Paying a Lot to Buy a Plot

I had originally intended to skip over Gen 23 because Abraham’s negotiations to acquire a burial plot for Sarah didn’t seem terribly interesting. Yes, in the grand scheme of things the biblical author wanted to make the point that the death of Sarah resulted in Abraham purchasing land of his own, an incremental step in the fulfilment of God’s promise of the land to Abraham. But I didn’t think I could write 1000 words on it.

Then I read the transcript of a lecture on Gen 23 Meir Sternberg delivered in 2011 that changed my mind. Meir Sternberg is Professor of Poetics and Comparative Literature at Tel Aviv University. Along with Robert Alter (mentioned in my previous article), he is one of the most prominent proponents of a literary approach to understanding the Bible.

Sternberg points out that Sarah’s burial site, the cave of Machpelah, is only mentioned in Genesis and nowhere else. The Bible is not interested in establishing a cult of the dead as in Egypt. So why does the biblical author spend twenty verses discussing a real estate deal?

Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron. A wall built by Herod the Great surrounds the courtyard built over the cave of Machpelah. It is one of the holiest sites for both Jews and Muslims. (Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons, 2010)

They didn’t say “yes”, but they didn’t say “no”

The first couple of verses in Gen 23 inform us that Sarah died in Hebron at the age of 127. Abraham needs a place to bury his wife, so he approaches the town’s Hittite leaders. As negotiations begin (vv. 3-6), Abraham acknowledges that, as a resident alien (“stranger and sojourner among you”), he has no citizenship rights. Therefore, he petitions the Hittites to give him property for a burial place. The word “give” in Biblical Hebrew is ambiguous. It could mean “give” as a gift and it can also mean “give” me to purchase.

The Hittites answer him with flattery (“you are a great prince among us”) as a way of politely pointing out that Abraham is a wealthy man and not merely a poor sojourner. They also offer the use of any of their grave sites (“none of us will refuse you his grave”). Perhaps because they do not know if Abraham is asking for a gift or for a purchase, they do not say they will “give”, only that “no one will refuse”.

On the one hand, it sounds great. If Abraham needs a grave, they can provide a grave. But Abraham wants a burial site (“landed property”) and all they are offering is his choice of tombs.

“I give it to you”

A second round of negotiations (vv. 7-11) is in order. Abraham has his eye on a particular cave owned by a Hittite named Ephron. We learn later this double cave (“Machpelah” means “double”) faces Mamre, which was one of the first places where Abraham settled in Canaan (Gen 13:18). He was still residing there when he received a visit from three strangers announcing the future birth of Isaac (Gen 18:1). The spot certainly must have held a sentimental meaning for Abraham.

Abraham asks the leaders of the Hittites if they can approach Ephron on his behalf. The cave is at the end, on the boundary of his field. It’s not like the cave is in the center of Ephron’s field and he will have to work around it. Abraham is saying, “Sell me the cave and I will be out of your way. I will pay full price. I’m not asking for a gift.”

As it so happened, Ephron is sitting among the men at the city gates where business is done. “You want to buy the cave? I’ll give you the field as well.” He literally says “I give it to you” three times. Sounds generous, right?

Ephron does not want to sell just the cave. Selling the land to Abraham would grant him citizenship rights, it would set a precedence, it would break the status quo. Who knows? Maybe it will lower property values and he’d never be able to sell his field in the future. No, if Abraham wants the cave, he has to make it worth Ephron’s while. He needs to buy the entire field.

What’s a million dollars between friends?

We now enter the third and final round of negotiations (vv. 12-18). Abraham only wanted to purchase the cave, but if he can only get it by purchasing the field, then that is what he will do: “I will give you the price of the field.” If Ephron is making an offer in good faith, he will name his price. But if he has no intention of selling Abraham land at any price, then he will have to withdraw his offer in the eyes of the entire community.

Ephron shows his true colors and names his price: four hundred shekels of silver. “What is that between me and you?” To give you some idea of the price Ephron is asking, King David paid fifty shekels (2 Sam 24:24) for the site of the future Jerusalem Temple. That was hundreds of years later for prime real estate in the heart of Jerusalem and here Ephron is asking eight times that for a field on the outskirts of Hebron. What’s a million dollars between friends?

Did Ephron name an outrageous price to call Abraham’s bluff, so he will fold and go home? Or is Ephron price gouging? We don’t know, but Abraham doesn’t try to bargain down to a fair price. He weighs out 400 shekels (about 4.5 kg or almost 10 pounds) of silver and gets the title deed to Ephron’s field. (Interestingly, the purchase price of 400 shekels is one shekel for each of the four hundred years God told him Abraham it would be before his descendants would finally inherit the land of Canaan).

The meaning of it all

Why does the Bible spend all this time telling us this story of a real estate deal?

A running theme throughout the entire Abraham cycle is the dual promise of the land of Canaan and descendants to inherit it. After a long time, God finally came through on his promise to provide Abraham with a son, Isaac. And then God tested Abraham by asking him to sacrifice this long-promised son.

And while God has promised Abraham that the entire land of Canaan will one day belong to his descendants, when Sarah dies and he needs a place to bury her, a promise of land in the distant future doesn’t help at all. He needs a place to bury his wife now. And to get it, he has to go hat in hand and demean himself playing a game the Hittites have rigged against him.

The moral of the story is that God will deliver on his promises, but don’t expect Amazon next-day delivery. And there will be suffering involved.

Stop Me If You've Heard This Before

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).

The only originality is the establishment of circumcision as a sign of the covenant.

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)

Split Decision

Originally I wasn’t planning on discussing chapter 13 of Genesis because it didn’t seem that significant. To briefly recount the passage, disagreements arise between herdsmen for Abram and those for his nephew Lot. Abram proposes that they separate from one another and offers Lot first choice. Lot chooses the well-watered Jordan valley and they part amicably.

My initial impression was that the episode merely serves to explain how Abram’s nephew found himself in the city of Sodom; this point is key to Abram’s rescue of Lot in the following chapter. The passage has been sermonized as contrasting the generosity of Abram vs. the selfishness of Lot or as an example in conflict resolution. But a closer reading of the text indicates that this is a critical moment in Abram’s life.

A Little About Lot

We first encounter Lot in the genealogy of Terah in Gen 11:27-32 where Lot is mentioned as the son of Haran, who then dies. When Terah leaves Ur, he takes his son Abram and his orphaned grandson Lot with him and they settle in Haran. Abram later leaves Haran for Canaan and brings his nephew Lot along (12:4-5). We don’t hear of Lot again until he is mentioned going up from Egypt with Abram to the Negeb (desert region in southern Canaan) in 13:1.

The implication from all this is that Abram has adopted Lot as his heir. After all, we were told early on in 11:30 that Abram’s wife, Sarai, is barren. YHWH also told Abram in 12:2 that he would become a blessing and that the land of Canaan would be given to his descendants (12:7). Not having any children of his own, Abram must have assumed that his descendants would be through Lot, unless by some chance Sarai was to conceive or Abram took another wife.

This has two important implications. First, Abram’s welfare was key to fulfilling the promise. As long as he was alive, he could still father a child (through Sarai or someone else). Second, Lot was his backup plan. If something were to happen to Abram or he could not father a child of his own, as his heir Lot would inherit the land of Canaan and fulfil the promise of being a great nation.

From this perspective, Sarai’s welfare was secondary. Knowing this helps us understand Abram’s motivations in Egypt in passing off Sarai as his sister in 12:10-20. In order to fulfill the promise, Abram needed to preserve his own life at all costs. If that meant selling off Sarai to Pharaoh, then so be it. Little did Abram realize at the time that Sarai was absolutely necessary to the promise. His mistaken actions actually put the promise at risk and YHWH had to bail him out by causing a plague in Egypt that led to Pharaoh expelling Abram and his people.

Choice of Lot

Gen 13 literally returns Abram to where he was before his excursion into Egypt. In 12:8 he pitched his tent in the hill country between Bethel and Ai and then travelled by stages – presumably following the flocks as they grazed – down to the Negeb. When famine hit the region, Abram continue moving on to Egypt. In 13:1-3 this migration is reversed. Abram went up from Egypt to the Negeb and then travelled by stages back to “the place between Bethel and Ai where his tent had formerly stood.”

Lot makes his choice (artist unknown)

By this point, the flocks and herds owned by Abram and Lot were too numerous for the land to support and quarrels developed. Instead of remaining together and over-grazing the land, Abram proposes they go their separate ways and thereby utilize the resources of the entire land. As the elder, Abram could have selected the best portion for himself, but instead he allows Lot to choose and Abram will take what remains. Lot chooses the well-watered plain of Jordan and sets out eastward, leaving Abram to settle in the land of Canaan.

As mentioned above, I never saw this passage as all that significant. But biblical scholar Larry Helyer has studied the passage in detail and sees implications in Lot’s choice for his status as Abram’s heir.

Helyer [1] points out that Bethel sits atop the ridge of hills that runs through central Canaan. It also sat between the northern pasturage centered around Shechem and the southern pasturage centered around Hebron and Beesheba. The stories in the Jacob cycle are located on the northern pasturage and those in the Abraham cycle are mostly associated with places set in the southern pasturage.

According to Helyer, Abram is presenting Lot with a choice of northern or southern pasturage. You can visualize the two of them standing on the ridge overlooking the land with Abram saying, “If you prefer the left, I’ll go to the right; if you prefer the right, I’ll go to the left.” If they are facing west, the “left” is the southern pasturage and the “right” is the northern pasturage.

Abram provides a binary choice that would keep the land “in the family”, but Lot thinks outside the box. Lot looks behind them and sees how well-watered is the whole “kikkar of the Jordan”. Usually translated as “plain of the Jordan,” kikkar means something round and flat. It could be referring to a circular oasis, a flat plain, or an area bounded by a loop of the Jordan. Whatever the “Jordan Disk” was, it must have been a sight to behold. The narrator compares it favorably to both YHWH’s garden in Eden and Egypt.

Legal Separation

Lot leaves Abram and heads east, finally pitching his tents near Sodom, one of the cities of the Jordan Disk. The narrator does some foreshadowing here of events in Gen 19, informing us that YHWH has yet to destroy Sodom and the other cities of the Disk because of their great wickedness. The reader would be left to wonder what will befall Lot when his new home is destroyed, but Abram would be unsettled for a completely different reason.

From Abram’s perspective, Lot’s choice meant his heir would be leaving the promised land of Canaan. The Jordan River marks the eastern boundary of Canaan. By choosing to live among the cities of the Disk, on the eastern bank of the Jordan (the Transjordan), Lot has removed himself outside the boundaries of Canaan; he will no longer have a share in the promised land. He won't be inheriting the family business.

YHWH tries to cheer up Abram by confirming (13:14-17) that all the land he can see will indeed be given to his descendants. But the problem still remains that Abram has no descendants of his own. That particular plotline is still unresolved and will continue to work its way through the rest of Abraham’s story.

[1] “Abraham’s Eight Crises,” Bible Review, Vol. 11, No. 5 (October 1995), pp. 20-27, 44.