Genesis: Reading Notes
Adam Kissel

Adam and Eve | Cain | Noah | Babel, and Abram before Hagar

16:1, it looks like Sarai also needs help knowing what it means to be a wife (vs. a handmaid, e.g.). 16:1-3--miscegenation (Hagar is from Egypt).

Is 16:2 at all traditional? In any case Abram believes Sarai even though he ought not to. There is false providence here, maybe also adulterous payback for what happened in Egypt ['things will go well for me b/c of you', each says to the other--Dietrich]. S's pride: she will be built up through this false child.

This adultery separates husband and wife and encourages Hagar's pride (both as child-bearer and as closer now to A perhaps than Sarai is). 16:5, Sarah is mostly being emotional in her accusation. She thinks that the fault is A's. Actually the motive-fault was S's while the action-fault was A's. Also Hagar is faulted for being out of line; is this S's or A's responsibility to keep her in line? 16:6, in any case A changes the subject: it is not Abram vs. Sarai in this situation, but Sarai vs. Hagar. The implication is that Sarai is the one to keep the maid in line. In a sense, A. is choosing his wife's power of responsibility over both Hagar's and his own. So S treats H harshly (does this type find an antitype in the oppression of Israel?). 16:16 stresses that Hagar is the mother and we interpolate that what is stressed is that she is the improper source of A's child.

16:7 ff., God loves the marginal (Hagar; God hears/heeds suffering). 16:9, again interpret "shall" as prophecy rather than reward? In this situation it looks as though God chooses mercy for Hagar (i.e. paying heed to the suffering) rather than punishing her for adultery (as he did Pharaoh)--had Hagar had any choice in the matter? Rearing Ishmael ['God hears'] as part of A's household also is important here. Ishmael will be "alongside" his kinsmen, neither above nor below them, though he will be against them all, 16:12. This wildness seems to be more the natural way (e.g. of the Nephilim), not law-abiding--can Ishmael rightly be said to be in the line of Shem? The Ishmaelites will become an opposition group (?).

Also think about fathers and sons; initiating the sons into the ways of the fathers (what is needed?); and, in Chs. 16-18, Lord, angels, men-as-angels--how do they appear, to whom, and when (e.g. 16:9)? Is "angel of the Lord" the same as a subset of the Lord himself? (esp. ch. 18).

17:1 is thirteen years later; Ishmael is ready to become the heir. So now it is time for God to define more specifically who the heir is and what the great nation/reward/blessing is about. We are about to see a long speech here, as long as what Noah heard, but less literally and more symbolically earth-shattering. "El Shaddai" is rendered "God Almighty" but shaddai is unclear. In any case God is now naming himself before man. The call is to be like Noah: (1) walk with God, (2) and (3) be blameless/wholehearted/perfect/undivided/complete.

(1) walk in God's ways: one needs to learn what God's ways are [Jacobs]. Is it possible to do so except by revelation and the context of events? Yet God must somehow understand what God means (kind of like "to the land that I will show you"). Abram is to walk "before" God, under His watch [face] and protection. Walking is particularly apt for A, a wanderer, and Noah too as someone not rooted like the Babelites. (cf. man as naturally mobile as compared to plants, related to morality)

(2) and: simply conjunctive, or cause-effect?

(3) wholeness is about [Dietrich] BEING [be blameless] and DOING together [walk in God's ways]--i.e., walk in God's ways and become a new creation in so doing. In other words, A is to fulfill the moral role of man in becoming good (cf. man as indeterminate, ch. 1)

17:3--though God had said 'walk,' A's immediate first response is to fall on his face (the desire for wholeheartedness is all he has until he learns to be actually wholehearted and performs the walking in God's way which God will teach him). This also prevents his knowing that God sees him, in a way (cf. Hagar, El-roi). But more importantly this is a genuine humility that comes out of awe and reverence. A. is now waiting for God to continue.

God repeats the blessing of Ch. 12 in 17:2-8, but now mentions covenant. Before the covenant, though, must be this sense of a new creation, and so Abram becomes Abraham ['father of a multitude']. [the H is added, one of the letters in God's name, but A. doesn't know this because God had named himself El Shaddai; in any case, it is literally a longer ["greater"] name]. The multitude of nations will include those of Isaac, Ishmael, and later children when he's very old. 17:8, how often does God need to repeat that he has assigned this land to A--does A simply not believe him, or is he the melancholy pessimist who needs moral support (like in 15:1)?

17:9, the covenant is something to be kept, watched over, remembered. 17:10, the sign of the covenant is circumcision, an act (17:11) that is to continue throughout the generations (17:12)--the passing on of the sign parallels the passing on of the covenant. For God's part, it is the assigning of land everlastingly; for the people, it is the circumcision. Why circumcision?

The sign of the covenant, it seems unrelated to the actual land grant. It parallels the rainbow. The connection is that just as every time it rains one hopes for a rainbow, every birth represents a chance to pass on the covenant. This is a God-given sign that requires human effort and partnership. It emphasizes generations and generative powers, parallel to transmission of God's way [still not yet learned by A except through past events]. It's a symbol of an inscribed sense of the rel'p of father to son: the father is encouraged, right away, to treat the child as part of a living tradition, to recognize that the child is ultimately not of the parents but of God's community; the father is such biologically and culturally and spiritually. The father is tied to the child (vs. a possible inclination to ignore the child) and the child is tied to the community. (Why just the males? Because of the biological facts, males have more chance to escape the bonds of the community. The mother necessarily has biological marks of being the mother, already.) It "circumcizes" the parental pride, and "reshapes" fatherhood/parenthood.

This is supposed to go with the naming of the child on the eighth day (v. 12) rather than with the birth. Various celebrations could attend the child's birth, circumcision/naming, and weaning (the latter, for Isaac).

Why every male, v. 13? It brings the whole people of Abraham into the community of God's way. 17:14, the failure of the father destroys the continuance of the covenant for the children. (cf. Isaac not being allowed to go back to Ur--is this because he may neglect to circumcise his children? A wants to supervise?) (Quibble on "cut off"; those who don't cut off, will be cut off.)

All this talk of progeny has made A worried about Ishmael, v. 18. But v. 19, it is clear that the covenant is to be passed through Isaac, who Sarah will bear, not Hagar's Ishmael.

17:23-27, so Abraham that very day circumcizes all the males of his household, making a ton of near heirs, including himself. They are to wait a year (v. 21) until Isaac appears.

Sarai has an important part in the covenant too even though circumcision is not as issue: She will also get a new name as a new creation (whether she wants it or not!), v. 15. She is part of the passing on of the covenant biologically as well as in her cultural role as mother: she will train up not just nations but rulers of nations, v. 16.

Covenant can appeal to pride, encouraging self-love and love of our own progeny and ourselves, over God. How does A. treat those outside the covenant (ditto, Lot in Sodom, and A. in later chapters)?

Themes:

• GOD'S WAY of righteousness (individual virtue) and justice/judgment (group virtue)
  [SDK = to be true, right, straight = being righteous]
  [MISHPAT = judging and legislating and executing = governing = doing justice]
• Justice (Sodom is a place of injustice--love of sameness and of one's own is taken to extremes and results in perverted sexuality--Lot's house is automatically adulterated for being in Sodom--look what happens to his daughters)
• City (and sex in the city)

18:16 ff., God's "Socratic" method of questioning conversation with Abraham. The two can "agree" on the conclusion as Abraham whittles down the number of necessary righteous people for saving the city (i.e., Sodom--what happened to Gomorrah?--A. is focused on Lot and God shows that He knows it); A. is a kind of unhappy partner in God's justice. God inspires A to be passionate, bold, intent, 18:23 ff.--A. is worried about God's kind of justice and needs to figure out just what's going on--if God is indiscriminate and totally unfathomable, how can A. trust God's promises? (This is very impt. in the binding of Isaac later.) He asks, should the righteous perish with the guilty? Shouldn't they be saved, and maybe even the whole city for their sake (as a kind of redemptive remnant). A certainly identifies with the righteous.

Why does A stop at 10--the question is, what's a saving remnant? A seems to gain a little bit of a savvy group sense--is A willing to give up some innocent, up to nine of them, for the sake of [for the safety of (A's meaning); for the benefit of (God's)] justice for Sodom? Justice isn't exactly equivalent to righteousness (if A learns this, we would hope to see an instance of this in practice by A, later--do we?). In any case it is useful to gain a group sense if one is going to become ruler of a great nation (esp. since God mentions it AGAIN, 18:18).

It turns out that there aren't ten righteous, assuming that God keeps His word. Lot, by the way he treats strangers (nearly as well as, if not as well as, Abraham does) shows himself to be among the righteous--maybe he is the only one. The two married daughters remain in Sodom--they are mostly Sodomite. Maybe Lot himself is as a stranger in the city and not really part of it anyway, not deserving to be destroyed for that reason too. (God is thinking in terms of the whole place, 18:26). As another reason, God saves him because God is mindful of Abraham, 19:29.

The destruction of S&G (cf. the Flood) is a kind of macabre burnt-offering. A is likely to feel somewhat responsible here, in that he did unhappily but seriously bargain with God. He doesn't know that Lot is saved (though he might learn this later) which would only add to any guilt or sadness. (Note that Noah didn't try to bargain with God at all; Noah could be culpable in the same very limited way. Why not ought we expect more from such a righteous one as Noah? Is he sure that all-flesh except himself has become corrupt?)

Lot's daughters sleep with him while he's drunk--payback in the same evil spirit of 19:8?

Some more themes so far:

• Abraham is founding a new way (God's, vs. Canaan, Egypt, etc.) and a new nation(s), based on JUSTICE and RIGHTEOUSNESS in a fallen world, trying to balance the individual and the collective without too much sacrifice. Man's judgement may be akin here to divine judgement in balancing a hierarchy of values. (see notes to Ch. 20.)
• Cities get a bad rap in Genesis
• Family and Transmission: fathers and sons; men and women; wife and sister
• Pride
• Sexuality (Sodom is anti-generative, Lot's daughters are over-generative, circumcision is rightly generative)

Sarah is about 89 but still beautiful. 20:1 ff., A. seems to be reckless with the promise again, saving his own hide, by fearing the King rather than God. Before the lesson, his wife trumps God. In the light of Abimelech's words of v. 9, he recognizes how dumb this was (v. 13).

Abimelech is pretty moral here. He is a pretty good guy who, unfortunately, doesn't also have the fear of God; his motivation is personal but not spiritual; he is blameless but not necessarily righteous--he's a good neutral?

Abraham and Abimelech: father of kings vs. father of multitudes

20:9, the unrighteousness of Abraham is that he (1) denied his wife as such, (2) was willing to lose her entirely, (3) failed to learn much in ch. 12, (4) lied or at least half-lied, (5) would have caused adultery, which would stain not only Abimelech but his whole people.

20:11-13, his four defenses are (1) he fears God, (2) Abimelech doesn't fear God so is feared himself, (3)he was kind of telling the truth anyway (he may be lying here, now! But this is unlikely now that he has seen the consequences that God has been causing) in that S was both wife and sister [this reflects on Terah's adultery], (4) he had contracted with Sarah long ago about the pattern they'd follow. 20:13, he uses a plural form for God, maybe to talk polytheistically for Abimelech. The lie was one of omission. We see a more real separating now between the meaning of wife and the meaning of sister.

20:14, Abimelech seems not to care so much about Abraham's defenses, but he simply continues to obey what God had told him. Money as a "covering of the eyes," v. 16, is a kind of reestablishment of blamelessness before men (this symbol may be Rebekah's purpose, 24:65). Only Abraham's eyes are uncovered. (See "meaning of wife" below.)

20:17, Abraham's first prayer includes a tacit admission of wrongdoing but mostly an intercession for Abimelech (cf. v. 7). God opens everybody's womb, including Sarah's, 20:18 and 21:1-2.

The lesson: Meaning of Wife: as founder, he needs a clear understanding of this (in order to be able to show justice, too?)

• A has a specifc, exclusive responsbility in regard to his wife
• Wife is a real counterpart, as well as a part of A himself (cf. Eve)
• Wife is a generative partner and also a partner in transmission of a way [learned this earlier with renaming]
• Wife is not sister! A sister is "too close" to be a good counterpart--otherwise how can you 'leave father and mother' (2:24)?--while someone from a neighboring clan (e.g. the Canaanites) are "too far" (cf. 24:3-4). End of incest. A wife more than a sister ought to be able to speak for herself, in the eyes of the husband.
• THE MORAL/SPIRITUAL READING: wife is forever and UNDER GOD (you can't just ditch your spouse in favor of self-preservation) (cf. Adam and Eve). GOD has EVERYTHING to do with the marriage relationship--it is even sacramental, whatever that exactly means.

Isaac is born when Abraham is 100 and Sarah is 90. This child is a gift of God, not coming out of the pride of people. God's promise is now obviously fulfilled. God shows a thorough trustworthiness (important for the binding of Isaac). Finally we have the "right" heir by the "right" wife. Relations are restored in the household (banishing Ishmael) and with neighbors (Abimelech and the agreement to be free from competition parallels the household banishment). By banishing Ish., A puts God and nation-building above his son, though this is a very hard choice (is this what he learned was necessary in the bargaining with God over Sodom?) Separation of the sons (cf. Cain and Abel) is important.

"God heeds" in v. 17--heeds [Ish.] the weak and "laughs with" [Isaac] the justifiably strong/righteous?

A. surely remembers all of what has happened up to this point, if not also tales of the Flood and whatnot from his ancestors--Noah dies when Abraham is about 50. See Chronology.

Isaac is a gift of God, which Abraham is willing to return when asked. This story is about FAITH, i.e. trust in God as the definer of what is good, and REVERENCE, i.e. awesome fear-like emotion in response to God and God's requests. God's command is put above all else, including previous promises of God himself. God is first in A's soul over every human thing (God is above but not contrary to reason.) To what extent does A recognize this as a test? His remarks are quite cryptic and truer than perhaps he knows, when he tells his son to trust God (vv. 7-8).

It's unclear how old I. is at this point. What does Isaac think about this? If anyone learns something about God, it's the guy on the chopping-block altar. But since we don't see much interaction between father and son after this, some people conclude that Abraham has emotionally lost his son. But in this interpretation Abraham is scarcely more able than Noah was to be a good father, which seems quite wrong because it would seem that Abraham isn't fit for fathering a nation either. Better, the lesson that God reigns over everything human is something that Abraham surely learns and that does not nonplus his son. Isaac certainly has a lot to think about (24:63, is he only thinking about his possible wife, or still thinking about that day on the altar?).

The best source on this chapter is Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling. Also see Wiesel, "Sacrifice of Isaac," and Kass, 'Ed'ing Fr. Abraham...Fatherhood' (though not quite right anymore).

Moral reading of the test: AWE, FEAR, REVERENCE, FIDELITY, FAITHFULNESS: reasons for complete surrender. Requires cognizance of God and self and the relationship (cf. 17:1)--we have a part in the sublime and a genuine righteous response to God. God is the one who, having all authority, defines goodness. God has been showing himself to his people.

Is an anthropological reading even possible in this story? Man comes up against, is forced to confront, something completely outside himself. The AWE of a vast mountain vista is the closest one might come to this, but even this is a shallow comparison. With awe of nature, man may find non-response (unless you worship it and become Babelite or Egyptian) the only response. So can you even ask whether this is a test regarding fatherhood or nation-founding? All that one can say is that FAITH and FEAR ought to be the characteristics of such a father of a nation; the crass way to say it is that politics must look beyond itself. Again, remembering 17:1, God wants Abraham to walk in the ways of righteousness, God's ways--this is what justice is about for the righteous man.

The question of being able to pass on the covenant to Isaac is barely an issue: Isaac surely gets the message! (though God repeats the business about assigning the land to the posterity over and over again to all three, A-I-J)

Think about seeing (existence, showing) vs. hearing (communication, telling), and 'insight through hearing' [LK], and the levels of knowledge involved. Are things what they seem? (How Shakespearean! How philosophic!) Do words communicate better or worse than what we can figure out from what we see? Think about God's various signs and voices (e.g. through angels).

12/4. PAPERS DUE 12/8 4 PM HARPER 482. Next class is winter term Tues., COBB 116. Consider for that class: the Is. and Reb. story of 25:19-28:9--what's the problem this generation? How's it solved?; 2 bros. and birthright, ch. 25; (for Thurs. class) stealing the blessing, ch. 27.

FEAR (YR') references so far: 3:10 9:2 15:1 18:15 19:30 20:8 20:11 21:17 22:12. Awe and reverence = feelings for God but also one's parents (see Lev 19:3). The psalmist: beginning of wisdom = fear of the Lord (cf. Aristotle, wisdom from wonder, Metaphysics). Look at Exodus 3, Moses and bush--think about sight and hearing there. Fear, reverence, SACRIFICE--shows that love of one's own is a subordinate reflection of love of God (though love as abstract term doesn't really help much).

Death and burial of Sarah: some like to connect this to the binding of Isaac, though it is completely conjectural. A. here compels a public sale.

Burial: A-I-J and Sarah and Rebekah are all buried in the cave at Mamre (Joseph is embalmed in Egypt; Rachel is buried on the road to Bethlehem, 35:18)

• A return to the dust from which one was made
• Covering of the ugly (cf. veil of Rebekah, clothes of Adam and Eve--though this is more related to Noah's uncovering himself--concern not that others see you, but that others see the vulnerability of someone who you love)
• Disposal of the corporeal self--while the spiritual self remains in memory--yet maintaining a kind of respect for the dead. Death is far from life, yet soul is not completely divorced from body.
• Perpetuity of the burial place = a kind of sanctification (cf. agriculture's use of land)
• CAVE burial--is a natural location, vs. a pyramid. It's at the EDGE of a field (death as a boundary)

A. is old, 24:1. It's about time for I. to have kids! What have we seen about A actually passing on tradition, except by buying a field and circumcizing the males? Do we see the ways of God being followed? Anyway, I. needs a wife; this is the practical next step. 24:3, he shows that he knows how impt. the wife is. v. 10, sending all the bounty, shows that he learned the lesson of Ch. 12, that wife is more important than stuff. The line of Terah is the important one (cf. 22:20).

Abraham has become stable with the purchase of the burial site. He sends his other children away, but Isaac remains, as always, close by the place of his birth. A. ensures this in 24:6, 24:8. Could Isaac be trusted to circumcise his sons in Ur or Haran or Nahor? and bring them up in the ways of his father? Anyway, Canaan is the promised land, not these places. And there's always the specter of 15:13.

A's trust is in God, v.3 (God creates by division, 1:1, and, in parallel fashion, singles out a line) and v. 7. We see God's quite evident hand in the story of finding Rebekah: servant has a providential idea, 24:12. The prayer of the servant is also a test of the character of R.: strength (up to 250 gallons of water to be brought), serving a stranger very generously and energetically. Compassion for both humans and animals. The point of not letting Isaac go is a kind of roundabout way to test whether R will be the kind of person willing to leave her own homeland to follow into Cannan. (Sarah was from Ur, probably, and both are beautiful (but Sarah moreso).)

v. 62, Isaac has been in the place of Hagar's wandering (16:14).

VEIL, vs. 65 (cf. seeing at vv. 63-64 and in general)

• A social custom--protocol hides the love-at-first-sight of vv. 63-64--an aspect of wifeness and symbol of chastity, shyness and anonymous humility (vs. pride), a supposed surrender of power.
• It's also a symbol of harlotry, however--see 38:14-15, or is there something that mitigates this? Is there a hidden mastery behind the supposed submission?
• In either case, veil acts as a kind of separation. (This may be akin to the kind of separateness of I's situation.)

What progress have we seen in Genesis? What education (esp. w/ regard to A.)?

• Recognition of God, infinitely beyond man. Recognition expressed via different kinds of communication thus far.
• Hope -- rainbow -- assurance of perpetuity of creation
• Faith -- (binding of I.) -- assurance of relation to God in perpetuity
• Theological Knowledge -- God revealing himself through his actions; our responses (prayer, obedience, etc.)
• Justice on earth, man in partnership with God