Chapter 19 of 379

Annotations for Genesis

If creation is the act of bringing something into existence, we must ask what constituted existence in the ancient world. In our culture, we consider existence to be either material (i.e., having molecules/taking up space and extending to energy and subatomic particles) or experiential (e.g., abstractions such as love or time). Those definitions, however, are culturally determined. By contrast, in the ancient world something existed when it had a function—a role to play.

In Mesopotamia one way to accomplish this was to name something, because a name designated a thing’s function or role. Thus, in the Babylonian creation account, bringing the cosmos into existence begins “When on high no name was given in heaven, nor below was the netherworld called by name . . . When no gods at all had been brought forth, none called by names, none destinies ordained, then were the gods formed.” In Egyptian accounts existence was associated with something having been differentiated. The god Atum is conceptualized as the primordial monad—the singularity embodying all the potential of the cosmos, from whom all things were separated and thereby created. The Genesis account includes both of these concepts as God separates and names.

The actual Hebrew verb “create” (bara) also focuses our attention in this direction. In the Bible, only God can perform this action of bringing something into existence. What is even more intriguing is that the objects of this verb point consistently toward its connection to functional existence rather than material existence; e.g., God “creates” fire, cloud, destruction, calamity, darkness, righteousness and purity. This is much like the ancient Near Eastern way of thinking that it was more important to determine who controlled functions rather than who/what gave something its physical form. In the ancient world something was created when it was given a function. In the ancient world, the cosmos is less like a machine, more like a kingdom. ◆

Go to

In the beginning. In the OT “beginning” refers to a preliminary period of time rather than the first in a series of events. In English, we might refer to such an initial period as “the primordial period.” This leads us to conclude that the “beginning” is a way of talking about the seven-day period rather than a point in time prior to the seven days.

formless and empty. Prior to creation the Egyptian texts talk about the “nonexistent.” In their thinking this nonexistent realm continues to be present in the sea, in the dark night sky, and even in the desert—places without role or function (see the article “Creation and Existence”). In the Egyptian precreation state of nonexistence there are two elements: primeval waters and total darkness. In Hebrew, “formless” (tohu) is also used to refer to the desert (e.g., ). In general it designates a situation in which positive values such as purpose and worth are lacking. As a result, it is more appropriate to translate “without function” rather than “without form,” the idea being similar to the Egyptian “nonexistent.” This is also apparent in , where the same pair of Hebrew terms is used to describe a nonfunctional, nonproductive state. deep. Hebrew tehom; it refers to the primordial or primeval sea. In the precreation period it covered everything. In creation it was pushed out to the edges of the cosmos, where it was restrained by God’s power. There it is identified as the cosmic waters of chaos that can be brought back at any moment if deity requires its services. Although the Hebrew word is the cognate of the Babylonian tamtu/Tiamat, it is not personified as a being associated with chaos, nor can it be considered a depersonification or demythologization that is dependent on the ancient Near Eastern texts. It is simply used to describe the “precosmic condition.”

Let there be light. As God calls the cosmos into existence, it is important to remember that it is a functional existence, not necessarily a physical existence (see the article “Creation and Existence”). In this case, though we think of light as a having physical properties, the ancients did not think in those terms. They also did not think of all light as coming from the sun. “Daylight” was not caused by “sunlight”; although the sun, moon and stars were bearers of light, daylight was present even when these were hidden by clouds or an eclipse. Light was not considered something physical in the ancient world; rather, it was a phenomenon. Here in Genesis, light is identified with alternating periods of day and night. Since light is called “day” and darkness is called “night” (v. ), the text indicates that the functional focus is time.

The Hebrew raqia (“vault”) is of unspecified material, but in at least one text it refers to something solid (cf. ). It is the boundary between heaven and earth, and its main function is to hold back the water above. Some mountains are identified as intersecting the sky and perhaps holding it up. Mesopotamian literature at times suggests some sort of skin, but also speaks of the various levels of heaven having pavements, the most visible one being blue. Heaven and earth were kept in place by cables held by the gods.

In Egyptian iconography the sky is represented by the goddess Nut, whose body arched over the land. The Israelites portray no god, living or dead, as the sky, but their cosmic geography saw the sky as having a composition and role similar to what can be seen across the ancient Near East. We know from that they shared the idea of a pavement in God’s abode—and it is even of sapphire as in the Mesopotamian texts.

Intertestamental and rabbinic speculation sometimes focused on the material that the vault was made of and how thick it was. The church fathers likewise were united in their belief that the vault was solid. Though it may be surprising for modern minds to learn, the testimony of historical evidence shows that most people in the ancient world believed the sky was solid. The idea that it’s not is a thoroughly modern notion.

Pictorial representations throughout the ancient Near East portray waters above and below, which demonstrates that this was a common feature of ancient cosmic geography. In Mesopotamia the god Marduk assigns guards to keep the heavenly waters from flooding the earth. In Egyptian texts, the sun-god’s barque travels from horizon to horizon across a heavenly ocean. In the OT, the heavenly waters are sometimes called the mabbul, above which Yahweh is enthroned () and which are released in the time of Noah ().

The concept of heavenly waters is the natural deduction to be drawn from the experience of precipitation. If moisture comes from the sky, there must be moisture up there. Thus the sky becomes the pivotal phenomenon associated with weather. Mesopotamian imagery refers to “breasts of heaven,” through which rain comes. Ugaritic texts use the symbolism of the clouds serving as buckets to deliver the rain. The OT refers to gates in the sky through which precipitation comes as “windows” used only for rain, not for the celestial bodies (e.g., ; ; , ). also poetically speaks of storehouses for snow and hail. All precipitation (including dew, see ) comes from above, and thus weather is regulated by the sky.

It should also be noted that an alternative interpretation of the Hebrew word raqia is that it refers to the living space created by the separation of the waters. In this case, a different Hebrew word refers to the vault. ◆

In Egyptian iconography the sky is represented by the goddess Nut, whose body arched over the land.

Wikimedia Commons

Go to

a vault. See the article “The ‘Vault’ and ‘Water Above.’ ”

dry ground. Nonexistence for the Egyptians was not wiped out in the acts of creation, but was pushed to the outer limits of the cosmos. Consequently their literature speaks of the primeval hillock that emerged from the primeval waters. Temples were sometimes understood as containing the original primeval hillock in the center of their sacred space. Mesopotamian literature does not speak much of the emergence of the land, but there is discussion of the collection of the waters to their appropriate place. In this feature, then, Genesis shows more similarity to Egyptian literature. It was common in the ancient world to think of the earth as a single continent in the shape of a flat disc. Likewise in Genesis, the waters are all gathered into one place, and land appears, presumably in one place.

vegetation. The indication that the land produces vegetation is not a statement about the land being involved in creation. What is being created by God is a function whereby the land regularly and characteristically produces vegetation—the principle of fecundity whereby agriculture can exist and food can be grown.

signs. The Hebrew word used for “sign” has a cognate in Akkadian that is used for omens, but the Hebrew has a more neutral sense. The author has emptied the elements of the cosmos of their more personal traits, as he did with the description of the precosmic condition; the sun, moon, etc. are not depicted as gods as they are in Near Eastern literature.

creatures of the sea. In the mythologies of the ancient Near East a variety of terrible creatures inhabited the sea, and these are occasionally associated with the threatening forces of chaos that need to be defeated and harnessed by creator deities. The OT also refers to a number of different cosmic sea creatures (e.g., ; ). In the sea creature (Hebrew tannin) is portrayed with multiple heads and is parallel to Leviathan. This depiction of battle is also seen in , where tannin, like “Rahab,” is defeated. Unlike the ancient Near East creation texts, though, Genesis shows no indication of a battle—only that tannin is created.

This is the first use of the verb bara (“created”) since v. , perhaps emphasizing that tannin is not some primeval chaos monster that must be overcome, but a creature being given its role (see the article “Creation and Existence”) just like everything else in creation. Yet it ought to be viewed as a cosmic creature rather than a marine specimen. The passages in which the word may refer to zoological specimens (; ; ) indicate a land creature or amphibian, not a sea creature as here.

Throughout the ancient Near East, an image was believed to contain the essence of that which it represented. That essence equipped the image to carry out its function. In Egyptian literature, there is one occurrence of people in general having been created in the image of deity, but it is generally the king who is spoken of in such terms. The image is the source of his power and prerogative.

In Mesopotamia there are three categories of significance. (1) As in Egypt, the king is occasionally described as being in the image of deity. (2) An idol contained the image of the deity. (3) Monuments featuring the image of a king were set up in territories he had conquered. In an image, it was not physical likeness that was important, but a more abstract, idealized representation of identity relating to the office/role and the value connected to the image. When Assyrian king Esarhaddon is referred to as “the perfect likeness of the god,” it is his qualities and his attributes that are under discussion. The image of the god did the god’s work on the earth.

The Biblical view is similar as people were created in the image of God, embodying his qualities and doing his work. They are symbols of his presence and act on his behalf as his representatives. The two words used in the text differ in nuance. “Image” refers to the something that contains the “essence” of something else, while “likeness” is more connected to “substance,” expressing a resemblance at some level. ◆

Go to

Be fruitful and increase in number. Contrary to concerns about overpopulation that are evident in early Mesopotamian literature, in Genesis God desires that people multiply without restriction—they may fill the earth. In contrast, in the Akkadian Atrahasis epic, the gods are distressed because, with the multiplication of people, problems and “noise” also increase. The gods therefore send plagues, famine and drought to counteract the population explosion. subdue it. Rule over. The characterization of humans being made in the image of God and the functions listed here reflect a royal role for people since these descriptions would most frequently be applied to kings (see the article “Image and Likeness”). They are given the responsibility of bringing order to their world. Again, this is in stark contrast to the role of humanity in the ancient Near East, where they are created to serve. Here we see the attribution to all people what was the sole prerogative of the king in the rest of the ancient Near East.

yours for food. When people are created in other ancient Near East narratives, it is for the purpose of performing all the menial tasks necessary for providing food for the gods. God as the one providing food for people, rather than the other way around, is not absent from those other ancient Near East accounts, but the theme occupies a more central role here in Genesis (cf. also , where God planted a garden for food).

The concept of divine rest is prominent in ancient Near Eastern literature. Deity’s rest is achieved in a temple, generally as a result of order having been established. The rest, while it represents disengagement from any process of establishing order (whether through conflict with other deities or not), is more importantly an expression of engagement as the deity takes his place at the helm to maintain an ordered, secure and stable cosmos. The following aspects of divine rest can be found in literature of the ancient Near East:

1. The divine rest can be disturbed by rebellion.

2. The divine rest is achieved after conflict.

3. The divine rest is achieved after order-bringing acts of creation.

4. The divine rest is achieved in the temple.

5. The divine rest is achieved in part by creating people to work in their place and on their behalf.

6. The divine rest is characterized by ongoing control and stability.

Only point 3 is transparent in Genesis, though points 4 and 6 can also be defended. Given the connection between temple and rest in the ancient Near East, it becomes natural to see the Biblical creation of the cosmos as being configured in temple-building and dedication terms; the seven-day creation account culminating in divine rest should be understood as somehow parallel to the building of temples for divine rest. This course of analogy and logic results in the understanding that is framed in terms of the creation of a cosmic temple in which Yahweh takes up his repose. The seven days are comparable to seven-day temple dedications at the end of which the deity takes up his rest in the temple.

The temple on earth was considered only a type of the larger, archetypal cosmic temple, and there are many images and symbols that evoke the relationship between temple and cosmos. The temple is considered the center of the cosmos and is itself a microcosmos. In Egypt the temple contained within its sacred precincts a representation of the original primeval hillock that emerged from the cosmic waters. In Mesopotamia, the primary imagery of the temple was that it was the center of the cosmos. In Syro-Palestine, the temple is the architectural embodiment of the cosmic mountain. This concept is represented in Ugaritic literature as well as in the Bible, where Mount Zion is understood as the mountain of the Lord (e.g., ) and the place where his temple, a representation of Eden, was built. In the Lord indicated: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. Where is the house you will build for me? Where will my resting place be?” Here God indicates that the man-made temple cannot be considered the true temple (cf. ). It is only a micro-scale representation of the cosmic temple. communicates a similar idea by indicating that the temple was built on the model of the cosmos. Ideas like these are also found in literature from Mesopotamia that compares temples to the heavens and the earth and gives them a cosmic location and function. It is evident, then, that Israel and her neighbors viewed the cosmos in temple terms and viewed the temple as a model of the cosmos or the cosmic temple.

If the cosmos is being ordered as sacred space, then it is possible that a cosmological text could adopt the language of temple-building and temple-dedication. In a temple construction project, the structure would be built, and the furniture and trappings would be made in preparation for the moment when all was ready for the dedication of the temple. On this occasion, often a seven-day celebration, the functions of the temple were declared, the furniture and hangings were put in place, the priests installed, and the appropriate sacrifices made to initiate the temple’s operation. Somewhere in the process, the image of the deity was brought into the temple to take up his repose. On the basis of all of this, can be viewed as using the metaphor of temple-dedication as it portrays God’s creation (= making functional/operational) of his cosmos (which is his temple, ). The main connection, however, is the rest motif, for rest is the principal function of a temple, and a temple is always where deity finds rest. ◆

Go to

no plant. The description of an inchoate condition on the earth is paralleled in part by descriptions of a primeval condition in some ancient Near Eastern texts. Unlike Genesis, these texts consider the primeval condition of humans to be primitive and uncivilized. Like the ancient Near East, however, Genesis begins with a time when no irrigation or planting strategies were being carried out by people. In the ancient Near East this resulted in no offerings for the gods. In Genesis God plants the garden and puts people in it. The similarities show the common idea that creation accounts proceed from an unordered, nonfunctional beginning through an ordering process. It does not mean that God had not yet produced any plants.

formed a man from the dust. The creation of humans from dust is similar to what is found in ancient Near Eastern mythology. In Mesopotamia, physical elements from the gods such as blood and flesh are mixed with clay, while in Egypt it is tears or breath. Genesis, by contrast, represents the divine element in human beings as seen in the image of God and the breath of life (closer to Egyptian than Mesopotamian thinking).

In the rest of the ancient Near East the creation of people focuses on archetypal and often corporate elements. could be viewed as corporate and generic rather than individual. Here in ch. there are archetypal elements that are identifiable. Man is made from the dust, and since he will also return to dust (), all people can be seen as created from the dust (see ). The creation of Eve from Adam’s side () likewise expresses a relationship between man and woman that permeates the race. In these Adam and Eve are archetypes representing all of humanity in their creation, just as they do in their sin and their destiny (death) in ch. . Their function as archetypes does not suggest that they are not historical individuals; it only suggests that they function more importantly as representatives of the race.

a garden . . . in Eden. Verse indicates that we should understand the garden as adjoining Eden because the water flows “from Eden” and waters the garden. The garden adjoins God’s residence in the same way that a garden of the palace adjoins the palace. Eden is the source of the waters and the residence of God. The text describes a situation that was well known in the ancient world: a sacred spot featuring a spring with an adjoining, well-watered park. The word “garden” here should not make us think of vegetables or even necessarily flowers. Public gardens or a “country garden” convey the idea more accurately as indicating a park with careful landscaping, pools, watercourses, and paths winding among fruit trees and shade trees. Such arboretums, sometimes even containing animals of various sorts, were a common feature of palace complexes in the ancient world.

the tree of life. In the tree of life offers an extension of life, which suggests rejuvenating qualities. In the Gilgamesh Epic there is a rejuvenating plant that grows at the bottom of the cosmic river. In the Story of Adapa, the hero is offered food by the god Anu that is eventually identified as “food of life” and “water of life.” He refuses to partake, having been told it was food of death. Thus humankind is prevented from joining the gods in immortality. In Egyptian literature, Amun-Re is the god who created the tree of life, but no further information is given. the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Nothing is known of this tree from any of the traditions of the ancient Near East. In the Gilgamesh Epic, the primitive Enkidu becomes wise (possessing reason), not by eating the fruit of a tree, but by engaging in sexual intercourse with a prostitute who was sent to entice and capture him.

Most scholars would place Eden in or near the northern end of the Persian Gulf, based on the locations of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. The distinction “in the east” (v. ) merely indicates Mesopotamia, and is typical of primordial narratives. The flow of the rivers and the uncertainty of the location of the Pishon and Gihon (see note on vv. ) has caused some to look near the source of the Tigris and Euphrates and some scholars have identified two other major rivers in that area that might qualify. In such a mountainous region the garden would be in an elevated valley, though for some, the imagery of a well-watered garden where humans do no work and life springs up without cultivation is more suited to the marshy areas around the Persian Gulf.

four headwaters. Genesis uses a familiar picture of fertile waters flowing from the seat of deity. In Egyptian depictions two or four rivers flow out of the mouth of Nun, who represents the cosmic abyss. An ivory inlaid plaque from Assyria shows a central divine figure with four rivers flowing from him in four directions. He is flanked by two trees, and standing next to each tree is a winged guardian. It should also be noted that the idea of rivers flowing from the holy place is found not only in ch. (which portrays Eden as the Most Holy Place) but also in Ezekiel’s temple (). The picture is of a mighty spring that gushes out from Eden and is channeled through the garden for irrigation purposes. All of these channels then serve as headwaters, for the four rivers flow out in various directions as the waters exit the garden.

Pishon . . . Gihon. Attempts to identify these two rivers include: canals, other rivers of Mesopotamia (Balikh, Diyala, Zab, etc.), other rivers outside of Mesopotamia (e.g., Nile, Indus, Ganges), or larger bodies such as the Persian Gulf or the Red Sea. Recent investigations have attempted to identify the Pishon as a major river that dried up in antiquity. This possibility emerges from the analysis of sand patterns and satellite photography, which have revealed an old riverbed running northeast through Saudi Arabia from the Hijaz mountains near Medina (which contains one of the richest gold mines in the region) to the Persian Gulf in Kuwait, near the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. As mentioned in note on vv. , others have identified the Pishon and Gihon as rivers in the area of Urartu. A final suggestion is that the Pishon and Gihon refer to the encircling cosmic waters. None of these options may be adopted with any confidence, though some are more plausible than others.

to work it and take care of it. In the rest of the ancient world it was believed that humans had been created to serve the needs of the gods; the gods had grown tired of the drudgery of providing for themselves. In Genesis people also serve God but not by meeting his needs.

When people are assigned their function here, priestly terms are used in contrast to the royal functions given in . In the rest of the ancient Near East, caring for the needs of the gods was also a priestly function. In the OT, the priestly function involved maintaining the status of sacred space and providing for the proper worship and obedience to God’s requirements.

names. Names were not given randomly in the ancient world. A name may identify the essential nature of the creature, so that giving a name may be an act of assigning the function that creature will have. In Mesopotamia the assigning of function is referred to as the decreeing of destiny. Decreeing destiny by giving a name is an act of authority. In the ancient world, when a king conquered another country, the king he put on the throne was given a new name. In other cases, the giving of a name is an act of discernment in which the name is determined by the circumstances. In either case, Adam’s naming of the animals is his first step in subduing and ruling (see and note). He is fulfilling the role that he had by virtue of being in God’s image (see the article “Image and Likeness”), but it also leads him to realize that among the animals there is no social equal to share his function and place.

rib. In Genesis the woman was built from the side (Hebrew tsela) of the man (see on v. ). The Hebrew word is usually architectural, and is used anatomically only here in the OT. In Akkadian, the cognate term tsela is also both architectural and anatomical. Its anatomical uses generally refer not just to bone, but to bones and flesh (cf. v. ).

leaves . . . united . . . one flesh. The text establishes a “flesh-line,” which is stronger than a bloodline and causes the man to seek her out. Woman is recognized as being of the same essence as man and therefore of serving as his ally in sacred space.

naked. In Genesis the nakedness of the humans does not appear to be a negative comment, though it is contrasted through wordplay to the craftiness of the serpent in the next verse (), so it may refer to a relative naïveté. In contrast, ancient Near Eastern texts indicate that the primeval nakedness of people is a sign of a primitive, uncivilized condition. When Enkidu is civilized in the Gilgamesh Epic, he is clothed by the woman who civilizes him. The Sumerian text Ewe and Wheat opens with a description of primeval humans who are clearly primitive, and the text apparently considers that a negative. In this way there are similarities in how Genesis and the Mesopotamian texts describe early humankind, but there is a contrasting assessment of how their condition should be interpreted.

In the Gilgamesh Epic, after Gilgamesh acquires the magical plant that will rejuvenate him, it is stolen by a snake. In the Story of Adapa, one of the guardians of Anu’s palace, where Adapa is offered the food of life, is serpent-shaped or accompanied by horned serpents, and he is the guardian of the demons who live in the netherworld. In Egypt, the serpent was associated with both death and wisdom. The Genesis account draws on both aspects in the wisdom dialogue between the serpent and Eve and with the introduction of death after the expulsion from Eden.

Many Egyptian gods, especially the primeval gods, were represented in serpent form. Wadjit, a lower Egyptian deity, was considered the protector of the pharaoh and is represented by the uraeus serpent on his crown. The earth-god Geb had a serpent’s head. The snake-god Apophis was considered the enemy of order. In addition, the idea that animals in general, and serpents in particular, could communicate with humans is common in Egyptian literature. Serpents in Egypt are also connected with occult wisdom. The ureaus is sometimes invoked as a magician.

Because of the NT and the development of Christian theology, it is most common for people today immediately to think of Satan as the serpent in , but the Israelites never made that connection. We cannot recover what Adam and Eve would have thought about the serpent, but the ancient Near Eastern literature gives us an idea of some of the images that came to mind for the Israelites living in their time and culture. Foremost is the association of the serpent with life and death. Likewise the serpent is wise, is connected with disorder, and can be the enemy of God—perspectives that are meaningful in this context. ◆

Go to

be like God. One can imagine a variety of ways in which people might desire or strive to “be like God”—some commendable, others inappropriately ambitious or subversive. The aspiration targeted here is in the category of wisdom, a defensibly laudable pursuit. In the ancient Near East godlikeness pertains to the categories of splendor (Enkidu became handsome like a god) or immortality (Gilgamesh, Adapa). It is interesting that Gilgamesh and Adapa both encounter a snake figure and Enkidu achieves his godlikeness through a woman (who also gives him understanding). Gilgamesh and Adapa fail to achieve immortality, both through an inability to eat the necessary food.

These examples show that in the ancient world it was common for people to meditate on ways in which people succeeded and failed in becoming like deity. At the same time the differences are significant. In Genesis disobedience figures prominently, and the category of godlikeness is distinct. Furthermore, the consequences of the attempt differ. Adam and Eve do achieve a level of godlikeness (like Enkidu), but with significant negative repercussions. At the same time they lose their access to immortality (like Gilgamesh and Adapa) and also suffer in their lost relationship with God, which is not an issue in any of the others. This is then an excellent example of how the comparison between the Bible and the ancient Near East shows a similar landscape but with important variations in the essential nature of the issue.

God said to the serpent, “ . . . Cursed are you.” The Egyptian Pyramid Texts were designed to aid the pharaohs of the Old Kingdom on their journey to the afterlife. Among the over 700 utterances are several dozen spells and curses on snakes that may impede the king’s progress. These utterances contain phrases that are reminiscent of the curse on the serpent in ch. . crawl on your belly. This statement is paralleled by frequent spells in the Egyptian Pyramid Texts that call on snakes to lie down, fall down, get down, or crawl away. Another spell says that he should “go with your face on the path.” These suggest that when God tells the serpent that he will crawl on his belly, there is no suggestion that the serpent had legs that he now loses. Instead, he is going to be docile rather than in an attack position. The serpent on its belly is nonthreatening, while the one reared up is protecting or attacking. eat dust. Not a comment about the actual diet of snakes but likely a reference to their habitat. Again the Pyramid Texts show some similarity as they attempt to banish the serpent to the dust. The serpent is a creature of the netherworld (that is why the pharaoh encounters it on his journey), and denizens of the netherworld were typically portrayed as eating dust. There is no suggestion that the Israelites are borrowing from the Pyramid Texts, only that these texts help us determine how someone in the ancient Near East might understand such words and phrases.

banished. In the ancient Near East there is no time when “sin” begins; no point when humanity moves from a positive relationship with deity into a worse position; no sense of people once being in sacred space but then banished. It was common in the ancient world to portray “before” and “after” pictures with regard to human death and the relationship between God and humanity, but Genesis identifies different elements in the portrayal and reflects a different theology.

cherubim. Cherubs are a class of supernatural creature generally functioning as guardians and typically portrayed in beast form rather than human form. They can be four-footed or upright. In cases where it can be determined, they appear to be composite (i.e., having characteristics of various beasts the way griffins or sphinxes did in other literatures).

fruits of the soil. There is intrinsically no problem with Cain bringing produce as a gift to God. The Hebrew word used for his sacrifice (minhah) is one that describes the kind of offering outlined in , which is normally something other than an animal sacrifice. It was likewise common throughout the rest of the ancient world to offer food offerings from what was grown. Genesis does not record God asking for these sacrifices, though he approved of the practice as a means of expressing thanks. Gratitude would not be expressed when the gift is given grudgingly, as was possibly the case with Cain (see , which contrasts Abel’s sacrifice offered in faith with Cain’s gift).

sin is crouching at your door. Recent commentators have preferred seeing the participle “crouching” (Hebrew robes) as a reference to a well-known Mesopotamian demon (rabisu) who lingers around doorways. “Sin” is then portrayed as a doorway demon waiting for its victim to cross the threshold. From the Old Babylonian period on in Mesopotamia, such demons were considered evil and were thought to ambush their victims.

wanderer. In Mesopotamian thinking the ideal lifestyle is urban. Civilized life in the city is the gift of the gods and highly valued. Agricultural and pastoral activities are part of the urban landscape and are foundational to the success of the city. In this way of thinking, nomadic groups are considered uncivilized and a threat to society. The motif of the wild man living out in the steppe country among the animals is represented by Enkidu in the Gilgamesh Epic and is an archetype for these despised and feared people.

An interesting contrast here in Genesis is that the categories are set up differently. As in Mesopotamia, Cain’s status as a wanderer marks him as undesirable. But this wandering is in contrast to being a farmer rather than to being a city dweller. In fact, it is within his line that the arts of civilization are developed (vv. ).

whoever finds me will kill me. Blood feuding between clans is not a foreign concept. In the ancient world it was typically the business of the clan to avenge the death of one of its members. This concept is represented in Biblical law—e.g., cities of refuge and the avenger of blood (; )—as well as in the ancient Near East. Cain’s comment assumes that Abel has an extended family who might seek revenge.

mark. The Hebrew word does not indicate a tattoo or mutilation, but rather a mark of divine protection similar to that placed on the foreheads of innocents in . It may be an external marking to serve as an indicator to others, or it might represent a sign from God to Cain that he will not be harmed.

building a city. According to Mesopotamian tradition, the first city built was Eridu (remarkably similar to the name Irad, see v. ). Within this tradition, city building was a divine enterprise. It was an enterprise related to, and a part of, creation, since creation involved the establishment of the world as they knew it—not only in terms of the physical cosmos, but also the civilized aspect of the social and economic world. In contrast, Genesis sees city building in purely human terms.

live in tents and raise livestock. Describes the pastoralist, who had to keep herds and flocks moving to a variety of water sources and grazing lands. This refers not to an achievement (e.g., domestication) but to a lifestyle. Just as Mesopotamians believed cities and kingship to have originated with the gods, so did pastoralism, agriculture and other lifestyles. In contrast, Genesis sees them as human developments.

The personal name “Yahweh” (NIV “LORD”) is used frequently throughout Genesis. The patriarchs address God by that name, and God identifies himself by that name. But a problem surfaces in Exodus: At the burning bush Moses asks what name he should give for the God who is sending him—even though God has already identified himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (). In , the name Yahweh (NIV “LORD”) is introduced and it seems to some interpreters that God is giving a new name not previously revealed.

The situation is made more confusing in , where God says to Moses, “I am the LORD [Yahweh]. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty [El-Shaddai], but by my name the LORD [Yahweh], I did not make myself fully known to them.” Verses such as these have led some to postulate that the occurrence of Yahweh in the patriarchal narratives is simply the work of the editor of Genesis, showing the continuity between the patriarchs and later Israel.

The fact that Genesis takes its final form no earlier than the time of Moses has allowed some conservative scholars to be content with viewing the references to Yahweh in the patriarchal narratives as purposeful intrusion. To them, the name of Yahweh was added in appropriate places to affirm that the patriarchs really did worship the same God as the Israelites, though they called him by a different name. This may be acceptable in some cases, but it does not explain the passages in which God is presented as identifying himself as Yahweh.

In , Moses is not looking to fill an information gap concerning God’s identity, but rather, is asking which previously known epithet is most appropriate to use. In , God explains that the epithet Yahweh (NIV “LORD”) is the appropriate one. In God explains that El-Shaddai (NIV “God Almighty”) was the epithet most appropriately connected with how God interacted with the patriarchs and what he accomplished for them. They did not experience firsthand the significance of the epithet Yahweh, which was connected to the longer-term promises of God, specifically the land. In other words, it is not that the patriarchs were ignorant of the name Yahweh, but the epithet El-Shaddai was appropriate for the aspects of the covenant they experienced. The name Yahweh was one of many epithets they used to refer to their God, but it was not the primary one in their usage or understanding. ◆

Go to

call on the name of the LORD. Just as there is no implication that only Cain’s line had cities and the arts of civilization, so the text does not imply that only the line of Seth called on the name of the Lord. About a dozen times in the OT people are said to call on the name of the Lord—generally either calling for help in connection with a ritual or invoking God’s presence at a cultic site. Eventually humans sought to procure the presence of God through establishing cultic places and performing rituals there, but here there is no indication of these trappings. Thus it seems that people began to invoke the Lord’s presence (the presence that was lost at the fall). This verse, then, represents the beginning of religion.

Mesopotamian genealogies are mostly royal, mostly linear (one line of descent, such as ) as opposed to segmented (containing more than one line of descent, such as ), and rarely more than three or four generations deep. Fluidity occurs primarily in telescoping (i.e., eliminating names), though some rearrangement of the order of the ancestors may be detected in the king lists. Egyptian sources (mostly from the Persian and Hellenistic periods) preserve long linear genealogies, sometimes extending 15 to 20 generations, often connecting to priestly lines. Fluidity is also evident only in telescoping within these genealogies. Comparing Biblical genealogies to one another shows that often several generations are skipped. Thus, a genealogy’s purpose is apparently not to represent every generation, as our modern family trees attempt to do. Genealogies represent continuity and relationship and are often used for purposes of power and prestige. Genealogies are sometimes formatted to suit a literary purpose. Thus, e.g., the genealogies between Adam and Noah, and Noah and Abraham, are each set up to contain ten members with the last having three sons.

If the long lives in the antediluvian world (cf. Methuselah, 969 years) seem amazing to us, we will be utterly astounded by the length of reign credited to antediluvian kings in the Sumerian King List:

Alulim

28,800 years

Alalgar

36,000 years

Enmenluanna

43,200 years

Enmengalanna

28,800 years

Dumuzi

36,000 years

Ensipazianna

28,800 years

Enmeduranna

21,000 years

Uburtutu

18,600 years

Eight kings compile 241,200 years between them. The Sumerian King List uses the standard Sumerian sexagesimal system. If the notation is read with decimal values rather than sexagesimal values, the numbers are in the same range as the Biblical numbers, and the totals of the lists are nearly identical. ◆

Go to

Enoch . . . was no more, because God took him away. The idea of humans being taken to heaven is known in the ancient world outside of the Bible, but not in the way that would develop in Christian theology. First is the example of Utuabzu, the seventh of the renowned sages (just as Enoch is the seventh from Adam, vv. ). Second are characters such as Etana and Adapa, who both ascend to heaven under different circumstances. Notable is the fact that their ascensions are passing experiences rather than changes in status and therefore are not in the same category as Enoch.

As a further observation, we should note that Genesis does not indicate where Enoch was taken, so we should not necessarily assume ascension to heaven. Utnapishtim (the survivor of the flood in the Gilgamesh Epic) was a favorite of the gods and was also “taken” so that he did not experience death. But he was taken neither to heaven nor to the netherworld, but to a faraway, inaccessible place “at the mouth of the rivers” (Gilgamesh Epic, 11.205–6). None of these offer transparent explanation of Enoch’s experience, but they show a variety of possibilities to be considered that otherwise would not be recognized. As a result of his piety (“walking with God”), Enoch was “taken” as an alternative to dying, the stated fate of all others in the genealogy.

sons of God. Royal titles of the ancient Near East regularly suggested the divine descent of kings, even outside Egypt’s context of deified kings. This idea of divine descent was a rhetorical expression of the divine election and legitimization of the king and is typical in royal inscriptions. Throughout the Biblical period it was part of the royal prerogative to claim divine heritage. Thus the title “son of God” can be identified as a royal motif both in the Bible and outside of it. Gilgamesh is portrayed as two-thirds god and one-third man (Gilgamesh Epic, 1.48) and “flesh of the gods” (Gilgamesh Epic, 9.49). Nevertheless, though it is common for kings to be portrayed as having divine parentage, there is no precedent for ancient kings as a group being referred to as “sons of god.” This keeps open the possibility that this title could refer to royal elites, though a reference to members of the heavenly council (cf. ) certainly cannot be ruled out. married any of them they chose. There are no examples from Akkadian or Northwest Semitic mythological texts of divine beings marrying or cohabiting with human women, so it would be difficult to make the claim, as some do, that this account is a vestige of ancient mythology. There are examples of kings claiming mixed ancestry of gods and humans (see “sons of God” above in this note), but that is a different concept. If the “sons of God” are viewed as kings, the question remains as to what offense they are committing here. Polygamy has always been a weak candidate since the OT does not condemn it. Promiscuity is likewise an unlikely explanation since the Hebrew text describes the situation using the standard idiom for marriage (“taking wives”). An alternate understanding may be found in a practice noted in the Gilgamesh Epic as the prime example of Gilgamesh’s tyranny, namely, his exercising the right of the first night with a new bride: “He will couple with the wife-to-be, he first of all, the bridegroom after” (Gilgamesh Epic, Old Babylonian version, v.159–60). This practice accommodates the marriage terminology, and in Gilgamesh it is clearly both oppressive and offensive behavior. The remaining problem is that this practice is infrequently attested in ancient literature. Nonetheless, in the Gilgamesh Epic it is clear.

a hundred and twenty years. A Sumerian folktale speaks of 120 years as an ideal human lifespan. Speculation suggests that this number derives not from observation but from abstraction within the Sumerian mathematical system. (It is clearly not a fixed boundary, as a woman who died in 1997 lived for 122 years). The idea that deity governs lifespan is reflected in Mesopotamia in the Gilgamesh Epic as the hero continues his quest for immortality. In the Egyptian “Book of the Dead” the god Thoth reports to the creator-god Atum: “You shall not witness wrongdoing, you shall not suffer it! Shorten their years, cut short their months, because they have done hidden damage to all that you have made.” This is the same Atum who in the beginning floated in Nun, the primeval ocean. In this way the first two references to the Spirit of God in Genesis (here; ) both have parallels to the role of Atum in Egyptian texts. One key difference is that Atum is identified as the creator-God in the Egyptian texts, while in Genesis, God (Elohim) and not the Spirit of God (ruah Elohim) is the Creator.

Nephilim. They occur only here and in . The text presents them not as the offspring of the union, but as contemporaries. The fact that they are also around after the flood indicates that the label is not ethnic. Analysis of the meaning of the designation has been unsuccessful in identifying this group. The latter part of the verse indicates that they are heroic figures, perhaps of the sort exemplified by Gilgamesh, who is described as possessing heroism (Gilgamesh Epic, 1.30) and as being tall, magnificent, and terrible (Gilgamesh Epic, 1.37). He has a six-cubit (nine-foot or 2.7-meter) stride (Gilgamesh Epic, 1.57) and is 11 cubits (16.5 feet or 5 meters) tall (Hittite version of Gilgamesh Epic, 1.8).

A more specific interpretation suggests that the Nephilim ought to be identified as the ancient sages (the apkallu). The apkallu were considered semidivine (one of their number, Adapa, is called the “son of [the god] Ea”). They likewise marry human women, creating mixed classes. After the flood, the sages are considered of human descent and are called the ummianu. These individuals, unlike their predecessors, are more infamous than famous (though only in general terms, e.g., “angered Adad”).

The apkallu and the ummianu, were indeed heroic figures of old. This makes sense of the terminology here. This view is additionally attractive in that in Genesis this section is in close proximity to the account of the flood, which is also recorded in the context of the apkallu. Though some similarities are evident, the term “Nephilim” remains unexplained, as does their connection to the inhabitants of the land in .

clean animal. This is the only hint that the category of “clean” animals existed prior to Sinai. Here it is not a designation pertaining to diet since the eating of meat was ostensibly not permitted until after the flood (cf. ). No distinction between clean and unclean animals is made anywhere else in the ancient Near East. Nevertheless, the designation “clean” could refer to the acceptability of the animal for sacrifice (one could infer that this is how Noah used them). On this count, every temple and culture had its regulations about which animals could be offered and which could not.

When we remember that sacrifices in the rest of the ancient Near East were considered meals for the nourishment of the gods, the decision about acceptable and unacceptable animals would have been based on what was considered edible or delectable. In Egypt, wild animals such as wild cattle, antelope, gazelle, and ibex were favored for sacrifice, while sheep and goats were largely avoided. Other cultures favored domesticated animals in their sacrificial practices, mostly ungulates such as sheep, goats and cattle. Finally, among the birds, doves and pigeons are the most widely attested sacrificial types. Many of these were recognized as appropriate in the broader ancient Near Eastern world.

springs . . . floodgates. These are terms from the contemporary understanding of cosmic geography (see the article “

”). The Hebrew word translated “deep” (tehom) in this verse is the same Hebrew word used in . It refers to the great cosmic ocean that not only surrounds the land, but is that on which the land floats (cf. ). This is what calls “the water under the vault.” The “springs” were considered the entry points of these waters to the earth. The “floodgates,” or the windows of heaven, were the comparable entry points for the waters above the earth that are held back by the sky. These allowed rain to fall. In ch. separating these waters and then inserting the dry land between them remedied the initial watery condition. In the flood, the restraints on these cosmic waters were lifted and the cosmos was returned to its nonfunctional watery state.

olive leaf. Olive trees are difficult to kill, and they resprout easily. They do not mind rocky soil and grow best on hillsides, but not in high elevations. The olive leaf brought by the dove gives Noah an indication that the lower elevations have drained and that vegetation is once again sprouting.

Beginning centuries before the book of Genesis took shape, the story of a massive, destructive flood was circulating in written form in Mesopotamia. As the tale was read—or, more often, recounted through long centuries of family and community gatherings—transformations occurred that shaped the details of its telling to the culture of the audience. Like Nathaniel Hawthorne adapting the myths of classical Greece to his nineteenth-century audience in the Wonder Book, or Walt Disney reshaping the Arabian Nights in Aladdin, ancient audiences interpreted the epic event to reflect their own particular worldview.

Comparing the versions is more important for telling us about the cultures in which they were preserved than for helping us reconstruct a trail of literary evolution. Whether the Bible is related to the ancient Near Eastern material through exchange of literary or oral traditions, the similarities make it difficult to dissociate them. Most telling is the fact that both include the episode of sending out the birds to determine when it was safe to leave the ark.

The earliest flood account is in Sumerian and recounts the story of Ziusudra. The oldest Babylonian account is found in the Atrahasis epic, dating to early in the second millennium BC. The most well-known version from Mesopotamia is imbedded in the famous Gilgamesh Epic. There it is presented as the explanation for how Utnapishtim (the flood hero) gained eternal life (which Gilgamesh was seeking). These three flood accounts are stages in a single tradition as the similarities clearly indicate.

In the Biblical flood story God is distressed with the behavior of the people whom he has created (). In the monotheistic setting of Genesis, it is his decision alone to send the flood and to preserve Noah and his family alive. He is portrayed as resigned to this course of action, which is sadly the only appropriate response. The Mesopotamian versions derive from a polytheistic culture and therefore portray the gods deliberating in a council. The decision to send the flood is portrayed as a reaction of angry frustration. As the story progresses the gods are duplicitous, shortsighted, and absorbed in petty squabbles.

Genesis documents the downward slide of humanity from the idyllic garden to the chaotic anarchy that introduces the flood story (). Violence has become an incorrigible way of life, and the waters are sent as an act of justice. The Atrahasis epic preserves most clearly the reasons for the flood in the Mesopotamian tradition. People had been created to do the work that the gods were tired of doing. But the growing population and the inevitable internal strife that resulted had made even more work for the gods, for people were constantly disturbing them with their troubles, demands and requests. All of this is captured as the “noise” of humankind that led the gods to embark on a course of total destruction.

Noah attracts God’s attention as one who should not share in the fate of the rest of the population (). Special provision is therefore made for him to be spared. Mesopotamian accounts agree among themselves that the plan of the gods was that no one should survive. Despite the fact that they were sworn to secrecy concerning the plans of the assembly, one of their number, Ea, successfully carried out a scheme so that his favorite human would learn of the coming flood. He then instructed him secretly how to keep his knowledge hidden from the gods and the rest of the people and survive the seven days of the flood. His boat resembled a temple and saved not just his family, but also various skilled workmen so that the arts of civilization could be preserved.

When Noah disembarked from the ark, he offered a sacrifice of thanksgiving and received covenant promises that God would preserve a certain order in the cosmos rather than oppose the chaos of human sin by means of flooding waters (). When the Mesopotamian flood heroes emerged, they offered a sacrifice of appeasement to calm the anger of the gods. The gods had forgotten how much they were dependent on humans to supply them with food (sacrifices) and gathered around hungrily, wondering how such a foolish decision (the flood) could have been made. The hero is grudgingly granted eternal life by the head of the gods, who remains miffed that word of the flood leaked out.

The flood stories from the ancient Near East and from around the world offer persuasive evidence that a flood of significant magnitude occurred and was remembered. The accounts from the ancient Near East are closest to the Biblical account and help us see how the Israelites would have understood the whole event differently than their neighbors. ◆

The most well-known Mesopotamian version of the flood is imbedded in the famous Gilgamesh Epic.

Go to

pleasing aroma. The contrast between the Biblical and ancient Near Eastern accounts is more distinct on this point than on any other (see the article “The Flood”). In the Gilgamesh Epic the gods have apparently neglected to realize that with all humans destroyed, no one will be left to give them sacrifices. Without sacrifices they are deprived of their sustenance. Consequently, when the sacrifice is offered after the survivors disembark from the boat, “the gods smelled the sweet savour, the gods gathered like flies around the sacrificer” (Gilgamesh Epic, 11.161–63). Both the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis refer to the aroma/savor of the sacrifice, but the portrayal offered of deity is far different. In the Gilgamesh Epic this represents the gods’ needs and exposes their shortsightedness. It functions to appease their anger. In Genesis it represents God’s pleasure in the creatures he has made and the resulting commitment not to destroy them.

food for you. In Mesopotamia the motif of the wild man includes that he lives in the wild with the animals and eats grass. This is also part of the description of human existence in general before they become civilized. Here in Genesis the provision for eating meat is not connected with the development of civilization (ch. ) but with the restatement of the blessing. In general in the ancient world meat was a delicacy, eaten only on special occasions in connection with cultic activities. Meat was more regularly part of the palace fare, and Egyptian reliefs and paintings portray the butchering process.

Exacting punishment for murder is not reserved for deity but is placed under the purview of human judicial systems here, whether they are located in courts or in clans. This verse may well mark the beginning of judicial responsibility that is eventually evidenced in the compilations of sample verdicts (such as those found on the Hammurapi Stele) throughout the ancient Near East. These compendia demonstrate that the kings and societies of the ancient world took their judicial responsibilities seriously. Many of these indicate that capital punishment was common in cases of homicide, though often lesser penalties were exacted depending on the social status of both the perpetrator and the victim.

covenant. An agreement between two parties containing stipulations for one or both. In this case, God takes the stipulations on himself, rather than imposing them on Noah. Unlike the later Abrahamic covenant, this covenant does not entail a new phase of revelation, and is made with “every living creature” (v. ), not just people (v. ).

In the history of interpretation of this passage, a number of alternatives have been suggested for explaining the offense committed by Ham, especially in light of the severe curse (on Canaan!) that results. The options of “voyeurism” and paternal (homosexual) incest have little support from the ancient Near East regardless of the case that might be made for them in the Biblical text. The option of castration was offered in rabbinic literature and has one supporting text from ancient mythology that portrays a son castrating his father (both deities) in an attempt to usurp his position. Another option that can be supported conceptually from the ancient Near East is that Ham committed incest with his mother in an attempt to usurp the authority of the family from his father (cf. Reuben in and Absalom in ), or in an attempt to provide for additional offspring in a depopulated world (cf. Lot’s daughters in ). The idea of usurping someone’s authority by taking his wife is attested in royal contexts in an Akkadian text from Ugarit. None of this information offers clarification of Ham’s behavior, but it does alert us to a number of alternatives that we otherwise might not have recognized.

Covenants: Noahic

Reference:

Type: Royal Grant

Participant: Made with righteous () Noah (and his descendants and every living thing on earth—all life that is subject to human jurisdiction)

Description: An unconditional divine promise never to destroy all earthly life with some natural catastrophe, the covenant “sign” (, ) being the rainbow in the storm cloud

Covenants: Abrahamic A

Reference:

Type: Royal (land) Grant

Participant: Made with “righteous” (his faith was “credited . . . to him as righteousness,” v. ) Abram (and his descendants, v. )

Description: An unconditional divine promise to fulfill the grant of the land; a self-maledictory oath symbolically enacted it (v. ; see the article “Ratifying the Covenant”)

Covenants: Abrahamic B

Reference:

Type: Suzerain-vassal

Participant: Made with Abraham as patriarchal head of his household

Description: A conditional divine pledge to be Abraham’s God and the God of his descendants (cf. “as for me,” v. ; “as for you,” v. ); the condition: total consecration to the Lord as symbolized by circumcision

Covenants: Sinaitic

Reference:

Type: Suzerain-vassal

Participant: Made with Israel as the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and as the people the Lord had redeemed from bondage to an earthly power

Description: A conditional divine pledge to be Israel’s God (as the protector and the guarantor of Israel’s blessed destiny); the condition: Israel’s total consecration to the Lord as his people (his kingdom) who live by his rule and serve his purposes in history

Covenants: Phinehas

Reference:

Type: Royal Grant

Participant: Made with the zealous priest Phinehas

Description: An unconditional divine promise to maintain the family of Phinehas in a “lasting priesthood” (v. ; implicitly a pledge to Israel to provide it forever with a faithful priesthood)

Covenants: Davidic

Reference:

Type: Royal Grant

Participant: Made with faithful King David after his devotion to God as Israel’s king and the Lord’s anointed vassal had come to special expression (v. )

Description: An unconditional divine promise to establish and maintain the Davidic dynasty on the throne of Israel (implicitly a pledge to Israel) to provide the nation forever with a godly king like David and through that dynasty to do what he had done through David—bring Israel into rest in the promised land (; )

Covenants: New

Reference:

Type: Royal Grant

Participant: Promised to rebellious Israel as the people are about to be expelled from the promised land in actualization of the most severe covenant curse (; , )

Description: An unconditional divine promise to unfaithful Israel to forgive the people’s sins and establish his relationship with his people on a new basis by writing his law “on their hearts” (v. )—a covenant of pure grace

Go to

Royal Grant (Unconditional)

Parity

Suzerain-vassal (Conditional)

A king’s grant (of land or some other benefit) to a loyal servant for faithful or exceptional service. The grant was normally perpetual and unconditional, but the servant’s heirs benefited from it only as they continued their father’s loyalty and service. (cf. ; ; ; .)

A covenant between equals, binding them to mutual friendship or at least to mutual respect for each other’s spheres and interests. Participants called each other “brother.” (cf. ; ; ; ; ; ; .)

A covenant regulating the relationship between a great king and one of his subject kings. The great king claimed absolute right of sovereignty, demanded total loyalty and service (the vassal must “love” his suzerain) and pledged protection of the subject’s realm and dynasty, conditional on the vassal’s faithfulness and loyalty to him. The vassal pledged absolute loyalty to his suzerain—whatever service his suzerain demanded—and exclusive reliance on the suzerain’s protection. Participants called each other “lord” and “servant” or “father” and “son.” (cf. , ; ; .)

Commitments made in these covenants were accompanied by self-maledictory oaths (made orally, ceremonially or both). The gods were called on to witness the covenants and implement the curses of the oaths if the covenants were violated.

Go to

This passage is called the table of nations. The list of the sons of Shem, Ham and Japheth contains 70 names, a number that stood for totality and completion. More important, the concept of 70 nations is offered as the design of God. Nevertheless, the list is certainly not complete in its presentation of the descendants of Noah and his sons. The author penetrated selectively into various lines in order to achieve that final number.

This group of 70 does not reflect the perspective of Noah’s descendants in the third or fourth generation; rather, it is Israel’s perspective at the time of the author. Note that there is no discussion of anyone outside the known world of the ancient Near East in the middle of the second millennium BC. The text only seeks to account for the groups the Israelites were aware of and does not hint at a world beyond the ancient Near East. In other words, the author has not attempted to provide a comprehensive list of all people(s) descended from the sons of Noah. Instead, he has addressed how all the known peoples and nations of his day are related to the sons of Noah.

Attempts to identify Nimrod with some historical or literary figure from the ancient world have been many, including an Assyrian king (Tukulti-Ninurta I, end of the thirteenth century BC) or the Assyrian god Ninurta, a warrior and hunter of myriad mythical creatures. An Assyrian poem from the end of the second millennium BC epitomizes an Assyrian king (thought to be Tiglath-Pileser I) as a great hunter, but the piece is an extended metaphor using the language of hunting to describe the conquests of the king. It cannot be ruled out that this is also the case in the description of Nimrod, since hunting is a metaphor for royal conquest from earliest times. For example, the royal mace head of Mesilim, king of Kish in the twenty-sixth century BC, is decorated with six intertwined lions around its circumference. The identification of the hunter as a royal metaphor would offer an explanation of why v. includes “before the LORD”; it would indicate that his conquests had divine support. The royal lion hunt was considered a cultic act. “King of Kish” (notice the similarity between Kish and Cush) was a title that indicated some level of rule over a hegemony in the first half of the third millennium BC.

The description of Nimrod positions him at the head of an empire. Only three major empires are known prior to the time of Moses: the Old Akkadian Empire (2335–2218 BC), the Third Dynasty of Ur (2112–2004), and the Old Babylonian Empire ruled by Hammurapi (1792–1750). If Nimrod is to be identified as a historical individual of early history, he must be connected to one of these. Scholars have argued for the following:

1. Sargon (Dynasty of Akkad): Some records indicate military activity on the upper Tigris (Gasur = Nuzi and Assur, and his son built a temple at Nineveh), but little associates Sargon with the cities named in Genesis. Sargon built up Akkad and made it his capital city. Nothing in contemporary records connects him with “Babylon.”

2. Shulgi (Ur III Dynasty): Shulgi praises himself as a hunter in his poems, and in his inscriptions he regularly refers to himself as the mighty man or mighty hero. The core area of his political control was in southern Mesopotamia, but his capital was at Ur, not Babylon. His records make no mention of Babylon, though a late chronicle suggests that he despoiled Esagila, the temple of Marduk in Babylon. If this is true, there is even more distinction between him and Nimrod since the latter rules at Babylon. Shulgi also extended his empire from the south to the north, including some cities of Assyria. Extension to the upper Tigris involved cities that paid taxes (as far north as Assur) and allied cities, which included Nineveh, but there was little military control of these regions. There is no name for Shulgi that makes sense of Nimrod.

3. Hammurapi (Old Babylonian Dynasty): Here we finally find a ruler of an empire whose center is Babylon. He campaigned north on the Tigris, but did not control the Assyrian region and is not referred to as a “hunter.” The fact that he often identified himself as “king of the Mardu” gives a possible connection to the name Nimrod, since a variety of prefixes or determinatives could combine an N with Mardu, though none of them is attested in his inscriptions.

None of these names offers a close match to the description of Nimrod. Perhaps future finds will reveal an earlier empire and king that will better fit the data.

Babylon. Babylon is first mentioned (in passing) in contemporary records in the twenty-third century BC. References to it remain occasional and suggest no great significance until the First Dynasty of Babylon (first half of the second millennium BC), when the predecessors to Hammurapi make it their capital. From that time on it becomes legendary as the seat of culture and religion in Mesopotamia. Archaeologically, excavations can only recover data as far back as the First Dynasty of Babylon because the water table shifted and destroyed all earlier layers. We therefore know nothing of the history of Babylon’s founding from either extra-Biblical literary or archaeological records.

Mesopotamia: Sumer Through Old Babylonia

Sumerians. It is not possible at this time to put into a specific place in the historical record. Our history of the ancient Near East begins in earnest after writing has been invented, and the earliest civilization known to us in the historical record is that of the Sumerians. This culture dominated southern Mesopotamia for over 500 years during the first half of the third millennium BC (2900–2350 BC), known as the Early Dynastic Period. The Sumerians have become known through the excavation of several of their principal cities, which include Eridu, Uruk and Ur. The Sumerians are credited with many of the important developments in civilization, including the foundations of mathematics, astronomy, law and medicine. Urbanization is also first witnessed among the Sumerians. By the time of Abraham, the Sumerians no longer dominate the ancient Near East politically, but their culture continues to influence the region. Other cultures replace them in the political arena but benefit from the advances they made.

Dynasty of Akkad. In the middle of the twenty-fourth century BC, the Sumerian culture was overrun by the formation of an empire under the kingship of Sargon I, who established his capital at Akkad. He ruled all of southern Mesopotamia and ranged eastward into Elam and northwest to the Mediterranean on campaigns of a military and economic nature. The empire lasted for almost 150 years before being apparently overthrown by the Gutians (a barbaric people from the Zagros Mountains east of the Tigris), though other factors, including internal dissent, may have contributed to the downfall.

Ur III. Of the next century little is known as more than 20 Gutian kings succeeded one another. Just before 2100 BC, the city of Ur took control of southern Mesopotamia under the kingship of Ur-Nammu, and for the next century there was a Sumerian renaissance in what has been called the Ur III period. It is difficult to ascertain the limits of territorial control of the Ur III kings, though the territory does not seem to have been as extensive as that of the dynasty of Akkad. Under Ur-Nammu’s son Shulgi, the region enjoyed almost a half century of peace. Decline and fall came late in the twenty-first century BC through the infiltration of the Amorites and the increased aggression of the Elamites to the east. The Elamites finally overthrew the city.

It is against this backdrop of history that the OT patriarchs emerge. Some have pictured Abraham as leaving the sophisticated Ur that was the center of the powerful Ur III period to settle in the unknown wilderness of Canaan, but that involves both chronological and geographic speculation. By the highest chronology (i.e., the earliest dates attributed to him), Abraham probably would have traveled from Ur to Harran during the reign of Ur-Nammu, but many scholars are inclined to place Abraham in the later Isin-Larsa period or even the Old Babylonian period. From a geographic standpoint it is difficult to be sure that the Ur mentioned in the Bible is the famous city in southern Mesopotamia (see note on ). All this makes it impossible to give a precise background of Abraham.

The Ur III period ended in southern Mesopotamia as the last king of Ur, Ibbi-Sin, lost the support of one city after another and was finally overthrown by the Elamites, who lived just east of the Tigris. In the ensuing two centuries (c. 2000–1800 BC), power was again returned to city-states that controlled more local areas. Isin, Larsa, Eshnunna, Lagash, Mari, Assur and Babylon all served as major political centers.

Old Babylonian Period. Thanks substantially to the royal archives from the town of Mari, the eighteenth century BC has become thoroughly documented. As the century opened there was an uneasy balance of power among four cities: Larsa ruled by Rim-Sin, Mari ruled by Yahdun-Lim (and later, Zimri-Lim), Assur ruled by Shamshi-Adad I, and Babylon ruled by Hammurapi. Through a generation of political intrigue and diplomatic strategy, Hammurapi eventually emerged to establish the prominence of the first dynasty of Babylon.

The Old Babylonian period covered the time from the fall of the Ur III dynasty (c. 2000 BC) to the fall of the first dynasty of Babylon (just after 1600 BC). This is the period during which most of the narratives in occur. The rulers of the first dynasty of Babylon were Amorites. The Amorites had been coming into Mesopotamia as early as the Ur III period, at first being fought as enemies, then gradually taking their place within the society of the Near East. With the accession of Hammurapi to the throne, they reached the height of success. Despite his impressive military accomplishments, Hammurapi is most widely known today for his collection of laws.

The first dynasty of Babylon extends for more than a century beyond the time of Hammurapi, though decline began soon after his death and continued unabated, culminating in the Hittite sack of Babylon in 1595 BC. This was nothing more than an incursion on the part of the Hittites, but it dealt the final blow to the Amorite dynasty, opening the doors of power for another group, the Kassites.

Eras of Mesopotamian History (Round Dates)

Early Dynastic Period

2900–2350 BC

Dynasty of Akkad

2350–2200 BC

Ur III Empire

2100–2000 BC

Old Babylonian Period

2000–1600 BC

Go to

Eras of Egyptian History (Round Dates)

Old Kingdom

3100–2200 BC

First Intermediate Period

2200–2050 BC

Middle Kingdom

2050–1720 BC

Second Intermediate Period

1720–1550 BC

Hyksos

1650–1550 BC

Go to

Palestine: Middle Bronze Age

Abraham entered the Palestine region during the Middle Bronze Age (2200–1550 BC), which was dominated by scattered city-states, much as Mesopotamia had been, though Palestine was not as densely populated or as extensively urbanized as Mesopotamia. The period began about the time of the fall of the dynasty of Akkad in Mesopotamia (c. 2200 BC) and extended until about 1500 BC (plus or minus 50 years, depending on the theories followed). In Syria there were power centers at Yamhad, Qatna, Alalakh and Mari, and the coastal centers of Ugarit and Byblos seemed to be already thriving.

In Palestine only Hazor is mentioned in prominence. Contemporary records from Palestine are scarce, though the Egyptian Story of Sinuhe has Middle Bronze Age Palestine as a backdrop and therefore offers general information. Lists of cities in Palestine are also given in the Egyptian texts. Most are otherwise unknown, though Jerusalem and Shechem are mentioned. As the period progresses there is more and more contact with Egypt and extensive caravan travel between Egypt and Palestine.

Egypt: Old and Middle Kingdoms

Roughly concurrent to the Early Dynastic period in Mesopotamia was the formative Old Kingdom period in Egypt, which permanently shaped Egypt both politically and culturally. This was the age of the great pyramids. During Egypt’s Sixth Dynasty, contemporary with the dynasty of Akkad in Mesopotamia, disintegration became evident. From the mid-twenty-second century BC until about 2000 BC, Egypt was plunged into a dark period known as the First Intermediate Period, which was characterized by disunity and at times by practical anarchy. Order was finally restored when Mentuhotep reunited Egypt, and Amenemhet I founded the Twelfth Dynasty, beginning a period of more than two centuries of prosperous growth and development.

The Twelfth Dynasty developed extensive trade relations with Syro-Palestine and is the most likely period for initial contacts between Egypt and the Hebrew patriarchs. By the most conservative estimates, Sesostris III would have been the pharaoh who elevated Joseph to his high administrative post. Others are more inclined to place the emigration of the Israelites to Egypt during the time of the Hyksos. The Hyksos were Semitic peoples who began moving into Egypt (particularly the delta region in the north) as early as the First Intermediate Period. As the Thirteenth Dynasty ushered in a gradual decline, the reins of power eventually fell to the Hyksos (whether by conquest, coup or consent is still indeterminable), who then controlled Egypt from about the middle of the eighteenth century BC to the middle of the sixteenth century BC. It was during this time that the Israelites began to prosper and multiply in the delta region, waiting for the covenant promises to be fulfilled. ◆

Go to

one language. A Sumerian epic entitled Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta speaks of a time when there was only harmony among people and “the whole universe in unison spoke to Enlil in one tongue.” Speech was then changed and “contention” was brought into it. Nothing else in this account parallels the tower of Babel, but it indicates that confusion of language by deity was a known theme in the ancient world.

moved eastward. Geological and hydrological studies and migration patterns discernible from the fourth and third millennia BC suggest that there was a drying out of the southern alluvial plain as the Persian Gulf receded and a corresponding population movement into that plain toward the end of the fourth millennium BC. This period, known as the Uruk Phase, features technological advances in urbanization, architecture, technology and language that correspond to elements referred to in v. (see note). Shinar. The Hebrew term (shinar) refers to the area that ancient Near Eastern texts refer to as Sumer. It covered the southern part of the Tigris-Euphrates River basin as far north as Sippar, where the rivers converge in the area of modern southern Iraq. Major cities of the region included Kish, Nippur, Shuruppak, Girsu, Uruk, Eridu and Ur. This is the area where urbanization developed and is the heartland of Mesopotamian civilization.

make bricks and bake them. Stone is not readily available in the alluvial plain of southern Mesopotamia, so a logical economical choice is to use brick—there is plenty of mud. Mud brick, however, is not durable, so it was a great technological development to discover that baking the brick made it as durable as stone. This was still an expensive process, since the kilns had to be fueled. As a result, mud brick was used as much as possible, with baked brick used only for outer shells of important buildings or where waterproofing was desirable. No baked bricks have been found earlier than the Uruk period (latter part of the fourth millennium BC).

Though they may resemble pyramids in appearance, ziggurats are nothing like them in function. Ziggurats have no inside. The structure was framed in mud brick, and then the core was packed with fill dirt. The facade was then completed with kiln-fired brick. Ziggurats were dedicated to particular deities. Any given deity may have several ziggurats dedicated to him or her in different cities. Furthermore, a given city may have several ziggurats, though the main one was associated with the patron deity of the city. Archaeologists have discovered nearly 30 ziggurats in the general region, and texts mention several others. The main architectural feature is the stairway or ramp that leads to the top. There was a small room at the top where a bed was made and a table set for the deity. Ziggurats range in size from 60 feet (18 meters) per side to almost 200 feet (60 meters) per side.

Most important is the function of the ziggurat. The ziggurat did not play a role in any of the rituals known to us from Mesopotamia. If known literature were our only guide, we would conclude that common people did not use the ziggurat for anything. It was sacred space and was strictly off-limits to profane use. Though the structure at the top was designed to accommodate the god, it was not a temple where people would go to worship. In fact, the ziggurat was typically accompanied by an adjoining temple near its base, where the worship did take place.

Stele of Nebuchadnezzar looking at the design of Babylon’s ziggurat, Etemenanki, Babylon, 604–562 BC. Many also believe the Tower of Babel was a ziggurat.

The Schøyen Collection, Oslo and London, MS 2063, www.schoyencollection.com

The best indication of the function of ziggurats comes from the names that are given to them. For instance, the name of the ziggurat at Babylon, Etemenanki, means “temple of the foundation of heaven and earth.” One at Larsa means “temple that links heaven and earth.” Most significant is the name of the ziggurat at Sippar, “temple of the stairway to pure heaven.” The word translated “stairway” in this last example is used in the mythology as the means by which the messenger of the gods moved between heaven, earth, and the netherworld. As a result of these data, we can conclude that the ziggurat was a structure built to support the stairway. This stairway was a visual representation of that which was believed to be used by the gods to travel from one realm to another. It was solely for the convenience of the gods and was maintained in order to provide the deity with amenities and to make possible his descent into his temple.

At the top of the ziggurat was the gate of the gods, the entrance into their heavenly abode; adjoining the tower was the temple, where hopefully the god would descend to receive the gifts and worship of his people.

In summary, the project is a temple complex featuring a ziggurat, which was designed to make it convenient for the god to come down to his temple, receive their worship, and bless his people. The key for understanding the tower of Babel is to realize that the tower was not built so that people could ascend to heaven, but so that deity could descend to earth. ◆

Go to

a city, with a tower. One single architectural feature dominated the landscape of early Mesopotamian cities: towers known as ziggurats (see the article “Ziggurats”). In the earliest stages of urbanization, the city was not designed for the private sector. People did not live in the city. Instead, it was comprised of the public buildings, such as administrative buildings, and granaries, which were mostly connected with the temple. Consequently, the city was, in effect, a temple complex. reaches to the heavens. Throughout Mesopotamian literature, almost every occurrence of the expression describing a building “with its head in the heavens” refers to a temple with a ziggurat (see the article “Ziggurats”). It is this language, along with the indication that God “came down” (v. ), that gives textual confirmation that the tower is a ziggurat. This would have been transparent to the ancient reader. In keeping with the negative results of the project here, the reader of Genesis will find a few of the omens in the Shumma Alu series remarkable: “If a city lifts its head to the midst of heaven, that city will be abandoned” (1.15), and “If a city rises like a mountain peak to the midst of heaven, that city will be turned to a ruin” (1.16). Yet Mesopotamian cities were regularly built on high ground, with the temple on the highest ground. The wording of these omens understood in the context of the omen series is essentially about exceeding natural boundaries to the effect that a city can overreach itself to rival sacred structures and thus bring about its own destruction. make a name. The ancient world placed immense value on the sense of continuity from one generation to another. In some cultures a person’s continued comfort in the afterlife was dependent on care from descendants in the land of the living. The details often involved memorial meals and various regular mortuary rites, but more important for this passage, they provided opportunity for the name of the deceased to be spoken. There is continued life and vitality as long as one is remembered. The building of monuments could also contribute to the desirable end result, as could achievements and adventures of various sorts. The important point here is that the desire to make a name in the ancient world is common to all. The more people who remember one’s name, the more secure is one’s existence in the afterlife. While there is nothing inherently evil or sinful in the desire to be remembered (e.g., God promises to “make your name great” for Abraham in and David in ), this desire may become obsessive or motivate evil or sinful behavior. scattered. The fear of scattering is directly related (both syntactically and conceptually) to the previously stated desire to make a name. Remembrance takes place in the vicinity of the burial ground. Descendants who move away (as Abraham does in ch. ) cut the ties of continuity between the past and the present. Though some have considered this desire not to scatter as disobedience to the blessing in , it must be recognized that the blessing does not relate to scattering, only to filling—far different issues. God scattered them, not because it was wrong for them to be together, but because their desire to retain continuity was causing them to launch flawed strategies.

the LORD came down. Precisely the reason the tower was built—for God to come down (see the article “Ziggurats”). Unfortunately, rather than being pleased to take up his residence among the people, God finds it an occasion for counteraction. Rather than being pleased at the convenience, he is distressed by the pagan concepts inherent in the nature of the ziggurat.

Defining the term “mythology” is treacherous. Many formal definitions have been offered, and beyond those, one can find a wide variety of popular conceptions that impede fruitful discussion. Rather than offer yet another definition, it is more productive to identify the function of mythological literature. The mythology of the ancient world encapsulated contemporary thinking about how the world worked and how it came to work that way. It features the gods prominently because the ancients found the answers to their questions about the world in the divine realm. If we describe mythology functionally in this way, we can conclude that our modern mythology is what we call science. That is our culture’s way of encapsulating how the world works and how it came to work that way. Contrary to the divine orientation of the ancients, our scientific worldview is naturalistic and empiricist.

Genesis functions in Israelite society the same way that science functions in our culture and the same way that mythology functioned in the rest of the ancient world. Genesis offers an alternative encapsulation of how the world worked and how it came to work that way. Like the rest of the ancient world, it has a divine orientation rather than a naturalistic/empiricist one as is common today. But its view of the situation in the divine realm also makes it distinct from the mythology of the ancient world.

Consequently, studying the mythological literature of the ancient world can help us, whose cultural worldview tends toward empiricism, to make adjustments as we try to understand how a nonempiricist worldview works. The result is that we can be drawn out of the restricted perspectives that come most naturally to us. This is the value of the mythological literature for the study of the Bible. ◆

Go to

Ur of the Chaldeans. The city of Ur in southern Mesopotamia is well known in the literature of the ancient Near East, particularly prominent over the latter half of the third millennium BC. A temple already stood there in the late fourth millennium BC and its ziggurat (completed later) is the best preserved from ancient Mesopotamia. An early empire with Ur as its capital existed for about a century at the end of the third millennium BC founded by Ur-Nammu and solidified by his successor, Shulgi.

By some chronological schemes Abraham’s time in Ur and Harran coincide with the empire phase. Some have deduced that Abraham was an urbane socialite in this grand center of civilization and that Yahweh’s call required a substantial change in lifestyle. Even if it were true that Abraham was born in this highly civilized city, however, we cannot necessarily conclude that he was a city dweller. Ur had its share of herdsmen and farmers as any city did.

Controversy still remains as to why Genesis adds “of the Chaldeans.” Unfortunately we know little about the history of the Chaldeans at this period. During the mid-first millennium BC the Chaldeans ruled in southern Mesopotamia (Nebuchadnezzar), and consequently the Chaldeans are associated with Babylon by the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. But prior to this period, the earliest substantial reference to the Chaldeans is in the ninth-century BC inscriptions of Shalmaneser III, when the Chaldeans are located southeast of Babylon near Elam.

A vague, earlier reference is in the campaign inscriptions of Ashurnasirpal II, where the Chaldeans are referred to in passing. Their mention in suggests that they were nomadic raiders at some point in their history, but it does not help locate them geographically.

Suspicion arises concerning the identification of Abraham’s Ur as the famous city in the south because the move to Harran does not seem a logical one from there. The distance is at least 700 miles (1,125 kilometers), and Harran is well off the beaten track for someone traveling to Canaan. If a town were 80 miles (125 kilometers) out of the way (especially traveling on foot), it would hardly be considered on the way. This geographic problem leads some to consider alternatives, and the literature of the ancient Near East preserves numerous other town names with some similarity to Ur. However, since the only Chaldeans we know of are from the south, the designation “of the Chaldeans” in relationship to Ur must be considered a later explanation placed in the text to help readers who were no longer familiar with the location of the town.

Sarai . . . was not able to conceive. Barrenness was considered a judgment from God in the ancient world. Ancient peoples did not yet understand the physiology associated with fertilization. They viewed the woman as a receptacle for male seed. Rather than supplying an egg to be fertilized, the woman was seen simply as an incubator for the child. Therefore, if man provided the seed at the proper time (they understood that timing was in relation to menstruation) and nothing came of it, the woman was seen to be a faulty incubator. But this defect would not be seen as simply a physical problem, since no illness, symptom or condition was simply physical. Deity was responsible for creation in the womb, and deity was the one who opened the womb.

Sarai’s barrenness would have potentially resulted in a fragile marriage (since failure to deliver children to the family was the most common cause of divorce), in societal shame (since her condition would appear to be the result of having angered a god so that she was therefore unable to fulfill her societal role), and in an uncertainty for the afterlife (since descendants were believed to sustain the deceased in the netherworld). In Abraham and Sarai’s case, it also presented quite an obstacle to the covenant promise of having many descendants (; ).

Around 2000 BC, when the Abraham stories should probably be placed, an interesting development was taking place in Mesopotamia—the rise of the concept of a “personal God.” In this period people began to see themselves in a personal relationship with a family god who undertook the divine sponsorship of the family. As a result, most family worship was directed to this god with the expectation that protection and guidance would be provided. When someone sensed that a god had taken his family under his protective wing, the expression used is that they had “acquired a god.”

In Mesopotamia this god came to be known as the “god of the father(s)”—a description also used in Genesis (; ; , , , ; ; ; ; ; cf. the plural in ). A personal god was not viewed as the only god, but was the god most directly involved with the family and the one that was the focus of most of the routine religious activity. Devotion to this deity was extended in the family from generation to generation, and as such was inherited rather than chosen. Though the major gods could on occasion serve as a personal god, more typically a personal god was a lower-echelon deity in terms of rank within the pantheon. Only in Israel did a personal God eventually become the God of a nation.

The Biblical text is clear on the point that Abram comes from a family that is not monotheistic (cf. , ). We must assume that he was brought up sharing the polytheistic beliefs of the ancient world. In this type of system the gods are connected with the forces of nature and show themselves through natural phenomena. These gods do not reveal their natures or give any idea of what will bring their favor or wrath. They are worshiped by being flattered, cajoled, humored and appeased. Manipulation is the operative term. They are gods with needs made in the image of human beings. One of the main reasons God makes a covenant with Abram is in order to reveal what he is really like—to correct the false view of deity that people have developed. But this is projected to take place in stages, not all at once.

The Lord, Yahweh, is not portrayed as a god whom Abram already worshiped. It is interesting, then, that God does not give him a doctrinal statement or require rituals or issue demands when he appears to Abram; he makes an offer. Yahweh does not tell Abram that he is the only god there is, and he does not ask him to stop worshiping the gods his family is worshiping. God does not tell him to get rid of his idols, nor does he proclaim a coming Messiah or salvation. Instead, God says that he has something to give Abram if Abram is willing to give up some things first.

It is possible that Abram first views Yahweh as a “personal god” who is willing to become his “divine sponsor.” The Lord provides for Abram and protects him, while obedience and loyalty are expected in return. One major difference, however, is that our clearest picture of the personal god in Mesopotamia comes from the many laments that are offered as individuals seek favors from the deity or complain about his neglect of them. There is no hint of this in Abram’s approach to Yahweh. Abram maintains an elevated view of deity that is much more characteristic of the overall Biblical view of deity than it is of the Mesopotamian perspective.

Though we have no indication that Yahweh explained or demanded a monotheistic belief or that Abram responded with one, it is clear that the worship of Yahweh dominated Abram’s religious experience. By making a break with his land, his family and his inheritance, Abram is also breaking all of his religious ties, since deities are associated with geographic, political and ethnic divisions. In his new land, Abram does not have any territorial gods; as a new people he does not bring any family gods (though Rachel attempts to when she leaves); having left his country he does not have any national or city gods. It is Yahweh who fills this void, becoming “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” (; cf. , ). ◆

Go to

Though the agreement between the Lord and Abram is not termed a “covenant” until , the first articulation of the general terms of the covenant occurs in . The monotheistic worship of Yahweh is a clear distinctive for Israel in contrast to the peoples of the ancient world, but more distinctive still is the covenant relationship between God and people. Israel’s self-identity, her view of history, her belief in her destiny, her understanding of the attributes of God (e.g., as holy and faithful), her understanding of her obligations to God (articulated in the torah), and the basis of the prophetic institution all derive directly from the covenant.

In each of those areas, despite the existence of similarities with the rest of the ancient world, the Abrahamic covenant marks the departure and underlies the uniqueness of Israel. In the ancient world gods may have been viewed as personal gods who undertook the protection of the family, but they did not make covenants. ◆

Go to

God’s covenant with Abram targets the most essential elements of identity in the value system of the ancient Near East. Land was connected to one’s survival, livelihood and political identity. Family linked the past, present and future, offering one’s most basic sense of identity (more so than self). Inheritance fixed one’s place in the family and ensured that the generations past would be remembered in the present and future. When Abram gave up his place in his father’s household, he forfeited his security. He was putting his survival, his identity, his future and his security in the hands of the Lord.

Go from your country, your people and your father’s household. One reason God may ask Abram to leave these behind is because it is in these three connections that one related to deity. The gods one worshiped tended to be national or city gods (“country”), the clan god (“people”), or ancestral gods, i.e., ancestors who have taken a place in the divine world (“father’s household”). As Yahweh severed the ties Abram would have had with other deities, he then filled the resulting void as the only God Abram would need.

great nation. This offer is unique in the ancient world. One can certainly find offers by deities to make someone king and to prosper their line—or even a promise that a particular individual would have many offspring. But the prospect that an individual would grow into a great nation is not broached in any other extant literature from the ancient world.

great tree of Moreh. No hint is given that trees themselves were worshiped, but notable trees became places where various sacred rituals were performed. The significance given to certain trees in the Biblical text suggests that they designated sacred space (cf. ; , ; ; ; ; ). Note the eventual indictment of the Israelites that they set up sacred stones and Asherah poles “under every spreading tree” (). Moreh. The name given to the oak here has been interpreted as suggesting that oracular information was gained here (Moreh means “teacher”). Of all of the divination procedures known from the ancient world, there is no suggestion of trees used as divinatory mechanisms; thus, we conclude that the tree had significance as a locale rather than as a mechanism.

altar. Usually thought of as raised platforms used for offering sacrifices; here, however, there is no mention of sacrifices. Furthermore, sacrifices usually take place in the vicinity of a temple and are serviced by a priesthood. No ancient Near Eastern document refers to altars used for anything other than sacrifices in the presence of deity; sacrifices were pointless if not offered where a deity was believed to be present. In fact, the only sacrifice by Abram described in the text is the near sacrifice of Isaac (ch. ). If Abram was not using the altar for sacrifice in a place where God’s presence was established, what was he using it for? One option: as a land claim marker. This use of “altar” is attested in the OT in , but nothing in Genesis indicates this function. We are told only that Abram “called on the name of the LORD” at the place of the altars he built here and in . called on the name of the LORD. Can be understood as invoking God’s presence, thus anticipating God’s presence rather than assuming it. Support for this interpretation is that several of Abraham’s altars are built at potentially sacred sites (trees, v. ; ; hills, here).

famine. In the Negev rainfall is minimal (averaging 4–12 inches [10–30 centimeters] per year), thus making the availability of grazing lands and subsistence agriculture fragile and vulnerable to climatic whims. Water is supplied to the region by wells, and even the rain that does fall does not easily support agriculture. Modern archaeologists and geologists have found evidence of a massive 300-year drought cycle that occurred during the end of the third millennium BC and the beginning of the second millennium BC—one of the time periods to which Abraham is dated. Egypt. Recourse there in time of famine in Canaan was not unusual because the food supply in Canaan depended on rainfall, while the food supply in Egypt depended on the flooding of the Nile. The text offers no identification of the pharaoh at this time. By the earliest chronology for Abraham, the pharaoh of ch. would have been one of the kings of the “First Intermediate Period” that preceded the Middle Kingdom (perhaps Inyotef II). Many are more comfortable locating Abraham and his immediate descendants in the first quarter of the second millennium BC, which coincides with the Middle Kingdom. Little is known of this period in Egyptian history, and it is difficult to date the patriarchs with any precision or confidence.

beautiful woman. Sarai was 65 when she and Abram left Harran; perhaps several years have gone by, so we can estimate her age at 70. The compliment cannot simply be attributed to a doting husband, for the text indicates that the Egyptians share this opinion (vv. ). What is not clear is which features lead to this assessment. In the cows of pharaoh’s dream are described by this same Hebrew term (translated “sleek”), where it conveys robust healthiness—fine specimens. We need not think that every culture is as superficial as our modern culture in their assessments of beauty. A woman in the ancient world could be attractive either as showing good potential for childbearing or as a tool for political alliance. Neither of these seems appropriate for Sarai, however, for she is clearly not entering childbearing years, and there is no political alliance that makes it attractive to marry her; however, we should not assume that Sarah has miraculously attained the beauty of youth. Her dignity, bearing or countenance could all create the impression of a striking woman.

Say you are my sister. This is the first of three narratives in which a patriarch attempts to identify his wife as his sister to avoid problems with the power establishment of the region (see also ; ). Interpreters have proposed many ingenious explanations for this behavior. One that was popular for several decades suggested that the wife’s status would be elevated if her husband also adopted her as a sister. Others have argued that if the wife posed as a sister, the patriarch would be viewed as a party to negotiate with rather than as an obstacle to be eliminated. Many of the proposed theories have the underlying motivation to save Abram’s reputation. Unfortunately, at present we remain ignorant of what sociological realities commended this course of action to Abram. The Israelite audience undoubtedly knew what advantage was to be gained from the ruse, so there was no need for the author to explain it. For our part, we accomplish nothing by devising solutions designed to either vindicate or vitiate Abram.

Go to

diseases. The terminology here is as general as it can possibly be. With no symptoms being given, it is impossible to speculate on what these diseases may have been. In the ancient world, with no knowledge of epidemiology, parasites, viruses, bacteria or any of the diagnostic tools of modern medicine, people believed disease had its source in the supernatural realm. Treatment focused on the symptoms and combined herbal remedies with magical potions and incantation rituals. Prognoses could offer hope for healing most confidently if an offense against deity could be identified and appeasement effected. Extensive catalogs of symptoms and treatments are available in medical texts from Mesopotamia.

plain of the Jordan. The Jordan Valley is at a considerably lower elevation than the hill country and has a more stable climate. The area features lush vegetation and is therefore attractive. It is difficult to determine how the plain of the Jordan relates to the “cities of the plain” (v. ) since we still cannot identify the location of those cities with any certainty (see the article “Genesis 14 and Ancient History”).

Go to

I am giving it to you. It is common for the Biblical covenants to be compared to political treaties in the ancient Near East. These treaties formed relationships between political entities that required loyalty from the vassal and offered protection from the suzerain. The formal documents that articulate the covenant between Yahweh and Israel compare favorably in form and function to these treaties (see the article “

”). The covenant with Abram, however, seems different. Rather, it is better to compare this covenant with ancient land grants. In the ancient Near East ruling elites commonly made land grants to their faithful vassals. While the form of treaties and land grants overlap considerably, the important difference is that the treaty is a document that imposes obligation on the vassal, while the royal grant represents an obligation of the suzerain. Abram would have easily recognized what is transpiring here, and it will be formally confirmed and ratified in ch. .

theoretically offers the best chance of placing the patriarchal narratives in the framework of the ancient Near East historically and chronologically. Unfortunately, details continue to give a mixed picture and connections elude us.

None of the kings of the East mentioned in is clearly attested in ancient literature. The issues concerning their identities are as follows:

Amraphel king of Shinar. Amraphel is a Semitic name that has many possible connections to names known from the ancient Near East. Both the “Amar” element and the “a-p-l” element occur in personal names. Shinar refers to the southern Mesopotamian plains, better known as Sumer (see note on ). During the early part of the second millennium BC southern Mesopotamia was characterized by independent city-states.

Arioch king of Ellasar. One name from the second millennium BC similar to this one is Zimri-Lim’s subordinate, Arriwuk, from the eighteenth-century BC Mari archives. A city named Ilan-Sura is also known from those texts in the vicinity of Shubat-Enlil north of Mari, though it does not seem prominent enough to figure here. Others have noticed the vague similarity to Larsa, a prominent city-state in Mesopotamia during the first half of the second millennium BC.

Kedorlaomer king of Elam. Kedorlaomer appears to be the head of the coalition. The first part of the name is a common element in Elamite royal names (compare Kutir-Nahhunte, who ruled during the Old Babylonian period in the eighteenth century BC. Nahhunte is the name of an Elamite deity, as is Lagamar (represented in the Hebrew Laomer). Though the two elements of Kedorlaomer (= *Kutir-Lagamar) are thus attested as authentic, so far that combination is not known among Elamite royal names. Elam is the usual name for the region that in this period comprised all the land east of Mesopotamia from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf (modern Iran). In the first several centuries of the second millennium BC Elam was involved in international politics in Mesopotamia and the West, but no information suggests the Elamites controlled any section of Palestine.

Tidal king of Goyim. Goyim (Hebrew “nations”) is the most vague, but is generally associated by commentators with the Hittites (located in the eastern section of present-day Turkey), mostly because the king’s name (Tidal) is easily associated with Tudhaliya, the common Hittite royal name. The earliest occurrence of this name for a ruler, however, is about 1400 BC, far too late to match this context. Furthermore, the names of the Hittite kings as early as the mid-eighteenth century BC are known, and none of them bears any resemblance to Tidal.

As a reference to a group of people, Goyim could be handled in a number of different ways. One option is that it reflects how the population of Anatolia called themselves: “peoples” from the land of Hatti. A second option is that it should be considered a way to refer to a coalition of “barbaric” peoples, like the Akkadian designation “Umman Manda,” a term associated with the Gutians who overran Mesopotamia at the end of the dynasty of Akkad toward the end of the third millennium BC. “Umman Manda” continues to be used as a reference to enemies of the Hittites and the Babylonians in the mid-second millennium BC. The trouble with this interpretation is that the Umman Manda would not likely be involved in a large, formal coalition of nations. None of these options offers clarification of this king’s identity.

While there were many periods in the first half of the second millennium BC when the Elamites were closely associated with powers in Mesopotamia, it is more difficult to bring the Hittites into the picture (and, it should be noted, we are not even sure the Hittites are involved here). We do know that Assyrian merchants had a trading colony in the Hittite region, and one of the key trade items was tin from Elam. But there is no indication of joint military ventures.

Early Hittite history is sketchy as well, and we have little information about where they came from or precisely when they moved into Anatolia. None of the known empires or major military coalitions from Mesopotamia is known to have made forays into the southern Levant (Canaan) at any time during the second millennium BC.

Likewise, even the “cities of the plain” () themselves are not yet attested. The association of Sodom and Gomorrah with Zoar (, ) and the bitumen pits in “the Valley of Siddim” () both point to the southern end of the Dead Sea as the most likely location of these cities. Arguments for their identification with the north end are based on the distance to travel from Hebron (18 miles [30 kilometers] versus 40 miles [65 kilometers] to the southern location) and the mention of the “plain of the Jordan” in . The southern location enjoys stronger Biblical support as well as the support of earliest extra-Biblical traditions.

There are five sites of Early Bronze Age cities on the southeast plain of the Dead Sea; these demonstrate that fairly large populations existed there in the third millennium BC. From north to south they are Bab edh-Dhra (Sodom?), Numeira (Gomorrah?), Safi (Zoar), Feifa and Khanazir—with the last being about 20 miles (32 kilometers) from the first. Only Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira have been excavated extensively, and the destruction of these cities (by fire) has been set by archaeologists at about 2350 BC, seemingly too early for Abraham, though chronological reckoning of this period is difficult.

The route described in represents a straightforward march through the land going south on the main route through Transjordan to Tamar and from there north to the cities of the plain in the vicinity of the Dead Sea. Ashteroth () was the capital of the region just east of the Sea of Galilee and was the home to people known as the Rephaim. Little is known of the Rephaim as an ethnic group, though the same term is used in other places both in and out of the Bible as a reference to the heroic dead. Zuzites, Emites and Horites (), judging by the cities identified with them, are the inhabitants of Transjordan in the regions eventually occupied by the Ammonites, Moabites and Edomites, respectively (see notes on , ). Ham is located in northern Gilead, and Shaveh, also known as Kiriathaim, was in Reubenite territory when the land was divided among the tribes ().

El Paran () should probably be equated with Elath at the tip of the Gulf of Aqaba. The Amalekites are engaged at Kadesh Barnea, i.e., En Mishpat (), located in the northeastern Sinai peninsula near the southwestern extremity of Canaan (about 50 miles [80 kilometers] southwest of Beersheba). It is identified with Wadi el-Ain near Ain el-Qudeirat and boasts one of the most productive water sources in the region in its oasis. Finally, the Amorites are met at Hazezon Tamar (). identifies it with En Gedi, halfway up the western shore of the Dead Sea. The association with En Gedi is problematic if the cities of the plain are along the southeastern rim of the Dead Sea, since the itinerary then requires significant retracing of steps. No known routes travel the western bank of the Dead Sea to En Gedi.

It is difficult to imagine what route would have taken the armies of the east through Dan () if they were traveling from the cities of the plain. The only route that would take them through Dan proceeds north along the spine of hills through Jerusalem, Shechem and Hazor—and there is no indication that they went that far west or had any reason to do so. Thus, it was most likely Abram and his allies who traveled the route through Dan, rather than the armies, as they tried to cut off the armies traveling by the King’s Highway. Dan is mentioned not as the place where Abram catches them, but as a marker that he is leaving the land. The only other alternative is to maintain that the whole region was different at this time before the destruction in the region in .

Consequently, though many authentic features characterize this narrative, no ready links to the known history are currently possible. ◆

Go to

Hebrew. The designation of Abram as a “Hebrew” may reflect a social status more than an ethnic identity. The term is usually used in the Bible to identify Israelites to foreigners (; ; ; ). As a social status it seems to have referred to dispossessed or disenfranchised peoples. This is the usage of a similar-sounding term throughout a wide range of ancient texts (often transliterated habiru, more accurately, Apiru, referring to various people groups throughout the second millennium BC). At times the label implies an “outsider” status and that the people are unsettled or even lawless renegades. Other times they are refugees or political opponents. In the Amarna texts they sometimes serve as mercenaries. The term cannot be considered as a reference to ethnic Israelites, but it is possible that ethnic Israelites (and here, Abram) are being classified socially as Apiru.

Melchizedek king of Salem. If we base our analysis solely on information from this chapter, Melchizedek is a city-state king of Canaanite, Amorite or Hurrian extraction, and apparently one of the chief petty kings of the region. His city is Salem, generally considered to be Jerusalem (cf. ). Archaeological finds, though scant, attest to the fact that Jerusalem is settled at this period. The city is mentioned in extra-Biblical literature as early as the Egyptian execration texts from around 1900 BC.

Melchizedek makes a brief appearance in , where the idealized Davidic king is identified as also having priestly credentials “in the order of Melchizedek.” Once we get to the intertestamental period, Melchizedek becomes a much more intriguing figure. The Hasmoneans, seeking to establish a Messianic dimension to their rule in the second century BC, justified their priestly-royal prerogatives by reference to Melchizedek. This practice was continued by the Sadducees. In the Dead Sea Scrolls Melchizedek has become the subject of much speculative interpretation. He is depicted as a heavenly redeemer figure, a leader of the forces of light, who brings release to the captives and reigns during the Messianic age. He is the heavenly high priest to whom archangels make expiation for the sins of ignorance of the righteous.

When we get to , all of this Jewish tradition is mixed into consideration of Melchizedek. The author of Hebrews is not drawing his information on Melchizedek solely from the OT; he is also interacting with the traditions known to his audience. It is the Jewish profile of Melchizedek, not just the canonical profile, that informs his comparison. As a result, there is nothing in Hebrews or anywhere else to suggest that we need to believe that Melchizedek in the context of was anything other than the Canaanite king he is depicted to be. The fact that he combined the roles of priest and king (as many did in the ancient world) in Jerusalem was sufficient to establish the precedent of a royal priesthood in Jerusalem that was adopted by the Davidic dynasty and therefore came into the Messianic profile.

bread and wine. It is unclear whether these are shared by all of Abram’s men or just in council between Melchizedek and the victorious commander(s). It would seem to be meager fare if the latter were the case. Abram’s success has signaled the possibility of a major shift of power in the region, and it appears that Melchizedek is taking the opportunity of the army’s return to explore what ambitions or loyalties Abram might have. It was common for a meal to be shared when treaty negotiations were being finalized, but generally meat was part of the meal as sacrifices were made in association with oaths to the respective deities. God Most High. A translation of El Elyon, a compound divine name/title. El is well-known as the chief Canaanite god in Ugaritic and Phoenician literature, but it is sufficiently generic to use for any high God. Though Hebrew regularly uses the plural form Elohim for the God of Israel, El is also sometimes used. Consequently, El could refer to either a Canaanite deity or to Abram’s God. The epithet Elyon (elyon) is used parallel to the Canaanite El as well as of Baal, but El Elyon never occurs as a compound in Ugaritic texts. No evidence of Elyon as an independent deity is found until the writings of Philo (first century AD). Since El Elyon can designate a Canaanite god, we have no reason to think of Melchizedek as a worshiper of Yahweh or even as monotheistic. It is Abram who identifies El Elyon as Yahweh.

a tenth. Tithing (giving “a tenth”) is known in the ancient Near East and in the OT in a variety of contexts. Evidence from the ancient Near East occurs as early as about 2000 BC, where the obligatory tithe is in goods given to the temples. In this period there is also reference to a tithe assessed by the palace. Ugaritic texts attest to grain payment tithes to the royal storehouses being made from villages rather than individuals. No texts suggest a tithe of booty taken in battle.

The question, then, is whether this tithe was paid to Melchizedek in his role as priest (thereby indirectly to the god El Elyon) or in his role as king (tribute and acknowledgment of his political position). Hittite treaties did not require vassals fighting on the suzerain’s behalf to give the suzerain a share of their “take,” but allowed them to keep captives and booty (though the land remained in the possession of the suzerain). In light of all of this information, Abram’s payment of a tithe to Melchizedek stands as unique both in the Bible and the ancient Near East.

accept nothing. Though it seems likely that the armies of the East did not traverse the territory west of the Jordan, they had come into possession of much land in the region by virtue of conquest. Abram’s defeat of them would have theoretically given him possession of that land, however its boundaries would be drawn. This right has suddenly made him a political power to be reckoned with and explains Melchizedek’s overtures. Abram, instead of exerting his newfound political leverage, relinquishes any and all claims to the land, claiming that he is under oath to Yahweh (who he identifies with El Elyon) not to profit from military action. This claim may have prompted the formation of a document to formalize the terms, which may in turn have served as the source for the material in this chapter.

vision. Visions may be either visual or auditory and are not the same as dreams in that one does not have to be asleep to experience a vision. God used visions to communicate to people; they constitute a more aggressive form of communication than dreams. In contrast to this one, visions in the OT were typically given to prophets in order to communicate oracles or messages that were to be delivered to the people. They may involve natural or supernatural settings, and the individual having the vision may be either an observer or a participant. Besides the category of “dream” in the ancient Near East, there are “waking dreams,” but these are the dreams one has when half-awake in the morning, not like Biblical visions. The closest things to Biblical visions are the oracular decisions seen when in a semicomatose state or trance. The idea of “seeing an oracular decision” makes sense both in the context of this chapter (where Abram asks an oracular question, v. ) and in the context of the prophets (where messages emerge from the vision). As in the OT, these visions are distinct from dreams but can be communicated in dreams.

no children . . . a servant . . . will be my heir. Besides today’s practice in which children are adopted to provide for the child, ancient Near Eastern practice sometimes involved adopting an adult for the purpose of providing for the parents. Through adoption the parents vouchsafed an heir to keep property and possessions intact and procured someone to care for them in old age. In these cases at times a trusted slave was adopted as a son. Despite the attestation of this practice, information is lacking here to suggest that Abram has actually adopted Eliezer. Another possibility is that Abram simply sees this as his only option at the moment.

Controversy remains about what kind of ceremony is carried out in . What/whom do the pieces represent (possibilities: sacrifice for oath, God if he reneges, nations already as good as dead, Israelites in slavery)? Whom do the birds of prey represent (nations seeking to seize available land, e.g., , or to plunder Israel)? Whom do the implements represent (God and/or Abram)?

These issues cannot currently be resolved, but a few observations can help identify some of the possible connections with the ancient world. Before we look at the options, a word is in order about what this is not.

1. It is not a sacrifice. There is no altar, no offering of the animals to deity and no ritual with the carcasses, the meat or the blood.

2. It is not divination. The entrails are not examined and no meal is offered to deity.

3. It is not an incantation. No words are spoken to accompany the ritual and no efficacy is sought—Abram is asleep.

The remaining options are based on where animals are ritually slaughtered in the ancient world when it is not for the purposes of sacrifice, divination or incantation.

Option 1: A covenant ceremony or, more specifically, a royal land grant ceremony. In this case the animals typically are understood as substituting for the participants or proclaiming a self-curse if the stipulations are violated. Examples of the slaughter of animals in such ceremonies but not for sacrificial purposes are numerous. In tablets from Alalakh, the throat of a lamb is slit in connection to a deed executed between Abba-El and Yarimlim. In a Mari text, the head of a donkey is cut off when sealing a formal agreement. In an Aramaic treaty of Sefire, a calf is cut in two with the explicit statement that such will be the fate of the one who breaks the treaty. In Neo-Assyrian literature, the head of a spring lamb is cut off in a treaty between Ashurnirari V and Mati’ilu, not for sacrifice but explicitly as an example of punishment. The strength of these examples lies in the contextual connection to covenant. The weakness is that only one animal is killed in these examples, and there is no passing through the pieces and no torch and firepot. Furthermore, there are significant limitations regarding the efficacy of a divine self-curse.

Option 2: Purification. The “torch” () is a portable, handheld object for bringing light. The “smoking firepot” () can refer to a number of different vessels used to heat things (e.g., an oven for food, a kiln for pottery). Here the two items are generally assumed to be associated with God, but need not be symbolic representations of him. These implements are occasionally used symbolically to represent deities in ancient Near Eastern literature, but usually sun-gods (e.g., Shamash) or fire-gods (e.g., Girru/Gibil). Gibil and Kusu are often invoked together as divine torch and censer in a wide range of cultic ceremonies for purification. Abram would have probably been familiar with the role of Gibil and Kusu in purification rituals, so that function would be plausibly communicated to him by the presence of these implements. Yet in a purification role, neither the torch nor the censer ever pass between the pieces of cut-up animals in the literature available to us. Further weakness is in the fact that Yahweh doesn’t need purification and Abram is a spectator, not a participant, so neither does he. In the Mesopotamian Hymn to Gibil (the torch), the god purifies the objects used in the ritual, but the only objects in the ritual in are the dead animals, and it is difficult to understand why they would need to be purified.

Option 3: Confirming signs related to the promise of what will be done to the nations. In incantations seeking to rid a person of the consequences of offense, the torch and oven are two in a series of objects that can serve as confirmatory signs. This same incantation series also occasionally speaks of the person who is swearing an oath in connection with their participation in the incantation as holding an implement of light and/or heat. The strength of this option is that it fits best the context of land promise. The problem is that it offers little connection to the cutting up of the animals. The parts of the animals would refer to the nations to be dispossessed.

The only example of ritual participants passing between the pieces of several cut-up animals occurs in a Hittite military ritual. In response to their army’s defeat, several animals are cut in half (goat, puppy, piglet—as well as a human), and the army passes through the parts on their way to sprinkling themselves with water from the river to purify themselves; the idea is that this will ensure a better outcome next time. As with Achan’s story in , they fear that some offense of the soldiers has caused them to be defeated. The obvious problem is that the context of the Hittite ritual has no similarity to the context in .

In summary, the torch and censer figure frequently in a variety of Mesopotamian ritual contexts, and multiple examples can be found of rituals that involve passing through the pieces of a single animal—but these two elements never occur together. There are plenty of examples of oaths with division of animals, but never passing through the pieces. There are plenty of examples with self-curse, but never by a deity. It is therefore difficult to combine all of the elements from the context of into a bona fide ritual assemblage.

The context refers to a “covenant” (), and therefore an oath (by Yahweh) could easily be involved. If there is purification, it would have to be purification of the ritual or its setting, for neither Abram nor Yahweh require purification. Since the pieces cannot represent self-curse, the only other ready option is that they represent the nations, but it is hard to imagine in that case what the force of the ritual is. ◆

Go to

build a family through her. The solution proposed by Sarai is not as shocking or outlandish as it would seem to us today. In the ancient world, barrenness was a catastrophe (see note on ) because one of the primary roles of the family was to produce the next generation. The survival of the family line was of the highest value, and it depended on producing progeny. Whatever threat a second wife might pose to harmony in the family paled in comparison to the necessity of an heir being produced.

Marriage contracts of the ancient world, therefore, anticipated the possibility of barrenness and at times specifically dictated a course of action. Solutions ranged from serial monogamy (divorcing the barren wife to take another, presumably fertile, bride), to polygyny (taking a second wife of equal status), to polycoity (the addition of handmaids or concubines for the purpose of producing an heir), to adoption. The third option is the one pursued here; this attempted remedy is consistent with contemporary practice as a strategy for heirship. This option was often more attractive because if the wife were divorced, there would be an economic impact on the family (she took her marriage fund/dowry with her). Concubines bring no dowry, only their fertility, to the family.

A marriage contract from the town of Nuzi a few centuries after the patriarchal period illustrates the practice: “If Gilimninu bears children, Shennima shall not take another wife. But if Gilimninu fails to bear children, Gilimninu shall get for Shennima a woman from the Lullu country (a slave girl) as concubine. In that case, Gilimninu herself shall have authority over the offspring.” An Old Assyrian marriage contract closer to the time of the patriarchs reflects a similar solution to infertility. It is therefore plausible that Sarai is simply invoking the terms of their marriage contract.

angel of the LORD. In the ancient world direct communication between important parties was a rarity. Diplomatic and political exchange normally required the use of an intermediary, whose function was similar to that of ambassadors today. The messenger who served as the intermediary was a fully vested representative of the party he represented. He spoke for that party and with the authority of that party. He was accorded the same treatment as that party would enjoy were he there in person. While this was standard protocol, there was no confusion about the person’s identity. This explains how the angel in this chapter can comfortably use the first person to convey what God will do (v. ). When official words are spoken by the representative, everyone understands that he is not speaking for himself but is merely conveying the words, opinions, policies and decisions of his liege. So in Ugaritic literature when Baal sends messengers to Mot, the messengers use first-person forms of speech. Such usage indicates that the messengers are not only envoys of the god, but actually embody the power of the deity who sent them.

God Almighty. Translates the epithet El-Shaddai. Much controversy surrounds the meaning of the name El-Shaddai. One Ugaritic text refers to “El of the field” (il sh) while Akkadian refers to the “Lord of the Mountain/Steppe” (belu shadu), though these may be descriptions rather than divine epithets. The only extra-Biblical use of the divine epithet occurs in the Balaam text of Deir Alla, where the shdyn are the beings of the heavenly council.

Abraham. Personal names in the ancient world provided much more than a moniker. Sometimes they preserved recognition of a distinguishing characteristic or reflected circumstances at the time of the person’s birth. Often they made statements about deity (e.g., Isaiah = Yahweh saves). Names generally offered information, at some level, about the person’s identity and in a variety of ways names were believed to be intertwined with a person’s destiny (see note on ). Knowing a person’s name created a relationship with that person—i.e., the person was further known by knowing the name. Knowing a person’s name also provided potential power over that person, most radically when used in spells or hexes. The naming of a person was one of the most dramatic impositions of authority over another individual. Since the name of a person was believed to be intertwined with their destiny, to name a person meant that you controlled their identity and directed their destiny. In this verse, it is not that God is demonstrating his authority over Abram (though the fact that he can change his name is not insignificant), but more important, he is designating Abram’s destiny—to be the father of a multitude. The name Abram meant “the father is exalted.” Reference to “father” (ab) in personal names usually indicated veneration of an ancestor, so this name looked to the past. His new name Abraham designates him as the significant ancestor as it looks to future generations yet to be born.

Circumcision is well-known in the ancient Near East from as early as the fourth millennium BC, though the details of its practice and its significance vary from culture to culture. Circumcision was practiced in the ancient Near East by many peoples. The Egyptians practiced circumcision as early as the third millennium BC. West Semitic peoples, Israelites, Ammonites, Moabites and Edomites performed circumcision. Eastern Semitic peoples did not (e.g., Assyrians, Babylonians, Akkadians)—nor did the Philistines, an Aegean or Greek people. Anthropological studies have suggested that the rite always has to do with at least one of four basic themes: fertility, virility, maturity and genealogy. Study of Egyptian mummies demonstrates that the surgical technique in Egypt differed from that used by the Israelites; while the Hebrews amputated the prepuce of the penis, the Egyptians merely incised the foreskin and so exposed the glans penis. Egyptians were not circumcised as children, but in either prenuptial or puberty rites. The common denominator, however, is that it appears to be a rite of passage, giving new identity to the one circumcised and incorporating him into a particular group.

Evidence from the Levant comes as early as bronze figurines from the Amuq Valley (Tell el-Judeideh) from the early third millennium BC. An ivory figurine from Megiddo from the mid-second millennium BC shows Canaanite prisoners who are circumcised. Southern Mesopotamia shows no evidence of the practice, nor is any Akkadian term known for the practice. The absence of such evidence is significant since Assyrian and Babylonian medical texts are available in abundance. Abraham is therefore aware of the practice from living in Canaan and visiting Egypt rather than from his roots in Mesopotamia. Since Ishmael is 13 years old at this time, Abraham may even have been wondering whether it was a practice that would characterize this new family of his. In circumcision is retained as a rite of passage, but one associated with identity in the covenant.

In light of today’s concerns with gender issues, some have wondered why the sign of the covenant should be something that marks only males. Two cultural issues may offer an explanation: patrilineal descent and identity in the community. (1) The concept of patrilineal descent resulted in males being considered the representatives of the clan and the ones through whom clan identity was preserved (as, e.g., the wife took on the tribal and clan identity of her husband). (2) Individuals found their identity more in the clan and the community than in a concept of self. Decisions and commitments were made by the family and clan more than by the individual. The rite of passage represented in circumcision marked each male as entering a clan committed to the covenant, a commitment that he would then have the responsibility to maintain. If this logic holds, circumcision would not focus on individual participation in the covenant as much as on continuing communal participation. The community is structured around patrilineal descent, so the sign on the males marks the corporate commitment of the clan from generation to generation. ◆

Relief in the tomb of Ankhmahor at Saqqara depicting a priest performing a ritual circumcision.

Wikimedia Commons/Science Museum, London, Wellcome Images, CC BY 4.0

Go to

Abraham’s hospitality includes the offering of protection (shade), the necessary amenities (foot washing), and a generous provision of food and drink. Custom mandated such hospitality from a host when travelers passed through since public accommodation was scarce and the climate threatening. In towns taverns might provide lodging, and there were occasionally strategically located caravansaries, but in many regions one could not expect to find these whenever one needed to eat or sleep. Travelers were welcomed as a ready source of news.

In ancient Near Eastern literature humans occasionally encounter the gods, but rarely the messengers of the gods. In the Ugaritic Legend of ’Aqhat, Dan’el offers hospitality to the representative of the gods, Kothar-wa-Hasis (himself also a god), when the representative comes traveling through town, by having his wife prepare a meal of cooked lamb.

three seahs. About 36 pounds (16 kilograms); the amount reflects Abraham’s generosity. finest flour. The terminology here indicates that this flour is from wheat rather than from barley and therefore of higher quality. In Mesopotamia, 36 pounds (16 kilograms) of barley represented rations for a month for an adult. This amount of flour would have probably made up to 60 loaves of bread. In the end, however, we don’t know how many people the food is serving. The text only mentions Abraham, Sarah and the three guests, but we learned earlier that Abraham has a large household (; ), and perhaps some of his most trusted servants join him for a meal with the travelers. bake some bread. This bread would have been baked in an oven of pottery that probably used animal dung as fuel.

choice, tender calf. The offer of fresh meat is extremely generous since it is not a normal component in their daily diet.

Where is your wife Sarah? It could be inferred from the angel’s question that it was unusual for Sarah not to be there—either in a serving capacity or joining them in the meal (there is no evidence of women eating separately in the ancient world). It could also be inferred from Abraham’s curt response (“there, in the tent”) that this was not just the circumstance of the moment and that she could be sent for. These are not necessary inferences, but there is a possibility that something is indicated here that was transparent to the Israelite reader, yet elusive to us. That is, it is possible that Sarah has had to retreat to the tent and is now confined there—that she has suddenly, much to her shock and consternation, become “indisposed.” Menstruation rendered a woman unclean in the ancient world and would have prohibited her from social contact and from food preparation and serving. The text specifically indicates that she had already gone through menopause (v. ), but if she were to bear a child, her period would need to restart. The timing would have to be precise here. In v. Abraham asked Sarah to bake some bread, an activity often forbidden to menstruating women in Abraham’s time, so at that point her period had not begun. Yet she would not be confined to her tent unless she actually had her period. If this is the issue, she experienced the onset of her period as dinner is being served. We know even from the Biblical narratives that menstruating women were at times confined to their tents (cf. ). This view is also attested in the ancient Near East. Though somewhat speculative, this line of thinking would explain why the announcement that Sarah would bear a child is introduced by a question concerning Sarah’s whereabouts, leading the somewhat embarrassed Abraham to offer the euphemistic explanation that she is “in the tent” as a way of explaining that she is indisposed (note our modern euphemism, “it’s that time of the month”). One could almost imagine a transitional, “Indeed, and that is just the beginning . . .” It would have constituted a remarkable sign of the resumption of her fertility.

Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? In the ancient world people tended to find their identity not as individuals, but in the family, clan or city of which they were a part. Consequently, it was not unusual for good fortune or ill fortune to be experienced on the communal level. The crimes of one member of the group could often lead to the consequences being experienced by all, for they constituted an organic whole. Yet at times a discerning judge needed to impose punishment on discrete individuals rather than on the larger group. This is particularly the case when the group in question extended beyond clan boundaries. Examples of such a concern occur in a few places in ancient Near Eastern literature. In the Hittite Prayer of Mursili, the king prays: “Whoever is a cause of rage and anger to the gods, and whoever is not respectful to the gods, let not the good ones perish with the evil ones. Whether it is a single town, a single house, or a single person, O gods, destroy only that one!” Likewise in the Gilgamesh Epic, after the flood, the god Ea reprimands the god Enlil with the exhortation that in the future he “punish the sinner for his sin, punish the criminal for his crime” rather than bringing widespread destruction. Abraham is making a similar plea on behalf of the cities of the plain.

The paved gateway at Dan featured a canopied platform where either the king or the image of the god stood. Lined up beside it were stone benches where the elders would have sat and business of the city would have been conducted ().

Return to

gateway of the city. The central public gate was a place of assembly, business and legal transactions (cf. ). Impressive flagstone pavement was used to garnish the gate at Tell Dan. Offerings during festivals were sometimes presented at city gates to honor the gods at the Zukru festival at Emar. In this case the name of the gate was the Gate of the Upright Stones (for the storm-god and Hebat, his consort). The gate area constituted special space in the ancient Near East that separated the city from tilled ground; hence, it was the center of many religions and social activities. At Megiddo over 400 people could gather just outside its central gate.

Lot’s presence at the gate is neither casual nor incidental. At the gate formal activities took place. Public decisions were made, cases heard, business transacted, and visitors processed or registered according to the conventions of the city. Lot’s presence in the gate was undoubtedly related to some of these activities. We have no reason to think that Lot was alone in the gateway, yet he was the one who interacted with the messengers. Perhaps security in the city had been heightened in the aftermath of the invasion in ch. so that they were on the watch for the infiltration of possible spies reconnoitering the city (cf. the spies who go to Jericho in ). In this view Lot’s intention in taking the visitors in not only fulfilled the obligations of hospitality, but also placed them under guard.

all the men. Though the designation “all” can be hyperbolic, the addition of the merism “both young and old” indicates widespread participation. It is unlikely, though, that every single member of the male population is present, for Lot’s sons-in-law do not seem to be there.

have sex with them. Perhaps one of the most developed alternative interpretations to the Hebrew here is the contention that when the men say they want to “know” the visitors, they are expressing distrust in Lot’s ability to protect the city from spies and they want to “interrogate” the men. Lot identifies this intention as “wicked” (v. ) because interrogations in the ancient world were typically not gentle. In this view Lot offers his daughters as hostages to be held as warranty that he has the situation well in hand. The most devastating problem to this position is that in Hebrew, when the verb “to know” (yada) has a personal direct object (i.e., to know someone), it always has a sexual innuendo.

wicked thing. The text does not discuss what social norms are being broken. The sin of the Sodomites is self-evident and multileveled, blatant and unambiguous. The standard is not the later Mosaic Law but civilized behavior regulated by laws in every city and country. There is nothing subtle or secretive about their behavior. No inhibitions interfere with their threats of violence or demands to indulge their lust. The last thing anyone in the reading audience would be expected to do would be to come to the defense of Sodom or try to make excuses for their behavior. The text also makes it clear that the wicked behavior was not isolated (see note on v. ). The intentions of the men of the city have traditionally seemed clear enough, but recent interpreters have suggested various alternatives (see note on v. ).

I have two daughters . . . do what you like with them. Lot’s response to the demand of the men is startling. Was he really offering his daughters to be gang-raped and probably murdered? An alternative is that his suggestion implied a more subtle, “I would as soon have you violate my family members as violate those whom I have taken in and offered hospitality!” It would be like sarcastically saying to a mortgage company, “Why don’t you just take the clothes off my children’s backs and the food off their plates?” Such a comment is not suggesting they will really do that. If this is the correct reading, Lot’s offer of his daughters was intended to prick the conscience of the mob. Just as they would (hopefully) not consider treating a citizen’s daughters in this way, so the same inhibitions should protect Lot’s guests. The mob refused to be placated or dissuaded from its intentions and indicated it is even willing to treat Lot with the same violence.

blindness. The Hebrew word here is used elsewhere only for the Aramean army at Dothan (). It is a term related to an Akkadian word for day or night blindness. This rare Akkadian word is used only in medical texts apparently referring to a corneal disease. As a judgment of the gods, blindness can be found in the Ugaritic Legend of ’Aqhat. Dan’el curses three towns near where his son ’Aqhat has been slain with the words, “May Baal strike you blind” (cf. ).

Don’t look back . . . ! The angel’s prohibition did not concern looking at the destruction. After all, people standing on the walls of Zoar would have been able to watch the carnage take place. We should notice that when the angel gave the instructions not to look back, it was placed between two other commands. If the prohibition was not concerned with seeing the destruction, it seems the three commands form a sequence: (1) Get out of here; (2) don’t turn back; (3) don’t stop before reaching your destination. The verb “look” must therefore have idiomatic value. The implication is that Lot’s wife returned to Sodom. In this interpretation the command of the angel is broken not by glancing over one’s shoulder and seeing what should not be seen, but in directing attention back and returning to the city (see note on v. ).

rained down burning sulfur. The scene is one of divine retribution, and brimstone appears here and elsewhere as an agent of purification and divine wrath on the wicked (; ). One can only speculate about the actual manner of this destruction, but perhaps the combustion of natural tars and sulfur deposits and the release of noxious gases during an earthquake form part of the story (). The mineral salts of the region include sodium, potash, magnesium, calcium chlorides, and bromide. An earthquake in the area could easily have ignited these chemicals, causing them to rain down on the victims of the destruction.

Lot’s wife . . . became a pillar of salt. This need not be seen as an arbitrary and instantaneous transformation. The destruction is described in terms of the burning sulfur (brimstone) and fire that God “rained down” on the cities (v. ; see note). Since the destruction did not begin until Lot and his daughters reached Zoar (vv. ), we should assume that Lot’s wife did not simply glance back, but returned to the city and was swept up in the destruction like everyone else in the cities (cf. ). Many “pillars of salt” would have littered the streets.

left Zoar and settled in the mountains. Perhaps Lot saw that Zoar was just as bad as Sodom, or perhaps he was fearful that the angels would change their mind and destroy the city anyway (without forewarning this time).

The five cities of the plain were the only cities in the region. It most likely seemed to Lot’s daughters that they were the last people on earth. Even so, the audience would not have needed prompting to recognize their action as reprehensible. Incest is already viewed in negative terms in the ancient world. The Mosaic Law is not the first to condemn it; there are, e.g., a number of paragraphs treating incest in Hammurapi’s laws. Lot is exonerated in that the daughters realize they have to get him drunk first.

Moabites . . . Ammonites. They historically occupied the regions east of the Jordan River from the Jabbok River in the north to Wadi Zered (= el-Hesa) in the south. The latter is the wadi by which Zoar is located. The northern border of Moab was traditionally the Arnon, but it frequently extended its border north to the Wadi Heshban. If the southern locations of the cities are correct, the three northernmost cities of the plain were then in traditionally Moabite territory, while the two southern ones were in what was to become Edomite territory. The fact that one would expect to find the cities of the plain closer to Ammonite territory would be another point in favor of a more northern location for the cities.

Both Amon and Moab were enemies of Israel for most of their history. It is unlikely that they were literally the descendants of the incestuous relationship between Lot and his daughters (cf. , ); it is possible that this account is included as a political or ethnic slur. Another interpretation may be that the Moabites and Ammonites owe their existence, not to incestuous acts, but to Abraham. As the offspring of Lot, they are related to Abraham; but since Lot is a nephew, these are not among the many nations of whom Abraham is the father. Still, the text indicates that Lot is spared because the Lord remembers Abraham by acting favorably toward him. The Moabites and Ammonites only receive this chance to exist because the Lord has remembered Abraham. This gives the audience of Moses insight into the status of those who live around the land they are entering.

She is my sister. The wife-as-sister motif appears here again, but there are significant differences from ch. . Here there is no famine to suggest God’s abandonment, nor is Gerar outside the land. Most significant, unlike the prior occasion when Sarah was barren, Sarah is now fertile and the promised son is to be born within the year. Sarah is not obviously pregnant, or she would not have been taken and the ruse would not have been attempted. If Sarah spends even one night in Abimelek’s embrace, the paternity of the child to be born would be in question. In ch. Abraham was in danger of losing his wife. In ch. he is in danger of losing claim to his heir, since he would not definitively be the father.

prophet . . . pray. The connection between prayer and prophets is not transparent. In the ancient world, prophets gave messages from deity because they were reputed to have a seat in the heavenly council where decisions of judgment and destiny were made. This privileged seat also gave a prophet the ability to effectuate a curse or remove it (cf. , which included prayer as part of the prophet’s procedure). Their messages comprised the announcement of the decisions of the heavenly council. The intercessory role of the prophet was therefore found in the opportunity he or she had to bring issues to the council table for discussion and to serve as advocate for the earthly party. Then, as spokesperson for the council and deity, he or she would announce the verdict in the form of a prophetic message. Such information was typically given by prophetic message, usually derived from a divination setting (note Balaam’s procedures in ). will pray . . . will live. The Hebrew verbs describing Abraham’s anticipated action are modal (“he may pray for you, so that you may live”). No guarantee is offered of either, though if there is no restoration the death sentence is certain. In this context, however, there is no hint of divination.

I am giving your brother . . . you are completely vindicated. Abimelek’s payment to Abraham and Sarah is like a reverse bride price. A bride price was paid by the groom to the family of the bride as surety that the marriage would take place. Here the payment moves the same direction, but the woman is moving the opposite direction—from the would-be husband back to the family. Rather than a bride price, it is a restitution payment restoring the woman to her family intact. The text is clear, however, that this is more than a social transaction when Abimelek indicates that by this payment she is vindicated. a thousand shekels of silver. An exorbitant amount. We encounter the same number in the Ugaritic poem “The Betrothal of Yarikh and Nikkal-Ib,” in which 1,000 shekels of silver was part of the bride price paid among the gods, along with 10,000 shekels of gold and precious stones. In weight it equals about 25 pounds (12 kilograms) of silver; in value it was more than a worker could expect to make in a lifetime (common wage earners were paid ten shekels per year). The king’s generous payment is multifunctional. It is his guarantee that Sarah has been untouched, a fee to Abraham for his intercessory role, and an appeasement of the deity who has virtually cut off all fertility in his family (vv. ).

Get rid of that slave woman. Hagar’s status in the household of Abraham created friction. Her initial status as Sarah’s handmaiden was altered when Sarah chose her as one to give an heir to Abraham—i.e., when she became not just a concubine (whose children would not have the status of a legitimate heir) but a wife. A concubine had no dowry and her children were slaves in the household, not legitimate heirs. She could be sold and did not have to be divorced. But with a handmaiden given as a wife, as Hagar was, all this changed. Consequently a dual claim of authority was established. A woman of Hagar’s status could be expelled, but not by either husband or wife alone, and she could not be sold. Her son had the status of a legitimate heir, and she would generally have to be divorced. By sending her away, both Hagar’s and Ishmael’s claims were being dissolved. This meant that Hagar was being given her freedom as well as being divorced (see note on v. ).

sent her off. The Hebrew verb used is the verb for divorce (cf. ).

well. The region of Beersheba had limited rainfall, so the water supply was largely provided through wells. Water rights in such ecological situations were established by contracts, as in vv. . That such discussion could become important for international relations is evidenced by some correspondence between Rim-Sin of Larsa and the king of Eshnunna in the Old Babylonian period, where water rights are under dispute and negotiations take place. Well technology required sufficient knowledge of hydrology to identify the location of aquifers and the ability to dig down to them, but also sufficient knowledge of well-building technology, including the construction of a lining to stabilize the shaft and prevent seepage from the sides. The significant amount of labor necessary for such an undertaking makes it obvious why the rights to this water supply would be worth fighting over.

Philistines. Known from the time of the judges and the early monarchy, they did not come into the region and occupy this territory until around 1200 BC—much later than the time of Abraham and likewise later than the time of Moses. The first known mention of the Philistines outside the Bible is in the records of Ramesses III (1182–1151 BC). They were one of the tribes of the Sea Peoples who eventually settled in five city-states along the southern coast of Canaan. Abimelek is a Semitic name, and as “king of Gerar” he matches nothing that is known of the Philistine profile. While it is not impossible that this story represents contact with an earlier group of Philistines who settle the area prior to the Sea Peoples, this may simply be an anachronistic use of the name Philistines for the area rather than an ethnic identification of the people whom Abraham encounters.

the Eternal God. Hebrew El Olam, the enduring God, which depicts God as responsible for the grand scheme of things. He is the God of the long term.

Moriah. Since the journey takes two to three days (v. ), the location of Moriah is within a radius of 40 miles (65 kilometers) of Beersheba. This circle reaches from Kadesh Barnea in the south to Jerusalem in the north, and from the Dead Sea to the Mediterranean coast. The only other reference to Moriah is in , which identifies it as the site of the temple in Jerusalem, but it makes no mention of Abraham or this incident. Abraham appears to be familiar with the place, and since he takes firewood with him, presumably he knows that wood is not available in the region (v. ). In contrast, the wooded hills around Jerusalem would have provided ample firewood for the sacrifice. Furthermore, if the site were Jerusalem, we would expect it to be designated “Salem” (as in ; see note there). Consequently we cannot be certain that the Moriah of and the Moriah of refer to the same place. Sacrifice him. God’s demand that Abraham offer Isaac is unlike anything in the ancient world. Child sacrifices would have been carried out soon after birth and would have been associated either with fertility rituals or foundation offerings to secure protection for the home. Contemporary literary sources outside of the Bible that refer to child sacrifice or even human sacrifice are virtually nonexistent. The prohibition against child sacrifice in the Pentateuch (e.g., ) demonstrates that it was sometimes practiced, but none of the potential ritual contexts are pertinent to . Human sacrifice may have been carried out in extreme circumstances, but there are no dire conditions here. Undoubtedly Abraham would not have considered this command of God commonplace.

sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. Though animal substitution is clear enough in the OT (e.g., firstborn substitution, Passover), the idea of an animal being sacrificed as a substitute for a human being is not as common in the ancient world as might be expected. In the cultures in which animal sacrifice was practiced, the people often simply provide a lavish meal for the deity, at times with the participation of the officiates and the worshipers. The theory that the animal takes the place of the person whose offenses are thereby vicariously expiated is a different matter (and it should be noted that even in no offense is identified as a reason for the sacrifice). When rituals from the ancient world do involve animal substitution, it is typically in the context of magic—i.e., that through ritual the disease, impurity, evil spirit or spell might be transferred to the animal, which was then slaughtered, thus bringing relief to the human.

When Abraham names this place, he affirms that God is superintending the flow of events. This is to be read as complimentary to the name given to God in (see note there). Here the designation of the place recognizes Yahweh as God of the short term, caring for the needs of the moment. This is an important point to make in the context of the ancient Near East. In the polytheism of Abraham’s day, national and cosmic deities handled the long-term kinds of issues that concerned the stability of the world and national destiny. Other deities were more involved in the daily life of the people. These patron (city, ancestral) deities were believed to have the bulk of the impact in the life of the individual. We must remember that God has still not presented to Abraham the tenets of monotheism either on the practical level (the sole object of worship) or on the philosophical level (no other God exists). Nevertheless, in the names attributed to God, Abraham is moving in that direction. He has now recognized that this covenant God of his is not just a replacement for one of the standard categories of deity. He is filling all the roles of deity. We can hardly begin to understand how revolutionary this was. ◆

Go to

Hittites. The terminology in this chapter identifies these people as the “sons of Heth” throughout, except for “the Hitti” in v. (NIV “the Hittite”). In the Hittites are descendants of Canaan and listed among largely Semitic peoples. Outside of the Bible, the most well-known Hittites were Indo-European peoples who inhabited central Anatolia in the middle of the second millennium BC. After the collapse of that empire around 1200 BC, remnants of the civilization persevered in northern Syria. The term “Hittites” for the Anatolian peoples derives from their association with the land of Hatti, not only in their own texts but also in Ugaritic, Egyptian and Akkadian texts. The Indo-European “Hittites” (speaking Nesite) gained prominence over the original Hattian inhabitants beginning about 2000 BC. The OT probably makes no reference to the Nesite Hittites of the empire age. The Anatolian people referred to as “Hittites” should more precisely be referred to as “Hattians” or “Nesites” (referring to land and language, respectively); these should not be confused with the Semitic Hethites/Hittites of Genesis.

burial site. The negotiations here are not concerned with the rights to dig a hole and mark a grave. Contemporary burial practices favored rock-cut or cave tombs, which were meant to accommodate the clan through generations. Bodies would be laid out on rock shelves until nothing remained but the bones, at which point the bones would either be cleared to the back of the tomb or relocated into a container of some sort to make room for another body. The use of family tombs may partially explain the use of the phrase “gathered to his people” (). Deceased ancestors were honored through a variety of practices that did not stop after burial. These practices made it desirable for tombs to be in proximity to somewhat permanent settlements.

sell it to me for the full price. Abraham negotiates for the long term. If he had been willing to accept the land on a grant basis, the land could have been reclaimed in a later generation or in hard times.

four hundred shekels of silver. A significant amount of money. It equals about 10 pounds (4.6 kilograms) of silver, but its value can be assessed by the fact that the average wage was 10 shekels of silver per year. Having said this, it is still not determinable whether the price is fair, exorbitant or a bargain because the text does not indicate the size of the parcel of land. It is much less than what Omri paid for the much larger site of Samaria (150 pounds [68 kilograms] or 6,000 shekels of silver; see on ), and it is not comparable to what David paid for the site of the temple (15 pounds [6.9 kilograms] or 600 shekels of gold; see on ).

under my thigh. It is possible that the oath is sworn on the genitals of Abraham, which would then be understood to be binding even if Abraham should die. None of this can be confirmed, however, because the text offers no explanation and no parallels have been found in the ancient Near East.

go to my country and my own relatives and get a wife for my son Isaac. In the ancient world it was common to restrict or at least prefer marriage within the social group, a practice called endogamy. Endogamy is particularly significant in social contexts that emphasize inheritance. In this way the lineage is isolated for purposes of social status and property ownership. In Israel the concerns are ethnic because the land was promised to Abraham and his family and he is avoiding assimilation with the people in the land. At this point in history, no one else shares Abraham’s beliefs or worships “the God of Abraham” ()—at least as far as we know; certainly Laban and his family do not, so this is not a matter of marrying within the faith. We must keep in mind that Abraham’s relatives are no more monotheistic than the Canaanites. They are not worshipers of Yahweh. Abraham was called out of a polytheistic setting. The proscription here is concerned about ethnic separation.

May it be that when I say. In seeking guidance from God, the servant uses a strategy much like that used for seeking oracles in the ancient world. In an oracle a binary question (i.e., yes/no) was put to deity and then a device of some sort was used as a means by which the deity could give an answer. In the ancient world the device often used was either casting lots or employing a divination priest to perform extispicy (the investigation of the entrails of sacrificed animals for positive or negative signs). In Israel the high priest used the Urim and Thummim as a way of conducting such an oracular procedure. Since Abraham’s servant has no lots to cast and has no immediate access to specialized professionals, he has to improvise. He therefore resorts to using his current surroundings to devise an oracle. When this procedure is used, it is typical that a highly irregular occurrence designates “yes” and the normal turn of events designates “no,” with the expectation that God will thereby communicate his answer. Here the question is whether the girl whom the servant approaches is the chosen mate for Isaac. The designated indicator of a “yes” answer is if the girl offers to do far beyond what human nature or the conventions of hospitality would dictate, specifically, to water all his camels when he asks only for a drink for himself. Such an unusual offer would serve as evidence that deity was overriding all natural instinct and social etiquette. For similar mechanistic oracles, see ; .

I’ll draw water for your camels too. If the servant’s camels had gone several days without water, they could potentially drink up to 25 gallons (almost 100 liters) each. Given the standard size of the vessels used to draw water, this would mean that Rebekah would have to draw eight to ten jars for each camel, thus requiring nearly a hundred trips from the well—several hours of work. Since it was already almost evening when the scene opens (v. ), it is sensible to conclude that the camels may have been watered more recently and would have required considerably less water than that. But Rebekah would not have known the current needs of the camels, so the offer remains impressive and extraordinary.

↑ Back to top