web viewin gen 21:22-32, we have an account of abraham making a covenant with abimelech. ......
TRANSCRIPT
FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND COLLEGE
The “Covenant Promise of Land” and “Abraham: the Father of Faith”
A Study of Genesis 15:7-21
Dissertation submitted to the Department of Old Testament Studies
in part fulfillment of requirements for the Bachelor of Theology Degree Course to be
completed in the Academic Year of 2009-2010
Name: Winston Tay
Student Number: 0705
Word Count: 10,876 (inclusive of footnotes, by Microsoft Word word-count)
0
Section I : Text & Translation
Text
The text employed is the Masoretic Text of BHS (4th Edition). 1
Genesis 15:7-21
tt,l'ó ~yDIêf.K; rWaåme ‘^y“tiaceAh rv,Ûa] hw"©hy> ynIåa] wyl'_ae rm,aYOàw: 7
`HT'(v.rIl. taZOàh; #r<a"ïh'-ta, ^±l.`hN"v,(r"yai* yKiî [d:ßae hM'îB; hwIëhy? yn"ådoa]
rm;_aYOw: 8
lyIa:åw> tv,L,Þvum. z[eîw> tv,L,êvum. hl'äg>[, ‘yli hx'îq. wyl'ªae rm,aYOæw: 9
`lz")Agw> rtoßw> vL'_vum. Arßt.Bi-vyai !TeîYIw: %w<T'êB; ‘~t'ao
rTeÛb;y>w: hL,aeª-lK'-ta, Alå-xQ:)YI)w: 10
`rt'(b' al{ï rPoßcih;-ta,w> Wh[e_rE tar:åq.li`~r")b.a; ~t'Þao bVeîY:w: ~yrI+g"P.h;-l[; jyI[:ßh'
dr,YEïw: 11
hm'²yae hNEïhiw> ~r"+b.a;-l[; hl'äp.n" hm'ÞDEr>t;w> aAbêl' ‘vm,“V,h; yhiÛy>w: 12
`wyl'([' tl,p,înO hl'Þdog> hk'îvex] al{å ‘#r<“a,B. ^ª[]r>z: hy<åh.yI ŸrgEå-yKi
1 Wenham, G.J. Genesis 1-15: Word Biblical Commentary Vol.1 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987) p. XXV
notes the general superiority and trustworthiness of the MT.
1
[d:øTe [:do’y" ~r"ªb.a;l. rm,aYOæw: 13
`hn")v' tAaßme [B;îr>a; ~t'_ao WNæ[iw> ~Wdßb'[]w: ~h,êl'
Waßc.yE !keî-yrEx]a;w> ykinO=a' !D"å Wdboß[]y: rv,îa] yAG°h;-ta, ~g:ôw> 14
`lAd)G" vkuîr>Bi`hb'(Aj hb'îyfeB. rbeÞQ'Ti ~Al+v'B. ^yt,Þboa]-la,
aAbïT' hT'²a;w> 15
`hN"he(-d[; yrIßmoa/h' !wOð[] ~le²v'-al{ yKió hN"hE+ WbWvåy" y[iÞybir> rAdïw> 16
dyPiäl;w> ‘!v'[' rWNÝt; hNE’hiw> hy"+h' hj'Þl'[]w: ha'B'ê ‘vm,“V,h; yhiÛy>w: 17
`hL,ae(h' ~yrIïz"G>h; !yBeÞ rb;ê[' rv,äa] vaeê ^ª[]r>z:l. rmo+ale tyrIåB. ~r"ßb.a;-ta, hw"±hy>
tr:ôK' aWhªh; ~AYæB; 18
ldoßG"h; rh'îN"h;-d[; ~yIr:êc.mi rh;äN>mi taZOëh; #r<a"åh'-ta, ‘yTi“t;n"
`tr")P.-rh;n>`ynI)mod>Q;h; taeÞw> yZIënIQ.h;-ta,w>
‘ynIyQeh;-ta, 19
`~yai(p'r>h'-ta,w> yZIßrIP.h;-ta,w> yTiîxih;-ta,w> 20
s `ysi(Wby>h;-ta,w> yviÞG"r>GIh;-ta,w> ynIë[]n:K.h;*-ta,w> ‘yrImoa/h'*-ta,w> 21
Translation
7
8
He also said to him, “I am YHWH who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess it.”
But he said, “O Sovereign YHWH, how am I to know that I will possess it?”
2
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
So He said to him, “Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon."
And he brought to Him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half opposite the other; but he did not cut the birds in half.
Then birds of prey came down on the carcasses, but Abram drove them away.
As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram; and behold, a great dark dread fell upon him.
Then He said to Abram, “You must know a that your offspring will be sojourners in a land not belonging to them; and they will serve them, and they will be oppressed for four hundred years.
But moreover b, the nation whom they serve, I indeed c will judge, and afterward, they will come out with great possessions.
But you yourself will go to your fathers in peace. You will be buried in good old age.
And in the fourth generation, they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.”
When the sun had set and it was pitch dark, then behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces.
On that day YHWH made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your offspring I have givend this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates,
the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites,
the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim,
the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites."
Translation Notes
a inf. abs. expresses obligation (Muraoka, p.87)b ~g:ô ooof addition, but may also contain asseverative force (Arnold & Choi, p.132) c Object-verb-subject word order probably for emphasis (Muraoka, p.38-51)d Performative Perfect. Fulfillment, though a future reality, is nevertheless guaranteed by a spoken grant. (Arnold and Choi, p.56)Section II : Introduction & Argument
3
Genesis 15:7-21 is a highly significant text in the flow of Redemptive History. Apart
from the fact that the Promise of Land, which is one of the central themes of biblical faith2, is
dominant in this passage, it also contains the first explicit Scriptural indication of YHWH
making a covenant with Abraham the Patriarch, in which, a formal animal rite is involved.3
Much ink has been spilled over the significance of the animal rite contained within this
passage towards no definite consensus. In comparison, fewer studies have undertaken to
investigate other significant narrative features of the passage which relate the event to the
Covenant Promise of Land in the History of Redemption, and Abraham’s role and
significance within its fulfillment. Our study addresses in part, this gap within the extant
literature, while not ignoring the question of the rite’s significance where necessary.
This dissertation forwards the arguments that: (1) An exegesis of Gen 15:7-21
demonstrates that YHWH’s covenant faithfulness in Abraham’s life, was to be the basis upon
which Abraham would know that he, through his descendents, will possess the land which
YHWH previously promised, and subsequently granted by formal oath, to be theirs to
possess. (2) On account of YHWH’s covenant commitment to Abraham, Abraham’s seed
may take YHWH’s ways with Abraham as typical of His subsequent dealings with them.
This gives semantic content to Abraham as the “Patriarch of Israel” and especially as the
“Patriarch of Faith”. (3) Gen 15:7-21 alerts Abraham’s seed to the delayed fulfillment of the
Land Promise, and the distress that will be experienced in the interim between promise and
2 See Brueggemann, W. The Land: Place as Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith (London: SPCK,
1978) p.3 Martens, E.A. God’s Design: A Focus on Old Testament Theology (Leicester: Apollos, 1994) p.103
also notes that ‘land’ “is the fourth most frequent noun or substantive in the Old Testament: it occurs 2,504
times”. See also, Johnston, P. & Walker, P. eds. The Land of Promise: Biblical, Theological and Contemporary
Perspectives (Downers Grove, Illinois: Apollos, 2000) for extended discussions over this major biblical theme.
3 The first occurrence of tyriB. in Scripture is found in Gen 6:18 and 9: 9-17. In these passages, the
covenant with Noah relates to the general preservation of the human race and the earth from complete
annihilation on account of sin. While there is a promissory preservation secured in this covenant, it contains no
promissory blessings akin to the covenant YHWH established with Abraham.
4
fulfillment. (4) Nevertheless, the passage also highlights the certainty of fulfillment: YHWH
raises the Land Promise to the status of a formal Covenant Grant. (5) On account of the
gracious provision of YHWH both in the giving of the promise and in “making the promise
sure”, the covenant obligation of faith is pressed upon Abraham and his seed. Within the
specific context of the Land Promise, faith is expressed in the adoption of the identity of
being “sojourners”. (6) The concluding animal rite, and YHWH’s passing between the pieces
is: a) primarily a covenant ratification of the promise-grant of Land b) with sacrificial
overtones that is c) coherent with a Drohritus interpretation, if we allow later events of
Redemptive History to amplify the significance of the rite.
5
Section III : Exegetical Notes
Introductory Comments
The “seed” and “land” promises which YHWH made to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-9
are the dominant themes and concerns of Genesis 15. These came under threat in the
narrative preceding the chapter. In 12:10-20, the future of an Abrahamic posterity was
endangered in Egypt, while events in 13:1-14:24 gave possible occasion for doubt concerning
the fulfillment of the land promise to set in. These themes are taken up in Chapter 15 which
record a two-part episode; the first (15:1-6) relating to the promise of offspring while the
second (15:7-22) relating to the promise of land. In this chapter, YHWH sovereignly
underwrites the certainty of the fulfillment of these promises with His Word (15:4-5) and His
Covenant (15:17-21). Our study will focus on the latter part of the episode which concerns
the Promise of Land and how Abraham is to know that he will possess the land.
Structure
Preliminaries to the Animal Rite
v7-8 The Occasion for the Animal Rite
v9-10 Preparations for the Rite
v11 The Birds of Prey
The Rite Proper
v12-16 Covenant Obligation
v17-21 Covenant Ratification and Oath
6
Exegesis
Preliminaries to the Animal Rite (v7-11)
v7-8 The Occasion for the Animal Rite
The animal rite is occasioned by YHWH’s declaration concerning his purposes for Abraham
(v7), and Abraham’s corresponding request for a confirmatory sign concerning it (v8).
v7
The passage begins with a self-introduction containing a “self-designation”, a “self-
characterization” and a “purpose clause” which holds an implicit promise of land:
He also said to him, “I am YHWH who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess it.”
hw"©hy> ynIåa] wyl'_ae rm,aYOàw:
~yDIêf.K; rWaåme ‘^y“tiaceAh rv,Ûa]`HT'(v.rIl. taZOàh;
#r<a"ïh'-ta, ^±l. tt,l'óThe self-introduction of YHWH in this passage can be read against the contextual
historical background of the covenant forms of the ancient world. Rogers, in his study of The
Covenant with Abraham and Its Historical Setting, concludes that: “The covenant with
Abraham fits into the covenant concept of the ancient world as well as having most of the
component parts of the covenant form” 4. The treaty texts of the ancient world hence form an
4 Rogers, C.L. Jr. “The Covenant with Abraham and Its Historical Setting”, BSac 127:507 (Jul 70) p. 241-55
According to Rogers, three prominent features of covenants in the ANE consists of (1) an agreement which
binds the two together; (2) the form or component parts of the agreement; (3) the concluding ceremony. Further,
the classic form of the ANE covenant consists of (1) The introduction of the speaker; (2) historical prologue; (3)
stipulations (4) the document; (5) the gods; and (6) curse and blessing. The introduction contains the
participants’ names and their titles which are usually stated in glowing terms. The historical prologue recounts
the previous contacts of the partners, sometimes going back even several generations. The stipulations are then
presented in which there is an exchange of promises and conditions that each agrees to fulfill. This involved a
7
important contextual source for understanding the significance of similar covenant elements
contained in our passage of study.5 Within the historical milieu of Abraham’s time, this self-
introduction of YHWH corresponds with those found in the covenant prologues of treaty
documents in the ANE. Although our passage is clearly a narrative and not a treaty
document, we need not however, require the passage to be a covenant treaty text (or a part
thereof, following its form in exhaustive or exact details), in order to treat YHWH’s self-
introduction as analogous with the introductory formulas of the ANE treaties. As Gerstenberg
notes, “The Old Testament...does not contain drafts of treaties, but, at best, narratives and
sermons about covenants.” 6 Such epithets, attached to royal proclamations and grants,
connote the unimpeachable authority of the declaration that follows.7 YHWH may hence be
seen here as being analogous to a covenant suzerain, sovereignly proclaiming a promise of
land to Abraham.
Two elements within this verse suggest that besides the historical context of
Abraham’s times noted above, the passage needs to be read with a broader hermeneutical
frame as well. Firstly, the place name “Ur of the Chaldeans” (~yDIêf.K; rWaå)
contains a possible historical clarification for later readers of the account. Wenham observes
that while “Ur” was already an important political and religious centre in the early third
millennium B.C., the added designation “of the Chaldeans” (~yDIêf.K;) is probably an
anachronism, as the Chaldeans did not penetrate Babylonia till about 1000 BCE.8
wide range of things including loyalty, protection, aid, return of escapees, suppression of rumors, etc.5 See Mitchell, J.J. “Abram’s Understanding of the Lord’s Covenant” in WTJ 32:1 (Nov 1969) p.24-38 who
forwards the thesis that the idea of the covenant was well known to Abram, and that the Lord made use of a
concept and its related vocabulary that had been in common use throughout the cultural milieu of the patriarch.6 Gerstenberg, E., Review of Treaty and Covenant, Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXXIII (June, 1964), 159.7 Waltke, B.K. Genesis; A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001) p.2428 Wenham, G. Ibid, p.272
8
Secondly, commentators commonly note that an almost identical self-introduction
may be detected in the introductory formula of the Decalogue in both Ex 20:2 and Deut 5:6,
where “land of Egypt” replaces “Ur of the Chaldeans”.9 This suggests in the least, that some
significant relationship exists between Gen 15 and the later Exodus and the subsequent land
conquest. An even closer relationship exists however, between Gen 15:7 and Lev 25:38,
where all three elements of Gen 15:7 (including the promise of land which is absent in the
Decalogue) find parallel correspondences.10 Lev 25:38 looks back to the land promise of Ex
3:7-8 and Westermann notes, on the basis of the same close links which Gen 15:7 and Lev
25:38 make between the “bringing out” and the “promise of the land”, that “the bringing of
Israel out of Egypt and the grant of the land is the background to the formula used here”.11
Westermann’s observation finds further corroboration in a more careful inquiry into
the usage of the term ‘^y“tiaceAh in YHWH’s self-introduction. In Gen 12:1-2,
YHWH issued a call which resulted in Abraham’s leaving of Ur for the land that He will
show to him. Genesis 15:7 employs the Hiphil of acy to describe this event, a term which
is similarly used to describe YHWH’s act of deliverance towards Israel in the Exodus (cf. Ex
6:6; 20:2). Fishbane notes that what accounts for the usage of this term, is the typological 9 Wenham, G. Ibid, p.330-110
Genesis 15:7
hw"©hy> ynIåa] wyl'_ae rm,aYOàw:
~yDIêf.K; rWaåme ‘^y“tiaceAh rv,Ûa]
`HT'(v.rIl. taZOàh; #r<a"ïh'-ta, ^±l. tt,l'ó
Leviticus 25:38
~k,êyhel{åa/ ‘hw"hy> ynI©a]~yIr"+c.mi #r<a<åme ~k,Þt.a, ytiaceîAh-rv,a]
association of Abraham with Israel’s later Exodus from Egypt. After surveying the parallels
that exists between the Exodus and the Abraham narratives from Gen 12-15, he concludes
that:
“The parallelism – topically and lexically – between this event and the exodus from Egypt is self-evident: Abraham was clearly understood as anticipating in his lifetime the destiny of his descendants. Such a typological reshaping of a narrative tradition about Abraham helps explain the use of the verb ‘^y“tiaceAh ‘I [YHWH] took you out’ in Gen 15:7, in connection with Abraham’s migration from Ur. Since there is no explicit biblical tradition that Abraham was in any peril in his homeland, one may conclude that this particular term was chosen because it was part of the stock of traditional terms used to convey the Exodus (c.f. Exod 6:6, 20:2) and the narrator wished to establish a typological nexus between the two events. He was further aided in this by the incorporation into Gen 15:13-16 of a divine oracle which vouchsafed to Abraham that his descendants would sojourn in Egypt as slaves, but in the fullness of time would go out (Waßc.yE) with great wealth. Thus, in all these various forms Abraham came to serve as the prototype of Israel for later generations.”12
What both Westermann and Fishbane has correctly detected and successfully
demonstrated, is that beginning with Abraham, a trajectory exists in the events of Israel’s
history, which may be traced by a stock of traditional terms that are repeatedly used in
Scripture in the recounting of Redemptive History. We need not assume however, that the
author of Genesis modified the details of an earlier event in order to make it fit the structures
of a later one. If “peril” was the decisive factor for why acy was used to describe the
Exodus, we might have more appropriately expected a word such as “rescue” (lc;n") rather
than “bring” as the term of choice. The Hiphil of acy is an appropriate enough descriptor
of YHWH’s call to Abraham, conveying the sense that while Abraham responded to
YHWH’s call to leave, it was YHWH’s gracious promises in the first place, that brought
Abraham out of Ur. All things considered, one wonders rather, why acy was used to
describe the Exodus deliverance, despite there being other terms with a more evidently
“salvific” semantic field readily available in the Hebrew language. A typological nexus with
12 Fishbane, M. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985) p.375-6
10
Abraham at the fount certainly exists across the events of Israel’s History as recounted in the
OT. However, it exists because the Exodus was rooted in YHWH’s covenantal commitment
to Abraham (as will be subsequently demonstrated), rather than because a certain author
decided to employ typology as a literary device to shape a particular historical narrative. One
can hardly hang the hopes and fears, much less the future of a people on the peg of a mere
literary device.
v8
In response to YHWH’s promise, Abraham requests for a sign:
`hN"v,(r"yai* yKiî [d:ßae hM'îB; hwIëhy? yn"ådoa]
rm;_aYOw:The need for a sign despite YHWH’s previous promises to Abraham in Gen. 12:1-9,
seem to arise out of Abraham’s circumstances as described in Gen 12:10-14:24. Although the
Promise of Land was given in YHWH’s call, and Abraham had responded to it by leaving Ur,
his subsequent circumstances seem, by all outward appearances, to be contrary to the realities
promised. Abraham did not in fact, come to possess a land, but became a sojourner in Egypt
(12:10). Although with his kindred (cf.12:1), he came to the land which YHWH showed him
(13:14-18), the land was occupied and his kinsmen (cf. 14:14) came into distress and were
taken captive by foreign oppressors. Nevertheless, Abraham continued to put his trust in
YHWH, as evidenced by his refusal to be made rich by the king of Sodom, in accordance
with the vow he made “to YHWH, God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth” (14:22-
23).13
13 Of this oath, Mitchell, J.J. Ibid, p.40-1 notes: “What is this but a solemn oath on Abram’s part, an oath that
recognizes the peculiar relation that exists between the almighty God and himself, an oath that expresses
Abram’s confidence in the Lord’s ability and the Lord’s commitment to bless him in all things? It is the oath of
a faithful servant in total commitment to his Lord…It was a forceful reminder, an expression of his sense of
commitment to the Lord, a reciprocal of his awareness of the Lord’s commitment to himself.”
11
As numerous commentators have noted, Abraham’s request for a sign does not
necessarily imply a lack of faith on Abraham’s part and YHWH does not castigate Abraham
for it. It is perhaps warranted both by the challenging circumstances which Abraham faced, as
well as by his unfazed trust in the promise of YHWH, indicating that the sign was elicited not
out of the posture of unbelief, but of faith.
v9-10 Preparations for the Rite
YHWH responds to Abraham’s request for confirmatory evidence with a command for
various animals to be brought to him. These include a heifer, a female goat and a ram, all of
which are to be three years of age, as well as a turtledove and a young pigeon. Abraham is
recorded not only to have brought these to YHWH, but also to have cut them in half and
arranged them opposite each other as well. The narrator is careful however, to note that the
birds were not divided in this manner.
There is for the reader at this point in the narrative, ambiguity as to the significance of
what was happening. On the one hand, the splitting of the animals in half and laying the cut
pieces opposite each other corresponds with the practices of the ANE covenant oath
ceremonies where animals are “cut” in ratification rites.14 On the other hand, the list of
animals enumerated, differed from the usual use of the donkey or young dog mentioned in
other ANE texts concerning covenant ratifications and seems to be very specific and unique.15
Further, the specific mention that the birds were not cut and arranged in like manner invites
the question of why this was so.
14 See McCarthy, D.J. Treaty and Covenant: Analecta Biblica 21A (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981) p.91-215 Wenham, G.J. “The Symbolism of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15: A Response to G.F. Hasel, JSOT 19” JSOT
22 (1982) p.134-7 queries “Why should a heifer, a she-goat, a ram, a turtledove and a young pigeon be
dismembered, and not say, a puppy or an ass as at Mari?”
12
Two features of the text are worth noting at this point. First, while Abraham needed
specific instructions concerning what animals are to be brought, he need not be told what he
should do with them. He seemed to have known instantly, what the animals were meant for
and proceeded to prepare them accordingly. This suggests that Abraham knew that the
animals brought were meant to be prepared for a formal covenant ratification rite in response
to his request for a confirmatory sign, and that these rites involved cutting the animals in half
and laying them opposite each other. We should also note at this point, that within the
narrative context of Genesis, the animal rite in Genesis 15 seems to be functioning as more
(though not less) than a simple pledge of promise or a mere attestation of truth concerning
one’s word in a covenant relationship. This is because, if such were the significance that is to
be attached, there would be no need to split the animals in two as Abraham had done. In Gen
21:22-32, we have an account of Abraham making a covenant with Abimelech. There,
confirmation was required of Abraham concerning his oath to Abimelech to be in kindly
relations with him, and Abraham also had a concern for his word concerning his digging of a
well to have some form of formal attestation. In both cases, the taking of animal life was not
required, even though there were animals involved in covenant ratification. For Abraham
therefore, the splitting of the animals in a covenant making ritual must have a significance
that is weightier than the mere confirmation of promise or attestation of word.
Secondly, the author takes great care to note that YHWH gave very specific
instructions as to the list of animals that were to be used in the animal rite. If the type of
animals used were not important to the significance of the rite, we would not expect such care
taken with the listing of the animals by YHWH and the author, right down to the thrice
repeated mention of their proper age (tv,L,êvum.). The list of animals therefore seems
unique and important to the event, and may contain a significance that was not immediately
clear to Abraham at the time of the animal rite. To readers who are familiar with the book of
13
Leviticus however, the list of animals and the note concerning the birds would evoke echoes
of the Mosaic sacrificial laws (Lev 1-6), raising the possibility that what was being described
was in the very least, related to a sacrifice, if not in fact a kind of sacrifice.
Thus far in our exegesis, we established that the animal rite was part of a covenant
making ritual which functioned to give formal status and attestation to the certainty of
YHWH’s promise of land to Abraham and his descendants. We noted further however, that it
must have significance that is much weightier than those of a confirmatory sign of a given
promise, or a symbolic attestation of the truth of one’s word. In the cultural practices of
Abraham’s time, these could be had without taking the life of the animals. In addition, the
narrator of the event also took care to focus on elements in the rite’s preparation that contain
nuances of sacrifice which later Israel is familiar with. These observations will be synthesized
towards an explanation of the significance of the animal rite in our later discussions in verses
17 and18, after the context given by the intervening verses has been investigated in detail.
v11 The Birds of Prey
We are subsequently informed by the author, that between the times when the preparation for
the animal rite was completed and that of the covenant ratification, birds of prey swooped
down upon the animal carcasses but Abraham drove them away. The significance of this
snapshot is a point that is variously debated. Discussions over it seem to be concerned with
establishing the significance that is to be attached to the birds and the animal carcasses.
There is however, sufficient information in this passage for us to make some
significant sense of this snapshot without really needing to form conjectures over what the
birds and animal carcasses specifically represent. Notwithstanding whatever meaning we
14
may attach to the representative significance of the birds and the animal carcasses, the
following points seem clear.
Firstly, the birds clearly signify hostile elements: jyI[ñ; is derived from the root
whose verb means “to scream” or “shriek” (1 Sam 25:14), and in the OT, the nominative of
the word appears eight times, mostly representing an enemy or adversary.16 We hence have a
hostile picture of shrieking birds of prey swopping down upon the animal carcasses.
Secondly, coming at this point in the narrative, between the prepared ritual elements
and the actual formal enactment of the rite, the birds clearly represent elements that would
prevent the covenant ratification from occurring. If the birds were allowed to pick at the
carcasses, the sign which Abraham requested for clearly would not and could not have been
given. Abraham is hence clearly portrayed as driving away the elements that seek to prevent
the ratification of the covenant from taking place. There is hence, no real need to be
speculatively specific about what the birds and the animal carcasses represent to make sense
of this snapshot. That being said, for Abraham, jyI[:ßh' may represent the threatening
elements described in Gen 13 and 14, and in relation to them, “possible doubts” which could
have prevented him from taking YHWH at His word in Gen 15:6. Any one of these elements
could have prevented the covenant ratification from taking place. Further, for later readers
who are familiar with Leviticus, the added nuance of unclean elements may be included as
well (Lev 11:13-19; Deut 14:12-18), and these could include the hostility of the foreign
nations in the experience of later Israel (Ezek 17:3,7; Zech 5:9). The point that we wish to
press here is that interpretation of this snapshot need not require the birds of prey to be given
very specific referential significance, nor for the animal carcasses to specifically represent
16 VanGemeren, W.A. ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: Vol. 3
(Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997) p.385
15
Israel.17 However, once the basic sense that the snapshot conveys has been determined, its
representative significance may be amplified with details from Abraham’s life, as well as the
later experiences of his descendants. It has to be noted however, that in light of the fact that
the narrative portrays the “birds of prey” as elements which Abraham, rather than YHWH
drives away, elements “internal” to Abraham, such as “possible doubts” about YHWH’s
promises or word, are more likely in view than elements of “external” circumstances, over
which Abraham had little or no control over.
More important however, is Abraham’s role in the Land Promise as portrayed by this
snapshot. Firstly, it is clear from the passage that both the Covenant Promise (i.e. 15:7) and
the Formal Covenant Ratification (i.e. 15:17-18) were sovereign, gracious provisions of
YHWH. This is made apparent in the self-introductory formula in verse 7, as well as the
passive role of Abraham in the eventual enactment of the animal rite in verse 17, where the
Land Promise was raised to the status of a Formal Covenant Grant. Nevertheless, while
YHWH’s Word and Covenant are sovereign, gracious provisions, Abraham does play a non-
constitutive, though significant and necessary role in the final fulfillment of the Land
Promise. This is indicated symbolically in the snapshot of Abraham’s driving away of the
birds of prey, and subsequently stated formally, in the covenant obligation imposed by
YHWH in verse 13, in the rite proper. It is to the details of this rite that we now turn in the
following segment.
17 Hamilton, V.P. The Book of Genesis Chapters 1-17: NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990) p.433
following Wenham, notes that “If a case can be made that the slain animals, all appropriate as sacrificial victims,
represent the nation of Israel, then here in a sense Abraham is protecting his descendants from the attacks of
outsiders.” However as we have shown, the making of such a case is not really necessitated by the text.
16
The Rite Proper (v12-21)
v12-16 Covenant Obligation
v12
This verse introduces us to the rite proper, indicating the time and conditions under which
Abraham received the formal ratification of the covenant. The time indicator “as the sun was
going down” (aAbêl' ‘vm,“V,h; yhiÛy>w: ) when taken together with that
which introduces v17, “when the sun had set” (ha'B'ê ‘vm,“V,h; yhiÛy>w:),
marks out two distinct episodes in the animal rite: the first occurring during the period of
dusk, and the second, after the dark of night had fallen. As will be evident from our
subsequent exegesis, in the first episode, Abraham receives a covenant obligation concerning
what he “must know”, and in the second, a formal covenant oath from YHWH, in an act of
supererogation which added to the Land Promise, the formal status of a Covenant Grant. This
is accompanied with the sign of the animal rite.
What happened subsequently, was not a common dream, as the “deep sleep”
(hm'Der.T;) of Abraham was an unnatural occurrence. Such sleep is associated with the
reception of visions when it is brought upon a man by YHWH (cf. Job 4:13; 33:15), and
Hartley suggests that it is “a stupor that God causes to fall on a person, blocking out all other
perceptions, in order that the person may be completely receptive to the divine word.”18 The
accompanying dread (hm'²yae) and darkness (hk'îvex]) are likewise correlates of
the activity and personal presence of YHWH, and Wenham notes further that they are closely
associated with the Exodus and the subsequent conquest of the land.19 Although the exact
18 Hartley, J. Book of Job: NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988) p.11219 Wenham, G. Ibid, p.332
17
words are not employed, there is significant similarity between Abraham’s reception of the
covenant obligation in this passage, and Moses’ reception of the Sinaitic obligations in Ex 19,
where a thick cloud on the mountain caused all the people in the camp, and even the
mountain itself, to tremble (Ex19:16,18). At the Sinaitic covenant, YHWH came in a thick
cloud when speaking with Moses, so that the people may hear when YHWH spoke to him,
and may also believe Moses forever (Ex19:9). Later readers of the Abraham narrative
(especially the Exodus generation) may hence detect through the accompanying “darkness”
and “dread”, a similar summons to pay careful attention to what YHWH was about to
communicate to Abraham.
v13-16
The contents of verses 13 to 16 form the substance of what YHWH required Abraham “to
know”, as one whom YHWH has brought out of Ur of the Chaldeans with the intended
purpose of bestowing upon him the land, and as one with whom YHWH was going to make a
formal covenant. Muraoka notes that the infinitive absolute of [d:øTe [:do’y" in this
verse conveys the sense of absolute obligation rather than the intensification of certainty that
is conveyed by the RSV’s “know well” (cf. Ex 21:28; Deut 6:17; 12:2).20 The obligation
consists then, not in the undertaking of particular tasks, but in the taking of YHWH’s
subsequent word concerning the future to be so certain, that it becomes a truth content in
one’s knowledge base. This parallels Abraham’s belief in YHWH in 15:6. Abraham’s refusal
to allow external elements and circumstances to erode his hold on the promises of YHWH,
may hence be seen as the primary way in which he drove the “birds of prey” away in verse
11. It also becomes the primary way in which he is now to know that he, through his
descendants, will possess the land, even though as we shall shortly see, they, like him, will be
sojourners and be oppressed by foreign nations.
20 Muraoka, T. Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1985) p.87
18
What YHWH laid upon Abraham as an obligation to know, consists of a set of four
realities concerning His commitment to him:
v13
First, Abraham must know that by all outward appearances, the status and experience of his
subsequent descendants will seem contrary to the promised realities of Gen 12:1 and 7.
Instead of a great nation ( lAdêG" yAgæ), his seed will be sojourners (rgEåi). Instead of possessing the land promised to Abraham, they will serve and be oppressed in a
land not belonging to them for four hundred years.21
For Abraham, it may not have been clear that the “land not belonging to them” is
Egypt. However, for the exodus generation (and those after them), the “service” and
“oppression”, together with the “four hundred years” would have struck a chord with Israel’s
time in Egypt, and its link with the Abrahamic covenant would have been made. This would
allow the Exodus generation to make sense of their Egyptian sojourn in the light of the
Abrahamic covenant. In this respect, significantly, Genesis 15:13 is the first place in
Scripture where the seed of Abraham are covenantally obliged to embrace the identity of
being rgEåi, a landless people. This identity is tied up with the reality that they are the
people to whom YHWH has covenantally granted a land and are hence, not to make any
other lands their permanent dwellings. Hence, subsequently, rgEåi functioned as a
metaphor for the native Israelite in the presence of YHWH (Lev 25:23; 1 Chron 29:15; Ps
39:12,13; 119:19). It also contained the privileges of being a people who though often being
in need of mercy and deliverance from enslavement and oppression, were nevertheless, a
people who had the assistance and protection of YHWH who shepherds over them in their 21 We note at this point, that a chiasm is present in v13-16, framed by the inclusion: “four hundred years” and
“fourth generation”. The significance of this chiasm will be discussed after our exegesis of the contents found
within the chiasm.
19
life pilgrimage (Gen 47:9; 48:15). Further, the verbal form of rgEåi is also often used to
indicate the incorporation of an alien into the life and faith of Israel (Ex 12:48-49; Lev 16:29;
19:33-34 etc).22 The identity of being “sojourners” is hence intricately tied to the identity of
being Abraham’s seed, to whom YHWH has granted the Promised Land.
v14
Secondly, although Abraham must know that his seed will be sojourners, he must also know
that YHWH will act for their cause and recompense, in as much as a Suzerain is covenantally
bound to defend his vassal. Grammatically, the object-verb-subject word order in this verse is
emphatic, stressing both the certainty of YHWH’s undertaking to defend the cause of
Abraham’s seed by bringing justice to bear upon the oppressing nation, as well as the fact
that it is YHWH Himself who is undertaking to do this.23
The eventual consequence of YHWH’s care over Abraham’s seed is that “…
afterward, they will come out with great possessions.” YHWH’s future “bringing out” of
Abraham’s descendants with great possessions, parallels in fact, Abraham’s own “exodus”
from Ur to receive possession of a promised land. We have here, the typological use of the
root acy in the verb Waßc.yE again, and the noun “possessions” (vkuîr>Bi)
echoes the verb “to possess it” (HT'(v.rIl.) in v7. Further, Hamilton notes that “one
wonders if the sentence they will depart with abundant provision did not remind Abram of
the day when he too left an alien land with enormous provision though he had gained it at
great cost. vkuîr> is what the descendants of Abram will bring out of the alien land after
the period of their servitude is over, and vkuîr> is what Abram brought back with him
22 NIDOTE Vol.3 p.836-923 Muraoka, T. p.38-51
20
after he fought against the kings and won Lot’s freedom.”24 The sensitive reader may further
detect however, that there is a “blank” concerning “possession of the land” which parallels
Abraham’s own experience thus far as well. This “blank” is later “filled out” in verse 15’s
declaration of how Abraham’s latter days will be like, and the reader is hence encouraged to
expect that what is true of Abraham will also be true of his seed. These features once again
suggest that an intended link is being made between YHWH’s future deliverance of Israel
and His call and commitment to Abraham, and a typological pattern of “call-commitment-
distress-faith-deliverance-enrichment-rest” emerges from the life of Abraham and the
subsequent experience of Israel.
There is one prominent feature however, that is commonly missed in discussions over
the Land Promise in this verse which we wish to call attention to. There is in fact, as
indicated above, no mention by YHWH in this verse, concerning the final possession of the
physical land after Abraham’s seed have been brought out of Egypt with great possessions in
the fourth generation.25 All that YHWH pressed upon Abraham to know is that the experience
of his seed will match his own, as far as YHWH’s covenant commitment to them is
concerned. YHWH however, did not mention “possession of the physical land” in His word
to Abraham. The declaration did not proceed beyond Israel’s Exodus from Egypt with great
possessions.
v15
The third item concerning YHWH’s commitment has to do with Abraham’s own life. The
pronoun (hT'²a;w>) is emphatic, juxtaposing YHWH’s commitment to Abraham, with
24 Hamilton, V.P. Ibid, p.435 See also, Gen 13:1-2 where Abraham left Egypt rich in livestock, silver and gold.
The parallels there are even more striking.25 It is true that later in v18, the land is granted to them, in as much as it is promised to Abraham. Nevertheless,
there is no mention of their final possession of it in their life history and in this, their experience parallels
Abraham’s own as well.
21
YHWH’s commitment to his descendants in the previous verse.26 In light of the general
typological relationship between Abraham’s life and the subsequent experience of Israel, the
juxtaposition is more likely comparative than contrastive. The underlying thought here would
then be that: In as much as YHWH will be with Abraham and see him through life, finally
bringing him to his ancestors in peace in old age, so also, He will deliver Abraham’s
descendants and bring them out of the land of oppression with great possessions.
Hamilton notes of this verse, that “Advance age alone is not what makes the
prediction concerning Abraham’s life so intriguing. Rather, it is that the advanced age is
qualified as ripe (hb'(Aj). Jacob illustrates that the elder years of one’s life can be those of
misery (Gen 42:38; 44:29, 31).”27 Hamilton does not however, explore the significance of
this “intriguing” feature of the use of hb'(Aj hb'îyfeB.. Another interesting feature of
no small interest is the mention of promised peace (~Al+v'B.) at the end of Abraham’s
life journey. Wenham notes that this is the first occurrence of ~Alv' in Scripture, but
likewise, does not proceed further to investigate its significance as well.28
When we take the juxtaposition of the declarative prediction concerning Abraham’s
life, with the earlier declarative prediction of his descendants’ later circumstances as
comparative rather than contrastive, the nomenclature discussed above not only make suitable
sense; they contain great significance as well. This is especially so, when considered within
the context of the covenant bonds and promises between YHWH, Abraham and Israel.
The experience of ~Alv' is in fact a concept that is closely related both to the
Promise of Land, as well as to the bonds and vows of covenant relations. The “peace”,
26 Muraoka, T. p.5627 Hamilton, V.P. Ibid, p.43628 Wenham, G. Ibid, p.332
22
“happiness”, “well-being”, “prosperity” and “health” that is denominated by ~Alv' may be
seen to be the essential blessings which the Promised Land secures for YHWH’s people.
Apart from these, other nominative forms of the root ~lv also point to relational realities
such as “agreement” and “repayment” which reflect central aspects of covenant bonds. The
Piel of ~lv also contain the sense of “fulfilling a vow”. 29
If therefore, the promise of land is in fact, in essence, a promise of shalom, and the
certainty of possessing the land is grounded upon the commitment of YHWH’s covenant
bond with His chosen, then to the extent that Abraham knows that YHWH is committed to
him, has delivered him and will see him through life and eventually bring him into the
experience of shalom, he may likewise be certain, that YHWH is committed to delivering and
blessing his seed with the land. Abraham’s “ripeness” in old age, despite the misery that may
accompany a long life, hence parallel Israel’s “possessions” upon leaving Egypt. Further,
Abraham’s eventual enjoyment of “shalom” may also be seen to parallel what his seed can
expect to enter into in the end. As mentioned in our discussion of verse 14, the “blank”
concerning “possession of the land” there is “filled out” here in verse 15. Accordingly, to
Abraham’s question - “How do I know that I will possess it?” (v8), YHWH’s answer may be
essentially expressed as: You will possess it through your seed, and you must know that even
though the experience of your seed will be that of being sojourners like yourself,
nevertheless, they too will experience My covenant faithfulness, as you yourself have, and
come through it all to know shalom, as you yourself will.
29 See NIDOTE Vol.4 p.130-4 and Alexander T.D. “Beyond borders: the wider dimensions of land” in
Johnston, P. & Walker, P. eds. The Land of Promise: Biblical, Theological and Contemporary Perspectives
(Downers Grove, Illinois: Apollos, 2000) p.36-9 where he discusses “The land as a place of rest”. Also,
Dumbrell, W.J. Covenant and Creation (Paternoster, 1984) p.34-6 for a discussion of “rest” as the goal of the
covenant in creation. This theme may be seen to be subsequently taken up into the goal of redemption in which
YHWH’s election and blessing of Abraham plays a key role.
23
v16
The fourth item in YHWH’s commitment does deal with the return of Abraham’s seed to the
physical land (hN"hE+ WbWvåy"). Nevertheless, we should note again that it is
the “return” that is promised, and not the actual “possession” of the land. The possession of
the physical land itself is conditional upon obedience.30 Israel’s return to the Promised Land
after the Exodus however, is a certainty secured by YHWH’s covenant commitment.31
The phrase (y[iÞybir> rAdïw>) together with (hn")v' tAaßme
[B;îr>a;) in verse 13 contains a chiasm within its inclusion, drawing attention to the
comparative juxtaposition between Abraham’s life and Israel’s experience in verses 14 and
15. It is perhaps this juxtaposition that is the dominant interest of the author, rather than the
detailed significance of the elements of the animal rite which has attracted the attention of so
many previous studies. Given the author’s attention to this juxtaposition, Gen 15:7-21 should
not be seen as a mere recounting of the promises given in Gen 12. The passage contains
significant new information, especially in relation to how Abraham will possess the Land
through his seed, and how his seed will experience YHWH’s covenant faithfulness in their
own experience of the Promise’s process of realization. Further, it sets up the faith of
Abraham as a typological model for how subsequent generations of Israel are to “defend” the
promises and blessings which YHWH has sovereignly bestowed upon them, especially when
their present circumstances seem contrary to the realities promised; namely, by “knowing”
that they are “sojourners”.
30 See discussion by Millar, J.G. “Land” in Alexander, T.D. and Rosner, B.S. eds, New Dictionary of Biblical
Theology (Leicester, England: IVP, 2000) p.623-731 We may, on account of the comparative typological juxtaposition, possibly forward the thesis as well, that for
those who like Abraham, in faith hold on to the covenant identity of sojourners, the final experience of shalom is
a certainty guaranteed by YHWH’s covenant commitment as well.
24
The final phrase of this verse contains an explanation for the delay between promise
and fulfillment (hN"he(-d[; yrIßmoa/h' !wOð[] ~le²v'-al{ yKió).
Wenham notes that the Amorites stand for all the inhabitants of Canaan.32 In addition,
Hamilton, following Kaufmann and Kidner, note that it articulates the idea that the fixing of
times is conditioned not on necessity but on morality, and it establishes Joshua’s invasion as
an act of justice rather than aggression.33 It is perhaps this “revelation” of YHWH’s character
in His sovereign governance of the Land that provided Abraham with the insight to query
later, in relation to Sodom and Gomorrah: “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with
the wicked?” (18:23) “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (18:25).
v17-21 Covenant Ratification and Oath
The time indicator “when the sun had set” (ha'B'ê ‘vm,“V,h; yhiÛy>w:)
ushers the reader into the second episode of the rite. The thick darkness (hj'l'[])
corresponds to the accompanying “darkness” and “dread” of v12, and it is interesting to note
how “darkness” and “night” often accompany the significant moments of YHWH’s covenant
making with Israel. (cf. Ex 19:16,18; 2 Sam 7:4; Mt 26:20-30 and Lk 23:44) The particle of
interest (hNE’hiw>)34 draws attention to the next element of the Animal Rite, where a
smoking fire pot (‘!v'[' rWNÝt;) and a flaming torch (vaeê dyPiäl;w>)
passed between the pieces of halved animal carcasses. We are subsequently told by the
narrator, that on that day, YHWH cut a covenant with Abraham, in which the land between
32 Wenham, G. Ibid, p.33233 Hamilton, V.P. Ibid, p.43634 Arnold, B.T. and Choi, J.H. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Cambridge: CUP, 2003) p.157-9
25
the river of Egypt to the river Euphrates (i.e. subsequent Canaan), was given in grant to
Abraham’s seed. The perfect of ‘yTi“t;n" as we have noted in our translation, is
performative, indicating that although the fulfillment of the Land Promise is future, its reality
is nevertheless guaranteed by a spoken grant.
The smoke and fire are symbolic of YHWH’s presence, especially in relation to the
subsequent Exodus of Israel (Ex 13:21; 19:18; 20:18), which is a major element of concern in
this covenant narrative. That it is the symbols representing YHWH alone that passed between
the animal carcasses, indicates that the covenant being made is unilateral and not bilateral, for
Abraham played no part in the actual enactment of the rite itself. Abraham’s role in this
covenant, as noted above, was one of believing concurrence and not constitutive action. What
is more difficult to determine exegetically, is the significance that is to be attached to the act
of passing between the pieces (hL,ae(h' ~yrIïz"G>h; !yBeÞ rb;ê['). Various interpretations have been forwarded and may be traced in the following three works:
A review of modern interpretations of the Animal Rite is offered by G.F. Hasel.35
Hasel summarizes previous interpretations of the event under three groups: 1) “Union”
interpretations, 2) “Transference of Life” interpretations and 3) “Drohritus36” interpretations.
The “union” interpretation is rejected on the basis that it typically involves a union contracted
by both parties and hence does not fit the context of the text. The “transference of life”
interpretation is also rejected as highly speculative (having no support from either the text
itself or the rest of Scripture), and it usually involves a sacred meal ritual that is not present in
the text. Finally, Hasel also rejects the “Drohritus” interpretation on two grounds. Firstly, he
sees the interpretation as built upon interpreting Gen 15:9-11,17 by means of Jer 34:18-19. 35 Hasel, G.F. “The Meaning of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15” JSOT 19 (1981) p.61-78.36 A representation or effective sign of what will happen to the covenanter who dares to be faithless. The animal
rite is seen to function as a “self-imprecation”, “self-curse” or “self-obligation” where sanctions come upon the
one unfaithful to the obligation.
26
He finds Jer 34 however, to be textually highly problematic, and contains striking
dissimilarities to Gen 15. Secondly, he views the whole concept of self-imprecations and
sanctions upon deity as “demanding almost too much from the Israelite picture of God”.
After surveying animal rites in extra-biblical West Semitic treaties, Hasel concludes that “A
comparison of these extra-biblical West Semitic animal rites of different time periods reveals
that in the earlier period (i.e. second millennium) animal killing served as a rite of treaty
ratification and in the later period (i.e. first millennium) animal rites function either as a
substitution rite or an acted-out curse rite. Although these rites share a West Semitic
provenance, a unilinear development from the earlier to the later is precarious.”37 Hasel’s
preference is to relate Gen 15 strictly to the second millennium rites of Mari and Alalakh, and
to take verse 17 as describing a covenant ratification sacrifice, without the nuance of self-
imprecations or sanctions.
G.J. Wenham38 agrees with Hasel concerning the ratificatory significance of the rite
and the absence of self-curse. He finds Hasel’s treatment inadequate however, as it does not
explain the peculiar features of the rite, especially those highlighted in verses 9 to 11.
Wenham follows a lead from Mary Douglas’ work39 which showed that Israel saw a close
relationship between the animal world and the human world, and proceeds to identify the
animals (all appropriate as Levitical sacrificial victims) contained in the rite as representing
Israel. Accordingly, YHWH’s passing though the pieces “portray God as walking with his
people”40, with various possible references to later events in Israel’s history. Wenham’s
analysis offers possible specific explanations for many peculiar features of the rite, and sees
37 Ibid, p.6838 Wenham, G.J. Genesis 1-15: Word Biblical Commentary Vol.1 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987) p.332-5
and “The Symbolism of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15: A Response to G.F. Hasel, JSOT 19” JSOT 22 (1982)
p.134-739 Douglas, M. Purity and Danger (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966) p. 53 and Implicit Meanings
(London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975) p.249-7540 Wenham, G.J. Genesis, p.333
27
the rite as essentially, “a solemn and visual reaffirmation of the covenant that is essentially a
promise”.
Finally, V.P. Hamilton agrees likewise with Hasel and Wenham concerning the
ratificatory and non-self-imprecatory senses, but focuses his attention on the significance of
“YHWH rb;ê['” events within Israel’s history in Scripture. He compares YHWH’s
passing through the animal pieces with the covenant renewal ceremony after the incident of
the golden calf in Ex 33-34, and Israel’s crossing of the Jordan in Josh 3-4, and identifies six
common aspects between them: 1) a proclamation of YHWH’s name, 2) something is “cut”,
3) YHWH’s appearance expressed through “rb;ê['”, 4) a justification for the theophany,
5) a list of nations YHWH is to expel in the form of a promise and 6) each is in the context of
a covenant, or covenant renewal. Hamilton concludes that “We may deduce, then, that these
three passages provide support for positing a covenant ritual ceremony which involved a
theophany that was expressed by the verb “rb;ê['” : It is not necessary to read into Gen
15:17 any sanctions or self-curse to which YHWH exposes himself. Rather, it is a
confirmation of YHWH’s promise of land to Abram’s descendants.” 41
Our exegesis of this text leads us to agree with the general consensus that the animal
rite has primarily, ratificatory significance, in confirmation of the Land Promise. The narrator
gives his “omniscient” assessment in verse 18 that what happened that day was that YHWH
cut a covenant with Abram. The sense of covenant ratification is hence primary within the
context of the text and certainly, for Abraham himself. We submit however, that granted its
primary sense, it is not necessary to preclude a secondary notion of Drohritus which may be
seen to be coherent to the amplifications of later Scripture and the corroborations of later
ANE history.
41 Hamilton, V.P. The Book of Genesis Chapters 1-17: NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990) p. 437
28
Firstly, as we have observed above commenting on verses 9 and 10, within the
narrative context of Genesis and Abraham’s own time and cultural milieu, the rite must have
significance that is much weightier than those of a confirmatory sign of a given promise, or a
symbolic attestation of the truth of one’s word. In the cultural practices of Abraham’s time,
these could be had without taking the life of the animals. The three interpretations offered
above rightly observe that animal rites are used in covenant ratification ceremonies in the
ANE. What they fail to account for however, is why in certain cases; animal life is taken,
while in others, they are not, especially, within the specific context of Genesis and the
broader context of Scripture as well.
Secondly, moving to the broader context of later Scripture, we noted earlier that the
uniqueness of the event and YHWH’s very detailed and specific instructions to Abraham
leads us to expect that there are aspects of the rite’s significance, which later Scripture may
amplify, of which Abram may not be immediately aware of. The narrator clearly wishes to
foreground the covenantal element of the rite being described, in his labeling of the event as a
tyrIåB. in v18. Nevertheless, the narrator has also taken great care to draw attention to
elements in the event, which relate the animal rite to a sacrifice. Given that “covenant” and
“sacrifice” are closely related concepts in the literature of later Israel (cf. Ps 50:542) and that
the author is writing to later Israel, it is certainly probable that the author of the text has
focused particular attention on details within the event which suggest a covenant sacrifice.43
Within this vein, Wenham’s interpretation is certainly possible. Nevertheless, if we are to
amplify the significance of the event with the nuances of sacrifice, why should the
substitutionary and atoning significance of Israelite sacrifices not be included within the 42 “Gather to me my consecrated ones,
who made a covenant with me by sacrifice." (ESV)43 Dumbrell, W.J. Ibid, p.48 notes: “It is of interest also that later Jewish exegesis (Jubilees 14:11,19) saw the
ceremony as accompanied by sacrifice and certainly the total rite incorporated the five clean sacrificial animals
of the later system. Extra-biblical parallels able to be adduced point in the same way.”
29
hermeneutical nexus as well? This especially so, if we allow the sacrifice of Gen 22, where
the eliciting of a “sign”44 within the context of the Land Promise is also contextually
prominent, to amplify a possible, secondary (latent?) significance of the unique rite found in
Gen 15.
Thirdly, the presence of sanctions and self-imprecation need not be made to depend
crucially on reading Gen 15 in the light of Jer 34. Blood oaths and covenant curses are
familiar aspects of covenant relationships in the ANE and especially in Israel’s covenant
relations with YHWH (cf. Ex 24:3-8). With “cutting a covenant” as the controlling motif of
the animal rite in Gen 15, the presence of sanctions and covenant curses are not unexpected
in the administration of such a covenant, where the life blood of animal death is required for
covenant ratification. Jer 34 and the animal rites of the first millennium, may hence function
simply as additional, corroborating historical-grammatical frames, given that we have only
limited access to second millennium documents on animal rites, with none being a close
enough parallel to Gen 15. In this respect, as much as it is precarious to presume a unilinear
development between the West Semitic animal rites of the first and second millennium, it is
equally precarious to preclude the Drohritus interpretation on the basis of the few second
millennium documents that we have, especially so when they are not close enough parallels
with the rite described in Gen 15 in the first instance. Besides, given that there is already a
possible first millennium clarification of the text in the designation “of the Chaldeans”, it is
not unwarranted to seek for additional corroboration of the rite’s significance from first
millennium ANE practices as well, as long as we do not make our interpretation crucially
dependent upon them.
Fourthly, Hasel’s concern about whether a Drohritus interpretation of the rite coheres
with Israel’s Theology is certainly a valid consideration. Nevertheless, the contention
assumes that the rite can contain no deeper significance than what Abraham and Israel can 44 Compare Gen 22:12 “for now I know” with Abram’s request for a sign “how am I to know”.
30
grasp within the limits of their cultural milieu and theological understanding. It does not
allow for the case that Israel’s Theological horizons may be cumulatively expanded by
subsequent self-revelations of YHWH. If however, the trajectory between Gen 15, Gen 22,
subsequent Redemptive History and New Testament revelation is traced, as Kline has done45,
the Drohritus interpretation, as a secondary, latent significance of the rite, may be the most
coherent explanation available to us, for explaining why the promise of Land (and
expectations of Shalom) must be ratified by a rite involving life blood and death, with
YHWH passing through the pieces of cut animals that have symbolic echoes of slain
sacrificial victims.
On account of these considerations, we submit therefore, that while the significance of the
animal rite and YHWH’s passing between the pieces is primarily a covenant ratification of
the promise-grant of Land; with its sacrificial overtones, and within the covenant “curse-
blessing” frame of ANE treaties and especially YHWH-Israel covenants, a secondary
Drohritus significance is coherent with the text and its history as well. Such a Drohritus
interpretation is certainly detectable and should not be precluded, if we allow for later
Redemptive History to amplify the significance of the rite, with Jer 34 and first millennium
animal rites being used as corroborating but not determinative hermeneutical frames.46
45 Kline, M.G. Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations For A Covenantal Worldview (Two Age Press, 2000)
p.297-301 It is also interesting to note, in engagement with Hamilton’s interpretation, that the covenant renewal
of Ex 33-34, is in fact preceded by Ex 32, in which the blood death of about 3000 Israelites acted as substitute
and atonement, to delay the end of Israel’s national annihilation for covenant breaking. It is in this context that
the Levitical Priesthood was instituted for the continual offering of sacrifices, and within which the covenant
renewal of Ex 33-34 finds itself. Hence, overtones of covenant curses are not absent from Ex 33-34, and this
portion of Scripture may be profitably included into the trajectory traced by Kline as well, the finer details of
which will take another work to trace. 46 We must concede though, that detecting such a secondary Drohritus significance within the rite, is not a
necessary step to take for those who do not assume the unity of Scripture and Redemptive History across the
Old and New Testament Canons, and the Progressive Self-Revelation of YHWH in History and Text.
Nevertheless, if this hermeneutical step is not taken, it remains to be explained, why the formal covenant
ratification of promise requires the animals to be thus “cut” when living ones will clearly do just as well for
31
The animal rite which formally ratifies the promise-grant, may hence be seen as a visual
enactment of YHWH’s personal presence with Israel, in the long journey from Exodus to the
Land of Promise; a personal presence which, as Israel’s subsequent history demonstrated,
was possible, only with the institution of the Levitical Sacrifices (Ex 32-34), which
anticipated and pointed to the curse-bearing of God in the New Covenant.
Abraham.
32
Section IV : Concluding Remarks
The main conclusions which emerge from our exegesis are summarized in the
introduction to our study. In addition to these, we would like to raise the following issues for
further reflection:
Hermeneutically, two main differences distinguish the approach undertaken in this
study from previous ones. Firstly, we have paid more close and careful attention to the
narrative and historical-grammatical features of the text, and tried not to let the inquiry
concerning the detailed significance of the animal rite over dominate our exegetical concerns.
Secondly, taking our cue from “hints” in the text itself, we have also sought to read the
passage with a hermeneutical frame that is not limited to the historical-grammatical milieu of
Abraham’s own time. The later Text and Redemptive History of Israel, and New Covenant
Revelation are taken as valid and even necessary hermeneutical resources for understanding
the fuller significance of this text. Given the limits and limitations of our study however, we
were unable to trace out more fully, the trajectory of the relationship between the “Covenant
Promise of Land and its Fulfillment” and “Abraham’s Life as the Patriarch of Faith”
throughout the rest of Scripture, and especially in the New Covenant.47 The conclusions of
our exegesis provide only a starting point for such a study to be under taken.48
In particular, we would like to draw attention to the profitability of undertaking to
trace the trajectory of the “call-commitment-distress-faith-deliverance-enrichment-rest” and 47 Robertson, O.P. “A New Covenant Perspective On The Land”, in Johnston, P. and Walker, P. Ibid, p121-41
has treated the subject in general, but not specifically within the detailed frames that emerge from Gen 15:7-21
(and the Abrahamic Cycle), where the Land Promise finds its formal roots. 48 The “Abraham Cycle” need not be viewed as a repetitive recounting of the Abrahamic covenant, with no
significant advance of content in each new frame. It may be seen as a Covenant Narrative, in which Abraham
was progressively taught aspects of covenantal life with YHWH. Eg. Gen 12 introducing the Covenant Promises
of Seed and Land, Gen 15 describing Covenant Faith and Identity, Gen 17 dealing with Covenant Signs and
Obedience, and Gen 22; Covenant Fear and Sacrifice. This narrative would hence help later Israel to understand
what it means to be a people who have been “called out” and given a land to possess by YHWH.
33
“fulfillment” frame across the Redemptive History of Israel and particularly in the New
Testament book of Hebrews and 1 Peter, where, it seems, the typological nexus that emerges
from the Exodus, which has its roots (as is demonstrated by our study) in Abraham’s life, is
appropriated for the New Covenant people of God.
Theologically, our study has given greater definition to an understanding of Abraham
as the Father of Faith. Abraham’s unfazed faith in the promise of YHWH, despite outward
circumstances which seem to challenge the realities promised, may be seen as the way in
which Abraham drove away the “birds of prey” and defended the blessings bestowed for
himself and his seed. On account of YHWH’s covenant commitment to Abraham and his
seed, Abraham’s life and faith emerges as a “model” for later Israel. In relation to Abraham
as the Father of Faith, while much has been made of Gen 15:6, there could be further
profitable reflections on how his life, taken as a whole, could be appropriated for New
Covenant Israel, in the same way in which the Egyptian Exodus is commonly employed as a
typology of New Covenant life. In particular, how are the Covenant Promise of Land, and the
Covenant Identity of Sojourners to be appropriated by New Covenant Israel?
Further investigations into these matters would repair some of the many gaps left
uncovered by our study.
34
Bibliography
Alexander, T.D. and Rosner, B.S. eds, New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (Leicester,
England: IVP, 2000)
Arnold, B.T. and Choi, J.H. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Cambridge: CUP, 2003)
Brueggemann, W. The Land: Place as Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith
(London: SPCK, 1978)
Douglas, M. Purity and Danger (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966)
Douglas, M. Implicit Meanings (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975)
Dumbrell, W.J. Covenant and Creation (Paternoster, 1984)
Fishbane, M. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985)
Gerstenberg, E., Review of Treaty and Covenant, Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXXIII
(June, 1964)
Hamilton, V.P. The Book of Genesis Chapters 1-17: NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1990)
Hartley, J. Book of Job: NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988)
Hasel, G.F. “The Meaning of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15” JSOT 19 (1981)
Johnston, P. & Walker, P. eds. The Land of Promise: Biblical, Theological and
Contemporary Perspectives (Downers Grove, Illinois: Apollos, 2000)
Kline, M.G. Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations For A Covenantal Worldview (Two
Age Press, 2000)
Martens, E.A. God’s Design: A Focus on Old Testament Theology (Leicester: Apollos, 1994)
McCarthy, D.J. Treaty and Covenant: Analecta Biblica 21A (Rome: Biblical Institute Press,
1981)
Mitchell, J.J. “Abram’s Understanding of the Lord’s Covenant” in WTJ 32:1 (Nov 1969)
Muraoka, T. Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew (Jerusalem: Magnes Press,
1985)
Rogers, C.L. Jr. “The Covenant with Abraham and Its Historical Setting”, BSac 127:507 (Jul
70)
VanGemeren, W.A. ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and
Exegesis (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997)
Waltke, B.K. Genesis; A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001)
35
Wenham, G.J. “The Symbolism of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15: A Response to G.F. Hasel,
JSOT 19” JSOT 22 (1982)
Wenham, G.J. Genesis 1-15: Word Biblical Commentary Vol.1 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson,
1987)
Westermann, C. Translated by Scullion, J.J. Genesis 12-36: A Commentary (London: SPCK,
1985)
36