Cut a Covenant

My wife and I mentor engaged couples preparing to get married at our church. Over the course of four or five meetings with them, we go over their responses to a survey they previously completed. The very last survey question is “We understand that when we exchange our vows, we are entering into a life-long covenant.” This usually leads me to ask what the word “covenant” means to them and a typical response is “a life-long commitment.”

Chapter 15 of Genesis is what I usually think of when I hear the word “covenant”. Gen 15 is popular with theologians because it describes God’s covenant with Abram. It has a parallel with Gen 17 which also describes God’s covenant with Abram. But the promises in Gen 15 are unconditional while those in Gen 17 are conditional on Abram following God’s commands, like circumcision.

Gen 15 breaks down into two distinct units. The first narrative (vv. 1-6) is a promise of a biological son and innumerable descendants while the second (vv. 7-21) is a promise of land. One clue to them being distinct narratives is that they take place at different times. The first takes place at night (Abram looks up at the stars) while the second begins in the evening and continues into the night.

First Promise

The first narrative has been described by some biblical scholars as an oracle of salvation which takes the form of: 1) a pledge of salvation, 2) objection, 3) God’s answer and confirming sign, and 4) praise.

The pledge of salvation occurs in v. 1: “Do not fear, I am your shield; I will make your reward very great.” The promise to be Abram’s protector could be a reference to the battle described in Gen 14 and any fears Abram might have about possible retaliation from the defeated kings.

Abram objects to a promise of more wealth because, with Lot no longer his heir, all the wealth he has already accumulated will be left to a “slave born in my house”, a term which hearkens back to its previous use in Gen 14:14. YHWH answers Abram with the assurance that his heir will be his biological son. For a confirming sign YHWH has Abram step outside and tells him his descendants will be as countless as the stars.

This brings us to the conclusion of the oracle in v. 6. The Hebrew is ambiguous: “And he believed [or trusted] YHWH and he credited it to him as righteousness [or loyalty, fidelity].” Who credited what to whom?

The traditional interpretation is because Abram believed in YHWH, YHWH credited that act of belief to Abram as righteousness. In other words, faith makes one right with God. This verse later became a key verse for St. Paul (Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6) and, through him, was a proof text for the Protestant theology of salvation by faith alone (sola fide).

But if vv. 1-6 are an oracle of salvation, the format calls for praise from Abraham. Because the Hebrew is ambiguous, there is another possible interpretations of this line: Abram trusted in YHWH and Abram credited the promise to YHWH’s fidelity. In other words, Abram trusts YHWH will fulfil the promise because he acknowledges YHWH’s fidelity. This reading of the Hebrew as praise of YHWH betters fits as a conclusion to an oracle of salvation.

Abrahamic Covenant, God Walks the Line (2009) by Wayne Forte (wayneforte.com)

Second Promise and Covenant

The second narrative is the most interesting part of the chapter for me as it describes a bizarre (to us) covenant ceremony. YHWH tells Abram (v. 7) that the land of Canaan will be given to him as a possession and Abram asks for proof. YHWH tells him (vv. 9-10) to take various animals and cut them in two, placing the severed parts opposite each other. After night falls, Abram witnesses (v. 17) a smoking firepot and flaming torch pass between the animal parts.

In the OT, two parties “cut a covenant” in a ceremony involving the sacrifice of an animal, witnessed by the deity. Any party not honoring the covenant will meet the same fate as the sacrificed animal. Jer 34:18-20 describes a covenant ceremony where officials walked in procession between the severed parts of a sacrificed calf. Because the officials did not honor the terms of the covenant, YHWH will enforce the terms by handing them over to their enemies.

The difference here in Gen 15 is that YHWH (appearing as smoke and flame) is a participant in the covenant and not just a witness. This is YHWH’s way of telling Abram that he will be true to his promise.

Four Hundred Years or Four Generations?

The appearance of birds of prey (v. 11) that Abram has to drive off may be an omen that the promise of land will not be fulfilled without a struggle. If true, this would tie into the prophecy made in vv. 13-16, which many commentators have assumed is a later insertion rather than being an original part of the second narrative.

In vv. 13-16 YHWH tells Abram that his descendants will be enslaved and oppressed for 400 years. He also says the “fourth generation” will return to the promised land because “the wickedness of the Amorites is not yet complete.”

YHWH is obviously referring to slavery in Egypt and the exodus. But what is meant by the “fourth generation” (v. 16a) will return to Canaan? And how do you reconcile that with Abram’s descendants being oppressed for 400 years?

The Bible sometimes indicates an Egyptian sojourn much shorter than 400 years. For example, Exod 6:16-20 gives us the genealogy of Moses and Aaron. Levi, one of Jacob’s sons, descends to Egypt with his son Kohath (generation #1). Kohath has a son named Amram (#2) who is the father of Moses and Aaron (#3). Moses dies before reaching the promised land, but his sons (generation #4) live to enter Canaan.

Other passages like Ex 12:40 state clearly that the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years. There seems to have been two traditions for the Egyptian sojourn. In one tradition, there were only four generations in Egypt; in the other, approximately 400 years. This passage appears to conflate the two traditions.

The Wickedness of the Amorites

Who were the Amorites? If you ask a historian, Amorites refer to the people of Amurru, west of Mesopotamia in modern-day Syria. But in the biblical texts the terms “Amorites” and “Canaanites” are frequently used interchangeably to describe the original occupants of the land. Some texts locate the Amorites in the mountainous areas of Canaan (e.g., Num 13:29; Josh 11:3) and other texts locate them east of the Jordan (e.g., Deut 3:8; Judg 10:8).

What does it mean in v. 16b that “the wickedness of the Amorites is not yet complete”? The author presupposes his audience understands that the Amorites/Canannites were driven out upon the Israelites’ return from their sojourn in Egypt. What was the Israelites’ justification for exterminating the Amorites? Their wickedness. Why did the Israelites have to wait 400 years in Egypt before taking possession of the land? Because the Amorites’ wickedness hadn’t yet run its course. YHWH is granting the Amorites 400 years to rack up all the sins that will then justify their extermination.

The idea that the Israelites will possess the land not because of their righteousness but because of the wickedness of the indigenous population reflects deuteronomic theology (compare Deut 9:4-5). This attitude is still with us today in TV preachers who, after a hurricane in New Orleans or earthquake in San Francisco, blame the loss of life on the sinfulness of the victims. These same TV preachers also believe Israel has a right to appropriate Palestinian territories on the West Bank based on the promise of land God made to Abraham.

Helping interpret current events is another reason why I believe an understanding of the Bible is crucial, even for people who may not necessarily be religious.