Abra(ha)m the Hebrew (Genesis 14:14)

Who was the first Hebrew mentioned in the Bible? Abraham

Genesis 14 is distinct for several reasons. The chapter presents characters and geography unexplored in the rest of the book. Further, the unit’s literary features do not conform to any of the primary sources scholars attribute to Genesis. This episode also marks the first time that the Bible depicts war.

In this conflict, Lot, the nephew of Abram (later Abraham), is captured (Genesis 14:12). This draws the patriarch into the hostility as Abram springs into action to rescue Lot (Genesis 14:13-16). This account provides a rare glimpse of Abraham the warrior. It is in this context that the narrator refers to him by the unique moniker “Abram the Hebrew” (Genesis 14:13).

Then a fugitive came and told Abram the Hebrew. Now he was living by the oaks of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and brother of Aner, and these were allies with Abram. (Genesis 14:13 NASB)

The Hebrew term ‘ibrîy is transliterated in most English translations as the “Hebrew” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). The word appears six times in Genesis with every other occurrence coming within the Joseph narrative (Genesis 39:14, 17, 40:15, 41:12, 43:32). Though this is the first time that the term is used in the Bible, it is presented with no introduction.

Richard Elliott Friedman (b. 1946) introduces:

This is an unusual use of the word “Hebrew.” Elsewhere in biblical stories it is used to identify Israelites only when one is speaking among foreigners. It is not the standard term for the people, which is rather “Israelite” at first and “Jew” later. Perhaps it is used here because there are not yet any other Israelites around, and Abraham himself is the foreigner. (Freidman, Commentary on the Torah)

Only here is Abram given this epithet. The parallel passage in the Book of Jubilees (Jubilees 13:24) does not name Abram the Hebrew but neither does it give Aner, Eschol and Mamre their designations.

Claus Westermann (1909-2000) comments:

Abraham is introduced here as העברי. “The appendage, ‘the Hebrew,’ gives the impression that Abraham is named for the first time” (Heinrich Holzinger [1863-1944]; similarly John Skinner [1851-1925]); “the name of Abraham and the place where he lived are introduced anew” (Herman Gunkel [1862-1932]). When Abraham is described as a Hebrew (an anachronism in the patriarchal period), this may well be an addition by the compositor, giving his own viewpoint, who wants to introduce Abraham as a member of another people after the many names of peoples in the preceding passage, Genesis 14:1-11, just as Jonah describes himself as a Hebrew to the foreigners in Jonah 1:9 (Walther Zimmerli [1907-1983]; Moshe Greenberg [1928-2010], “Hab/Piru and Hebrews,” The World History of the Jewish People, II [1970] 197; Manfred Weippert [b. 1937], The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine...Study in Bible Theology 21, 2nd Series [1967: English 1974]). Abraham was living by the terebinth of Mamre, the Amorite; this is an indication that he, in contrast to Lot who had become a city dweller, was still closer to the nomadic life style. (Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Continental Commentary, 199-200)

Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) questions:

The narrator unexpectedly refers to Abram here as the Hebrew, and this is the only time he is so designated. Why in this one instance is this particular title applied to him? Elsewhere he interacts with peoples living outside the land of Palestine (e.g., Genesis 12:10-20 and Genesis 20:1-18), and yet this designation is not used in those contexts. (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 404)

Some have seen the qualifier “the Hebrew” as evidence of an outside source being interjected into the narrative. Joyce G. Baldwin (1921-1995) speculates:

The title Abram the Hebrew suggests an independent account, for it was a designation used by others and not by Israelites, except as an accommodation to other people’s usage, as in Genesis 40:15 (though see also Exodus 21:2; Deuteronomy 15:12). It seems to have had a derogatory tone about it, and to have meant something like ‘the migrant’, implying that he did not really belong. Nevertheless he has been settled there long enough to have won the confidence of his neighbours Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner. (Baldwin, The Message of Genesis 12–50 (Bible Speaks Today), 46)

Meir Sternberg (b. 1944) expounds:

In scholarly ears, this first occurrence of “Hebrew” has long sounded outlandish, so much so as to betray a provenance outside the canon’s mainstream: a genesis either very later and nationalistic (Hebrew = Israelite) or very ancient and cosmopolitan-minded (Hebrew = Hab/piru)...The late dating (e.g., to an interfering postexilic writer or glossator) is widely surmised in an effort to explain why “Abram the Hebrew” eludes all the usual classifications. It falls out of the main clusters of Hebrewness: the Joseph tale, the Exodus ordeal, the slave law, the Philistine wars...Genuine or apparent, such breaches of canonical norm press for resolution, and late dating is not nearly enough to supply it. One variant of the theory, in fact, does not even make the attempt. Obviously, referring “Abram the Hebrew” to the common “national-religious self-designation of postexilic Judaism,” one which suits nobody better than the father of the nation (Oswald Loretz [b. 1928] 1984:179), amounts to ignoring those breaches by passing them off as observances. The patriarch’s grouping then merely follows the brand-new protocol of self-nomi-nation by the writer’s collective...The majority of late-dating geneticists plead the youth of the variant instead...Thereby, at least, the belated exception concerning Abra(ha)m gets marked off from the ancient Biblical rule of “Hebrew” usage: the alleged postexilic epigones would imitate this rule, but do so with more nationalist zest than literary insight and skill. The word must have reappeared “after the Exile, when it occurs once in the book of Jonah and in the late midrash of Genesis 14,” as a “deliberate archaism” (Roland de Vaux [1903-1971] 1978: 210, 216; also Claus Westermann [1909-2000] 1986:192-93, 199, 207). If the title here came latest in the genesis, then its coming out wrong (alone, prematurely, out of focus) in the received Genesis narrative should make sense...Checked against the set of questions posed by the narrative, however, this line of conjecture fails in turn: its explanatory weakness even reflects on its larger premises, methodological and classificatory. (Steinberg, Hebrews Between Cultures: Group Portraits and National Literature, 308-09)

The meaning of the term Hebrew in this setting is indeterminate. One Midrash contends it is used because Abram spoke the Hebrew language (Midrash HaGadol, Bereishit 14:13). The name has also been connected to Abram’s ancestor Eber (Genesis 10:21), the patriarch’s social standing and a group known as the Hapiru or Habiru.

Kenneth A. Mathews (b. 1950) examines:

Reference to Abram as “the Hebrew” distinguishes him from the person Mamre “the Amorite.” [Genesis 14:13] This is the first place in the Old Testament where “Hebrew” (‘ibrî) occurs, although “Eber” (‘ēber) whose name may be the source for the term, appears prominently in the Table of Nations (Genesis 10:21, 25) and Abram’s genealogy (Genesis 11:16; I Chronicles 1:18-19). Alternatively, “Hebrew” may have been related to ‘-b-r, “to cross over (from the other side),” from which Eber may hay been connected (cf. ‘ēber, “the other side,” Joshua 24:3). The ethnic designation “Hebrew” occurs sparingly in the Old Testament, usually spoken by non-Israelites, such as the Egyptians (e.g., Genesis 39:14, 17; Exodus 1:15-16, 19) and the Philistines (e.g., I Samuel 4:9, 13:3, 19), to distinguish members of the nation of Israel. Joseph identified himself with his homeland, “the land of the Hebrews” (Genesis 40:15). Jonah identifies himself as a “Hebrew” primarily in terms of his religious affiliation (“and I worship Yahweh; Jonah 1:9); this is reminiscent of the appellative for Yahweh in Exodus who is frequently identified as “the God of the Hebrews” (Exodus 3:18, 7:16, 9:1, 13, 10:3). “Hebrew” as a language is equated with “Judahite,” the language of Jerusalem’s residents (II Kings 18:26; II Chronicles 32:18; Isaiah 36:11, 13). Paul, too, used “Hebrew” as an ethnic or language designation (Philippians 3:5). At times the term also had social implications, not solely ethnic usage (e.g., I Samuel 13:3, 6-7, 14:21, 29:3). (Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26 (New American Commentary), 146)

Some interpreters have seen the term Hebrew as indicative of Abram’s position in society; he is from the other side, an outsider. Hebrew is nomenclature used in mixed company to set those given this moniker apart from other people groups. The context supports this reading as this encounter is one of the few times Abram is depicted outside the confines of his own family much less within the broader context of international affairs.

John H. Walton (b. 1952), Victor H. Matthews (b. 1950) and Mark W. Chavalas (b. 1954) note:

Typically the designation “Hebrew” in early times was used only as a point of reference for foreigners. Besides the use here, it is used to identify Joseph in Egypt (e.g., Genesis 39:14-17), the Israelite slaves in reference to the Egyptian masters (Exodus 2:11), Jonah to the sailors (Jonah 1:9), the Israelites to the Philistines (I Samuel 4:6), and other such situations. (Walton, Matthews and Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, 46)

The Septuagint infers social status from the designation. E.A. Speiser (1902-1965) informs:

The Septuagint translates this occurrence alone as “the one from across,” in what is apparently an attempt to give an etymological rendering based on the Hebrew verb ‘br “to pass, cross”; elsewhere, the gentilic “Hebrew” is regularly employed. The social bearing of this one passage is thus clearly recognized by the Greek translation. (Speiser, Genesis (The Anchor Bible), 102-03)

The Septuagint actually invents vocabulary to translate the title. Robert J.V. Hiebert (b. 1951) apprises:

The word περάτης... occurs in the Septuagint only in Genesis 14:13 and is based on the adverb πέρα. This is an isolate rendering of the Hebrew gentilic עברי created by the Genesis translator presumably to establish a semantic connection between words in both languages with etymological links to verbs meaning ‘traverse’ and cognate forms with the connotation ‘on the other side.’ John A.L. Lee [b. 1942] calls περάτης a nonce-formation, “unlikely to occur again.” (Craig A. Evans [b. 1952], Joel N. Lohr [b. 1974] and David L. Petersen [b. 1943], “Textual Translation Issues in Greek Genesis”, The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, 415)

Susan Brayford (b. 1950) expounds:

Abram, our ‘Hebrew’ (העברי) hero per the Masoretic Text, enters the story when one of the escapees tells him what has occurred [Genesis 14:13]. This appellation, an anachronism during the patriarchal period, perhaps was inserted to give Abram an ethnic identity distinct from those with the many kings (Claus Westermann [1909-2000] following Walther Zimmerli [1907-1983] and others, 1985, 199). The Septuagint, however, gives Abram a completely different designation, i.e. περάτης, i.e., an ‘emigrant’ or wanderer. As Marguerite Harl [b. 1919] notes, the Septuagint understood the root עבר to mean ‘pass by or cross over’ and created the neologism and hapax legomenon περάτης, based on πέρα, which means ‘beyond, further.’ Thus the word περάτης would mean ‘one who has come from beyond,’ in this case probably from beyond the Euphrates (1994, 159; see also John William Wevers [1919-2010] 1993, 193). In fact, περάτης is an apt description for Abram; he did emigrate from Mesopotamia and then wandered around between Egypt and Canaan and various places within Canaan. Because the word העברי appears several times later in Genesis (e.g., Genesis 39:14, 17, 40:15, 41:12; 43:32) where the Septuagint transliterated it as Εβραιον (i.e., ‘Hebrew’), the translator was likely familiar with the ethnic designation. However, he chose not to refer to Abram as a ‘Hebrew,’ but as an emigrant. (Brayford, Genesis (Septuagint Commentary Series), 294)

José E. Ramírez Kidd (b. 1956) interprets:

The understanding of Abraham as migrant and wanderer played a very important role in the Alexandrian tradition...The Septuagint translates the Hebrew noun העברי with the neologism περάτη (wanderer, emigrant), used only here in the Septuagint. Philo [20 BCE-50 CE] and Origen [184-253] give the same etymological explanation for this term. According to Philo the name Hebrew means “Migrant”. Origen accepts fully Philo’s etymological explanation of this term, and in his XIX Homily to the book of Numbers he states that the word “Hebrews” means travellers (transeuntes)...In his book “On the Migration of Abraham” (“Περί ἀποικίας”), Philo states that the first stage of the spiritual life is conversion. He takes Abraham as model of this and describes his conversion as a triple migration...In this way, the life of Abraham turned into pilgrimage and became the model for future pilgrims who descended from him. (Kidd, Alterity and Identity in Israel: The “ger” in the Old Testament, 124)

Whether or not “the Hebrew” is intended to identify the patriarch as an outsider, it cannot be denied that Abram is “not from around here”.

Given their national history, Abram’s progeny could likely identify with being perceived as wandering outsiders. So should Abraham’s spiritual descendants (Romans 4:16).

Miguel A. De La Torre (b. 1958) generalizes:

In a real sense, all who place their trust in Abram’s God are Hebrews, grafted onto the vine. To trust and follow God is to pass over into a new life of walking, by faith, in God’s way. Such ontological Hebrews are wanderers in this life, passing over and through a world where injustice reigns. They become the salt that reminds an unbelieving world, structured where the few exploit the many, of God’s liberation and salvation from disenfranchisement, dispossession, and displacement. (De La Torre, Genesis: Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible), 159)

Others have seen a connection to a group known as the Habiru or Hapiru. Sara R. Mandell (b. 1938) prefaces:

Various 2nd-millennium ancient Near Eastern texts refer to people classified as habîru/‘apîru, a term that some think denotes “Hebrews.” The habîru may be social outcasts, fugitives, refugees, or mercenary groups, but it is unlikely that they formed an ethnicity. Ancient Near Eastern references suggest that the habîru in Canaan, mentioned in the Amarna Letters, were not the Israelites. A relationship between the term habîru in the Nuzi servant contracts and the Hebrew slave of Exodus 21:2; Deuteronomy 15:12 is unlikely in part because the Nuzi archives are from a different time than the biblical narrative. In the Nuzi texts habîru denotes a “foreign servant” who sold himself into slavery; in Deuteronomy 15:12 the Hebrew servant is called the “brother” of those being addressed. (David Noel Freedman [1922-2008],”Hebrew, Hebrews”, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 567)

Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) characterizes:

The Habiru appear in Near Eastern texts from the 20th to the 11th centuries B.C. They were a settled people rather than a nomadic or desert population, and comprised heterogeneous racial elements. They had great mobility, and consequently they were regarded as outsiders wherever they settled. They were often fugitives, uprooted and propertyless. In times of disorganization they played a large part as auxiliary soldiers in petty wars between rulers and towns. With the establishment of a relatively stable society at the end of the 2nd millennium B.C., they sank into insignificance and eventually disappeared. On account of their militaristic exploits, commentators have raised the question whether it is accidental that in the one place where Abram engages in military activity he is styled as a “Hebrew” (Habiru?)...More and more scholars are rejecting an equation of “Hebrew” and “Habiru” on both historical and philological grounds. (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 404)

E.A. Speiser (1902-1965) researches:

The question of possible connection between Hebrew ‘ibrî “Hebrew” and Cuneiform Hab/piru and its cognates or counterparts has been fully discussed in two recent monographs, one by Jean Bottéro [1914-2007], ed., Le problème des Habiru, and the other by Moshe Greenberg [1928-2010], The Hab/piru. The evidence remains ambiguous; and within the Bible itself, the matter is complicated by the legal phrase “Hebrew slave” (Exodus 21:2; cf. Deuteronomy 15:12). At any rate, the present instance accords more closely than any other with Cuneiform data on the Western Habiru; note especially the date formula in Alalakh Tablets 58 (eighteenth/seventeenth centuries), 28ff., which mentions a treaty with Habiru warriors; and the State of Idrimi (fifteenth century Alalakh), line 27, which tells how the royal fugitive found asylum among Habiru warriors. (Speiser, Genesis (The Anchor Bible), 103)

The militaristic nature of the Genesis account has been a major point of connection to the group. Henri Cazelles (1912-2009) connects:

This episode presents a warrior Abraham, with a rather different character from that in the other Genesis episodes...We have here what is really a typical hapiru of the Amarna type. (D.J. Wiseman [1918-2010], Peoples of Old Testament Times, 22)

Mary P. Gray supports:

[The patriarch] appears to travel a great deal with flocks and herds, living in a tent as a nomad. But it must be emphasized that Abraham is denoted as עבי [ibri] just that moment when he takes decisive military action...when his actions most closely resemble those of the Hâbirū. (Gray, “The Habiru-Hebrew Problem in Light of the Source Material Available at Present,” Hebrew Union College Annual 29, 1958: 176)

Others have seen the descriptor “the Hebrew” as connecting Abram to his ancestry. Bruce K. Waltke (b. 1930) deduces:

It is an ethnic term, connected with Eber, the last ancestor in the line of Shem before the earth is divided (Genesis 10:21-25)...based on the following: (1) The form (‘ibrî) consists of ‘ēber + a gentilic î, like Israeli or Israelite from Israel; (2) this form is appropriate with the proper name Eber, not with ‘apiru; (3) the term always occurs in opposition to other ethnic groups, especially the Egyptians and Philistines; (4) though landless, the other characteristics of Abraham do not fit the ‘apiru. The Bible ascribes the term only to Abraham and his descendants to show that they are the legitimate descendants of Shem through Eber. (Waltke with Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary, 231)

Though theories on its etymological basis vary, the epithet “the Hebrew” certainly indicates Abram’s status as other (Genesis 14:13). The term fits the lyrics of Metallica: “Rover, wanderer, nomad, vagabond. Call me what you will.”

Unlike his peers, Abram is a man without a nation. He has a God but not a country. His allegiances are not political nor derived solely from self interest. This certainly makes him an outsider.

Why is Abram referred to as “the Hebrew” in this instance and only in this instance (Genesis 14:13)? What does this label add to the story? Does this term reflect how others perceive Abram; if so what does it indicate? What do you associate with the word “Hebrew”? How would you want to be identified to someone from a different nation? With what do you self identify more, God or country? If our spiritual ancestor Abraham lived on the fringes of society, what does this say about how we ought treat those living in the margins?

Even as a Hebrew, presumably an outsider by definition, Abram is connected to the world and not exempted from civic duty. J. Gerald Janzen (b. 1932) inspects:

When Abram “the Hebrew” is told what has happened (Genesis 14:13), he gathers his men to rescue Lot by force (Genesis 14:14-15). This seems a natural thing for anyone to do (like the common sense that led him to pass off Sarai as his sister in Egypt [Genesis 12:10-16]). Is it the right thing for Abram as recipient of the divine promise and in time the new name of human blessing? How does the narrative invite us to view his action? A number of clues may guide us. First, the narrative describes him as “Abram the Hebrew” (Genesis 14:13). In the Bible the term “Hebrew” is used to distinguish this people from other people sociologically. It does not draw attention to their inner identity or character as the people of Yahweh. So in Genesis 14:13 the narrative presents Abram to us, not as a bearer of divine promise, but simply as leader of one social group among many. Second, as such a leader he is presented as standing in a defensive alliance with a number of local Amorites, an alliance much like the alliance of the smaller states in Genesis 14:1-2. (Janzen, Genesis 12-50: Abraham and All the Families of the Earth (International Theological Commentary), 31-32)

John Goldingday (b. 1942) concludes:

Nobody in the world of power politics knew about Abraham and how significant he was. Yet this did not mean he had contracted out of the world. When a world crisis came to impinge on Lot, Abraham the Hebrew could not say it was not his business. (Goldingay, Genesis For Everyone, Part 1, 158)

Abram is blessed in order to bless others (Genesis 12:2). In order to fulfill this calling, he must interact with the world.

In what ways, if any, does the description “the Hebrew” speak to the efficacy of Abram’s actions? When should believers become involved in world affairs?

“You must get involved to have an impact. No one is impressed with the won-lost record of the referee.” - Napoleon Hill (1883-1970)

How Low Will God Go? (Genesis 18:32)

How many faithful people did Abraham need to find in Sodom in order for the Lord not to destroy it? Ten (Genesis 18:32)

After openly debating whether to confide in Abraham (Genesis 18:16-19; John 15:15), God decides to inform the patriarch that the outcry against Sodom has warranted an investigation (Genesis 18:20-21). Accurately inferring that the city’s destruction is imminent, Abraham pleads for its survival (Genesis 18:23-32). He begins his plea with a question: “Will You indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?” (Genesis 18:23 NASB)

Abraham does not wait for a reply. Instead he applies for a reprieve in the event that fifty righteous citizens can be found (Genesis 18:24-25). W. Sibley Towner (b. 1933) reads:

In the spirited colloquy between the Lord and Abraham that follows, the patriarch bargains tenaciously for the lives of the innocent people of Sodom. He raised the possibility that fifty righteous person might become “collateral damage” when God blitzes the city. He even hints the Lord would be unjust. The tone, if not the literal text, of Genesis 18:25 says “Shame on you!” (Towner, Genesis (Westminster Bible Companion), 171)

After being assured that the city would be spared for the sake of fifty innocents (Genesis 18:26), Abraham presses his luck. He repeats the question, reducing the requisite number by five. This process is repeated through six iterations as the patriarch gradually dwindles the minimum from 50 to 45 to 40 to 30 to 20 to 10 (Genesis 18:24-32). The text takes on a tit-for-tat pace as after each reduction, God reassures Abraham that Sodom would be spared if it met the stated requirements.

Kenneth A. Mathews (b. 1950) characterizes:

The numbers of righteous reduce by five’s, from fifty to forty (Genesis 18:24, 28a, 29a) and then ten’s from forty to ten (Genesis 18:30a, 31a, 32a). Interspersed are the Lord’s speeches, like a refrain, repeating the equivalent number in each case. This give-and-take arrangement, which in this case means Abraham “takes” and the Lord “gives,” exhibits the Lord’s grace and also Abraham’s compassion for the recalcitrant city. (Matthews, Genesis 11:27-50:26 (New American Commentary), 229)

Stuart Briscoe (b. 1930) compares:

He...engaged in a dialogue with the Lord which at first sight is reminiscent of an American tourist trying to beat down an Arab shopkeeper in the bazaars of the Old City of Jerusalem. He got a guarantee from the Lord that if there were fifty righteous people in Sodom the city would not be destroyed for their sake, but he recognized that he was overestimating the spiritual condition of Sodom. He brought down his figure by increments until the Lord promised that if there were ten righteous Sodom would be saved from judgment. The Lord had proved once again that His commitment to righteousness was inviolate. That if His servant was capable of moral integrity the Lord Himself was no stranger to rectitude and could indeed be trusted always to do what is right. (Briscoe, Genesis (Mastering the Old Testament), 166)

Perhaps sensing the time for bartering has reached its limit, the conversation abruptly ends; Abraham stops at ten and God departs (Genesis 18:32-33).

Then he [Abraham] said, “Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak only this once; suppose ten are found there?” And He said, “I will not destroy it on account of the ten.” (Genesis 18:32 NASB)

It would appear that Abraham seeks to spare the city for the sake of a few good men. Miguel A. De La Torre (b. 1958) cautions:

As we envision all of the town’s men before Lot’s house we are forced to ask: Where are the women of the city? We know by Genesis 19:4 that the men were wicked, but what about the women? When Abraham asked God...if ten righteous men could be found would the city be spared, we wonder what would have happened if Abraham would simply have asked for ten righteous persons? Patriarchy blinds us to the women’s presence in the story. All the men may have been wicked, but what about their wives? Their daughters? Is the city’s salvation or destruction based solely on the faithfulness, or lack thereof, of men? Do women who may have been righteous remain invisible? (De La Torre, Genesis: Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible, 191)

Though bold enough to negotiate with God, Abraham is cautious in his interactions with the divine. Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) analyzes:

The bargaining, concerning the requisite number of just people to save the city, falls essentially into three parts, bringing the number first to fifty, then to thirty, and finally to ten. The language of just and wicked/evil is moral, but in this legal debate, such language also has the legal meaning of innocent and guilty. The issue: Does God punish the innocent? Abraham is careful. In pleading the case he “deploys a whole panoply of the abundant rhetorical devices of ancient Hebrew for expressing self-abasement before a powerful figure” (Robert Alter [b. 1935], 82). (Brodie, Genesis As Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary, 249)

R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) applies:

As Abraham explored the fate of Sodom with God, beautiful things emerged about him and his God. The six “what ifs”—What if...fifty?...forty-five?...forty?...thirty?...twenty...ten?—are instructive. In all of this Abraham “hangs on to God’s skirt like a burr.” He wrestled with God like Jacob did with the angel (cf. Genesis 32:22-32). And amazingly, Abraham’s boldness grew, for notice that the last three petitions lowered the number of necessary righteous by tens! Jesus would teach his disciples that “they ought always to pray and not lose heart” (Luke 18:1). This first patriarch and disciple set the pace. And we should note that Abraham’s prayers were not without effect. As the cities of the plain went up in flames, we read tellingly that “God remembered Abraham and sent Lot out of the midst of the overflow” (Genesis 19:29). (Hughes, Genesis: Beginning and Blessing (Preaching the Word), 266)

Conspicuously, Abraham willingly breaks off the negotiations when he arrives at ten righteous citizens (Genesis 18:32). Gordon Wenham (b. 1943) comments:

Clearly Abraham feels he has reached the limit of what he dare ask. He opens with the conciliatory “Do not be angry” (Genesis 18:30) and asks to speak “just once more.” And again his request is granted, albeit with the same threatening formula as in Genesis 18:31: “I shall not ruin it.” (Wenham, Genesis 16-50 (Word Biblical Commentary), 53)

Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) inquires:

Why does Abraham stop at ten and not take the dialogue with God all the way down to one? Or why does Abraham not begin with the number ten (or one)? If he wanted to focus on the issue of justice in a strict sense, the presence of one righteous person would be sufficient to make his case. That is to say, for even one righteous person to die in the course of the judgment on the wicked would be unjust. Because Abraham does not begin with the lowest numbers, he must want to make another point than one of strict divine justice...Why, then, are fifty or ten righteous persons enough to spare the city, but, apparently, one to nine persons is not? It may be that the number ten represents the smallest group (some think of a minyan) and that a smaller number would be dealt with as individuals, who could be (and were) led out of the city. Nahum Sarna [1923-2005] suggests an appropriate direction for reflection. Ten represents the limit of the number of righteous individuals who could outweigh the cumulative evil of the community. Ten constitutes the “minimum effective social entity.” I prefer the language of “critical mass.” (Fretheim, Abraham: Trials of Family and Faith, 83-84)

Leon R. Kass (b. 1939) observes:

Curiously, Abraham on his own and voluntarily—“I will speak yet but this once” (Genesis 18:32)—stops the bargaining at ten. This is strange. On the principle that has driven him from the start, and that has apparently been supported at every turn by God’s response—namely, that the righteous ought not suffer—Abraham might have pressed the case to its logical conclusion: to spare the city for the sake of one righteous man. Why does Abraham break off at ten? Why does he not push all the way to one?...Abraham may have been afraid or ashamed to push to the limit, either out of a gradually increasing fear that God will judge him presumptuous or out of embarrassment at revealing a personal interest in his one kinsman. In addition, encouraged by God’s concessions, he might have become increasingly moved by feelings of awe. But fear, shame, and awe aside, Abraham may have broken off the bargaining because he may have learned something. Encouraged by God’s acceptance of his conditions, he is gradually brought to adopt the divine perspective. Like God, Abraham has begun to think about justice for a whole city. (Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis, 324)

Much has been made of why Abraham ceases his bartering at ten. Many have pointed to concern for his nephew, Lot, a resident of Sodom (Genesis 14:12), as the explanation for Abraham’s vested interest in the doomed city. In fact, this episode marks Abraham’s second intervention for Sodom and the first was clearly undertaken in deference to Lot (Genesis 14:14). Still, there were fewer than ten members of Lot’s family (Genesis 19:12-14).

Howard F. Vos (b. 1925) conjectures:

He never got so personal or selfish as to pray for relatives only. He stopped at ten, apparently presuming that Lot’s influence would guarantee at least that many righteous persons. But evidently such was not the case, as subsequent developments would demonstrate. (Vos, Genesis (Everyman’s Bible Commentary), 90)

Burton L. Visotzky (b. 1951) critiques:

Maybe Abraham got shy because his naked self-interest at saving his favorite nephew would be all too clear. When self-interest, rather than true justice, is the driving force in the bargaining, perhaps it is doomed to fail. Although it must be noted with divine irony that even as Sodom melts down, Abraham’s seed gets saved through his clout. So God destroys the city and still saves Lot. But what lesson might Abraham take from this outcome, then? (Visotzky, The Genesis of Ethics, 65)

George W. Coats (1936-2006) determines:

The point is not that Lot and his family are righteous. In the flood story, Noah survives disaster in part because of his righteousness (Genesis 7:1). But Lot is not labeled righteous, here or in chapter 19. In these negotiations, Lot never enters the discussion as a reason for appealing to the Lord for mercy. The issue is simply the contrast between wicked Sodom and the righteousness that cannot be found there (cf. Genesis 13:13). Moreover, the entire dialogue carries out the plan cited in Genesis 18:21. The grave sin is as grave as the depiction in Genesis 18:20. Thus, the negotiations constitute the probe of Yahweh into the character of the city, and the city proves void of righteousness. The unit sets the stage for chapter 19. (Coats, Genesis, with an Introduction to Narrative Literature (Forms of the Old Testament Literature), 141)

If the halting of Abraham’s petition is not connected to Lot, then why does he stop? Many explanations have been posited. Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) surveys:

Joseph Blenkinsopp [b. 1927] (“Abraham and the Righteous of Sodom,” Journal of Jewish Studies 33 [1982] 1230) summarizes suggestions of earlier commentators. He notes the suggestion of Ludwig Schmidt [b. 1924] (De Deo, pp. 151-156) that 50 and 10 have a special significance as military and judicial subunits. Schmidt’s proposal is that 50 stands for an extended family and 10 for the smallest unit constituting a group in the city. Perhaps for Abraham 10 was a sufficient figure to make his point, and to go beyond that number was unnecessary. Walter Brueggemann [b. 1933] (Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47 [1985] 410) says that “In its outcome the narrative is thoroughly Jewish because the bottom line is the minimum often, a minyan.” James L. Crenshaw [b. 1934] (A Whirlpool of Torment: Israelite Traditions of God as an Oppressive Presence, OBT [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984], p. 20 n. 38) suggests that in halting at 10, Abraham “stopped short of pushing the deity to the limit.” (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series), 24-25)

Martin Kessler (b. 1927) and Karel Deurloo (b. 1936) add:

Abraham counted off from fifty to ten, but to complete the number of six questions, the narrator had him say fifty minus five, which YHWH, who knows his math, calculated as forty-five. Abraham could not go beyond ten. In Judaism, ten is the minimal congregation of the righteous (minyan), which could represent the whole city. After six days of work, the seventh day is YHWH’s. Thus, Abraham let the seventh possibility open for YHWH, for he remained concerned about Lot. Only in that seventh possibility would Abraham’s intercession have any effect at all (Genesis 19:29), since the other six had failed. (Kessler and Deurloo, Commentary on Genesis: The Book of Beginnings, 116)

Tellingly, the basis of Abraham’s appeal is God’s justice, not the city’s righteousness. Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) outlines:

It appears that Abraham’s concern is twofold. His first concern, as expressed in Genesis 18:23, is whether Yahweh would indiscriminately kill the innocent along with the guilty. Thus, in Genesis 18:23 the emphasis is on the preservation of the saddîq. But in Genesis 18:24-32. Abraham expands his concern to include the preservation of the city/the place (hā‘îr/lammāqôm) because of the presence of the saddîq...Nowhere does Abraham challenge God’s evaluation of Sodom’s moral turpitude. The judgment is not up for debate. Nor does he at any point turn to Sodom to urge repentance. Rather, he turns to God to ask for divine mercy. (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series), 24-25)

Abraham fully admits that he is rooting for the minority to win the day. Laurence A. Turner interprets:

Note that Abraham does not plead for the salvation of a righteous remnant from the destruction of Sodom. Abraham knows his nephew better than that (see Genesis 13:8-13). In addition, Abraham has met the Sodomites first hand (Genesis 14:1-24), which has surely made him aware of the information divulged to the reader in Genesis 13:13, ‘Now the people of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the Lord’. Knowing this, he may well wonder what corrupting effect they have had on Lot. As a result, Abraham pleads for the salvation of the whole city, on the basis of the vicarious righteousness of a minority of 10. In his pleading, Abraham divides the inhabitants of Sodom into two mutually exclusive groups: the righteous and the wicked (Genesis 18:23, 25). Abraham’s plea for the vicarious salvation of the whole city means that regardless of whether Lot is deemed to be righteous or wicked, he will be saved along with the rest of the city—if there are 10 righteous Sodomites (see Genesis 7:1-10, 19:30-38). (Turner, Genesis (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary), 82)

Regardless of his motives, Abraham’s actions are groundbreaking. This dialogue marks a major turning point in salvation history (Genesis 18:23-32). David Rosenberg (b. 1943) explains:

Tracing Abraham’s drama of these tentative iterations of a final agreement—to spare the cities if even ten innocent people can be found here—... [leaves] this danger of allowing evil to persist. Ten innocent individuals existing in Sodom certainly will not erase that evil. But Abraham is articulating what has never been accessible in any cosmic theater: the decision about evil is no longer a singular drama in the mind of a god. Now, it is one that has been joined in by humankind; that is what makes it more complex and costly...Abraham is not merely balancing moral weights on Sumerian scales here, but actively engaging with Yahweh in the creation of a realistic theater. Similarly, the vulnerability assumed by Yahweh in turn is staggering, for while ten innocents cannot erase or undo the evil, evil can erase or undo creation...It is now up to mortal men and women to negotiate and explore the way of God within a cosmic theater, and not to simply struggle with the dictates of a god. (Rosenburg, Abraham: The First Historical Biography, 218-19)

In permitting Abraham to intercede for Sodom, God is allowing humans the opportunity to shape history. And humanity has had that option ever since.

Why does Abraham intercede for Sodom? Is he more concerned with divine justice or his nephew’s fate? Are you concerned with international affairs? Given that God has accepted every one of his propositions, why does Abraham stop at ten? Does Abraham’s dickering have any affect? Have you ever bartered with God? When have you interceded for another? Would God destroy the righteous with the wicked; does God tolerate collateral damage? How many innocent people were dwelling in Sodom? How many righteous residents would it have taken to spare the city?

The questions that God answers are not near as tantalizing as the one that the text leaves dangling: Would God sweep away the righteous with the wicked (Genesis 18:23)? Perhaps sensing this tension, Josephus (37-100) denotes that there are no righteous in Sodom (Antiquities 1.199). In moving the dialogue towards the negotiations, Abraham lets his initial question linger.

Some have speculated that Abraham leaves satisfied; the theological point having been made. Allen P. Ross (b. 1943) pinpoints:

This passage [Genesis 18:16-33] has most frequently (and legitimately) been treated for its emphasis on intercession; the predominant theme of the whole section, however, is justice. This motif grows out of the preceding narrative, which stressed that God was able to do whatever he chose to do. But would it be just? The answer to this question was a foregone conclusion, which Abraham’s intercession demonstrated. It is clear from the outset of the story that Abraham’s intercession was not going to alter the situation, for Sodom and Gomorrah deserved judgment. The narrator thus used the intercession to show that the destruction of the cities of the plain would be just. (Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis, 347)

Gerhard Von Rad (1901-1971) writes:

The discontinuance of the conversation at “ten innocent” has given rise to many reflections...His refusal to go on from the ten innocent to five and finally to one, raises many questions need not mean that the conversation ends with an open question. Apparently Abraham and the narrator, at Yahweh’s answer in Genesis 18:32, reached a final limit, to ask beyond which did not occur to Abraham. Thereby, in our opinion, the narrative guards the uniqueness and marvel of the message about the one who brings salvation and reconciliation for “many” (Isaiah 53:5, 10); for this was not anything expected or inferred from men. Besides Isaiah 53, one should refer to Hosea 11:8-9 for the ultimate consequence not drawn in our conversation: God does not want to destroy, rather his heart ‘recoils”; he is as a holy one “in your midst”...The righteous one who redeems, the holy one is here not a man but God himself (Kurt Galling [1900-1987], Deutsche Theologie 1939, 86ff). (Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 214)

In contrast, Susan Brayford (b. 1950) suspects:

When God again admits he will not destroy on account of ten, Abraham perhaps wishes he could speak once again. However, he said he would not [Genesis 18:32]. Just in case Abraham decides to ask for more – or less, God stops speaking to Abraham and departs [Genesis 18:33]. Abraham, no longer having a conversation partner, returns to his place. Inasmuch as Abraham never again engages in an extended conversation with God, his ‘place’ is both literal (where he is living) and figurative (not equal to God). (Brayford, Genesis (Septuagint Commentary Series), 317)

As such, the text ends with Abraham’s initial inquiry unresolved. Robert Ignatius Letellier (b. 1953) notes:

Interestingly for the general structure of the whole narrative complex, the last answer “For the sake of ten I will not destroy it” (Genesis 18:32) is ambiguous since it resolves the tension provoked by Abraham’s last question but does not terminate the anxiety generated by Abraham’s intercession generally...The unresolved issues of Genesis 18 span the break with Genesis 19 and look to ensuing events for resolution. (Letellier, Day in Mamre, Night in Sodom: Abraham and Lot in Genesis 18 and 19, 51)

W. Lee Humphreys (b. 1939) expounds:

There it ends—at ten. “And Yahweh went as he finished speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place” (Genesis 18:33). Their dialogue ends, but we are not sure where we stand, for we are not told what the speakers think, know, or feel about it. The whole scene appears a bit askew upon reflection. Yahweh tells Abraham he will go down but does not go when Abraham does not pick up on his going. Abraham switches the issue from what Yahweh proposes to do to concern for Yahweh’s justice, and his nature as “judge of all the earth” (Genesis 18:25). Yahweh enters this new frame of reference, but in a most literal way that may well subvert it. The back and forth, then, in terms of such literal calculations, ends with a resolution in which little is resolved. (Humphreys, The Character of God in the Book of Genesis: A Narrative Appraisal, 122)

The question of the fate of the city that houses five or even one righteous soul is left for another day. This discussion will ultimately end with Jesus: One will be enough.

Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) interprets:

The discussion ends with a dismaying abruptness. First, its abruptness is striking because it ends at a figure of ten (Genesis 18:33). One might insist, if we were calculating mathematicians, that that ending shows there must be ten and that nine will not do. But, one would fail to see the point. Rather, the conversation breaks off because the point is established that the power of righteousness overrides evil. The dramatic exploration need not be carried further. Second, the narrative is abrupt because after the deep struggle of chapter 18 the stroy of chapter 19 goes ahead as though nothing is changed. That is likely because (1) chapter 19 is old traditional material that could not be altered in the telling and (2) because the dialogue of chapter 18 is a new theological probing that only raises a fresh question still to be pursued rather than reaching a firm conclusion as a basis for chapter 19. The possibility raised by Abraham is perhaps too radical. It is suggested and then left to germinate in the heart of God. The issue remains between new affirmation (Genesis 18:22-33) and old tradition (Genesis 19:1-28). The principle of a new righteousness is affirmed in Genesis 18:22-33. These verses (Genesis 19:1-28) sound as though the concern is only to rescue the innocent (Lot and his family) without a care for the guilty. The popular theology of Genesis 19:1-28 moves in the direction of individualism and will be easily accepted by conventional believers. Previously, Genesis 18:22-33 carries with it a more difficult theology that will be intellectually more demanding. It stands against the usual moralism of each receiving his or her due. It is the good news of Genesis 18:22-33 and not the convention of Genesis 19:1-28 that moves toward Jesus of Nazareth. And like a subtle reprise, even in the conventionalism of chapter 19, Genesis 19:29 adds one whisper from chapter 18. Lot is saved not by his righteousness but vicariously by the power of Abraham...By the new mathematics of Genesis 18:22-33 (and Genesis 19:29), one is enough to save (Romans 5:15-17). (Brueggemann, Genesis (Interpretation: a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 172-73)

R.R. Reno (b. 1959) deciphers:

As he presses God on behalf of the possible righteous residents of Sodom and Gomorrah, we see that those called to fellowship with God intercede as well. In this way Abraham foreshadows Moses, who intercedes on behalf of the sinful Israelites, as well as the Levitical priesthood that sacrifices on behalf of the people. Abraham even more clearly prefigures Christ. Abraham urges God to accept the righteousness of a few as sufficient for the salvation of the sinful many. Abraham stops at ten, but as the history of the covenant moves forward the righteousness of Christ alone is sufficient for the deliverance of all. Christ Jesus sits “at the right hand of God...[and] intercedes for us” (Romans 8:34). Christ is like Abraham, petitioning his Father on our behalf: “Suppose there was one man found righteous, wilt thou not spare the city of man for his sake?” (Reno, Genesis (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 186)

God will not only answer definitely that one righteous individual will be enough to save the populace, God will supply the One.

Do you think that Abraham regretted breaking off the conversation when he did or is he content with the conversation’s resolution? Is God more or less merciful than Abraham had imagined? What would the city’s fate have been if a lone righteous soul had been found in Sodom? What is the most impact one person has had on a community? What impact do you have on yours?

“One person can make a difference and every person should try.” - John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)

Abraham: New Wife, New Life (Genesis 25:1)

Abraham married again after Sarah died. What was his second wife’s name? Keturah (Genesis 25:1)

Little is known of Abraham’s last 38 years, from the time his wife Sarah dies when he is 137 (Genesis 23:1) until his own death at the age of 175 (Genesis 25:7). Almost as an appendix, Abraham is said to have married a woman named Keturah (Genesis 25:1).

Now Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah. She bore to him Zimran and Jokshan and Medan and Midian and Ishbak and Shuah. (Genesis 25:1-2 NASB)

Bewilderingly, there is no connection between this passage and the material that precedes or follows it.

Keturah is a mysterious figure. Little detail is given her. The text does not state her age, place of origin, whether she was a slave like Hagar (Genesis 16:1) or her fate. The only detail provided is her name. “Keturah” comes from qetoret (“incense”) which has led some to suggest that her descendants were engaged in the incense trade. This industry is associated with the Arabian Peninsula (especially the territory east of the Gulf of Aqaba) in the Old Testament (I Kings 10:2; Isaiah 60:6). This theory fits the geography of the passage as several of her sons’ names, but not all of them, are associated with this region.

Nahum M. Sarna (1923-2005) comments:

Because of her name, it is reasonable to assume that the key factor behind the organization of the Keturah tribes was the spice trade—the production, shipment, and distribution of this precious commodity. It so happens that both biblical and Assyrian sources mention many of the names here listed [Genesis 25:2-4] as those of peoples and localities involved in the particular branch of international commerce. They controlled the trade routes that led from the Arabian Peninsula to the lands of the Fertile Crescent. This accounts for the picture of such widespread geographical diffusion of the Ketureans from southern Arabia to the Middle Euphrates region and northern Syria. (Sarna, Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary), 172)

Adding to the passage’s puzzle is the absence of a time stamp. Many have speculated that Abraham’s relationship with Keturah is concurrent with his marriage to Sarah given Abraham’s age, inferring that Abraham’s arrangement with Hagar is not an isolated incident (Genesis 16:1-4). Some rabbis have even posited that Keturah is merely another name for Hagar.

Robert Alter (b. 1935) acknowledges:

The actual place of this whole genealogical notice in the chronology of Abraham’s life might be somewhere after the burial of Sarah at the end of chapter 23, or perhaps even considerably earlier. The genealogy is inserted here as a formal marker of the end of the Abraham story. Perhaps a certain tension was felt between the repeated promise that Abraham would father a vast nation and the fact that he had begotten only two sons. The tension would have bee mitigated by inserting this document at the end of his story with the catalog of his sons by Keturah. (Alter, Genesis: Translation and Commentary, 124)

There is also ambiguity as to whether Keturah is another wife or merely a concubine. Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1941) examines:

This is the only passage in Genesis that mentions Keturah. Here she is called Abraham’s wife, but in I Chronicles 1:32 she is identified as “Abraham’s concubine.” The coidentification is comparable with Bilhah, who is called both Jacob’s concubine (Genesis 35:22) and Jacob’s wife (Genesis 30:4). By contrast, Zilpah is identified as Jacob’s wife (Genesis 30:9) but never as his concubine. If “by concubines” in Genesis 25:6 is a reference to Hagar and Keturah...then again both Hagar (Genesis 16:3) and Keturah (Genesis 25:1) are called “wife” in one place but “concubine” in another (Genesis 25:6)...The emphasis on Keturah’s status as wife would suggest that Abraham married her after the death of Sarah. If the emphasis is on her status as concubine then one would think that Abraham married her while Sarah was still living, as he did with Hagar. In that case one wold have to understand married in this verse as a pluperfect — “had married.” (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series), 165)

The placement of the wedding notice and the passage’s verbs give the impression that Keturah enters the scene after Sarah’s death (Genesis 23:1-2). Gerhard Von Rad (1901-1971) writes:

The remark about Abraham’s marriage to Keturah and the genealogy connected with it do not easily follow the previous narrative context by our standards. To be sure, one cannot understand the verses otherwise than that this marriage followed the one with Sarah. But then we are disturbed by the thought that forty years previously, Abraham no longer thought it possible to beget a son. (Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 262)

It appears Abraham got a new lease on life after Sarah’s death. Amazingly, though forty years earlier he thought himself too old for children (Genesis 17:17), Abraham has half a dozen children with Keturah (Genesis 25:2), the most familiar of which is Midian. In fact, the passage documents six sons, seven grandsons and three great grandsons from their union (Genesis 25:2-4). Keturah may have birthed daughters as well.

Though Abraham honors and provides for these sons they do not participate in the Promise (Genesis 25:5-6). Keturah’s sons are as detached from Abraham as the passage in which they appear. Abraham bequeaths everything he owns to Isaac, his sole beneficiary (Genesis 25:5). Keturah’s sons are a collateral line who are safely exiled to the east (Genesis 25:1-6). This leaves Keturah a secondary wife with lower status than Sarah.

James McKeown delineates:

The narrative implies no criticism of Abraham, and his large family is evidence of the fulfillment of the earlier promises that he would have numerous progeny (Genesis 15:5). Nothing disparaging is said about Keturah, the concubines, or their offspring, but there is a clear demarcation between them and Isaac. Isaac is given a position of unmistakable prominence as the son of Abraham in a special and unique sense, and through him Abraham’s most significant line of descent is traced — the line of promise and blessing. (McKeown, Genesis (Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary), 124)

Abraham dies with his affairs in order. Abraham protects the Promise, which will come through Isaac. In making this distinction, the passage brings to close central the theme of Abraham’s heir.

Does it matter when Keturah marries Abraham? How are we to view Keturah? How would Keturah fit into Paul’s analogy differentiating Hagar and Sarah (Galatians 4:21-31)? Do Abraham’s sons with Keturah diminish the miracle of Isaac in any way? What does one do when their spouse dies? Have you ever known anyone who happily remarried after a spouse died? Did it detract from their previous marriage?

The succinct route which led Abraham to children with Keturah is remarkable when compared to the torturous path that led to Isaac. Burton L. Visotzky (b. 1951) remarks startlingly:

It’s reported so matter-of-factly. Abraham takes this woman, Keturah, who the rabbis immediately identify with Hagar, as if Sarah being dead, Abraham goes back to Hagar. But assuming it’s a third wife, it would be as if after all the family dysfunction for all those years, Abraham, now in old age, finally settles down and has a normal family. At this point, God’s out of the picture. Abraham doesn’t have a relationship with God anymore. But he has a normal life. (Moyers, Genesis: A Living Conversation, 217)

Is life easier for Abraham when God is no longer featured prominently in his story? How would your life be different without God? How would it be easier? How would it be more difficult?

“Don’t wish it were easier, wish you were better.” - Jim Rohn (1930-2009)

The Lord Will Provide (Genesis 22:14)

What did Abraham call the place where he had gone to sacrifice Isaac? The Lord will provide (Genesis 22:14)

In one of the Bible’s most troublesome passages, near the end of his faith journey, God asks Abraham to sacrifice his beloved son, Isaac (Genesis 22:1-2). Remarkably, Abraham complies, ascending a mountain to do the deed (Genesis 22:3-10). Before his hand can complete the act he is stopped by an angel (Genesis 22:11-12). His eyes are then averted to a ram in a thicket which will take his son’s place (Genesis 22:13). The grateful patriarch commemorates the event by naming the locale in honor of God’s provision (Genesis 22:14).

Abraham called the name of that place The LORD Will Provide, as it is said to this day, “In the mount of the LORD it will be provided.” (Genesis 22:14 NASB)

In christening the location, Abraham coins a phrase that was still proverbial at the time that Genesis was compiled.

Naming a site is a common response when one has experienced something so uncommon. Abraham himself had previously named Beersheeba (Genesis 21:31).

Gerhard Von Rad (1901-1971) informs:

The naming of the place, which Abraham now does, was an important matter for the ancients; for a place where God appeared in so special a fashion was consecrated for all future generations. Here God will receive the sacrifices and prayers of coming generations, i.e. the place becomes a cultic center. It is strange, to be sure, that the narrator is unable to supply the name of a better-known cultic center. He gives no place name at all, but only a pun which at one time undoubtedly explained a place name. (Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 242)

As Von Rad suggests, most modern translations render the place name “The LORD Will Provide” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV). The name is less awkward in Hebrew, which is why some translations retain the moniker Jehovah-jireh (ASV, KJV, NLT).

As is often the case, the name Jehovah-Jireh entails some ambiguity. The verb included in the appellation, ra’ah, is a key term in the Abraham narrative. Though “provide” is not inaccurate, it most commonly means “see”.

W. Sibley Towner (b. 1933) comments:

The name aptly sums up the moral of this story. As is so often the case with biblical names, the meaning assigned it in the story is only one of several possible interpretations. The same words also mean “Yahweh sees.” The popular or editorial explanation of the name that follows can also mean “On the mountain Yahweh is seen,” or “there is a vision.” Puns abound! (Towner, Genesis (Westminster Bible Companion), 188)

John H. Walton (b. 1952) deciphers:

The verb translated “provide”...in Genesis 22:8, 14 is simply the verb “to see.” This usage approximates one of the idiomatic uses of the verb “to see” that we also have in English. When we say “I will see to it that the report is done on time” we are using the verb “to see” to convey that the details will be taken care of. But the idiom also suggests by nuance a supervisory role rather than an active one. Hebrew uses the verb this way in Genesis 39:23, where the warden did not have to “see to” anything under Joseph’s care. Abraham is convinced that the Lord will work out all of the details (Genesis 22:8), and when he does, Abraham names the place accordingly “(Yahweh Yireh,” i.e. “The Lord will Provide”). (Walton, Genesis (The NIV Application Commentary), 511)

In light of this, the Message paraphrases the verb as “Sees-to-it”.

Similarly, theologian Karl Barth [1886-1968] linked the term to the Latin provideo, “to see before,” “to see to,” “to see about.” which connects “see” and “provide” (Church Dogmatics III, 3, pp. 3, 35). In fact, Barth draws upon this text as the foundation for his entire understanding of the doctrine of providence.

Bill T. Arnold (b. 1955) argues that the layered term ra’ah summarizes the entire episode:

The dictum itself, “On the mount of the Lord it shall be provided,” introduces the passive of “see,” and is therefore more likely “On the mount of Yahweh, he/it is seen.” In other words, a word play is introduced at this point in the narrative, playing on the active voice “provides” and the passive “be seen,” albeit using the same Hebrew verb. Moreover, this passive “be seen” is the term used several times in Genesis for “appear” in divine disclosure at times when God makes himself known in revelatory communications...Thus this well-known maxim in the narrator’s days was something like “On Yahweh’s mount He appears,” or “He is revealed.” Perhaps this connection in Genesis 22:14 hints at the meaning of the entire bizarre episode in Genesis 22:1-19, in that God’s provision is also God’s self-disclosure. God is revealed in his act of providing. The mount of Yahweh’s revelation is the spot where he providentially provided for the ancestral family and the continuation of the promised line. (Arnold, Genesis (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), 207-208)

There is further ambiguity in the expression associated with the name as the subject of the verb is unclear. Robert Alter (b. 1935) explains:

The place-name means “the Lord sees.” The phrase at the end means literally either “he sees” or “he will be seen,” depending on how the verb is vocalized...It is also not clear whether it is God or the person who comes to the Mount who sees/is seen. (Alter, Genesis: Translation and Commentary, 106)

Rabbi Benno Jacob (1862-1945) sees profundity in the vagueness:

On the mount of the Lord it will be seen. There everything is revealed. “God sees” is the essence of religion. To see God is the deepest longing of a soul that is kindred to God...It will be seen; the subject is intentionally not mentioned. Everything stands revealed there; both the character of the man who goes there as well as the essence of the divine. (Benno, Genesis: The First Book of the Bible: Augmented Edition, 146-47)

The location continued to have significance. Moriah would serve as the future the site of the temple (II Chronicles 3:1) and quite possibly the crucifixion. John Goldingay (b. 1942) chronicles:

This mountain is located in the area of Moriah. While we do not know the actual origin of the name, it resembles words for “seeing,” so the name itself would remind people that this is the place where God “saw” in that connection. And if Moriah or “Yahweh’s mountain” is the mountain where the temple was, this is the place that people know as one where they and their needs are seen and attended to. Outside of the context, one might translate the phrase as denoting that “On Yahweh’s mountain he is seen.” This is where God appears, where you can meet with God. (Goldingay, Genesis for Everyone, Part 2: Chapters 17-50, 52)

Allen P. Ross (b. 1943) sees the phrase Jehovah-jireh as foundational to Israel’s theology:

This is the basis of a truth often repeated in the Old Testament: the Lord was to be worshiped in His holy mountain by the nation...The Lord would see the needs of those who came before him and would meet their needs. Thus in providing for them He would be “seen”. (Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis, 65)

The name harkens back to an earlier conversation between Abraham and his confused son as they made their trek up the mountain (Genesis 22:7-8). When asked about the absence of an animal to be sacrificed, Abraham cryptically responds, “God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son (Genesis 22:8 NASB).”

Nahum M. Sarna (1923-2005) notes:

This incident reminds Abraham of his reply to Isaac’s question (Genesis 22:7ff). He had foretold better than he realized at the time. In accordance with patriarchal practice, the site of a revelation becomes sacred and receives a name somehow reminiscent of the occasion. (Sarna, Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary), 154)

Kenneth A. Mathews (b. 1950) interprets:

Genesis 22:13-14 mirror[s] the earlier dialogue of father and son concerning the sacrificial victim (Genesis 22:7-8). The timely presence of the entangled ram answers the boy’s earlier perplexity, “Where is the lamb” (Genesis 22:7). Abraham interprets the appearance of the animal according to his response in Genesis 22:8, “God will provide” [’ēlohîm yir’eh], in naming the place “The LORD will provide” (yahweh yir’eh, Genesis 22:14). The opportune moment of the suddenly seen substitute implies the obvious–the Lord is responsible for the appearance of the surprising ram. (Mathews, New American Commentary: Genesis 11:27-50:26, 297)

Gordon Wenham (b. 1943) concludes, “Whether his ‘God will provide’ (Genesis 22:8) should be taken as hope, prayer, or prophecy makes no difference...he has proved that the Lord does provide (Wenham, Genesis 16-50 (Word Biblical Commentary, 111).”

There is debate regarding the tone in Abraham’s voice when he designates the name. Claus Westermann (1909-2000) hears jubilation:

“It is part of the ancient grandeur of the passage that no cry of joy is heard”...But this is to misunderstand the plain and simple meaning of Genesis 22:14a: ראה’ הוה’ sings the praise of God. When Abraham gives this name to the place where the narrative has taken place, he includes in it his reaction to what he has experienced. Herman Gunkel [1862-1932] alone among commentators has understood this: “Abraham remembers with gratitude what he had said to his child in his hour of deepest anguish.” The author is not thinking of a place that can be determined geographically. The name is his expression of joy at his release from the depths of anguish; the praise of God in the Old Testament is a cry of joy directed to God. Genesis 22:8 confirms that...lament is turned about. (Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Continental Commentary, 362)

R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) agrees:

In ecstasy “Abraham called the name of that place, ‘The Lord will provide’...His initially ambiguous, “God will provide” (Genesis 22:8) had now been fulfilled more perfectly than he had ever dreamed. Abraham’s declaration of faith — “God will provide” — as he and Isaac ascended toward sacrifice had now become the story’s end. We see that the God who tests is also the God who provides — the Tester is the Provider. Both truths are actual fact, but they must be appropriated by faith. When God tests you, he will provide for you. (Hughes, Genesis: Beginning and Blessing (Preaching the Word), 304)

Even at this late stage, Abraham is making fresh discoveries about God’s character. Abraham ascends the mountain thinking that it was to be a place of death and descends it confident that God provides. Though commonly taken for granted, this is one of the great revelations of Scripture and it has inspired worship for centuries. For instance, the famed hymn writer John Newton (1725-1807) used the verse as a refrain for his hymn “The Lord Provides”, still found in the Primitive Baptist Hymnal (#440).

It is when Abraham reaches a place of total surrender that he receives provision. Jim Logan (b. 1958) sees a spiritual principle, not a coincidence:

After God tests us, He often reveals aspects of His character we would have never known if we hadn’t gone through the test. Just ask Abraham. If Abraham had failed the test in the offering of Isaac on Mount Moriah, he would have never known God as Jehovah Jireh. (Logan, Reclaiming Surrendered Ground: Protecting Your Family from Spiritual Attacks, 168)

Many have taken heart in this provision. Elmer L. Towns (b. 1932) and Charles Billingsley (b. 1970) relay:

The China Inland Mission was the first great Faith Foreign Mission Board. Some of the greatest and godliest missionaries evangelized inland China without a guaranteed salary, trusting God to supply all their financial needs. Over the door to their headquarters in England was written their motto, “Jehovah-jireh.” (Towns and Billingsley, God Laughs: & 42 More Surprising Facts about God That Will Change Your Life, 74)

When has God surprised you by providing an alternative you did not foresee? Do you believe that God will provide for you? What about cases, like that of Jepthah’s daughter (Judges 11:1-40), when God does not provide a substitute? What is the “it” that will be seen? What tone do you hear in Abraham’s voice when he names Jehovah-jireh? Who or what is your residence named after? Can you think of any locations named for divine encounters?

Abraham shows faith throughout his ordeal. This is especially seen in how he commemorates the location. Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1941) commends:

Appropriately Abraham names this place Yahweh-yireh, “Yahweh sees (or provides).” He does not call this site “Abraham-shama” (“Abraham obeyed”). The name does not draw any attention to Abraham’s role in the story. Thus his part in the story is not memorialized; rather, it is subordinated to that of Yahweh. The name highlights only the beneficent actions of Yahweh. The reader will come away from this story more impressed with God’s faithfulness than Abraham’s compliance...This emphasis is borne out by the fact that the following phrase, and even today it is said, lifts the event out of Abraham’s time and projects it into the time of the narrator. Thus the phrase gives to the entire narrative a certain timelessness. It witnesses to the gracious provisions of God. (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series), 113-114)

Abraham’s affirmation that God meets the needs of those who trust is profound and the faith required to make it rivals the faith necessary to scale the mountain. Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) expounds:

The narrative begins with the testing by God [Genesis 22:1]. But the narrative ends with God providing. That statement may be taken for granted. But it is no less problematic. It is no less an act of radical faith on the part of Abraham to concede the last statement than to accept the first statement. To assert that God provides requires a faith as intense as does the conviction that God tests. It affirms that God, only God and none other, is the source of life. Abraham’s enigmatic statement (Genesis 22:8) and the conclusion (Genesis 22:14) confess that the alternate ram did not appear by accident, by nature, or by good fortune (Genesis 22:13). They mean, rather, that the same God who set the test in sovereignty is the one who resolved the test in graciousness. In a world beset by humanism, scientism, and naturalism, the claim that God alone provides is as scandalous as the claim that he tests. (Brueggemann, Genesis (Interpretation : A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 191)

Which act demonstrates more faith: the willingness to perform the act or the confession after the reprieve? How would you have responded to this crisis after it was over? Who receives more glory for your successes, you or God? What location would you dub the Lord Will Provide? As God’s hands and feet, what can you be providing in the Lord’s name?

“Depend upon it. God’s work, done in God's way, will never lack God’s supplies.” - J. Hudson Taylor (1832-1905) quoted by Mary Geraldine (Guinness) Taylor (1865-1949), The Story of the China Inland Mission, Volume 1, p. 238

Entertaining Angels (Hebrews 13:2)

Complete: “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for ___________________________________________.” Thereby some have entertained angels unawares (Hebrews 13:2)

Hebrews concludes with a series of exhortations. The first is to love one another, philadelphia (Hebrews 13:1) and is followed by a directive to show hospitality, philoxenia (Hebrews 13:2).

Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it. (Hebrews 13:2 NASB)

The text moves from loving inside of the community to demonstrating love outside its borders. The word rendered “hospitality” (philoxenia) literally means a love of strangers. The word is used only here (Hebrews 13:2) and in Romans 12:13 in the New Testament. Kathleen Norris (b. 1947) writes, “True hospitality is marked by an open response to the dignity of each and every person. Henri Nouwen (1932-1996) has described it as receiving the stranger on his own terms, and asserts that it can be offered only by those who ‘have found the center of their lives in their own hearts’ (Norris, Dakota: A Spiritual Geography, 197).”

Hospitality was a primary virtue in the ancient world. Caring for strangers was a solemn responsibility in the Old Testament (Genesis 18:1-8, 19:1-3; Judges 19:19-21; Job 31:32) and practiced by the New Testament church (Acts 10:23, 21:16, 28:7). Hebrews’ mandate fits with Jesus’ teaching that hospitality extends to those who cannot possibly repay it (Matthew 25:31-46; Luke 14:1-14).

The ancients placed special emphasis on providing lodging as inns were typically places of ill repute and travelers naturally preferred accommodation in private residences. Peter T. O’Brien (b. 1935) explains, “Among Jews and Gentiles alike, hospitality to strangers was highly regarded, and even considered a religious obligation. It usually involved lodging as well as food and drink (O’Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 506).”

How would you define hospitality? Who is the most hospitable person you know? Where would you rank hospitality among the virtues?

Hebrews adds an incentive to follow this mandate with a tantalizing potentiality - in demonstrating hospitality, one might be entertaining an angel in disguise (Hebrews 13:2)! Hebrews devotes a section to the cosmic pecking order and includes that humans rank slightly lower than their angelic counterparts (Hebrews 2:5-9). In claiming that a stranger may in actuality be an angel, the author is in effect advising to treat all strangers as if they were God’s direct emissaries because they might well be. The enticement serves the same function as the fable of the king who anonymously inserted his child into the community so that each child would be treated as though they were the prince. People tend to treat someone differently whom they feel is of a superior ilk.

There was precedent for unknowingly entertaining angels. While Gideon (Judges 6:11-21), Manoah (Judges 13:3-20) and Tobit (Tobit 3:17, 5:4-16) all encountered unrecognizable angels, the most notable case is that of Abraham (Genesis 18:2-15). George H. Guthrie (b. 1959) reminds, “The supreme paradigm for hospitality in early Jewish literature was the hospitality of Abraham, shown to his heavenly visitors (Genesis 18:2-15), which is probably alluded to in Hebrews 13:2 (Guthrie, NIV Application Commentary: Hebrews, 435-6).”

Despite the precedence, interacting with disguised angels is a rarity, even in the Bible. With this in mind, F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) comments that the author “is not necessarily encouraging his readers to expect that those whom they entertain will turn out to be supernatural beings traveling incognito; he is assuring them that some of their visitors will prove to be true messengers of God to them, bringing a greater blessing than they receive (Bruce, Epistle to the Hebrews (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 371).”

What is the purpose of disguised angelic visits? How common do you feel this experience is? When have you been unfamiliar with someone you have entertained? Do you feel you have ever interacted with an angel? If you did, how would you know?

“Insight is better than eyesight when it comes to seeing an angel.” - Eileen Elias Freeman (b. 1947), The Angels’ Little Instruction Book

Lot: A Slow Boiled Frog (Genesis 13:12)

Where did Abraham’s nephew, Lot, move after separating from his uncle? To Sodom.

When Abraham (then Abram) journeyed to the land that God would show him (Genesis 12:1), he took his late brother Haran’s son, Lot, along (Genesis 12:4). Both prospered and eventually the land was not big enough for the both of them (Genesis 13:6). Their hired hands began feuding (Genesis 13:7) and Abraham decided to resolve the conflict by dividing the land and allowing Lot to choose his portion (Genesis 13:8-9). Lot saw the fertility of the land to the east in the Jordan valley and selected it (Genesis 13:10-11). It seemed like a good idea at the time.

Each time Lot’s location is reported thereafter, his contiguity to the city gates of Sodom is closer. Lot begins in the vicinity of Sodom (Genesis 13:12), becomes a resident (Genesis 14:12) and eventually is seen sitting at the gate, a place of prominence (Genesis 19:1). From the outset, Sodom’s citizens are appraised as “exceedingly wicked” (Genesis 13:13 NASB) and Lot slowly became one of them.

How did you choose where you live? Were there any moral considerations?

It is said that if a frog were to be put into a cauldron of boiling water, it would instinctively leap to escape danger. Conversely, if placed in a pleasant kettle and gradually boiled, frogs would not relocate as their survival instincts are geared towards detecting sudden changes. The analogy of a slow boiling frog has become a widespread anecdote used to illustrate the need for awareness of slowly changing trends as well as the obvious sweeping changes.

The metaphor is based on study conducted by A. Heinzmann in 1872 which encompassed examining 27 frogs. Heinzmann planned to heat decapitated and brain damaged frogs with only one of their legs in the water. He progressed to an arrangement where the frog was seated on a cork floating in a cylinder of water. Heinzmann then elevated the temperature of the frog’s habitat from 21° (Celsius) to 37.5° over the course of 90 minutes. Eventually, Heinzmann advanced to working with undamaged frogs. In his twelfth trial, a healthy frog was boiled from 23° to 39° without any movement though the amphibian could have freely escaped throughout the experiment if it so chose. Heinzmann successfully replicated the results in two of his next three trials. He then reproduced the experiment with freezing temperatures. (Heinzmann [1872], “Ueber die Wirkung Sehr Allmäliger Aenderungen Thermischer Reize auf die Empfindungsnerven”, Archiv fur die Gesammte Physiologie, Bd. VI, 222-236)

Though Heinzmann’s findings were corroborated by C. Fratscher in 1875, today, modern scientists refute Heinzmann’s findings. Whether true or not, the analogy of the slow boiled frog conveys truth as evidenced by Lot’s story. Lot was “righteous” (II Peter 2:7) and yet his association with Sodom ruined his life. Through his residing in the doomed city, his wife died (Genesis 19:26) and when he is last seen in the Biblical text, he is involved in a drunken, incestuous relationship with his own daughters (Genesis 19:30-38). “Righteous” Lot’s downfall began by moving closer and closer to the “exceedingly wicked”.

Are you in danger of becoming a slow boiled frog in any aspect of your life?