE GRAND STORY UNFOLDS<\/p>\n
Why did God make a covenant with Abraham? And how is this covenant, made so long ago, relevant to us today? Exegesis of the relevant texts has shown that although the cultural-historical setting and language differ from Genesis 1\u20133 to Genesis 6\u20139 to Genesis 12\u201325, the main idea is still that God is establishing his rule in the context of a covenant relationship. Abraham and his descendants will be a light to the nations in this matter.
\nLooking backward and forward in the canon of Scripture, two things must be said about the covenant with Abraham. First, the covenant with Abraham is the basis for all God\u2019s dealings with the human race from this point on, and the basis of all his later plans and purposes in history. Thus, the covenants (with creation, with Noah, with Abraham) are the backbone of the metanarrative plot structure. A quick overview of the Old Testament demonstrates this.
\nThe book of Genesis ends with Israel, the family of Abraham, becoming a great and numerous people. The promise of descendants and posterity is being fulfilled.
\nThe point of the book of Exodus will be to add, by way of redemption from slavery, the gift of the land. So the covenant with Abraham is the basis for delivering Israel from slavery in Egypt. Israel becomes a great nation, and God makes a covenant with the nation at Sinai (Deut. 7:7\u20139).
\nThe Mosaic covenant at Sinai is, in turn, the basis for God\u2019s covenant with David. The king of Israel is the administrator and mediator of the Mosaic covenant, representing God\u2019s rule to the people and representing the people as a whole (2 Sam. 7:22\u201324).
\nAs the story unfolds, however, it is marked by divine faithfulness on the one hand and human unfaithfulness on the other. At every point along the way, it seems that God\u2019s plan is doomed to failure. Israel is a major bottleneck in the plan of God to bless the nations. How can blessing flow through her to the world when she is just as riddled with sin? Paul explains this dilemma in Galatians 3:8\u201314:<\/p>\n
Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: \u201cAll nations will be blessed through you.\u201d So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
\nFor all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: \u201cCursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.\u201d Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because \u201cthe righteous will live by faith.\u201d The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, \u201cThe person who does these things will live by them.\u201d Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: \u201cCursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.\u201d He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. (NIV)<\/p>\n
When we come to the time of Jesus, Israel is under a curse because they have been unfaithful to the Israelite covenant. Do they want to be an instrument of blessing to the nations? No, they want to raise an army of guerrillas that will conquer and smash the might of Rome, drive the nations away, and bring glory to Israel by setting her over the world. And so God sent Jesus to fulfill his promises. First, Jesus had to deliver Israel from the curse and put her back into a right relationship with God. Then, as King of Israel, he had to do what the nation as a whole had failed to do: bring blessing to the nations. He accomplished both by dying on the cross.
\nSeveral texts in the New Testament specifically connect the coming of Jesus Christ with the Abrahamic covenant. First, Luke 1:54\u201355 reads,<\/p>\n
He has helped his servant Israel,
\nremembering to be merciful
\nto Abraham and his descendants forever,
\neven as he said to our fathers.<\/p>\n
Here Mary\u2019s song of praise describes the birth of her son as God \u201cremembering mercy.\u201d Behind the Greek word that is rendered \u201cmercy\u201d is the Hebrew term \u1e25esed, which has to do with fulfilling covenant obligations. The covenant promises being fulfilled are the ones made to Abraham, according to Mary.
\nThen, in Luke 1:69\u201375, we read,<\/p>\n
He has raised up a horn of salvation for us
\nin the house of his servant David
\n(as he said through his holy prophets of long ago),
\nsalvation from our enemies
\nand from the hand of all who hate us\u2014
\nto show mercy to our fathers
\nand to remember his holy covenant,
\nthe oath he swore to our father Abraham:
\nto rescue us from the hand of our enemies,
\nand to enable us to serve him without fear
\nin holiness and righteousness before him all our days.<\/p>\n
Here at the birth of John the Baptist, Zechariah, the father, regains speech and opens his mouth in a prophecy. He speaks here of God fulfilling his promises to Abraham in bringing help to Israel.
\nThen, in Acts 3:24\u201326, Peter says,<\/p>\n
Indeed, all the prophets from Samuel on, as many as have spoken, have foretold these days. And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, \u201cThrough your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.\u201d When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.<\/p>\n
After the beggar is healed on the porch of Solomon, Peter preaches at the temple and announces good news through God\u2019s servant Jesus, crucified and risen from the dead. The good news is that God has fulfilled his promises to Abraham and sent Jesus \u201cto bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.\u201d Thus it is clear, from even a few texts in the New Testament, that the covenant with Abraham is the basis and foundation for the gospel message announcing forgiveness of sins and justification through Jesus Christ.
\nNo doubt the claim that the covenants, and in particular the Abrahamic covenant, form the backbone of the metanarrative will be criticized. One problem faced by many biblical theologies is that they comprehend the history and the prophets but do not fit the Psalms and Wisdom texts into the picture. Yet books like the Psalms are founded on the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic and Davidic covenants flowing from it. One example may suffice at this point.
\nPsalm 47 is a brief psalm inviting the nations to rejoice because Yahweh is the supreme sovereign over all peoples and has subdued them under Israel. At the end, the lyrics read as follows:<\/p>\n
God reigns over the nations;
\nGod sits on his holy throne.
\nThe princes of the peoples gather
\nas the people of the God of Abraham.
\nFor the shields of the earth belong to God;
\nhe is highly exalted! (Ps. 47:8\u20139 ESV)<\/p>\n
Note how \u201cthe princes of the peoples [plural] gather as the people [singular] of the God of Abraham.\u201d Non-Israelite nations are included in the one people of God. The mention of the \u201cGod of Abraham\u201d is sufficient to remind those singing this psalm that the inclusion of the Gentiles into the one people of God can be possible only through Abraham becoming father in a spiritual sense\u2014namely, the model of faith, for a company of nations, as Genesis 35:11 intends.
\nPsalm 117, although the shortest in the entire Psalter, the hymnal of ancient Israel, is perhaps the most profound because it functions like a dissertation abstract, encapsulating in as few words as possible the burden of the entire book of Psalms:<\/p>\n
Praise the LORD, all nations!
\nExtol him, all peoples!
\nFor great is his steadfast love toward us,
\nand the faithfulness of the LORD endures forever.
\nPraise the LORD! (ESV)<\/p>\n
The word pair \u201csteadfast love\u201d (\u1e25esed) and \u201cfaithfulness\u201d (\u2019\u0115met) is actually a summary of the behavior required by both parties in the Mosaic covenant\/Torah. This, the shortest hymn in Israel\u2019s hymnal, sums up the whole Psalter: Yahweh is to be praised by the nations for his covenantal faithfulness and love. The key exegetical issue is identifying the referent of the pronoun \u201cus\u201d in verse 2. Norbert Lohfink and Erich Zenger express themselves strongly on this matter in a footnote:<\/p>\n
Ps 117:2 is meant to be inclusive: YHWH\u2019s steadfast love and faithfulness hold sway powerfully \u201cover us,\u201d that is over Israel and the nations. That is to be maintained against the majority of interpreters, also against Mathys, Dichter, 292\u201397. That Psalm 117 was created for the Hallel, Psalms 113\u2013118, precisely with a \u201ctheology of the nations\u201d in mind is shown by the M\u00fcnster dissertation of Jutta Schr\u00f6ten, Entstehung, Komposition und Wirkungsgeschichte des 118. Psalms, BBB 95 (Weinheim: Beltz Athenaeum, 1995).<\/p>\n
Lohfink and Zenger demonstrate in their work the importance of interpreting a psalm not as a stand-alone text but in the context of the editorial work of Israel\u2019s hymnal\u2014the Psalms. If, however, the standard view is taken, the command to the nations to praise the Lord is given by Israel. The \u201cus\u201d would then be taken to refer to Israel. Faithfulness and loyal love is what Israel has experienced in covenant relationship with God. But then, due to God\u2019s faithful, loyal love, the blessing flows to the nations by virtue of the Abrahamic covenant. This indeed seems to be Paul\u2019s point in Romans 15:11. Thus, in the end, there hardly seems to be much difference between the two positions.
\nThe second point to note about the covenant with Abraham is that the purpose of the covenants is for God to reveal himself. After the covenant with Noah we know that everything depends on divine favor. Humans will not and cannot demonstrate faithfulness in the covenant relationship with God, which is fundamental to life in this world. So, one of my friends, Don Wood, asked, \u201cIf everything depends on God\u2019s grace, then why such a long story?\u201d Why doesn\u2019t God just zap us with his grace in Genesis 12? We know for sure by this point in the metanarrative that chaos and death will be overcome only by divine grace. The answer to this question is that God wants to reveal himself. John Walton explains:<\/p>\n
God has a plan in history that he is sovereignly executing. The goal of that plan is for him to be in relationship with the people whom he has created. It would be difficult for people to enter into a relationship with a God whom they do not know. If his nature were concealed, obscured, or distorted, an honest relationship would be impossible. In order to clear the way for this relationship, then, God has undertaken as a primary objective a program of self-revelation. He wants people to know him. The mechanism that drives this program is the covenant, and the instrument is Israel. The purpose of the covenant is to reveal God.<\/p>\n
9<\/p>\n
THE MOSAIC COVENANT<\/p>\n
Exodus\/Sinai<\/p>\n
Central to the book of Exodus\u2014and indeed, to the entire Pentateuch\u2014is the covenant made between Yahweh and Israel at Sinai, comprising chapters 19\u201324. The eighteen preceding chapters describe the release of Israel from bondage and slavery in Egypt and the journey through the wilderness to Sinai. Chapters 25\u201340 are devoted to the construction of a place of worship as the appropriate recognition of the divine kingship established through the covenant.
\nA much bigger claim, however, can be made for Exodus 19\u201324. This unit is entitled \u201cthe Book of the Covenant\u201d by Moses himself (Ex. 24:7). The Book of the Covenant, along with the book of Deuteronomy as an addition or supplement to it (cf. Deut. 28:69 MT [29:1 EV]), forms the heart of the old covenant. And it is the interpretation of how the old covenant relates to the new that is the basis of all the major divisions among Christians; that is, all denominational differences derive ultimately from different understandings of how the covenant at Sinai relates to us today.
\nThis brief treatment of Exodus 19\u201324 seeks to base accurate exposition of this text on (1) closer attention to the larger literary structure; (2) exegesis based on the cultural, historical, and linguistic setting of the text; and (3) consideration of the larger story of Scripture (metanarrative) and explicit indications of how this text fits within this larger story.
\nWhere and how Exodus 19\u201324 fits into the larger story of Scripture will be briefly detailed at both the beginning and the end of the section\u2014framing all analysis of the covenant at Sinai as bookends. In between, attention will be given to the literary structure of Exodus 19\u201324, and exegesis will be focused on the divine purpose of the covenant in Exodus 19:5\u20136, the first three of the Ten Commandments, and the ceremony of covenant ratification in Exodus 24:1\u201311.<\/p>\n
EXODUS 19\u201324 WITHIN THE LARGER STORY OF SCRIPTURE<\/p>\n
The biblical narrative begins with a creator God who is the Maker of our world and, indeed, of the entire universe. We humans are the crowning achievement of his creative work. There is a difference, moreover, between humans and animals\u2014in fact, between us and all other creatures: we alone have been made as the image of this creator God and have been given special tasks to perform on behalf of the Creator.
\nAccording to Genesis 1:26\u201328, the divine image defines human life (ontologically\u2014not just functionally) in terms of a covenant relationship with the creator God on the one hand and with the creation on the other. The former may be captured by the term sonship and is implied by Genesis 5:1\u20133. The latter relationship may be reflected in the terms kingship and servanthood. We noted previously that in the ninth-century Aramaic Tell Fakhariyeh Inscription, \u1e63alm\u0101\u2019 (\u201cimage\u201d) refers to the king\u2019s majestic power and rule in relation to his subjects, while dem\u00fbth\u0101\u2019 (\u201clikeness\u201d) refers to the king\u2019s petitionary role and relation to the deity. Thus the ancient Near Eastern data confirm, correspond to, and illustrate precisely the terms used in the biblical text. Furthermore, as Genesis 2:4\u201325 shows, the Adamic son is like a priest in a garden sanctuary. He must first learn the ways of God in order to exercise the rule of God as God himself would.
\nThe biblical narrative, then, is focused at the start on establishing the rule of God through covenant relationship: kingdom through covenant.
\nThe first humans, however, rebelled against the creator God. As a result, chaos, discord, and death infect the creation at every level.
\nThe destructive path chosen by the first humans led to a downward spiral of corruption and violence until divine intervention was required. God judged the human race by a flood and made a new beginning with Noah and his family. Noah is presented in the narrative as a new Adam. As soon as the dry land appears out of the chaos of the floodwaters, Noah is placed there and commanded to be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 9:1); that is, he is given Adam\u2019s commission. The correspondence to Genesis 1 is striking. Eventually, however, the family of Noah ends up in the same chaos and corruption as the family of the first Adam. With the Tower of Babel, the nations are lost and scattered over the face of the earth.
\nSo God made another new start, this time with Abraham. Abraham and his family, called Israel, are another Adam, who will be God\u2019s true humanity. God makes great promises to Abraham in Genesis 12. These promises are enshrined eventually in a covenant made with him and his descendants in chapters 15 and 17 and confirmed by a mighty oath in chapter 22.
\nThe first of God\u2019s promises to Abram, \u201cI will make you into a great nation,\u201d employs the term g\u00f4y in Hebrew, while the last of God\u2019s six promises, \u201cAll the clans\/families of the earth will be blessed in you,\u201d employs instead the term mi\u0161p\u0101\u1e25\u00e2. This contrast in terms carries forward the focus on kingdom through covenant.
\nThus, Abraham and Israel have inherited an Adamic role. Yahweh refers to the nation as his son in Exodus 4:22\u201323. The divine purpose in the covenant established between God and Israel at Sinai is unfolded in Exodus 19:3\u20136. As a kingdom of priests, they will function to make the ways of God known to the nations and also to bring the nations into a right relationship to God. Israel will display to the rest of the world within its covenant community the kind of relationships, first to God and then to one another and to the physical world, that God intended originally for all humanity. In fact, through Abraham\u2019s family, God purposes and plans to bring blessing to all the nations of the world. In this way, through the family of Abraham, through Israel, his last Adam, he will bring about a resolution of the sin and death caused by the first Adam. Since Israel is located geographically on the one and only communications link between the great superpowers of the ancient world (Egypt and Mesopotamia), she will, in this position, show the nations how to have a right relationship to God, how to treat each other in a truly human way, and how to faithfully steward the earth\u2019s resources. This is the meaning of Israel\u2019s sonship.
\nThe promises of God to Abraham focused on two things: descendants and land. When we come to the books of Exodus through Deuteronomy, which constitute the Mosaic covenant, or covenant with Israel, we have the fulfillment of these promises. First, God has greatly increased the descendants of Abraham so that they are innumerable, like the sand on the seashore or the stars of the night sky. Second, he has given them the land of Canaan.
\nGod\u2019s plan and purpose, however, have not changed. He wants to bless the descendants of Abraham and, through them, all the nations. In fact, his plan is to restore his broken and ruined creation through Israel. As they come out of Egypt and before they enter the land, God makes an agreement with Israel. The purpose of this agreement or covenant is to enable them to enjoy the blessings he wants to give them and to be the blessing to the other nations. This covenant will show them how to be his true humanity. It will direct, guide, and lead them to have a right relationship with God and a right relationship with everyone else in the covenant community. It will also teach them how to have a right relationship to all the creation, to be good stewards of the earth\u2019s resources. We might say, then, that the Mosaic covenant is given at this time to administer the fulfillment of the divine promises to Abraham and to the nation as a whole, and through them to the entire world.<\/p>\n
LABELING COVENANTS<\/p>\n
Frequently, this covenant is entitled \u201cthe covenant at Sinai,\u201d but what is the biblical terminology? From the point of view of the New Testament\u2014which is the latinized English for \u201cnew covenant\u201d (Lat. novum testamentum)\u2014it is called the \u201cold covenant\u201d in 2 Corinthians 3:14 (cf. 3:15). Hebrews 8\u20139 also uses the term \u201cfirst\u201d for this covenant. In the Old Testament, however, it is commonly called the Torah (law) or the Torah (law) of Moses (Ex. 24:12).
\nIn Scripture, covenants are normally named according to the human partner. The covenant in Genesis 6\u20139 is between God and Noah. This is expanded to include his family and, through them, all humanity. It is fair to call this \u201cthe covenant with Noah.\u201d The covenant in Genesis 15 and 17 is called the \u201ccovenant with Abram\u201d (Gen. 15:18). Since it is passed directly on to Isaac and Jacob, it is called the covenant with Isaac and also the covenant with Jacob in Leviticus 26:42. Later we find the term \u201cthe covenant with the fathers\u201d (Deut. 4:31), referring to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Note that the term \u201ccovenant\u201d is always singular. It is never \u201cthe covenants with the fathers.\u201d We can conveniently and legitimately call it the \u201ccovenant with Abraham.\u201d The covenant made at Sinai is simply called \u201cthe Book of the Covenant\u201d in Exodus 24:7. In Exodus 34:27, this same covenant is with Moses and with Israel. Hence, some scholars have called it the Mosaic covenant. It could just as well be called the Israelite covenant or the covenant with Israel. In Deuteronomy 29:1 (28:69 MT), it is called the covenant at Horeb in order to contrast it with the covenant \u201cin the land of Moab\u201d (i.e., Deuteronomy). Horeb is another name for Sinai. Later, when God makes a covenant with David, it is called just that, his \u201ccovenant with David\u201d (2 Chron. 13:5; 21:7, Ps. 89:3; Jer. 33:21). Finally, God makes what is called a \u201cnew covenant\u201d in Jeremiah 31:31.<\/p>\n
THE LITERARY STRUCTURE OF EXODUS 19\u201324<\/p>\n
One of the reasons why both popular and scholarly discussions of the relation between the Old Testament and the New have resulted in futile debates over false dichotomies and issues is directly due to a failure to consider properly the literary shape of this text. Instead, what is foisted on the text is a framework or structure that it neither indicates for itself nor possesses.<\/p>\n
Outline of Exodus 19\u201340<\/p>\n
1. The background
\nExodus 19
\n2. The Ten Words
\nExodus 20
\n3. The Judgments
\nExodus 21\u201323
\n4. The ceremony of covenant ratification
\nExodus 24
\n5. Worship\u2014the recognition of divine kingship
\nExodus 25\u201340<\/p>\n
The broad outline and shape of the text is indicated by headings and the use of specific terms. At the heart of the text are two sections: (1) the \u201cTen Words\u201d in chapter 20, and (2) the \u201cJudgments\u201d (or \u201claws\u201d\/\u201cordinances\u201d) in chapters 21\u201323. These are the actual headings in the Hebrew text. Exodus 20:1 introduces the matter simply: \u201cAnd God spoke all these words.\u201d While Christians commonly refer to this section as the \u201cTen Commandments,\u201d the commands that form the basis of the covenant are referred to in the Hebrew as simply the \u201cTen Words\u201d in Exodus 34:28 and Deuteronomy 4:13 and 10:4. The precise expression \u201cthe Ten Commandments\u201d occurs nowhere in the Old Testament, although in a general way the Ten Words are included when reference is made to the commands of Yahweh. They are frequently referred to as commandments in the New Testament (Matt. 5; 19:17; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; Rom. 7:7\u20138; 13:9; 1 Tim. 1:9\u201310), and that is why the preferred term today is the Ten Commandments. So first we have just the \u201cWords.\u201d Then in chapters 21\u201323 we have the \u201cJudgments.\u201d Exodus 21:1 is clearly a heading for this entire section.
\nNot only the headings but also the contents clearly distinguish the two sections. The Ten Words are presented as absolute commands or prohibitions, usually in the second-person singular. They are general injunctions not related to a specific social situation. They could be referred to as prescriptive law since no fines or punishments are specified. As an example, \u201cYou (singular) shall not steal!\u201d The construction l\u00f4\u2019 + the imperfect in Hebrew is durative and nonspecific. You shall not steal today, not tomorrow, not this week, not this month, not this year\u2014as a general rule, never! By contrast, the Judgments are generally presented as case laws. These are presented as if they were court decisions functioning as precedents. They are normally in the format of conditional sentences. Here the fundamental principles in the Ten Words are applied to specific social contexts. They could be referred to as descriptive law since they impose fines and punishments. As an example, in addressing the case where a bull gores a human, Exodus 21:28\u201332 looks at whether this was the animal\u2019s habit and whether the owner had been warned in order to determine the owner\u2019s guilt. More will be said about these case laws later. For now, it suffices to note that chapter 20 and chapters 21\u201323 constitute specific sections of the covenant, simply labeled \u201cthe Words\u201d and \u201cthe Judgments\u201d:<\/p>\n
Commandments: The Ten Words (Ex. 20:1; 34:28; Deut. 4:13)<\/p>\n
\u25cf Absolute commands\u2014usually second-person singular prohibitions
\n\u25cf General injunctions not related to a specific social situation
\n\u25cf Prescriptive law\u2014no fines or punishments mentioned<\/p>\n
Ordinances: The Judgments (Ex. 21:1; Deut. 4:14)<\/p>\n
\u25cf Case decisions, case laws, judicial precedents
\n\u25cf Applications of the fundamental principles in the Ten Commandments to specific social contexts
\n\u25cf Descriptive law imposing fines and punishments (usually in the form of \u201cif \u2026 then\u201d statements or conditional sentences)<\/p>\n
These two distinct sections to the covenant are clearly referred to in chapter 24, which describes the covenant-ratification ceremony. Note carefully the particular terms used in 24:1\u20138 as follows. According to the clause pattern in the Hebrew text, as well as the topic, Exodus 24:1 connects and follows 20:21\u201322. In 20:21\u201326 and 24:1\u20132, Yahweh speaks to Moses from the cloud on Mount Sinai and gives instructions concerning altars and who will ascend the mountain for the covenant-ratification meal. In 24:3, Moses comes and gives a report to the people: \u201cAnd Moses came and reported to the people all the words and all the judgments, and all the people responded with one voice, \u2018All the words that Yahweh has spoken we will do.\u2019 \u201d Note that Moses reported \u201call the words\u201d and \u201call the judgments.\u201d These two terms clearly refer to the \u201cTen Words\u201d in 20:2\u201317 and the \u201cJudgments\u201d in chapters 21\u201323. When the people say, \u201cAll the words that Yahweh has spoken we will do,\u201d the term \u201cthe words\u201d is an abbreviated form of the expression \u201call the words and all the judgments\u201d occurring earlier in the verse. Similarly, in the next verse, 24:4, we read, \u201cAnd Moses wrote all the words of Yahweh.\u201d Here, again, \u201cthe words of Yahweh\u201d is a short way of saying, \u201cthe words and the judgments.\u201d The shortening of long titles is typical in this culture. Much later, the Hebrew canon, whose full title is \u201cthe Law and the Prophets and the Writings,\u201d may be shortened to simply \u201cthe Law.\u201d For example, Paul says that he is quoting from \u201cthe Law\u201d and then cites a passage from Isaiah (1 Cor. 14:21). So \u201cLaw\u201d must be short for \u201cLaw and Prophets.\u201d Alternatively, since the \u201cJudgments\u201d are simply unfolding the \u201cTen Words\u201d in practical situations, the expression \u201cthe words\u201d in 24:3\u20134 may refer to the whole (Words and Judgments) by specifying just \u201cthe words.\u201d So the two parts or sections of the covenant are written down by Moses. And this is called \u201cthe Book of the Covenant\u201d in 24:7.
\nExodus 19 and 24 form the bookends to this \u201cBook of the Covenant.\u201d At the beginning, chapter 19 provides the setting in space and time, the divine purpose of the covenant, and the preparation of the people for the revelation of Yahweh at Mount Sinai. At the end, chapter 24 describes the ceremony of covenant ratification. Following this, chapters 25\u201340 describe the construction of a place of worship, showing the proper response to the divine kingship established among the people by means of the covenant. Just as Genesis 1 establishes divine rule via covenant, followed by the priority of worship in sanctuary in Genesis 2, so the book of Exodus establishes God as King in the midst of Israel via covenant, followed by the priority of worship for the nation as God\u2019s Adamic son.
\nThe shape and structure of Exodus 19\u201324, then, is clearly marked in the text. Chapters 20\u201323 constitute the Book of the Covenant, consisting of \u201cthe Words\u201d (chap. 20) and \u201cthe Judgments\u201d (chaps. 21\u201323). Chapters 19 and 24 frame the Book of the Covenant as bookends, with chapter 19 providing the background and setting and chapter 24 describing the ceremony of covenant ratification.
\nAs has been noted by scholars for some time, the structure of this text is parallel in broad outline to the form and structure of international treaties in the Near Eastern culture of the fifteenth\u2013thirteenth centuries BC. Parallels between the book of Deuteronomy and the Hittite suzerain-vassal treaties are more striking than between the Book of the Covenant in Exodus and the Hittite treaties, but the parallels are noteworthy nonetheless. International treaties followed a specific form: (1) preamble (author identification), (2) history of past relationship between the parties, (3) basic stipulations, (4) detailed stipulations, (5) document clause, (6) witnesses, and (7) blessings and curses. Table 9.1 portrays how the Book of the Covenant conforms broadly to this pattern:<\/p>\n
Table 9.1 Structure of the Covenant in Exodus
\n1. Preamble
\n20:1
\n2. Historical prologue
\n20:2
\n3. Stipulations
\na. Basic
\n20:3\u201317
\nb. Detailed
\n21\u201323
\n4. Document clause
\n24<\/p>\n
Unlike in Deuteronomy, the \u201cblessings and curses\u201d section is absent here. Nonetheless, the commands are enshrined in what would have been clearly recognized at the time as a covenant or treaty form. The implications of this form for proper theological understanding will be developed later. This much is clear: the covenant is formulated as a suzerain-vassal treaty in order to define God as Father and King and Israel as obedient son in a relationship of loyal love, obedience, and trust. This is confirmed by the fact that the epiphany on Mount Sinai is heralded by the blowing of a trumpet (Ex. 19:16, 19; 20:18), a clear signal in Israel for the accession and coming of a king (2 Sam. 15:10; 1 Kings 1:34, 39, 41; 2 Kings 9:13). Space permits now only a brief analysis of the divine purpose of the covenant as given in Exodus 19, a summary treatment of the Ten Words, and a consideration of the ceremony of covenant ratification and its significance, before the implications for Christian theology are spelled out.<\/p>\n
THE DIVINE PURPOSE OF THE COVENANT (EX. 19:5\u20136)<\/p>\n
As already stated, chapter 19 provides the background to the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 19\u201324) and acts as a bookend on the opening side of the covenant document. Israel arrives at Mount Sinai in her travels through the desert to the Promised Land. Central to the chapter is the flurry of movement by Moses going up and down the mountain. Three sequences of up and down dominate the section: (1) up (19:3) and down (19:7), (2) up (19:8) and down (19:14), and (3) up (19:20) and down (19:25). These three sequences form the boundaries of three sections within the chapter, delimiting (1) the divine purpose of the covenant, (2) the preparation of the people to meet Yahweh and receive his revelation and Torah, and (3) the actual epiphany of God on the mountain. The literary structure of the chapter, then, is as follows:<\/p>\n
Literary Structure of Exodus 19
\n1. The setting in time and space
\n19:1\u20132
\n2. The divine purpose in the covenant
\n19:3\u20138
\n3. The human preparation for the covenant.\u2026
\n19:9\u201315
\n4. The revelation of Yahweh at Sinai
\n19:16\u201325<\/p>\n
The constant ascending and descending provide a vivid portrayal of the distance between the people and God and the need for a mediator. It then emphasizes the miracle of a covenant relationship of love, loyalty, and trust between parties such as these.<\/p>\n
Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said, \u201cThis is what you are to say to the descendants of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: \u2018You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles\u2019 wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession, for the whole earth is mine. You will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.\u2019 These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.\u201d So Moses went back and summoned the elders of the people and set before them all the words the LORD had commanded him to speak. The people all responded together, \u201cWe will do everything the LORD has said.\u201d So Moses brought their answer back to the LORD. (Ex. 19:3\u20138 NIV)<\/p>\n
By paying attention to the number of the verbs, John Davies demonstrates a chiastic structure to this text as follows:<\/p>\n
a People of Israel camp at the mountain (third-person plural verbs) (19:1\u20132)
\nb Moses\u2019s ascent and Yahweh\u2019s summons (third-person plural verbs) (19:3a)
\nc Divine instruction regarding delivery of message to Israel (second-person singular verbs) (19:3b)
\nd Divine declaration concerning Israel (second-person plural verbs) (19:4\u20136a)
\nc\u2032 Divine instruction regarding delivery of message to Israel (second-person singular verbs) (19:6b)
\nb\u2032 Moses\u2019s descent and summons to the elders (third-person singular verbs) (19:7)
\na\u2032 People of Israel respond (third-person plural verbs) (19:8a)<\/p>\n
This chiastic structure aids by clearly delineating Exodus 19:3\u20138 as a self-contained unit. Since chiastic structures usually focus on the center, this structure shows that the central theme is the divine purpose in the covenant between God and Israel.
\nThus, after verses 1\u20132 specify the place and time in history, verses 3\u20138 detail the purpose of the covenant from God\u2019s point of view. What we have in these verses is a proposal of the covenant in a nutshell: (1) 19:4 describes the past history of relationship between the two covenant partners; (2) 19:5\u20136 proposes a relationship of complete loyalty and obedience of Israel as a vassal to Yahweh as the great King and promises certain blessings; and (3) in 19:7\u20138 the people agree to the proposal. Thus, even in this covenant proposal in 19:3\u20138, the form and structure correspond to the formulae of ancient Near Eastern covenants and treaties.
\nVerse 4 is a marvelous encapsulation of the past relationship between the people and the Lord, using the imagery of being carried out of trouble on the wings of an eagle: \u201cYou yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles\u2019 wings and brought you to myself.\u201d This brief statement summarizes the abject condition of the people in slavery in Egypt and the signs and wonders Yahweh performed in both the ten plagues and the crossing of the Red Sea to deliver them from slavery. It also speaks of the way in which God had directed them through the mazes and mirages of the desert using a pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night. This form of leadership also protected them from extreme heat by day and cold by night. Every day, bread rained from heaven for their nourishment, and water gushed from the rock to satisfy their thirst. Our culture today can picture this from the movie world in the miraculous rescue of Gandalf by the eagles in The Lord of the Rings. God had protected the people and provided for them during the difficult desert journey, bearing them on eagles\u2019 wings, so to speak, and had so arranged their itinerary as to bring them to himself, that is, to the place already prepared as a meeting place between God and men, to Sinai, the mountain of God (Ex. 3:1).
\nAs John Davies notes, the phrase \u201cI brought you to myself\u201d is without parallel in the Hebrew Bible. His comment is worth citing in full:<\/p>\n
The \u201cbringing to myself\u201d expresses the underlying motivation of the preceding divine actions and focuses on relationship rather than location. For a moment the mountain and all terrestrial indicators fade from view, such that we are not sure where God is to be located. Is it in the heights of the mountain, where eagles have their nests (Job 39:27\u201330; Obad. 1:4; Jer. 49:16)? Or is it in heaven, or among the stars, where eagles venture (Prov. 23:5; 30:19; Lam. 4:19)? If an answer is felt to be needed, possible support for the latter alternative is to be found at Exod. 20:22 where again we have a recitation of divine acts which employs a closely parallel introductory formula: \u201cYhwh said to Moses, \u2018This is what you are to say to the house of Israel, \u201cYou yourselves saw that it was from heaven that I spoke with you.\u201d \u2019 \u201d \u2026 in this central summary declaration giving, as it purports, a divine perspective on the exodus experience with its climax at Sinai, it is the resulting heightened proximity of Israel to God which is paramount, a proximity which is the result of divine initiative and accomplishment.<\/p>\n
Exodus 19:5\u20136 is constructed in the form of a conditional sentence: \u201cIf you do this \u2026 then you will be \u2026 and you will be \u2026\u201d The \u201cif clause,\u201d or protasis, specifies absolute obedience to the covenant stipulations. The \u201cthen clause,\u201d or apodosis, defines the result in terms of relationship to Yahweh; they will belong to him in two ways: (1) as a king\u2019s treasure and (2) as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.
\nBefore explaining the meaning of the terms defining the divine goal in the covenant relationship, the relation of verses 5\u20136 to verse 4 must be stressed. Perhaps a diagram may be used to picture this connection:<\/p>\n
Verse 4 shows that the motivation for concluding and keeping a covenant with Yahweh is sovereign grace. The creator God has chosen to display favor and kindness to Israel and has acted in history to redeem them and make them his people. Much misunderstanding has been caused by comparing the old covenant to the new in terms of \u201claw\u201d and \u201cgrace.\u201d This text is clear: the old covenant is based on grace, and grace motivates the keeping of the covenant, just as we find in the new covenant. God had protected the people and provided for them during the difficult desert journey, bearing them on eagles\u2019 wings, so to speak, and had so arranged their itinerary as to bring them to himself, that is, to Sinai, the mountain of God. This text teaches, then, that the basis for the covenant from the point of view of the human partner was confidence and trust in as well as gratitude to Yahweh as established by the events of the exodus. (What is unlike the new covenant is that covenant keeping depends on Israel\u2019s promise to obey.)
\nVerses 5\u20136, then, describe the purpose, from God\u2019s point of view, for which the covenant was given to the people and the nature of the relationship between God and Israel that will result from ratifying the covenant proposed by Yahweh.
\nScholars have debated the logic of the conditional sentence in Exodus 19:5\u20136. Some, like James Muilenburg, have considered the situation similar to biblical passages that offer a reward conditional on obedience. Others, like Dale Patrick, argue that the protasis, or \u201cif clause,\u201d does not so much lay down a precondition for benefits as define the content and nature of the status in the apodoses, or \u201cthen clauses.\u201d Davies illustrates these options by comparing two sentences:<\/p>\n
\u201cIf you accept my offer to teach you, and you devote yourself to learning Hebrew and other cognate languages, you will get a well-paid university position and a rewarding superannuation package,\u201d and \u201cIf you accept my offer to teach you and you devote yourself to learning Hebrew and other cognate languages, you will have the satisfaction of being a Semitics scholar.\u201d<\/p>\n
The problem is largely a result of the traditional way of dividing up the \u201cif\u201d and the \u201cthen\u201d clause. Jason DeRouchie has noted that since 19:6 begins with w\u0115\u2019ttem (conjunction plus second-person masculine plural independent pronoun) this is a clear discourse grammar signal that the \u201cthen\u201d clause begins with 19:6 and not with \u201cthen you will be\u201d in 19:5b.
\nThe \u201cthen clause\u201d spells out what is inherent in the \u201cif clause.\u201d Further support for this understanding may be found on the grammatical level from the linguistic research of Barbara Dancygier and Eve Sweetser. Grammarians have typically classified conditional sentences as either real or unreal, but this standard approach is inadequate. Dancygier and Sweetser classify conditions according to three major types: (1) content conditionals, where the speaker makes a prediction about the external sociophysical world\u2014so the protasis postulates a situation (the prototypical \u201creal\u201d conditional); (2) epistemic conditionals, where the speaker draws an inference (abductive, internal) in the apodosis\u2014so the protasis provides the basis for the inference; and (3) speech-act conditionals, where the speaker performs a speech act conditionally in the apodosis\u2014thus the protasis makes the speech act \u201crelevant.\u201d The conditional sentence in Exodus 19:5\u20136 clearly belongs to the last category. Thus, the conditional sentence is proclaiming the privileged status of Israel inherent in the covenant relationship. Important parallels in Deuteronomy such as 7:6\u201311; 14:2; and especially 26:18\u201319 also substantiate this view. After evaluating both interpretations of Genesis 19, Davies concludes as follows:<\/p>\n
Perhaps in the end not too much weight should be placed on the distinction between a reward based on the condition of faithful service (as Muilenburg), and a favour which entails elevation to a position calling for honoured and faithful service (as Patrick).\u2026 There would be no significant weakening of the case being presented [below] for the meaning and function of the honorific designations of Israel in vv. 5\u20136a if one were to read some form of conditional reward at v. 5, provided this is understood to be within the framework of an already established relationship.<\/p>\n
As we have seen already, the categories of conditional and unconditional often used in characterizing covenants are not helpful or fruitful because they result in failing to hear the different emphases in the biblical text. We will return to this topic later when dealing with the relationship of the old covenant to the new.
\nA grammatical question directly related to the logic of the conditional sentence is the discourse-grammar pragmatic value of the free infinitive \/ infinitive absolute \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05e2\u05b7 in verse 5: \u05d5\u05b0\u05e2\u05b7\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 \u05d0\u05b4\u05dd\u05be\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05e2\u05b7 \u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05b0\u05e2\u05d5\u05bc \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e7\u05b9\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9. This is a difficult matter to treat. The analysis of Davies is exhaustive and thorough but, as he admits, neither conclusive nor greatly illuminating. Nonetheless, more recent study of this aspect of grammar in Hebrew may be of help. It is interesting to note that the root \u05e9\u05c1\u05de\u05e2 is found in the free infinitive plus finite verb construction eight times in the Hebrew Bible: Exodus 15:26; 19:5; 22:22; 23:22; Deuteronomy 11:13; 15:5; 28:1; 1 Samuel 23:10. In six of the occurrences, the meaning has specifically to do with obedience, as indicated by a complement such as \u05d1\u05e7\u05d5\u05dc; thus Exodus 22:22 and 1 Samuel 23:10 are excluded. The research of Yoo-Ki Kim shows that the infinitive absolute functions not as a manner adverb modifying the predicate but rather as a manner adverb modifying the sentence as a whole and, in fact, as a discourse grammar or macrosyntactic signal far beyond the level of the sentence. In each of the six occurrences the infinitive absolute is preposed to the verb, a position marking focus or topic in Hebrew as well as in many languages. The brief but seminal study of Lynell Zogbo explores further the macrosyntactic functions. Not only does the infinitive absolute mark asseverative or contrastive focus and relevance, it also foreshadows events in the future or marks a major theme. Moreover, the infinitive absolute often occurs in \u201czones of turbulence,\u201d marking climactic peaks and pivotal points in the narrative. Here the introductory \u201cand now\u201d (\u05d5\u05b0\u05e2\u05b7\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4) along with the figurative language (\u201cI bore you on eagles\u2019 wings\u201d) helps to signal a zone of turbulence. Davies recognizes this much:<\/p>\n
The macrosyntactic introductory particle \u05d5\u05e2\u05ea\u05d4 (\u201cnow\u201d) has the rhetorical effect of drawing attention to the change of subject from the first person clauses of v. 4 (recounting divine activity) to the second person clauses (referring to Israel), as well as marking a temporal shift from the narration of past events to the setting forth of present and future consequences, particularly, as Kalluveettil notes, in covenant settings (Deut. 4:1; 10:12; Josh 24:14; 1 Sam 12:13; 1 Chron. 22:11).<\/p>\n
The free infinitive also comes in the middle of the speech. Lynell Zogbo concludes from her study,<\/p>\n
The Infinitive Absolute has a discourse function, global role, that is, it is marking a very crucial part of this text. As a verbal repetition, it is itself linguistically MARKED. It is also accompanied by signs which highlight it: middle placement, figurative language, repetition, listen-listen, I-I, all \u2026 all. Also significantly for exegesis this line is parallel to KEEP MY COVENANT. To me this is what the infinitive absolute is about here! It is there to highlight COVENANT, the THEME of the book.<\/p>\n
It is interesting that the instances in Exodus 15:26 and 23:22 corroborate this conclusion and function in tandem both to help highlight Exodus 19:5\u20136 as a climax and to underline the covenant. Noteworthy is the fact that the only other occurrences are in Deuteronomy, also at key junctures in the text highlighting the covenant.<\/p>\n
PERSONAL TREASURE (1 CHRON. 29:3; ECCLES. 2:8)<\/p>\n
The meaning of the terms defining the divine plan for the role and status of Israel in the covenant relationship may now be explained. It is crucial to note the literary structure of Exodus 19:5\u20136 in explaining the terms \u201cpersonal treasure,\u201d \u201ckingdom of priests,\u201d and \u201choly nation.\u201d Two clauses joined by the conjunction waw (\u201cand\u201d) constitute the content of Yahweh\u2019s declaration. The first is \u201cYou will be my treasured possession more than \/ out of all the nations, for the whole earth is mine.\u201d The second is \u201cAnd you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.\u201d The relationship of these two statements is best understood by recalling what we noted earlier about the way ancient Hebrew literature takes up a topic and develops it from a particular perspective and then stops and takes up the same theme again from another point of view. This pattern produces 3-D ideas and is pursued recursively at both the macro- and microlevels. One begins a conversation on a topic and then closes that conversation down and begins another. Taken together, both conversations are like the left and right speakers of a stereo sound system: each differs slightly, and together they produce 3-D Dolby surround sound or a 3-D holographic image. In other words, both statements are saying the same thing, but each does it in a different way from a different perspective. Once the terms are explicated, it will become clear that when taken together, \u201croyal priesthood\u201d and \u201choly nation\u201d are another way of saying \u201cGod\u2019s personal treasure.\u201d In other words, the terms \u201croyal priesthood\u201d and \u201choly nation\u201d constitute the right and left speakers of the surround sound, and then together they form the left speaker for which the term \u201cpersonal treasure\u201d is the right speaker.
\nThe first purpose of the covenant is that these chosen, redeemed people might become God\u2019s own possession and private treasure. The word segull\u00e2 in Hebrew, translated \u201cpossession,\u201d is the same word used in 1 Chronicles 29:3 for King David\u2019s own private cache or vault of gold and silver, his personal store of all things precious and valuable. If we were to travel back in time to the ancient Near East, we would find at capital cities such as Hattusa (Bo\u011fazkale, Turkey) and Ugarit (Syria) the rich treasure vaults of the kings. It is difficult for us to imagine, since we have no monarchy, such as the monarchs of Europe in the nineteenth century. Perhaps something comparable today would be the crown jewels in London. The use in Ecclesiastes 2:8 is also of a king\u2019s personal treasure. These two are the only nonmetaphorical occurrences of the word in the Old Testament.
\nJohn Davies\u2019s discussion of the meaning of segull\u00e2 is most illuminating. Although the word is uncommon in biblical Hebrew, it is common in the postbiblical literature of the Mishna as a commercial-legal term, where it refers to the personal property of a social inferior (such as a wife or slave). Davies notes that Greenberg posited a connection between the Hebrew word segull\u00e2 and the Akkadian sikiltu. Found in Old, Middle, and Standard Babylonian, at Nuzi, and also in Middle Assyrian texts, the Akkadian word refers to \u201cacquisition\u201d or \u201cpossession,\u201d first of illegally acquired goods, then of private possessions in distinction from those possessions that form part of an estate.
\nIn the Old Babylonian period, there is a metaphorical usage that casts light on the passage in Exodus. It is used no later than the fifteenth century BC by a god to refer to an honored king. Davies cites the following designation of King Abban: \u201cAbban, the mighty king, son of \u0160arran, the servant of the god \u2026 the beloved of the god \u2026 the treasure of the god.\u201d Thus a royal figure is seen as a devoted servant of the god. A similar usage is found in Ugaritic, as Davies explains:<\/p>\n
Text 60 (18.38) of PRU 5 dates from the early twelfth century BCE and is a copy of a letter (no doubt a translation of the original Akkadian) from the Hittite suzerain to Ammurapi, the last king of Ugarit. It describes the vassal king in relation to the suzerain as both his \u201cservant ([\u2018]bdh) and sglth.\u201d This spelling out of the relationship between the two kings is a preface to a reproach by the suzerain for the failure of the Ugaritic vassal king to pay the customary visits of homage.<\/p>\n
Note that the use of the Ugaritic word for \u201cpersonal treasure\u201d is paired with the notion of servant as in the above example in Akkadian from Alalakh. \u201cPersonal treasure\u201d is used in the context of devoted service in a relationship defined by a treaty. The same pairing of service and personal treasure is found in the Bible, in Malachi 3:17:<\/p>\n
They shall be mine, says the LORD of hosts, in the day when I make up my treasured possession [\u05e1\u05d2\u05dc\u05d4], and I will spare them as a man spares his son [\u05d1\u05df] who serves [\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3] him. (ESV)<\/p>\n
What is parallel here to \u201cpersonal treasure\u201d is \u201cson,\u201d qualified by the concept of devoted service. This biblical passage, corroborated by the Akkadian and Ugaritic parallels, casts enormous light on Exodus 19:5. When Yahweh calls Israel to be his personal treasure, he is speaking of the kind of devoted service given by a son. We are back to the divine image in Genesis 1:26\u201328. Israel has inherited an Adamic role, giving the devoted service of a son to an honored king in a covenant relationship.
\nA causal-explanatory \u05db\u05d9 clause explains that the whole world belongs to Yahweh. In one sense, the King is owner or possessor of the entire country, but in addition to this, he may also have a personal\/private treasure. The whole world is like a ring on God\u2019s hand, and his chosen people are the jewel in that ring.<\/p>\n
KINGDOM OF PRIESTS<\/p>\n
Although some expositions consider the meaning of \u201ckingdom of priests\u201d and \u201choly nation\u201d separately, in a real sense they should be taken together. The text clearly divides the goal of the covenant relationship into two statements. The first is supported by an explanation or reason. A second statement combines the phrases \u201ckingdom of priests\u201d and \u201choly nation\u201d either as a hendiadys or at least as an expression similar to Hebrew poetry, where a pair of parallel lines allows one to consider a topic from two slightly variant but similar viewpoints to create a full-orbed perspective on some proposition. These phrases will be explained here, each in turn, but with the meaning of the other phrase kept in mind. At the same time, we should also keep in mind that both phrases together are unpacking the full meaning of \u201cpersonal treasure.\u201d
\nFirst consider the phrase \u201ckingdom of priests\u201d found in this text. The full sentence is, \u201cYou will belong to me as a kingdom of priests\u201d (tihy\u00fb l\u00ee mamleket k\u014dhan\u00eem). The lamed preposition in the phrase l\u00ee clearly indicates possession. The Hebrew word \u201ckingdom\u201d may refer to the domain or realm that is ruled, or to the exercise of kingly rule and sovereignty. According to the main options, then, the phrase \u201ckingdom of priests\u201d could mean a domain of priests whom God rules or, alternatively, the exercise of royal office by those who are in fact priests\u2014that is, a royal priesthood. It is difficult to decide between the two main options since the lamed preposition suggests the former reading while the term \u201cpriests\u201d modifying \u201ckingdom\u201d suggests the latter. Yet in the latter option, understanding k\u014dhan\u00eem as a genitive of apposition after the collective mamleket (\u201croyalty, royal body, royal house\u201d) would be a more natural reading than to construe it as an attributive genitive. Thus we may view in \u201cpriests\u201d a collective reference to all Israel as being in some sense \u201cpriests\u201d rather than as being a \u201cpriestly kingship\u201d or \u201cpriestly royalty.\u201d Perhaps both meanings are intended, so that both the relationship between God and Israel and the relationship between Israel and the world are indicated. This ambiguity would serve well the theme kingdom through covenant.
\nWhat is the function of a priest? This question is also important in the interpretation. Some readings focus on the priest as an intermediary, so that the function of a priest is to bring others into the presence of God by offering sacrifices on their behalf. Dumbrell, who follows this track, sees the intermediary role as passive rather than active and missionary. Davies comments,<\/p>\n
Dumbrell is on surer ground, then, with a moderate \u201cservice to the nations\u201d position, seeing the service as somewhat passive in character. That is, it is by being who they are in relation to God that Israel serves the nations. Dumbrell ties this notion to the role of Abraham as the one through whom the nations would find blessing (Gen. 12:2\u20133; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4). Dumbrell, however, regards any notion of status in v. 6 as being anticlimactic because status has already been dealt with in the word \u05e1\u05d2\u05dc\u05d4. Yet if my understanding of the syntax is correct, the expressions \u05de\u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05ea \u05db\u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd and \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 \u05e7\u05d3\u05d5\u05e9\u05c1 are epexegetic of \u05e1\u05d2\u05dc\u05d4, and spell out further dimensions for the reader\u2019s understanding of the extent of the privilege it is to be Yhwh\u2019s \u201cspecial treasure.\u201d<\/p>\n
Alternatively, Davies\u2019s reading focuses on priesthood as access to the divine presence. He argues that Exodus 19 itself provides an all-important clue to the significance of priesthood in verse 22:<\/p>\n
Also let the priests who come near to the LORD consecrate themselves, lest the LORD break out against them. (ESV)<\/p>\n
This passage offers a virtual definition of what it is to be a priest: priests are those who approach or come near to Yahweh and who are consecrated and devoted to him. Davies notes further,<\/p>\n
Central to any understanding of what a priest is, is the notion of his fitness to approach the deity and \u201cminister\u201d in his presence like an attendant in the court of a king. The tabernacle cult depicted in Exodus 25\u201331 and 35\u201340 is a stylized replica of what, in the widespread ideology of the ancient world, took place within the divine realm of the heavenly temple.<\/p>\n
Another argument supporting the emphasis Davies sees is found in the verb \u201cconsecrate\u201d in Exodus 19:22, from the root \u05e7\u05d3\u05e9\u05c1. Indeed, this verb and the related adjective \u05e7\u05d3\u05d5\u05e9\u05c1 is employed frequently in all things dealing with the activity of priests. Moreover, we should note that here in Exodus 19:5\u20136 the parallel term to the expression \u05de\u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05ea \u05db\u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd is \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 \u05e7\u05d3\u05d5\u05e9\u05c1. If \u201ckingdom\u201d is parallel to \u201cnation,\u201d then \u201choly\u201d is parallel to \u201cpriests\u201d in these two expressions. Although the common understanding of \u201choly\u201d in North America has to do with separation, as we will see shortly, Davies rightly asserts that the primary meaning has rather to do with the divine sphere to which the person or object relates, not the sphere from which he, she, or it has thereby been separated:<\/p>\n
Persons or objects are holy to Yhwh, or in one case to Baal (2 Kgs 10:20). They are fit to be associated with the one who is inherently \u05e7\u05d3\u05d5\u05e9\u05c1, particularly when he is pictured as enthroned in his sanctuary (Isa. 6:3; Ps. 99:5, 9). It is no light matter to stand in the presence of Yhwh, the holy God, as the men of Beth Shemesh were aware (1 Sam 6:20). The \u201centrance liturgies\u201d of Psalms 15 and 24 reinforce this demand for holiness on the part of the one who would approach God\u2019s dwelling place.
\nIf we regard \u05e7\u05d3\u05d5\u05e9\u05c1 as being a guide to the understanding of \u05db\u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, the character of Israel as \u05db\u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd will relate to their consecration or readiness to encounter Yhwh. This is the point of the preparations outlined in Exod. 19:14\u201315, including the washing of clothes, and the abstinence from sexual relations.<\/p>\n
Finally, Davies notes that the Sinai pericope simply contains no direct reference to Israel\u2019s responsibilities toward the nations, and he believes we ought to be looking not for a functional definition of priesthood but for an ontological one. What priests are in their relation to God and in the eyes of the community is the issue.
\nThe emphasis and focus for which Davies argues is correct because the arguments are based solidly on the text. Nonetheless, the focus on Israel\u2019s priesthood as access to the divine presence and on a priority in the worship of Yahweh alone as God does not exclude the perspective of Dumbrell, who has rightly kept his eye on the metanarrative as the context for Exodus 19:5\u20136. Just as God, in Genesis 1\u20132, establishes his rule through a covenant relationship between himself and man and between man and the creation (wherein Adam\u2019s priority according to Genesis 2 is to spend time in the divine presence to order his perspectives and role in the world), so God is extending his rule through the covenant with Abraham (Genesis 12\u201322), promising blessing to the nations in relationship to Abraham, and through the covenant with his family Israel (Exodus 19\u201324) as a royal priesthood (with a priority on worship that results in being a light to the nations). Since Israel is settled at the navel of the world, the nations of the world will see displayed a right relationship to God, social justice in human interaction, and good stewardship of the earth\u2019s resources. Apparently, it is appropriate and convenient for Davies to expound the duties of priests at a later point in his exposition, and he demonstrates from the biblical text that this includes the function of the priest as intermediary between God and people, so why exclude it from purview here?
\nWe see, then, that Israel, the last Adam, will belong to God as a people under his rule and will exercise royal rule by spending time in the worship of God so necessary for display of the divine rule in one\u2019s thoughts, words, and ways. Davies notes that the tabernacle, the construction of which is the topic of the literary unit following Exodus 19\u201324, is in form a miniaturized and portable reproduction of God\u2019s heavenly sanctuary, of which Israel has caught a glimpse in the covenant ratification ceremony in Exodus 24:9\u201311. The cloud denoting the divine presence on Mount Sinai settles on the tabernacle in Exodus 40. Thus Israel carries the divine presence with her. Moreover, the tabernacle is also a replica of the garden in Eden and a representation of the universe; thus, just as Adam was to fulfill his mandate by devoting himself to worship as a priest in the garden sanctuary, so Israel as a new Adam is to fulfill her mandate by devoting herself to worship as a priest in the tabernacle and later the temple. Since in the Bible and the ancient Near East, kings are the ones who build temples, Israel as a nation building the tabernacle in Exodus 25\u201340 also depicts her royal status. She is a king-priest. And as we noted earlier, this is the point in Hosea 6:7: \u201cBut they [i.e., Israel], like Adam, have transgressed the covenant.\u201d Israel\u2019s covenant violation was in her role as king-priest.
\nIsrael is also a vehicle for bringing the nations to the divine presence and rule. Israel would be a people completely devoted to the service of God. The rite of circumcision as practiced in Israel is an excellent illustration of this role. Probably the background for understanding circumcision is Egypt, where only the aristocracy, the highest order of priests, and the noblest elite warriors along with the Pharaoh and his family were circumcised, because only they were completely devoted to the service of the gods. In Deuteronomy 10:16, the command to Israel \u201cCircumcise your hearts\u201d is an exposition of the earlier command \u201cto fear the LORD your God, to walk in obedience to him, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to observe the LORD\u2019s commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good\u201d (Deut. 10:12\u201313 NIV). Thus circumcision is an apt expression for the idea: be completely devoted to Yahweh.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
As biblical history unfolds, we will see what this means: the creator God\u2019s world has been broken and ruined by human pride and rebellion. God intends to use Abram and his family as the instrument of rescuing and restoring his broken creation. Bruce Waltke, in his magisterial Old Testament Theology, describes the call of Abraham … <\/p>\n