What kind of man was Abraham that God called him to lead his family out of Haran? And why did God establish a covenant with him and his descendants? In other words, who is Abraham that he was favored by God? To establish his legitimacy and authority as a patriarch, the Yahwist source collected and interwove a series of stories of the legendary figure. Yet the picture one initially gets of Abraham is less than perfect. He is a coward who tries to pawn off his wife to save his own skin, a skeptic who doubts God’s promise to provide a progeny, a namby-pamby man who fears his wife, Sarah, and a disloyal father who fails to protect Ishmael, his son through Hagar, the maidservant. Abraham is all too human and therefore, one wonders how or if the Yahwist wanted to redeem the patriarch. But Abraham is not just a bumbling patriarch, he is a wise, strong leader of his clan, the one who ensures that the covenant passes to his son, Isaac. He becomes the noteworthy patriarch of the Israelites but it is a process. Nevertheless, he is far from perfect and definitely not an overnight sensation.
Abram, the Coward (Genesis 12:10-20) – Wife/Sister Narrative
Abram, before his name change in Genesis 17, was initially an insecure, frightened man. When he and his wife, Sarai, entered Egypt because of a famine, he asked her to hide their marital relationship by saying that she was his sister; he was afraid that the Egyptians would kill him for his wife. This is a very unflattering portrayal of the patriarch who appears to have benefited from the half truth since Sarai was his half-sister (same father; different mothers). But this bit of background information is not shared until much later in the book which makes Abram look like a liar. Because of Abram’s omission, Pharaoh took Sarai as his wife and gifted Abram with many possessions. However, God afflicts Pharaoh himself with serious diseases for taking another man’s wife.
You might ask, “Where is the justice in all this?” Pharaoh didn’t know that Sarai was married; after all, Abram didn’t tell the whole truth. And did something happen between Sarai, the Israelite matriarch, and the Pharaoh? Did she sleep with another man? Since Pharaoh was sending gifts to Abram, one could assume the worst case scenario for an ancient Israelite audience. But then we are also tempted to ask, wasn’t Sarai too old? She was about 65 years old when they went into Egypt. Didn’t the Pharaoh have access to younger, more beautiful women in Egypt than Sarai who was past her prime? What exactly is happening and where are the lines of acceptability and possibility in this story? Too many unknowns and questionable morally ambiguous lines seem to have been crossed. But were they?
Many issues arise in the first account of the wife-sister theme. So we ask ourselves, “Weren’t the ancient audience bothered, concerned, or offended by this depiction of Abraham?” What a way to open the narrative about Abraham, who because of God leaves everything behind. Could God have chosen the wrong man or at least, could God have selected a more honorable man, to become the ancestor of a mighty nation? The Yahwist version of Abraham’s first adventure after his call seemed to have been disconcerting which was the reason why the theme appears again, not once but twice. The later (?) versions try to rectify the problems raised in the first account.
Abraham and Abimelech (Genesis 20) – Elohist
Later in the journey, Abraham finds himself in the region of the Negev. Again, he asks Sarah to hide their marital status because of her beauty. By now, Sarah is 90 years old! And somehow, like Pharaoh, King Abimelech takes her as his wife. But there is more clarity in this story about the relationship between the king and Sarah.
God visits Abimelech to let him know that she is a married woman. Abimelech and his people are not punished and he is absolved of any wrongdoing. And it is absolutely clear that nothing had happened between Abimelech and Sarah:
Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you touch her. (Genesis 20:6)
Not only was Sarah untouched by another man, Abraham does not receive any gifts from Abimelech until after the king knew of Abraham’s true relationship to Sarah. In other words, Abraham does not become rich from pawning off his wife; rather Abimelech lavishes gifts on Abraham after he realizes his special relationship with God as a prophet.
Therefore, both the foreign king and Sarah are portrayed in a better light. But what about Abraham? He still passes off his wife as his sister. Is Abraham any less guilty in this story? Well, the author explains how Abraham might not have really lied; he was telling a version of his truth:
“I said to myself, ‘There is surely no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife.’ Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife. And when God had me wander from my father’s household, I said to her, ‘This is how you can show your love to me: Everywhere we go, say of me, “He is my brother.” (Genesis 20:11-13).
He may have omitted their marital status but Sarah was really his sister, that is his half-sister.
Based on the theology and vocabulary, the story is most likely from the Elohist source:
God speaks to Abimelech in a vision rather than directly
God’s name is Elohim
Abraham is called a prophet
Reference to the “fear of God”
The Elohist here tries to clarify for the reader any moral lapse that may have been insinuated in the first wife-sister narrative. This is an example of what we call inter-textual exegesis (intertextuality), interpreting text(s) by analyzing its relationship to previous texts within the Hebrew Bible.
Isaac and Abimelech (Genesis 26:1-11) – Yahwist 2.0(?)
While this section does not pertain to Abraham, the wife-sister theme appears again with Isaac. Why does this theme reappear? Didn’t the patriarchs learn to trust God to protect them in foreign land? The problem that was not resolved in the first two stories was the status of Sarah. She is married to Abraham. Whether another man touched her or not was not the issue, but the question of her marital status may have become a hot topic.
In this third episode of the wife-sister theme, Isaac, like his beloved father, was too cowardly to face Abimelech so he asks his wife, Rebekah, to say that she was his sister. Based on the covenant-promise outlined in the previous scene, it was essential that both Isaac and Rebekah survive:
Reside in this land as an alien, and I will be with you and will bless you, for to you and to your descendants I will give all these lands, and I will fulfill the oath that I swore to your father Abraham. I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven and will give to your offspring all these lands, and all the nations of the earth shall gain blessing for themselves through your offspring, because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. (Genesis 26:3-5)
To ensure that the promise is fulfilled, Isaac asks his wife to lie. But luckily before anyone could think about touching Rebekah, Abimelech saw Isaac fondling his ‘sister’, Rebekah. Perhaps, because of his experience with Abraham, King Abimelech springs into action:
Abimelech said, “What is this you have done to us? One of the people might easily have lain with your wife, and you would have brought guilt upon us.” So Abimelech warned all the people, saying, “Whoever touches this man or his wife shall be put to death.” (Genesis 26:10-11)
King Abimelech prevented any wrongdoing so that the matriarch’s reputation was above reproach. But what does it say about the patriarch, Isaac, who follows in his father’s footsteps? Was the ancient author/editor more concerned about the ‘purity’ of the woman than the ‘cowardice’ of the man? Based on how the theme plays itself out, the obsession with what happens to the woman seem to be of the primary concern for the ancient authors.
Wife-Sister Theme Observations
At what point did the Yahwist source try to ‘correct’ the image of the patriarchs and matriarchs? Does this point to 2-levels of redaction for the Yahwist? Also, couldn’t the Elohist source or the redactor just edit the Yahwist story rather than adding another story? This comes to the general question, “What is the redactor(s)’ attitude and relationship to the traditions they receive?”
So many questions are raised with the 3 renditions of the wife-sister motif, but I am able to make one clear observation – the ancient authors/editors did not see a problem in including differing/conflicting/problematic stories. Rather they had a deep respect for the traditions and the primary way in which they wanted to ‘clean up’ or present another perspective was to add another version of the story.
But beyond the question of sources and perspectives on the patriarchs/matriarchs, what is it about this theme that has a universal appeal? Weren’t the Yahwist and Elohist concerned about including a story that spoke to the imperfection of their patriarch? Rather, the imperfections speak to his humanity which allows the audience to identify with him. Here is a man who was scared for his life. He left the comfort of his father’s clan and ventured into the unknown land of the Canaanites. But because of a severe famine that would put his own extended family at risk, he travels to a more dangerous country, Egypt. He was unfamiliar with their culture and practices, their mores and ethics, which scared him. God’s promise did not reassure him; YHWH’s covenant did not make Abram fearless. He was afraid of what might befall so he hid behind his wife, the person he needed to protect. Yes, God chose not a courageous, fearless leader but an imperfect man to father God’s chosen people. Obedient but nevertheless flawed, very deeply flawed. Most of us are like Abraham; most of can identify with his fear rather than his fearlessness.
Abraham, the Military Leader (Genesis 13-14)
As if Abram might look too cowardly, a very distinct story follows his adventures in Egypt. He is portrayed as a military leader, one who comes to the protection of his family member, Lot.
Abraham travels with his nephew, Lot, until it becomes unsustainable so they part ways. Lot chose the fertile plain of the Jordan near the city of Sodom. After Lot settles in the land, four kings, Amraphel, the king of Shinar, Arioch, the king of Ellasar, Kedorlaomer, the king of Elam, and Tidal, the king of Goyim went to war against the kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboyim, and Bela. Unfortunately, Lot and his family happened to be captured in this war and so Abram, the clan’s patriarch, goes to save them. When he returns, we are introduced to Melchizedek, king of Salem and a priest of God, to whom Abram tithes.
Here we have a very unique depiction of Abraham as a military figure. He takes 318 trained men in his household (!), which is a formidable clan, and aid the king of Sodom in defeating the army of 4 kings of renown cities, Ur/Sumer, Larsa, Elam, and Nations (?). Some have suggested the following historical reconstruction based on the biblical reference:
However, this is highly unlikely and the war probably did NOT occur during the period of Abraham. If anything, the biblical story may have borrowed from a later (?) account of Chedorlaomer (Kutir-Naḫḫunte or Kudur-KUKUmal, king):
With their firm counsel, they established Kudur-KUKUmal, king of Elam. Now, one who is pleasing to them [-] will exercise kingship in Babylon, the city of Babylonia (…) What king of Elam is there who provided for Esagila and … ? The Babylonians … and [-] their message: “(As for) [the wo]rds that you wrote: ‘I am a king, son of king, of [royal seed e]ternal, [indeed] the son of a king’s daughter who sat upon the royal throne. [As for] Dur-ṣil-ilani son of Erie[A]ku, who [carried off] plunder of [-], he sat on the royal throne … [-] [As for] us, let a king come whose [lineage is] firmly founded] from ancient days, he should be called lord of Babylon (…) When the guardian of well-being cries [-] The protective spirit of Esharra [-] was frightened away. The Elamite hastened to evil deeds, for the Lord devised evil for Babylon. When the protective genius of justice stood aside, the protective spirit of Esharra, temple of all the gods, was frightened away. The Elamite enemy took away his possessions, Enlil, who dwelt therein, became furious. When the heavens (?) changed their appearance, the fiery glare and ill wind obliterated their faces. Their gods were frightened off, they went down to the depths. Whirlwinds, ill wind engulfed the heavens. Anu (the gods’) creator had become furious. He diminished their (celestial) appearances, he laid waste (?) his (own celestial) position, with the burning of the shrine E-ana he obliterated its designs. [-] Esharra, the netherworld trembled. [Enlil?] commanded total destruction. [The god had] become furious: he commanded for Sumer the smashing of En[lil]’s land. Which one is Kudur-KUKUmal, the evil doer? He called therefore the Umman-man(da he level)led the land of Enlil, he laid waste (?) [-] at their side. When the [-] of Ê-zida, and Nabu, trustee of all [-] hastened to [-] He set [out] downstream, toward the ocean, Ibbi-Tutu, who was on the sea, hastened to the East, He (Nabu) crossed the sea and accupied a dwelling not his own. The rites of E-zida, the sure house, were deathly still. The Elamite [enemy] sent forth his chariotry, he headed downstream toward Borsippa. He came down the dark way, he entered Borsippa. The vile Elamite toppled its sanctuary, he slew the nobles of …with weapons, he plundered all the temples. He took their possessions and carried them off to Elam. He destroyed its wall, he filled the land [with weeping …] (…) an improvident sovereign [-] he felled with weapons Dur-ṣil-ilani son of Eri-[e]Aku, he plundered [-] water over Babylon and Esagila, he slaughtered its [-] with his own weapon like sheep, [-] he burned with fire, old and young, [-] with weapons, [-] he cut down young and old. Tudḫula son of Gazza[-], plundered the [-] water over Babylon and Esagila, [-] his son smote his pate with his own weapon. [-] his lordship to the [rites] of Annunit[um] [king of] Elam [-] plundered the great …, [-] he sent like the deluge, all the cult centers of Akkad and their sanctuaries he burned [with fi]re Kudur-KU[KU]mal his son c[ut?] his middle and his heart with an iron dagger, [-] his enemy he took and sought out (?). The wicked kings, criminals, [-] captured. The king of the gods, Marduk, became angry at them (…) [The doer] of evil to him [-] his heart [-] the doer of sin must not [-] (Chedorlaomer Tablets)
The Chedorlaomer Tablets can be dated to the 7-6th century BCE, much later than Abraham who may have traversed in Canaan around the 21st century BCE. So why did a later redactor include a story presenting Abraham as a capable fighter-leader? Perhaps a later redactor wanted to include an anti-Babylonian account to demonstrate the military power of the Israelite patriarch – “see how our patriarch defeated your army of 4 elite kings and we can do it again!” It is far from clear but suffice to say that the cowed Judeans needed a victory, albeit a literary creation, to mock their arch nemesis, the Babylonians.
But what about the reference to Melchizedek. How does he figure into the story? Seeing how Genesis 14:18-20 breaks the flow of the narrative, it is most likely secondary and therefore intrusive:
Gen 14:17 When he returned from defeating Chedorlaomer and the kings with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh, which is the Valley of the King.
14:18 And King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was a priest of God Most High.14:19 He blessed him, saying, “Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. 14:20 And blessed be God Most High, Who has delivered your foes into your hand.” And Abram gave him a tenth of everything.
14:21 And the king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me the persons, and take the possessions for yourself.”
In 14:17, the king of Sodom comes out to meet Abram and in 14:21, he speaks to him. However, Melchizedek, who does not factor in the war at all, appears out of the blue and take tithe from Abram. Who is he and why is he even here? There is a Melchizedek who is mentioned in Psalms 110:4, most likely referring to a Davidic ruler who takes on priestly functions:
The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.” (Psalms 110:4)
Is this the same Melchizedek? And who came first, Melchizedek mentioned in Genesis 14 or Psalm 110? It is hard to say since Psalms 110 is also very difficult to date. However, one dates the reference to Melchizedek, one can either argue that it foreshadowed the rise of Jerusalem (Salem) as the capital city of Israel and the Zadokites as the priest of the central cult or it gave legitimacy to the priests and their demand for tithing during the Second Temple period. Whoever Melchizedek may have been and whenever the insert may have been added, the mystery around the figure has captured the imagination of later interpreters.
Among Christian interpreters, Melchizedek, the king-priest, was embodied in the figure of Christ. The book of Hebrews (chs. 5-7) provides an extended extrapolation of Jesus as Melchizedek. Here is a snippet of the argument:
Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood—for the people received the law under this priesthood—what further need would there have been to speak of another priest arising according to the order of Melchizedek rather than one according to the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. Now the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. It is even more obvious when another priest arises, resembling Melchizedek, one who has become a priest, not through a legal requirement concerning physical descent but through the power of an indestructible life. For it is attested of him,
“You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek.”
There is, on the one hand, the abrogation of an earlier commandment because it was weak and ineffectual for the law made nothing perfect); there is, on the other hand, the introduction of a better hope through which we approach God. This was confirmed with an oath, for others have become priests without an oath, but this one became a priest with an oath because of the one who said to him,
“The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever’ ”
Accordingly Jesus has also become the guarantor of a better covenant … For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he has no need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; this he did once for all when he offered himself. For the law appoints as high priests humans, who are subject to weakness, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever. (Hebrew 6:13-7:28)
Melchizedek becomes the archetypal priesthood for Jesus, who introduces the new covenant. But it is not only early Christians but Jewish interpreters as well who took Melchizedek to elevate the figure of Abraham:
Rabbi Zechariah said in the name of Rabbi Ishmael, “the Holy Blessed One wished to bring forth the priesthood from Shem, as it is said, ‘[Melchizedek] was a priest of God Most High.’
When [Melchizedek] blessed Abraham before blessing God, God brought forth the priesthood from Abraham, as it is said, ‘and [Melchizedek] blessed him, saying, “blessed is Abram of God the Most High, maker of heaven and earth, and blessed is God the Most High.”’ Abraham said to [Melchizedek]: Does one bless a slave before blessing his owner?
Immediately [the priesthood] was given to Abraham, as it is said, ‘the word of the LORD to my lord: sit and my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.’ Afterward it is written, ‘The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent: “Thou art a priest for ever after the manner (dibrati) of Melchizedek.”’ After the utterance (dibburo) of Melchizedek.
And this is what is written, ‘he was a priest of God the Most High.’ He was a priest, but his seed was not a priest!” (Talmud, b. Nedarim 32b)
Similar to Enoch, Melchizedek more than foreshadows Jesus or promote Abraham, he becomes an angel in his own right in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls:
Melchizedek will carry out the vengeance of the laws of God on that day and he will sa]v[e them from] Belilal and from all his k[indred spirits,] and to his aid will (come) all the “gods” of [justice and] he [Melchizedek] is the one w[ho will stand on that day over] all the sons of God and will ord[ain] this [asse]mbly.
This is the Day of P[eace, a]bout which [God] spoke [of old in the words of] the prophet [Isai]ah, who said “[How] beautiful on the mountains are the messen[ger]’s feet, [pr]oclaiming peace. (11Q13) Melchizedek Text 2:13-16
Since Melchizedek literally appears out of nowhere, he becomes the archetype for later interpreters to legitimate their own tradition/interpretation. Like Enoch, the Nephilim, and Nimrod, Melchizedek who is a cursory, secondary character becomes greater than life, a symbol, in these later writings. He becomes everything later interpreters need him to be because he of his mysterious nature.
Questions
What is the plot of the wife-sister narratives (i.e. basic structure of the theme)?
How does the author/editor take the wife-sister motif and portray a different Abraham, Sarah, and foreign king? How do the differences address concerns of the author/editor?
Why do you think Abram was depicted as a military figure here?
Who is Melchizedek and why is his character open to various depictions?
Personal Reflection
Do stories of Abram’s cowardice strike a chord with their readers? Are the author(s) trying to elicit the readers’ empathy? What do you think is going on if the stories are not historical?
Does a later interpreter have the prerogative to say anything about a biblical character? What are the parameters to allow an audience to determine what the intended meaning of a character/passage should be? Who gets to determine the parameters?
How does one’s religious leaning affect the way in which they read a story about Abram and Melchizedek? Is it possible to extricate later interpretations from the biblical stories?
Final Observations
God commands Abram to leave Haran (and also perhaps from Ur) to receive the divine promises of descendants, land, and nationhood. Based on the choice from among all peoples and nations, we would have expected a man who stood out for some reason. After all, when God commanded Noah to build the ark, he was selected because he had proven himself to be a “righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God” (Genesis 6:9). But why was Abram chosen? It does not say but all we have is a statement that he did what God asked him to do.
So Abram went, as the Lord had told him.
GENESIS 12:4
Then in the first story, he is portrayed as a coward who would sell his wife to save his own skin, followed by a story in which he saves 5 kingdoms with just 318 men. What a way to introduce Abram with a vast contrast?! Is he a coward or a military hero? Did he leave with a small family (in my mother’s imagination) or did he leave with a large clan that received many gifts from the Pharaoh? Is he a helpless, old man or a military savant? Based on the varying perspectives, we know that no one author contributes to the Bible. Rather authors/editors have come into a trove of traditions from which they try to present a perspective of their ancestor. It is neither unified or singular in their focus. But can we walk away with an idea of who Abram was from the initial chapters? He may not have been perfect but he goes as YHWH had commanded him from one site to another, laying claim to Canaan, rightfully or not.
Leave a Reply