The Bible is repetitious at times, replaying themes, scenes, and sometimes entire sentences. For example, chapter 17 of Genesis repeats themes found elsewhere in Genesis, both in previous chapters and in chapters yet to come:
- Promises of land and numerous descendants are also made in chapters 13 and 15.
- A covenant between God and Abraham is also established in Gen 15.
- Isaac’s birth is also announced in Gen 18.
- References to laughter also appear in Gen 18 and 20.
- The renaming of Abram and Sarai is similar to renaming Jacob to Israel (Gen 32:29 and 35:10).
- El Shaddai is another name for God to go along with El Elyon (14:18-20) and El Roi (16:13).
P Source and
Exilic Themes
Gen 17 is clearly from the P source and combines the
annunciation of Isaac’s birth with the establishment of circumcision as a sign of
the covenant between God and Abraham’s descendants.
Scholars date the compilation of the P source to the
time of the Babylonian exile, after the fall of Jerusalem. This is a time when
the former inhabitants of Judah have lost their land and their temple. They
face the possibility that they will also lose their identity as a people. A
reminder that the land was given to Abraham and his descendants as part of an
everlasting covenant would be assurance they would once again return to their
home. That God had also promised Abraham his descendants would be made into a
great nation would comfort those who feared that God had abandoned
them.
In Gen 15, the covenant was established in a ceremony similar to one known
in the last days of Judah, before the fall of Jerusalem. In Gen 17, circumcision
was established as the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham’s
descendants. Circumcision wasn’t unique to Israel; it was a common practice in
the ANE (for example, Egyptians were circumcised). Only during the Babylonian
captivity when the exiles came in contact with those who did not practice
circumcision did it separate Israel from the other nations. The goal of the
Priestly author in this chapter is to ground circumcision in the covenant made
with Abraham, turning it into a sign that one belonged to YHWH.
 |
| Not an actual photograph of Abraham laughing when he hears that he will father a son at age 100. |
Who’s Laughing
Now?
In both Gen 17 and 18, Abraham is told that Sarah will
give birth to a son within a year’s time. Sarah is surprised to hear that she
will give birth in Gen 18. Since Abraham was told the exact same thing in Gen
17, the only way she could be surprised is if Abraham never shared with her the
revelation he was given. This is a good clue that these annunciations come from
separate sources. Gen 18 is usually attributed to the J source.
The announcement that an elderly Sarah will bear a child
in a year’s time causes a humorous reaction in both sources. In Gen 17:17, it
is Abraham who fell on his face and laughed. In Gen 18:12, it is Sarah who
laughed to herself. After the birth of Isaac in Gen 21, Sarah says that everyone
will now laugh with her.
The Hebrew Bible loves puns and wordplay. Unfortunately,
that is mostly lost in translation. In English translations, the name of
Abraham’s son appears as Isaac, but the Hebrew is Yitzchak. The name derives
from the verb tzachak meaning “to
laugh”. The name Yitzchak, therefore, means “he laughs”.
English readers could get a better sense of the wordplay
if we translate it as “chuckles”:
Then Abraham fell on his face and chuckled, and said to himself, “Can a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Can Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?” … God said, “No, but your wife Sarah shall bear you a son, and you shall name him Chuckles. (Gen 17:17-19*)
Abraham gave the name Chuckles to his son whom Sarah bore him … Now Sarah said, “God has brought chuckles for me; everyone who hears will chuckle with me.” (Gen 21:3-6*)
But we also see a pun on Isaac’s name.
Yitzchak sounds very much like metzchak
(= playing). It could be “playing” as in the activities of children or
“playing” as in the sexual foreplay of adults. We see both examples of that.
In Gen 21:9 Sarah is angry when she sees the older
Ishmael playing with her son Isaac. In Gen 26:8, King Abimelech of the
Philistines knows that Isaac lied to him when he looks out his window and sees
Isaac playing with Rebekah.
The Death of
Innocents
There is also a parallelism between the visit of Abraham’s
three guests in Gen 18:1-15 and Lot’s two guests in Gen 19:1-3, 12-13. After being served
refreshments, Abraham’s three guests give him the good news that he and Sarah
will have a child together while Lot’s two visitors bring him the bad news that
his city of Sodom is about to be destroyed.
One of Abraham’s visitors – revealed to be YHWH – also informs
Abraham of the fate of Sodom. The passage that follows (Gen 18:17-33) is usually
summarized as “Abraham intervenes on behalf of Sodom” or “Abraham bargains for
Sodom”. But that’s not quite right. Abraham doesn’t try to talk YHWH out of destroying
Sodom, nor does he try to haggle down the number of people to be exterminated.
Instead, what Abraham does is clarify what YHWY’s justice
means. YHWH confirms that if there are only ten just people in Sodom he will
not destroy the city for the sake of those ten. YHWH’s justice demands that he
not wipe out the good with the wicked.
YHWH’s justice here seems out of place with the rest of
the OT. Certainly there were some innocent Egyptians who didn’t deserve to have
their firstborn killed. And it is hard to believe that all Canaanites were
wicked and thus deserving of extermination by Joshua’s armies. For much of the
OT, YHWH seems unconcerned about collateral damage.
Many biblical commentators think this passage shows
theological development more suited to the exilic period. Ezek 14:12-20 (dating
to the Babylonian captivity) is very similar to this passage. If YHWH decides
to destroy a land due to its wickedness and Noah, Daniel, and Job lived there, the
destruction would still be carried out, but the three righteous men would be
saved. Perhaps the experience of living through a catastrophe brought about
some reflection on the question of whether it is truly just for the good to suffer
alongside the bad.
In closing, I’m reminded of a Facebook conversation one
of my friends had with his right-wing brother-in-law this past week. In the brother-in-law’s
opinion, the United States would be entirely justified in leveling Tehran to end terrorism. My friend
pointed out Tehran’s population is close to nine million and there must surely
be innocents among them. The brother-in-law’s response was, “The first rule of
war is innocents die.”
When my friend showed me this, my comment was that while
it is an unfortunate fact that in war innocents do die, it should not be a
goal. The same applies to God. “Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen 18:25)
No comments:
Post a Comment