Was Abraham Really a Man of Faith?

[1] The reading I offer in this piece, based on the MT text, is one possible interpretation of the extended narrative when read synchronically, as a coherent narrative composed by a single writer, which it is not. For other interpretations, which take into account variant manuscript readings, see for example, Erhard Blum, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte (Neukirchen Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984), 297–339; Thomas L. Thompson, The Origin Tradition of Israel: I. The Literary Formation of Genesis and Exodus 1–23 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), 158–160; J. P. Fokkelman, “Time and the Structure of the Abraham Cycle,” Oudtestamentische Studiën 25 (1989): 96–109; Philip R. Davies, “Abraham & Yahweh: A Case of Male Bonding.” Bible Review 11.4 (1995): 24–33, 44–45; Walter Vogels, Abraham et sa legend: Genèse 12.1–25.11 (Paris: Cerf, 1989; Robert Alter, Genesis: Translation and Commentary (New York: Norton, 1997), 50–125; Terence Fretheim, Abraham: Trials of Family and Faith (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1997); Jean Louis Ska, “Essai sur la nature et la signification du cycle d’Abraham (Gn 11,27–25,11),” in Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Reaction and History, ed. André Wénin (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001), 153–177; Gahl E. Sasson, “The Symbolic Meaning of Biblical Names as a Narrative Tool: Moses, Abraham, and David,” Storytelling, Self, Society 11.2 (2015): 298–313, esp. 305–308; Jonathan Grossman, Abram to Abraham (Bern: Peter Lang, 2016), 69–503 (Genesis 11:27–22:24). For a diachronic approach that identifies chronological layers in the text and offers an interpretation of its growth and meaning over time, see e.g. John Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975), 154–308; Albert de Pury, “Abraham: The Priestly Writer’s ‘Ecumenical’ Ancestor,” in Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible: Essays in Honour of John Van Seters, ed. Steven L. McKenzie and Thomas Römer (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 163–182; and Oded Lipschits, Thomas Römer, and Hervé Gonzalez, “The Pre-Priestly Abraham Narratives from Monarchic to Persian Times,” Semitica 59 (2017): 261–296. For a broad overview of scholarly approaches and views, see Kris Sonek, “The Abraham Narratives in Genesis 12–25,” Currents in Biblical Research 17.2 (2019): 158–183.

[2] All biblical translations follow NJPS, with modifications.

[3] Editor’s note: On rabbinical interpretations of the chronology of events related Abram’s departure from Haran, see David R. Blumenthal, “The Rabbinic Chronology of Lech Lecha,” TheTorah (2014).

[4] In 11:28,אֶרֶץ (ʾeretz), “land,” and מוֹלַדְתּוֹ (moladto), “his birthplace/his extended family,” form a construct chain that puts them into a dependent, genitival relationship, “land of your birth/kin,” while in 12:1 the two occur in the same order but are separated by a waw. In the latter case, the waw could either mean “and” as a second element in a list of three, or “that is,” further explaining the first of two items.

[5] Both אַרְצְךָ (ʾartzekha), “your country/land,” andבֵּית אָבִיךָ (bet ʾavikha), “your father’s house,” could refer to either Haran or Ur, as Abram has lived in his father’s house in both lands. Moladtekha, however, cannot refer to Haran. Of Abram’s extended family, only Terah and Lot moved to Haran, and they are included in the reference to Abram’s father’s house. YHWH later seems to suggest that the command occurred in Ur:

^{בראשׁית טו:ז} וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אֲנִי יְ־הוָה אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִיךָ מֵאוּר כַּשְׂדִּים לָתֶת לְךָ אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת לְרִשְׁתָּהּ.

^{Gen 15:7} Then He said to him, “I am YHWH who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to assign this land to you as a possession.”

So e.g. Grossman, Abram to Abraham, 74–81.

[6] Terence Fretheim, for example, tries to downplay this violation, saying such an understanding “seems an overly precise interpretation.” To bolster his reluctance to follow the trail of its implications that I am delineating here, he suggests Lot likely was an existing character in the (oral) tradition (Abraham: Trials of Family and Faith [Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2007], 188–189, n. 7).

[7] Hugh C. White notes, “The content of the promise[s] represents objects which Abraham doubtless desires. But the possession of these objects is mediated by faith in the word of promise. He will gain these objects of desire only through faith in the word. This means he can do nothing involving the direct use of his own power to produce these desired goods for himself” (Narration and Discourse in the Book of Genesis [New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991], 171).

[8] YHWH also reaffirms the first promise, but seemingly expands its scope from a great nation to one (or multiple?) so numerous it cannot be counted:

^{בראשׁית יג:טז} וְשַׂמְתִּי אֶת זַרְעֲךָ כַּעֲפַר הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אִם יוּכַל אִישׁ לִמְנוֹת אֶת עֲפַר הָאָרֶץ גַּם זַרְעֲךָ יִמָּנֶה.

^{Gen 13:16} “I will make your offspring as the dust of the earth, so that if one can count the dust of the earth, then your offspring too can be counted.”

[9] Given the ongoing pattern of doubt and disobedience in Abram’s story in Genesis, it is interesting that later traditions view him as a paragon of a man of faith. See the discussion in Fretheim, Abraham, 144–180.

[10] The subject of the second verb, wayyachsheveha, “he reckoned,” could be either YHWH or Abram, depending on how one construes the syntax in the sentence, but as the closest preceding noun is YHWH, the deity is most likely the one who reckons Abram’s merit.

[11] For discussions of this rite, see e.g. Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Meaning of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 6.19 (1981): 61–78; Gordon J. Wenham, “The Symbolism of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15: A Response to G. F. Hasel, JSOT 19 (1981) 61–78,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 7.22 (1982): 134–137; Grossman, Abram to Abraham, 169–180, who prefers to see the halved animals to be symbolic of the commitment of the two parties.

[12] Even so, YHWH has decided to define the boundaries of the promised land finally (15:18–21), in spite of Abram’s failure to traverse it and claim it as his own, like a true monarch or emperor.

[13] For this and other interpretations by the rabbis and early church fathers of 15:8 and its possible consequences, see Günter Stemberger, “Genesis 15 in Rabbinic and Patristic Interpretation,” in The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity, ed. Emmanouela Grypeou and Helen Spurling (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 143–162, esp. 154–157.

[14] Accepting her long-standing barrenness and perhaps feeling responsible for blocking fulfillment of the promise of progeny, Sarai plans to have Abram father a child with Hagar. She thinks: אוּלַי אִבָּנֶה מִמֶּנָּה, “perhaps, I will be built from her” (16:1–3). This phrase tends to suggest that she thinks she could claim the child as her own since it is her slave girl who will bear it. Since Abram marries Hagar, however, any children he sires with Hagar will have legitimate status, and Sarai will not be able to claim them as her own. The resulting child would raise Abram’s esteem in the eyes of others, but Sarai would remain undervalued by others for not having given birth to the child. This conclusion is based on current attitudes in tribal societies toward childless couples. For one study based on fieldwork among the Bakossi in Cameroon, see Gladys Wang, “Reconceiving the Theology of Procreation in Response to the Stigmatisation of Childlessness,” Holiness 7.1 (2022): 4–14, esp. 5–7.

[15] YHWH speaks under the self-revelatory name of El Shaddai, which some scholars interpret as “god of breasts.” So e.g., David Biale, “The God with Breasts: El Shaddai in the Bible,” History of Religions 21 (1981/1982): 240–256.

[16] The meaning of the new name has been debated for centuries, with no consensus reached. One solution is to suggest the added heh is a dialectical variant (e.g., Robert North, “Abraham,” in The Oxford Guide to People & Places of the Bible, ed. Bruce Metzger and Michael D. Coogan [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004], 1–3 [p. 1]; Fretheim, Abraham, 41), but no comparable example involving the addition of a medial h is provided. It is not easy to find a meaning if one tries to maintain אָב (ʾab), “father,” as the first element in the name. There is no root ר.ה.ם in Hebrew to serve as the second element. It has been suggested that the name is meant to be phonemically similar to and evoke the phrase אָב הָמוֹן (ʾab hamon), “father of a crowd,” consistent with the statement that Abram will be the father of a multitude of nations. According to this view, the medial resh has been omitted to create a flexible, “literary” etymology. But because that statement is a performative utterance, whereby “the words constitute the very action to which they refer,” they may not be meant to provide an etymology for the altered name (Joseph Fleishman, “On the Significance of a Name Change and Circumcision in Genesis 17,” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 28 (2001): 19–32, esp. 20, n. 8, 21). As noted by Moshe Garsiel, hamon more likely was used here as a play on the new name than as a source for the change (Biblical Names: A literary Study of Midrashic Derivations and Puns, trans. P. Hackert [Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University, 1991], 18). Since both name changes announced in ch.17 involve the addition of a heh to the existing name (in different locations), perhaps the purpose is to mark symbolically a separation of both characters from their former culture and a new beginning in Canaan as the progenitors of Israel. As another option, the root ב.ר.ה II means “enter into a covenant with someone” (see 1 Sam 17:8), so that the consonants could be read, “I will enter a covenant with them.” The current vocalization of the name, however, would follow that of the former name, with all a-vowels, even if some sort of word-play here involving the consonants might have been intended. For other solutions, see the footnotes in Fleishman’s discussion and also Grossman, Abram to Abraham, 229–233.

[17] YHWH duly notes Abraham’s laughing reaction to the promise that Sarah will bear a son and commands Abraham to name the child Isaac, which will constantly remind Abraham the rest of his life of his initial skeptical response to this miracle (vv. 17–19).

[18] Ishmael will be fruitful and exceedingly numerous, the father of twelve princes, which the reader will learn will parallel the twelve sons of Jacob. He will become a great nation (17:20).

[19] Editor’s note: For more on this episode, see Tammi J. Schneider, “Sarah, Afraid of Abraham, Denies Laughing,” TheTorah (2021).

[20] Abraham’s reputation is enhanced after his encounter with the foreign king Abimelech, when Abraham presents Sarah as his sister instead of his wife, and Abimelech takes Sarah into his household (ch. 20). Speaking to Abimelech in a dream, God describes Abraham as a prophet:

^{בראשׁית כ:ז} וְעַתָּה הָשֵׁב אֵשֶׁת הָאִישׁ כִּי נָבִיא הוּא וְיִתְפַּלֵּל בַּעַדְךָ וֶחְיֵה וְאִם אֵינְךָ מֵשִׁיב דַּע כִּי מוֹת תָּמוּת אַתָּה וְכָל אֲשֶׁר לָךְ.

^{Gen 20:7} “Therefore, restore the man’s wife—since he is a prophet, he will intercede for you—to save your life. If you fail to restore her, know that you shall die, you and all that are yours.”

Abraham’s blessings also grow, as Abimelech gifts him with cattle, slaves, and silver (vv. 14, 16; cf. the episode in Egypt in ch. 12). Fretheim (Abraham, 54) suggests that Abraham’s inappropriate behavior toward Abimelech, failing once again as he did during his time in Egypt to consider how his actions affect outsiders, “may provide some of the backdrop for the divine testing of Abraham in chapter 22….”

[21] Editor’s note: On the Akedah in later tradition, see Devorah Schoenfeld, “Akedah: How Jews and Christians Explained Abraham’s Faith,” The Torah (2017).

[22] This is Abraham’s seventh divine encounter. (The sixth revelation from YHWH is similarly given through divine messengers [ch. 18]). Seven is a symbolic number that signifies completion or perfection. Umberto Cassuto notes that God’s promises and blessings are repeated seven times in the Abraham narrative, which tallies with my count of the divine appearances to Abraham (“Abraham,” in Encyclopedia Biblica, vol. 1 [Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1950], 61–67, [at 62] [Hebrew]). The divine promises to Abram could represent another instance of seven in the narrative. The initial three promises to Abram in 12:2–3 each have two parts. If we count each half as an independent unit, and then add the fourth promise given at the oak of Moreh (12:7), then the total would be seven promises. Editor’s note: On the significance of the number seven, see Elaine Goodfriend, “Seven, the Biblical Number,” TheTorah (2021).

[23] The wording seems to anticipate the story line of the conquest of Canaan recounted in Joshua.

[24] For a detailed study of this chapter, see Diana Edelman, “Abraham Negotiates to Buy the Cave of the Machpelah in the Promised Land,” TheTorah.com (2021).

[25] Scholars debate whether this form of legal land tenure involves usufruct rights only or actual ownership. For the former, see e.g., Norman C. Habel, The Land is Mine: Six Biblical Land Ideologies (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1995), 106–107; and Michaela Bauks, “Die Begriffe מושׁרה and הזאח in Ps. Überlieferungen zur Landkonzeption der Priestergrundschrift,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 116 (2004): 171–188, esp 174–176, 181–185. For the latter, see e.g., Baruch Levine, “On the Semantics of Land Tenure in Biblical Literature: The Term ahuzzah,” in The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, ed. Mark E. Cohen, Daniel C. Snell and David B. Weisberg (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1993), 134–140, esp. 137, 139; and Eduard Lipiński, “nāḥāl; naḥ^alâ,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 9, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1998), 319–335, esp. 320.