Introduction
As a part of my writing requirement for the above
mentioned course the passage I have chosen for my reading and study in this
paper is Genesis chapter 20. I have dealt it in the method in which the course
instructor has given in the course requirement sheet at the beginning of the
course. The following headings of the text are re-formulated on the basis of
the questions given in the course requirement sheet.
The protagonists and what does the text say about
their world view and how is their behaviour motivated?
Abimelech's name is thought to mean my father is
king, and could be simply a generic title given to a crown prince. This is supported in the Haggada when "Benmelech" ("son of the king"),
son of Abimelech, changes his own name to Abimelech when he becomes king.
Alternatively, it has been suggested to mean my father is Moloch.
At the time of the Amarna tablets (mid-14th century BC), there was an Egyptian governor
of Tyre similarly named Abimilki, who is sometimes speculated to be connected with one or more
of the biblical Abimelechs.[1]
Abimelech was most prominently the name of a
polytheistic king of Gerar who
is mentioned in two of the three wife-sister narratives in Genesis, in connection with both Abram (chap. 20) and Isaac (chap.
26). The Haggada identifies them as references to separate people, the
second being the first Abimelech's son, and that his original name was
Benmelech ("son of the King") but changed his name to his father's.
King Abimelech of Gerar also appears in an extra-biblical tradition recounted
in texts such as the Kitab
al-Magall, the Cave of Treasures and the Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan, as one of 12 regional kings in Abram's time said to
have built the city of Jerusalem for Melchizedek.[2]
Abram settled between Kadesh and Shur in the land of the Philistines. While he was living in Gerar,
Abram openly claimed that Sarah was his sister. Upon discovering this news,
King Abimelech had her brought to him. God then came to
Abimelech in a dream and declared that taking her would result in death because
she was a man's wife. Abimelech had not laid hands on her, so he inquired if he
would also slay a righteous nation, especially since Abram had claimed that he
and Sarah were siblings. In response, God told Abimelech that he did indeed
have a blameless heart and that is why he continued to exist. However, should
he not return the wife of Abram back to him, God would surely destroy Abimelech
and his entire household. Abimelech was informed that Abram was a prophet who
would pray for him. (Genesis 20:1–7)[3]
Early next morning, Abimelech informed his servants
of his dream and approached Abram inquiring as to why he had brought such great
guilt upon his kingdom. Abram stated that he thought there was no fear of God
in that place, and that they might kill him for his wife. Then Abram defended
what he had said as not being a lie at all: "And yet indeed she
is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the
daughter of my mother; and she became my wife." (Genesis 20:12) Abimelech returned Sarah to Abram, and gave him gifts of
sheep, oxen, and servants; and invited him to settle wherever he pleased in
Abimelech's lands. Further, Abimelech gave Abram a thousand pieces of silver to
serve as Sarah's vindication before all. Abram then prayed for Abimelech and
his household, since God had stricken the women with infertility because of the
taking of Sarah. (Genesis 20:8–18)[4]
How the land of exile is, are inhabitants and
institutions like king and administration described? Please compare
observations with other biblical statements about this land of exile.
Abimelech can be either the name of a person or royal
title like Pharaoh. Its usage here refers to the royal title for Philistine
kings. Isaac’s account occurred some 90 years after Abram’s account and when Abram
was deceased, and it is unlikely that it is the same Abimelech in both
accounts. Likewise, in the covenant accounts (Gen 21:22-34; 26:26-31),
Phicol can be either the name of a person or a military title like general,
and, because of the passage of time, it is not likely to be the same person.[5]
Close examination of Abram’s wife-sister
"doublet" reveals that these accounts are all separate and distinct
events and not simply a retelling of a singular occurrence. Thus this is not
evidence for the Documentary Hypothesis nor is this an example of the Ancient
Near Eastern literary device of repetition or restatement.
Each wife-sister event serves a purpose in God’s
revelation. The first incident with Pharaoh (Gen 12:10-20)
occurred before Abram’s name was changed to Abram. Preceding the incident, God
called to Abram to leave Haran and go to the Promised Land (Gen 12:1-9),
and he responded with faith and obedience.[6]
Yet, because of fear, Abram decided to go to Egypt
and deceive the Egyptians with his half-truth and demonstrated a complete lack
of faith in God’s promised blessings; Abram did not need to leave Canaan and
did not need to be deceptive. While this made Abram a wealthy man, he could not
return to the Promised Land, and risked his wife’s purity and promised
blessings.
When Pharaoh discovered the truth, Abram received a
royal rebuke and was expelled. Did the end justify the means? No. Abram lied
and brought dishonour to him and Sarah; he was a poor example of godliness.
Pharaoh recognized that God was with Abram and allowed Abram to leave with his
life and gifts, but Pharaoh expelled Abram with dishonour ("Now then, here
is your wife, take her and go" [Gen 12:19]).
Would Abram still materially benefit had he been
truthful? Yes, despite Abram’s lack of faith and deception, God would have been
faithful to His promises. This was the beginning revelation of God’s unilateral
and unconditional covenant with Abram.
The second incident with Abimelech (Gen 20:1-18)
occurred after the Abramic Covenant was made, after Abram’s name was changed to
Abram, and after he was in the Promised Land. Here again, Abram decided to
deceive the Philistines with his half-truth, and rationalizes his deceit in a
most paradoxical way (Abram said, "Because I thought, surely there is no
fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife [Gen 20:11]).
It was Abram who lacked a fear of God.
Abram’s shame worsened as he attempted to excuse his
deceit by claiming that his statement was true (Besides, she actually is my
sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother, and she
became my wife; [Gen 20:13]).
And Abram debased himself to the lowest level when he
claimed that God caused him to wander (and it came about, when God caused me to
wander from my father's house, that I said to her, 'This is the kindness which
you will show to me: everywhere we go, say of me, "He is my
brother."' [Gen 20:13]).
The Hebrew term for "wander" is not in a good sense. It is used when
referring to straying animals, the staggering gait of a drunken man, or a lying
heart.
The pagan king rebuked Abram, yet the king still
honoured God by giving Abram gifts and safe settlement on his land. But
Abimelech held little regard for Abram (To Sarah he said, "Behold, I have
given your brother [Gen 20:16]).
Later Abimelech would seek a covenant of peace (Gen 21:22-34).
The third incident, with Abram’s son Isaac (Gen 26:1-11),
occurred after God renewed the Abramic Covenant in person. Like his father,
Isaac acted dishonourably. While he didn’t leave the Promised Land, Isaac chose
to be deceptive and was rebuked by a pagan king.
These wife–sister incidents revealed God’s
determination to fulfil His covenant promises despite the faithless human
efforts of the patriarchs to save them. In each case, while Abram and Isaac
both thought they could control the situation, they instead placed Sarah and
Rebecca at risk of defilement with another man; only God could safeguard their
purity and chastity for the blessings that would come. The extent of how
faithless the Patriarchs were cannot be appraised in the absence of their
historical context; each wife – sister incident followed significant historical
covenantal events with God. And in the end, despite their show of faithless
behaviour, both Abram and Isaac were noted for their faith in God in Hebrews 11:8-19.[7]
What does it say about the author’s attitude towards
the land of exile and its special conditions?
According to the author when Abram
and Sarah entered the country of King Abimelech, Abimelech inadvertently
violated the rules of hospitality, and as restitution awarded Abram free
grazing rights to whatever land he wanted (Genesis 20:1-16). Subsequently, a dispute
erupted over a certain well of water that Abram had originally dug but
Abimelech’s servants later seized (Gen. 21:25). Seemingly unaware of the
situation, when Abimelech heard of the complaint he entered into a sworn
agreement initiated by Abram, a treaty that publicly acknowledged Abram’s right
to the well and therefore his continued business activity in the region (Gen. 21:27-31).[8]
Elsewhere we have seen Abram give
up what was rightfully his to keep (Gen. 14:22-24). Yet here, Abram doggedly protects
what is his. The narrator does not imply that Abram is again wavering in faith,
for the account concludes with worship (Gen. 21:33). Rather, he is a model of a
wise and hard-working person who conducts his business openly and makes fair
use of appropriate legal protections. In the business of shepherding, access to
water was essential. Abram could not have continued to provide for his animals,
workers, and family without it. The fact of Abram’s protection of water rights
is therefore important as well as the means by which he secured those rights.
Describe the role of YHWH within the story. Does he
act? For the benefit of whom he acts?
Backsliding is never encouraged, never winked at, and
never without painful consequences according to Scripture. Nevertheless,
backsliding will never cost the Christian his salvation. The salvation which
YHWH offers to men is eternal. If anyone should have lost his salvation, it was
Abram, but he remained a child of YHWH.
What a background chapter 20 sets for chapter 21. We
would have expected Isaac to have been conceived at a high point in Abram and
Sarah’s lives, but it was not so. We would at least have expected Abram’s
unbelief to have been exposed and finally conquered in chapter 20, but it did
not happen. In fact, Abram never even acknowledged the sinfulness of his
actions.[9]
YHWH blessed Abram, He gave him wealth (Genesis
12:16, 20; 13:1-2,
20:14-16) and the son He had promised (Genesis 21:1ff). He also gave him a privileged position (Genesis
20:7, 17-18). All those
blessings were gifts of YHWH’s grace, not rewards for Abram’s good works. By
the end of Genesis 20 we
must conclude, in the words of Kidner:
After his spiritual exertions Abram’s relapse into
faithless scheming, as at other moments of anticlimax (see on 12:10ff and on
chapter 16), carries its own warning. But the episode is chiefly one of
suspense: on the brink of Isaac’s birth-story here is the very Promise put in
jeopardy, traded away for personal safety. If it is ever to be fulfilled, it
will have to be achieved by the grace of YHWH.
After consulting commentaries and other literature:
what are the possible dates of the origin of the story?
Theories on the composition of
the book of Genesis have a long and complicated history. This subject will
never lose its fascination or cease to be an object of scholarly speculation,
like one or two other topics in biblical studies, such as the “synoptic
problem” of the Gospels or the quest for the historical Jesus. No matter how
much we protest today that these topics are no longer central to the
interpretive enterprise in the twenty-first century, we will no doubt continue
to explore new avenues for understanding the origins of these important texts.
For much of the 20th century most
scholars agreed that the five books of the Pentateuch Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy came from four sources,
the Yahwist, the Elohist,
the Deutronomistic and the Priestly source, each telling the same basic
story, and joined together by various editors.[10] Since the 1970s there has been a revolution
in scholarship: the Elohist source is now widely regarded as no more than a
variation on the Yahwist, while the Priestly source is increasingly seen not as
a document but as a body of revisions and expansions to the Yahwist (or
"non-Priestly") material. (The Deutronomistic source does not appear
in Genesis).[11]
In composing the Patriarchal history the Yahwist drew
on four separate blocks of traditional stories about Abram, Jacob, Judah and
Joseph, combining them with genealogies, itineraries and the
"promise" theme to create a unified whole.[12] Similarly, when composing the "primeval
history" he drew on Greek and Mesopotamian sources, editing and adding to them to create a unified work
that fit his theological agenda.[13] The Yahwistic
work was then revised and expanded into the final edition by the authors of the
Priestly source.[14]
Examples of repeated and duplicate stories are used
to identify the separate sources. In Genesis these include three different
accounts of a Patriarch claiming that his wife was his sister, the two creation
stories, and the two versions of Abram sending Hagar and Ishmael into the
desert.[15]
This leaves the question of when these works were
created. Scholars in the first half of the 20th century came to the conclusion
that the Yahwist was produced in the monarchic period, specifically at the
court of Solomon, and the Priestly work in the middle of the 5th century BC (the
author was even identified as Ezra),
but more recent thinking is that the Yahwist was written either just before or
during the Babylonian
exile of the 6th
century, and the Priestly final edition was made late in the Exilic period or
soon after.[16]
As for why the book was created, a theory which has
gained considerable interest, although still controversial is "Persian
imperial authorisation". This proposes that the Persians, after their
conquest of Babylon in 538 BC, agreed to grant Jerusalem a large measure
of local autonomy within the empire, but required the local authorities to
produce a single law code accepted by the entire community. The two powerful
groups making up the community—the priestly families who controlled the Temple
and who traced
their origin to
Moses and the wilderness wanderings, and the major landowning families who made
up the "elders" and who traced their own origins to Abram, who had
"given" them the land—were in conflict over many issues, and each had
its own "history of origins", but the Persian promise of greatly
increased local autonomy for all provided a powerful incentive to cooperate in
producing a single text.[17]
Genesis is perhaps best seen as an example of
"antiquarian history", a type of literature telling of the first
appearance of humans, the stories of ancestors and heroes, and the origins of
culture, cities and so forth.[18] The most notable
examples are found in the work of Greek historians of the 6th century BC: their
intention was to connect notable families of their own day to a distant and
heroic past, and in doing so they did not distinguish between myth, legend, and
facts.[19] Professor Jean-Louis Ska
of the Pontifical
Biblical Institute calls
the basic rule of the antiquarian historian the "law of
conservation": everything old is valuable, nothing is eliminated.[20] Ska also
points out the purpose behind such antiquarian histories: antiquity is needed
to prove the worth of Israel's traditions to the nations (the neighbours of the
Jews in early Persian Palestine), and to reconcile and unite the various
factions within Israel itself.[21]
The structure if the narrative
This chapter relates the removal of Abram to Gerar, Gen 20:1
The king of Gerar's taking to him Sarah, whom Abram had
called his sister, Gen 20:2
Who is rebuked of God for it in a dream? Gen 20:3
For which he makes an apology that is admitted, only he is ordered
to restore to Abram his wife, Gen 20:4-7
And accordingly early in the morning he called his servants,
and acquainted them with what had happened, Gen 20:8
And then sent for Abram, and expressed his resentment at his
usage of him, Gen 20:9
Which Abram defended as well as he could, Gen 20:10-13
The issue of all which was, great kindness was shown to Abram,
and his wife restored to him, though with a reproof to her from the king, Gen
20:14-16
Upon which Abram prayed for the
healing of Abimelech and his family, in which he was heard and answered, Gen
20:17, 18
Summary of the intention of the narrative, in one
sentence by which the entire story is summarized
We have here, Abram's sin in denying his wife, and Abimelech's
sin thereupon in taking her, God's discourse with Abimelech in a dream upon
this occasion; wherein he shows him his error, accepts his plea, and directs
him to make restitution, Abimelech's discourse with Abram; wherein he chides
him for the cheat he had put upon him, and Abram excuses it as well as he can,
The good issue of the story; in which Abimelech restores Abram his wife, and Abram
by prayer prevails with God for the removal of the judgment Abimelech was under.
The theological intention of the text[22]
Abram left Mamre, wandering southward near Kadesh and
then northwest to Gerar, not far from the Mediterranean Sea in the land of the
Philistines. At Gerar, Abram repeated a sin committed very early in his life as
a follower of God (cf. 12:10ff). Once again, he passed off his wife Sarah as
his sister, which resulted in her being taken into the harem of Abimelech, king
of Gerar.
Liberal critics hasten to classify chapters 12, 20,
and 26 as three different accounts of the same event. Such a position cannot be
taken seriously: the text is considered reliable. The similarities are striking
and purposely underscored. Nevertheless, the differences between chapters 12
and 20 are significant.
We have every reason to conclude that there are three
events, similar in some details but decidedly different in many particulars.
The similarities are intended to be instructive. Even mature saints are plagued
with the sins of younger days (chapter 20), and “the sins of the fathers” surely
are visited on the sons (as in chapter 26).
The situation here is far more critical than in
chapter 12. First, God has clearly revealed to Abram and Sarah that together
they will bear a son through whom the covenant promises will be realized. More
than this, the conception of the child must be near at hand, for he was said to
have been born within the space of a year (17:21; 18:10). Human reasoning would
have considered the dangers in chapter 20 to be minimal since Sarah was long
past the childbearing age (17:17; 18:11, 13). But the eye of faith would have
seen the matter in an entirely different light. Was Abram’s faith at low ebb?
It must be so.
Abimelech was restrained by God in a two-fold
fashion. First, God warned him in the strongest terms: “Behold, you are a dead
man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is married” (Genesis
20:3). It becomes clear that death will only follow if
Abimelech’s actions are not reversed and Sarah returned, untouched, to Abram.
God told Abimelech he was as good as dead if he did not act decisively and
according to God’s directions.
Secondly, Abimelech and his entire household were
physically restrained from sinning against Sarah. Then God said to him in the
dream, ‘Yes, I know that in the integrity of your heart you have done this, and
I also kept you from sinning against me; therefore I did not let you touch her.
Now therefore restore the man’s wife, for he is a prophet and he will pray for
you, and you will live. But if you do not restore her, know that you shall
surely die you and all who are yours… And Abram prayed to God; and God healed
Abimelech and his wife and his maids, so that they bore children. For the Lord
had closed fast all the wombs of the household of Abimelech because of Sarah, Abram’s
wife (Genesis 20:6-7, 17-18).
By means of some undisclosed physical difficulty, no
one in the royal household was able to conceive. Further, it seems that sexual
activity was prohibited altogether. This would ensure Sarah’s purity, as well
as prevent the birth of a child by Abimelech. The revelation Abimelech received
in the dream thus explained the reason for the plague which had fallen upon his
household. This also sheds light on the great fear of the male servants in
Abimelech’s household. They, too, suffered from this affliction which
prohibited normal sexual activity. In a culture that placed a high value on
many offspring and virility, the situation would have been taken as critical. Now
Abimelech had not come near her; and he said, ‘Lord, wilt Thou slay a nation,
even though blameless? Did he not himself say to me, ‘She is my sister’? And
she herself said, ‘He is my brother.’ In the integrity of my heart and the
innocence of my hands I have done this’ (Genesis 20:4-5).
Abimelech, unlike Abram, was guiltless in this
matter. His actions were based upon purity of motive and upon the untrue
statements of Abram and Sarah. God acknowledged the innocence of the king
but made it clear that apart from divine intervention he would have committed a
grave offense. The way Abimelech handled this matter now would determine his
destiny. To delay or disobey meant certain death.
Bibliography
Barr,
James. Bible and Interpretation: The Collected Essays of
James Barr. Oxford
University Press
2013
Benamozegh, Elia; Maxwell Luria. Israel and Humanity. Paulist Press
International 1995
Boadt,
Lawrence. Richard J. Clifford, Daniel J. Harrington. Reading the Old Testament:
An Introduction, Paulist Press, 2012
Carr, David M.; Conway, Colleen M. "Introduction to the Pentateuch". An Introduction to the Bible: Sacred Texts and
Imperial Contexts.
John Wiley & Sons 2010
Hendel, Ronald. Remembering Abram: Culture, Memory, and History in
the Hebrew Bible. Oxford
University Press
2005
Levenson, Jon Douglas. Inheriting Abram: The Legacy of the Patriarch in
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Princeton
University Press 2012
Van Seters, John "The Pentateuch". In Steven L. McKenzie, Matt Patrick
Graham. The Hebrew Bible today: an introduction to critical issues. Westminster John Knox Press 1998
Van Seters, John. Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in
Genesis.
Westminster John Knox Press 1992
Van Seters, John. The Pentateuch: a social-science commentary. Continuum International Publishing Group 2004
[3] Levenson, Jon Douglas. Inheriting Abram: The Legacy of the Patriarch in Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam. Princeton
University Press
[4] Levenson, Jon Douglas. Inheriting Abram: The Legacy of the Patriarch in Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam. Princeton University Press
[8] Carr, David M.; Conway, Colleen M. "Introduction to the Pentateuch" An Introduction to the Bible: Sacred Texts and Imperial Contexts; John Wiley & Sons
[11] Van
Seters, John The Pentateuch: a social-science commentary. Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 30–86
[12] Van
Seters, John "The Pentateuch". In Steven, L. McKenzie. Matt Patrick Graham. The Hebrew
Bible today: an introduction to critical issues. Westminster John Knox
Press p.33
[13] Van Seters, John Prologue to History: The Yahwist As Historian in Genesis. Westminster
John Knox Press pp. 188–189
[14] Van Seters, John. The Pentateuch: a social-science commentary. Continuum International Publishing Group p.114
[15] Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction
By Lawrence Boadt, Richard J. Clifford, Daniel J. Harrington Paulist Press,
[18] Van Seters, John. The Pentateuch: a social-science commentary. Continuum International Publishing Group pp. 113–114
No comments:
Post a Comment