Strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods (Gen 28)

Okay, chapter 28 has some more meat to it, although many of these questions are fairly easy to address.

First, the SAB notes as "intolerance" the fact that Isaac didn't want his son to marry a Canaanite woman. This may indeed be intolerance, but it's intolerance with a point. Even people who dislike intolerance tend to be intolerant of intolerant people. In this case, it was very likely the point that Isaac felt all of the local women were too pagan to be suitable for his sons, and was afraid these women would turn his heart from serving God. Apparently, the land of Abraham's youth is still considered a better place to get a wife, although I'm never too sure why.

Jacob goes off to his uncle Laban (Rebekah's brother) to look for a wife. This is a convoluted family tree by this time (Abraham marries his sister, Isaac marries his double-first cousin once removed, and Jacob is heading towards marrying his first cousin/double-second cousin once removed), so I had to sketch it out to track who was who and answer the question of who Laban's actual father is. It's Bethuel. Yes, the next chapter calls him the "son of Nahor", but (and I think I covered this before, but it's certainly not a little-known concept) saying that X is the son of Y is often simply a way of saying Y is an ancestor of X, not necessarily directly. Nahor is Laban's grandfather, and I'm speculating that the reason Jacob calls Laban the "son of Nahor" is that he's choosing a more prominent member of that family or perhaps accentuating the more distant relation that nonetheless is traced through only males by way of Abraham.

After Jacob is sent away, Esau gets married to yet another wife. No, this is not okay; it's wrong on numerous levels. Esau is going against his parents' wishes to marry this woman, he's already got wives, and he seems to be doing it to get some sort of reaction from his parents. As I said before, Esau is not set up as an example of good morality.

Jacob has a dream along the way, and he sees a ladder going up to Heaven, and God reiterates the promises He gave to Jacob's father and grandfather. Did this promise come true? Maybe, it depends on how you read it. He calls the place Bethel or "House of God", which he does again many chapters later. The SAB sees this as absurd, suggesting "I guess the name didn't take the first time." It's funny, because I suggested that as a slight possibility in the case of Beersheba, but here, I'm fairly sure that's exactly what happened. Sometimes it's not clear what the full details of a story are; I, like many no doubt, have a tendency to envision the patriarchs wandering lonely through the desert, but forget that they had a rich possession of livestock and servants. In this case, though, that lonely picture seems fitting. If Jacob was traveling with an entourage, would he be using a rock as a pillow? I think Jacob was traveling alone with the clothes on his back, and at this time he originally calls the place Bethel, there's nobody there. The name didn't stick, because only Jacob knew it for over a decade.

As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated (Gen 27)

Ah, I have a wireless connection and a lull in the meeting that may not last, I'll pop in here for a moment to deal with a chapter I am surprised to see having so few SAB notes. There does seem to be an affinity for pointing out the personal foibles of Biblical characters in the SAB, and this is a prime example for many of that sort of thing, although not all Bible readers see this story the same way.

Short synopsis: Isaac gets old, decides he's going to bless Esau, Rebekah tells Jacob and encourages him to trick his father into giving the blessing to him instead.

Jacob, one may note, never objects because it might be wrong to deceive his father, but only because he's not quite convinced he can pull it off. Either Jacob has no conscience about the matter, or perhaps he might think he's doing the right thing. Note that back in chapter 25, both before and after Jacob is born, there is indication that Jacob is destined to get the best of his brother. I'm not sure whether that so much makes it right for him to trick his father, nor whether it had to be that way for God's plan to work out, but there it is. Furthermore, I have heard it said that aside from the morality of Jacob's deception, Isaac was doing the wrong thing to base his decision of which son to bless based on his own preference rather than God's. Add to that the fact that Isaac obviously knows something is up in verse 22, and is hesitant. (Also in verse 35, he figures it out awfully quickly.) Perhaps Isaac knows what's right, and what's God's will, but... I don't know, this is an odd story, and I almost wish the SAB had more to say so I could respond more directly.

Both Jacob and Esau seem to believe they are the rightful owners of this blessing. Jacob's response to hearing it would go to his brother is to work to set things right. Esau's response is to plot to kill Jacob. This, along with the story at the end of chapter 25 shows the difference in the character of these brothers. Jacob may be tricky, but he isn't a violent or vengeful man. Maybe it's a self-fulfilling prophecy that Esau turns out so bad, but he is what he is in the end.

So, in a similar turn of events to his father, Jacob goes away to his cousins' land to find a wife, and out of the reach of his brother.

They returned into the land of the Philistines (Gen 26)

The Bible does not say that Isaac visited the king of the Philistines "in the days of Abraham", it says that he visited them at a time "beside...the days of Abraham", but the point still stands about the anachronism of Philistines in this time period. I think I already touched on this topic, but I can't find it, so I'll have to brave the possibility of repetition. The thing to remember is that when the Bible writers write about certain things, sometimes they're writing hundreds of years after the events, so they use terms that are anachronistic. There's a certain area of the Middle East that eventually comes to be known as the land of the Philistines, so if a person living in a time when Philistines lived in that area wrote about it, they might call those people Philistines even though the label was technically wrong, just because it makes it easier for the "contemporary" reader to understand. For instance, I might say that before Europeans came to the area where I grew up, the area was the territory of one of the most powerful Californian tribes, the Pomo. This is essentially correct even though the area would not be called "California" for hundreds of years after the Pomo were at the height of their power.

God "appears" to Isaac and tells him to stay in that land like his father. I already touched on the subject of God being "seen" in a previous post, but while not mentioned in the SAB I have to admit that it occurs to me at this point that I'm a little perplexed as to why God cares where exactly Isaac stays since he never gives him any land.

Now, Isaac goes to Gerar, and we largely see a replay of what happened to his father there. It's almost one of those things that a Bible critic might take as a mistakenly-placed story that only belonged in one of their lives and not the other, if not for the fact that the Bible actually admits that this is a similar story, but assures the reader it's a different one. This time, it doesn't go so far as someone taking Rebekah away from Isaac, but instead, the king catches Isaac and Rebekah making out in public. Isaac is not recorded to make any excuses like "Well, by 'sister' I meant 'cousin' really..." It's hard to say whether Rebekah was not as hot as Sarah, or Abimelech knew from what had happened last time (probably to his father) that this family was to be handled carefully, because God seems to like them despite their being pathological liars.

Many of the other issues in this chapter have been covered before, such as slavery, the naming of Beersheba, and polygamy, the last of which deserves the added note here that virtually nothing Esau does is set up as a good example.

This leaves only the issue of Bashemath's parentage. Honestly, there are a number of different ways that one could explain it away, but in the end, it's probably an actual error of some sort. It's a matter of personal taste whether or not a person wants to view the Bible as completely free of errors such as this one that really aren't of significance, or whether or not such errors are troubling. Did a scribe get it wrong, or did Esau have two wives with the same name? Or maybe there was another group of "Hittites" that were descended from Ishmael? As for me today, I'm tired and don't really care that much. Maybe I'll revisit it in chapter 36 if I feel ambitious a couple weeks from now.

Behold, twins were in her womb (Gen 25)

Ah, Genesis 25, the chapter that most clearly demonstrates the non-linear style of storytelling that's used throughout the Bible, and especially in the book of Genesis. (Not to mention a bit of very interesting storytelling in its own right.) In fact, I was reading the commentary in Robert Alter's translation of Genesis, and he notes at the end of chapter 24 that some scholars believe that Abraham may have died before Isaac was married, and that the actual death of Abraham may have occurred while Eliezer was off looking for Isaac's bride.

Anyway, Abraham takes another "wife" after Sarah dies, named Keturah. I put "wife" in quotes because, as the SAB points out, it's not really quite clear whether she's truly considered a wife. A verse from 1Chronicles is quoted, but really, you only need to scan down to verse six, where one can easily assume (as I do) that the term "concubines" refers to Keturah and Hagar. So it might be worth asking what Keturah's status is to some people, although personally I'd suspect that the line separating "wife" and "concubine" is not exactly well-defined. A simple answer might be to point out that, as in many languages, the Hebrew word for "wife" and "woman" is the same. In verse one here, as well as back in 16:3 with Hagar, this could have been translated simply as "woman" and made sense, but perhaps the KJV translators (along with most others) didn't like the idea of Abraham having sex with a woman who was not his proper wife. A more complicated answer might be to consider that the writers of the parts of the Bible that mention this woman might have particular points to make at different times, and so used terms that would accentuate their points. Although Keturah was indeed a "wife" by any normal standard, when we drop down a few verses and the author decides to call her a "concubine", he's trying to make a clear distinction between Sarah and the other two women in Abraham's life. Particularly the relation they have to the promises of God and the land of Canaan.

So Abraham has at least six more children after Sarah is gone, and each of them is sent away from the place where Abraham lives, so that they won't be in the way of Isaac growing up and being prosperous. While I covered most of the objections to this story back in chapter 13, I might as well hit on them just lightly again. Abraham is able to have more children easily because the infertility problem was Sarah's. As far as I'm aware, in fact, while women have menopause, men never stop being fertile, although they certainly may have other problems that would impede them from conceiving. In a sense, there is a viewpoint theologically that nobody has any children ever without God's help, but that's an extreme viewpoint. These other children may not be considered legitimate children if indeed Keturah was a "concubine", I'm not sure. However the point I said back in chapter 13 was that every time Isaac is referred to as Abraham's "only" son, it refers to a time frame before he has any children with Keturah, so the existence of these children has no bearing on the question of how many children Abraham had. Oh, and furthermore on the subject of time frame, I don't know anyone who considers it polygamy to marry another wife after your first wife dies.

Abraham dies at 175, an impressive age, but certainly not impossible. Ishmael comes back from wherever he's living to help Isaac bury their father, so apparently they're getting along okay, perhaps in a large part due to them not having to live together. A short synopsis is given of Ishmael's life and children, who become a powerful nation in their own right as Israel will in the future. Ishmael also lives to an impressive age.

Rebekah turns out to be barren, which the SAB labels as absurd, but doesn't explain why. Perhaps it's the fact that she seems to be in a long line of infertile wives? I don't know what the SAB's getting at, but as I think I said before (and I don't remember where it was if I did) I think that God is putting some odd control on the biological clocks of the matriarchs to make the timing just right for the period the nation of Israel spends in Egypt. Who knows? Maybe infertility was just a problem in that time and place?

Rebekah does eventually get pregnant though, and actually, her infertility is an odd footnote, because it's just for one verse of the story, and we don't know how long in time it was. She only gives birth once, though, and it's twins. More interesting names here; the older one is Esau or "hairy", while Jacob is "heel grasper". Imagine your child being born and you notice that she has a funny nose, so you say to your spouse, "Hey Honey, let's name her 'Schnozia', don't you think?"

Obviously not identical twins, Esau is a big burly hairy man who loves hunting, while Jacob is a bit of a momma's boy (literally) who likes to hang out at home and cook. Their parents play favorites, and apparently, so does God. Despite the note on the SAB, the Bible does not in any place that I am aware of say that Rebekah hated Esau, she just liked Jacob better. In part, it may have been the prophecy she was given about them. Throughout the story of these boys' lives, Isaac keeps trying to make Esau the better one, but God and their mother keep trying to manipulate things to put Jacob in front, because despite not being as manly as his father might like him to be, Jacob is the more morally upright of the two (which says a lot, since he's no angel). We get the first hint of it in the end of the chapter when he sells his birthright for a bowl of stew. Not exactly the shining example.

Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. (Gen 24)

So after Sarah is dead, Isaac must be nearly 40 by this time, and yet he hasn't married yet. What's he waiting for? Apparently, his father has some misgivings about his son marrying one of the local Canaanite women, a fact that the SAB labels as "Intolerance". This is easy to address on a factual level, but difficult on other levels, as people have different views on whether this sort of thing is acceptable. The Canaanites were pretty much pagans, and Abraham wasn't going to let his son take a pagan wife. There are numerous stories in the Bible of Israelite men marrying pagans and being led astray to wrong religious practices. No doubt this comes from the fact that most of us men find our sexual desires to be one of the most powerful forces in our life, and sexuality is something that is closely mingled with spirituality on numerous levels. I suppose one could say it's intolerant, but from a Judeo-Christian point of view, there are some sorts of intolerance that are not only acceptable, but good. Really, most people are intolerant about something; in our modern highly-tolerant culture, there are a lot of people who are intolerant towards intolerance!

So, Abraham admits that he's not likely to live too much longer, and to deal with the matter of his son still being unmarried, he makes Eliezer swear that he will get Isaac a bride from among his family back in his homeland. This is a very interesting oath, as Eliezer is asked to "put his hand under the thigh of Abraham," which--as the SAB points out--is likely to be a euphemism for holding Abraham's genitals. Apparently, this was a surprisingly common way for a man to take an oath in those days, and in this case, as the oath is concerned with the carrying on of Abraham's offspring, it seems symbolically appropriate. (As for the moral value of swearing an oath, I discussed it at the end of this post.) Eliezer seems concerned that he might not be able to just run off and get a wife like that, and suggests that he bring Isaac with him, but Abraham insists that Isaac is not to go back, and tells Eliezer if he can't work it out, then he's not bound by the oath any more.

Now when Eliezer gets to where he's supposed to go, and he prays to God that a very specific sign will be given to him, which comes to pass. This sign of Rebekah giving water to Eliezer's camels is actually a fairly significant one, as a camel drinks a lot of water, and for someone to give water to ten camels "until they have done drinking" is quite a task. In addition to being an answer to Eliezer's prayer, it shows that Rebekah is a strong, healthy woman with a kind heart. She's also noted to be attractive, which the SAB puts some icons next to, but essentially no comment, so I don't know what the issue is there.

So Eliezer, being convinced that Rebekah is the woman that God wants Isaac to marry, gets introduced to her family (Isaac's cousins), brags a lot about how many slaves Abraham has (I discussed the morality of slavery here), and gives Rebekah some gold bracelets and an "earring". I didn't realize that the KJV translated this "earring". Most other translations, probably because of the wording of verse 47 ("put the earring upon her face") translate the jewelry given to her as "nose ring". I've always thought it was odd with the popularity of nose rings these days that I never hear of anyone in modern times giving a nose ring as an engagement ring. It sounds cute to me.

Eliezer takes some time to recap for these folks everything that's happened to Abraham, excessive repetition being for better or worse a common Biblical narrative device. At the end, Rebekah's family agrees that Isaac would be a good husband and that it seems to be God's will for her to go, so he showers them all with gifts and insists he return the very next morning. Sort of a neat and unexpected thing happens here in the midst of a lot of stuff that sounds rather sexist: Eliezer wants to go at once, her parents want her to wait a few days so they can see her off, and in the end they let her make the decision. She decides to go, and the rest is history.

He gave his only begotten Son (Gen 22)

You know, I gotta hand it to the SAB for thoroughness. While sometimes I think the criticisms go overboard, it's clear to me that it's because Wells is trying to make sure he covers all the angles. There are a few things pointed out in this chapter that I'm not sure I've ever thought of. Of course, you can't read this chapter without seeing the issue of human sacrifice, that's obvious, but there are a few minor, but important points brought up here.

Off the top, something that can often be a sticking point for some is the issue of whether God "tempts" people. James says that God does not tempt people, but there a re a few places where it sure seems like it's happening, particularly here, where the KJV says outright that Abraham was being tempted. One of the very difficult things that the Bible reader has to deal with is vague language. The Hebrew word that is translated here as "did tempt" has a variety of meanings, and in fact, the KJV is more likely to translate the word "prove" than "tempt". I actually would love to know why the KJV translators chose "tempt" in this particular case, as every other instance of translating this word as "tempt" it refers to testing God. Perhaps the idea behind the word is making an unfair demand of someone to see if they'll follow through, because that certainly seems to fit with the idea behind this story. In any case, Abraham is being tested by God, not provoked into choosing wrong, but provoked into choosing right.

So the test is that Abraham is told by God to take his only son, Isaac, and give him as a sacrifice on a nearby mountain. Now, God is not generally in the practice of asking for human sacrifices; in fact I'd say this is the only time He orders it (I realize the SAB gives other examples of things that seem to be saying this, but I'll deal with those as I come to them), and there's something that should be quite notable about it. He doesn't have Abraham actually go through with it. No, it was just a test, not a real sacrifice.

Should Abraham have gone through with it? I mean, obviously not once God said not to, but should Abraham have just said, "God, I don't think this is right, and I won't do it!" Well, I'd definitely tell anyone who thought God was telling them to kill someone to go see a doctor and make sure they're on the right meds, but if indeed it was God talking to Abraham, then Abraham did the right thing to obey. While it may seem heartless, there are a few things to consider. If you look at Hebrews 11:17-19, you see that Abraham remembered God promising Isaac would prosper and have children, so Abraham knew that whatever was going on, this wasn't the end of Isaac. As a child reading this story, I always assumed Abraham knew God would call it off, but the passage I quoted in the N.T. there says that Abraham assumed God would bring Isaac back from the dead. Abraham knows that he has to obey God, and that if he does, God will make everything turn out alright. Note that Abraham says to his servants that he will be coming back with his son.

There are some interesting bits of symbolism here, both for the Jewish faith and the Christian one. It's believed by Jews that the place that all of this happened was right near where the Temple would actually be built. Christians also believe this, and in particular are also interested in the symbolism of Isaac being a prefiguring of Christ, carrying wood (like the cross) to the place where he is eventually going to be offered as a sacrifice. Isaac is not completely clueless here, either. While most people seem to read this story as Abraham taking a little boy up to the mountain, it is traditionally thought that Isaac is probably in his early thirties. When Abraham, a 130-year-old man ties up his 30-year-old son and places him on the altar, he must have been a willing, if confused participant. The best bit of interesting symbolism is in the wording of the KJV translation, which unfortunately is not likely supported well by the original Hebrew: "God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering." The ambiguity of this statement in English is rather suggestive of Jesus' death centuries later.

After God calls the whole thing off, though, he then says, "Now I know that thou fearest God..."I have to admit this is very odd wording for a God who supposedly knows everything, and assumedly only asked Abraham to do this because He knew Abraham would be willing, but wouldn't actually go through with it. I tend to think that God tests people for their own benefit, because He knows the strength of their character, and wants to give them insight into themselves that they would not have without the testing. In such a case though, it seems it would make more sense to say something like, "Now I see..." since He already knew, but this was the first time it was visibly shown. There is some ambiguity in the Hebrew word, and I'd like to suggest that it could be rendered "perceive", but I'd hate to put myself in a very unpopular position: I can't find any widely-accepted English translation that doesn't translate that word into "I know". Of course, knowing now doesn't mean He didn't before, but it sure sounds like God was almost holding His breath waiting to see how this would turn out, doesn't it? I just don't know what that's all about.

I also don't know what the deal is with the claim in Exodus 6:3 that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob didn't know God's name, YHWH. Not only does Abraham use it here, but he used it in 14:22, 24:3, and 24:7, and Jacob uses it in various verses, the first of which is 27:20, in conversation with Isaac. Perhaps by the time I get to Exodus 6:3, I'll have an idea what that passage might be saying, because it does appear to be wrong taken at face value.

So God once again swore to bless Abraham and his descendants, and yes, God swore "by and to himself." And why not?

Swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath (Gen 21)

Most of the objections that the SAB gives for this chapter are pretty trivial, in my opinion. There's a lot going on here that's confusing and sometimes seems harsh, and indeed, it is to an extent, but taking the long view, I think it all makes sense.

Like the previously-discussed passages in which God "appears" to people, I think saying that God "visited" Sarah is really a figure of speech. Really, God is with Sarah all the time, as He's with everyone, but in this case, what there was was a visitation of God's power upon Sarah's post-menopausal reproductive system. As the SAB points out, Abraham doesn't seem to need any help in that area, as he has several children after Sarah dies years later. The SAB points out that "God-assisted conceptions never result in daughters." which is technically not true, as theologically Christians and Jews believe that all conceptions are God-assisted in a sense, but the point is clear enough. I'm not sure why this needs to be pointed out, unless the implication is that there's some sexism involved. From one point of view, it's often the mothers that seem to care the most about infertility, and a point could be made that these special conceptions are a special blessing to the women in particular, but I can certainly understand that that might not convince everyone. (Remember that Abraham was perfectly happy to have Ishmael be his heir!) If Steve Wells is trying to make a different point, perhaps he can leave a comment.

So Sarah has a child, and he is named Isaac, a word often translated as "laughter". There's a lot of interesting usages of this word surrounding the life of Isaac and his parents: Abraham laughs the first time he's told Isaac is going to be born, and so does Sarah. The word can also mean "mocking", "playing" or "messing around". It's the word used of Ishmael's actions towards Isaac in verse nine, and even Issac's actions with his wife in chapter 26 (probably some sort of "heavy petting" as they say). Because of the ambiguity/flexibility of the word, verse six may possibly mean Sarah's saying something like "God's making fun of me!" but certainly in a positive way. But in the midst of this mirth, Sarah gets angry when she sees Ishmael doing whatever he's doing to Isaac. (Although "mocking" is most likely the best translation, some have suggested due to the word's usage elsewhere that he may have simply been laughing in a friendly manner, and Sarah somehow couldn't stand to see this illegitimate child happy, or the possible other extreme that Sarah caught Ishmael molesting his younger brother. The latter would probably give very good justification for Sarah's anger in this story, but there's not a real strong basis for this speculation as far as I know.) Sarah insists Abraham send Ishmael and Hagar away, and whether or not she's at all justified in her anger, God seems to feel that it's a good idea, and tells Abraham to do it.

The SAB claims that Abraham sent them "out into the wilderness to die" but I think there's an important point missing from such a reading of the story. Even if it wasn't reiterated by God here (which it is), Abraham no doubt remembers that God already promised that Ishmael would come to eventual prosperity. No, the point wasn't to have Ishmael dead, but to have him come into his own someplace a bit farther away from his half-brother Isaac. Note that this is a repeated theme throughout Genesis, that two close family members are too prosperous to be able to coexist in the same general area, and they have to part ways. This is just preemptive in Ishmael's case. Abraham gives them food and water and sends them off.

The SAB questions Ishmael's age at the time he is sent off with his mother, as the general context of the story suggests he's in his mid-teens, but some of the particular wording in this passage suggests a much younger child. First of all, the wording of the translation in verse 14, while technically following the wording of the Hebrew, unfortunately doesn't quite capture the spirit of the grammar, unfortunately. Note that the phrase "and the child" comes after the phrase "on her shoulder", and the implication is that she's carrying the bread and water, but not her son. Grammatically, "the child" follows the verb "gave", but not the subclause. Admittedly, it's not real clear, but apparently, this is just a difficult to translate passage. I don't think verse 15 really poses a problem, as one could certainly even take a full-grown adult and shove them under the shade of a bush. Verse 18, on the other hand is much more awkward phrase, as the KJV translation makes Ishmael sound like a tiny infant; many other translations use "by the hand" or "with your hand" which make more sense for a teenager. (I have a whole spiel about translation of prepositions that I usually share in the context of chapter one, and I can't believe I skipped over it! I even promised I'd include it in one of my early posts. I'm going to add it to the comments here later today.)

Back to Abraham, we see that he is approached by King Abimelech and Captain Phichol, who tell him that they respect Abraham's standing before God, and they'd like to make a pact with him that they will all do their best to get along, and hopefully they will all prosper. Note that we have seen the name Abimelech before, and we'll see it again, once with the name Phicol. While some instances of this may be the same person, it's very likely that "Abimelech" is more like a royal title than a proper name in the usual sense (it means "the king is my father") and Phicol (meaning "strong") may also be a title for the head of the army of Gerar. When Isaac runs into these guys, it's about 40 years later, and he has a similar sort of experience to his dad's first run-in with them.

Abraham makes a pact with them, which takes a bit of working out of some details concerning a well and some sheep. Swearing, making covenants, and taking oaths are good things to do, but Jesus gives an important caveat, which is echoed by James: if you understand the cultural and scriptural context for the two quoted verses, the point of the verses is not that someone should abstain from swearing (although it is true that some Christians, to be on the safe side, have "sworn off" swearing, if you will) but that swearing should not be an excuse for hypocrisy. When you were a kid, did you ever hear a kid say (or say yourself) "I swear on a stack of Bibles!" Why should swearing on a stack of Bibles be better than swearing on one Bible? Why should swearing on one Bible be better than just swearing? Why should swearing be better than just saying something, and people know you to be of such good character that they know you mean what you say at all times? Paraphrasing Jesus in Matt. 5:37, "Just say what you mean all the time, and swearing should serve no purpose."

The chapter ends with a couple of questions by the SAB concerning some geography. I'm going to answer the questions together, as they are related in a way. This story is supposedly the time Beersheba is given its name, and although another story is given later, the SAB apparently missed the fact that earlier, Hagar and Ishmael were sent away to Beersheba, which seems like it would be a clear anachronism. The thing is, while the area and the well in that story were named later, the author is writing after the fact, and calls the place by the name it was known by in the time of the writer. Beersheba was still called that 1,000 years later, and as far as I know, is still called that today. My point in answering this question that was not asked (but maybe should have been?) is that when the Bible here refers to "the land of the Philistines" hundreds of years before Philistines, it may simply mean that it was the land that eventually would belong to the Philistines. Also, as with so many other names, the meaning has a vagueness that means it may mean nothing so particular at all, as the Hebrew word for "Philistines" means "immigrants". As for the naming of Beersheba being covered twice, and seemingly thus contradicting, there are many interesting things going on in the Hebrew. There's a bit of wordplay involved here, as they make an oath (shev'uah) over seven (sheb'a) ewe lambs. In Isaac's story, there's no sense of "seven", but only an oath involved. It may be that while Abraham called the place Beersheba, the name didn't quite stick until Isaac's time. It may also be that Isaac's well was not just his father's well redug, but a new well in the same general area. Since Abraham and his son keep having to dig new wells here and make new covenants, the name just eventually comes into common usage, I guess, and the name sticks for over 3,000 years.

The gospel of the circumcision (Gen 17)

"Good news, Abe! I've decided you should have the tip of your penis cut off!" That wacky God; what a cut-up! (This is where I'm supposed to say, "No pun intended," with the express purpose of not caring whether you think I intended it or not, but just making sure you didn't miss it.)

Here's a little personal anecdote my mother told me: when I was born, it was widely believed that circumcision was a very healthy thing to do, and they gave my mother a hard time getting out of the hospital with me without having me circumcised. My mother repeatedly explained to the staff that I would be circumcised, but several days later, according to Jewish custom, at my parents' synagogue. Although apparently they had no legal right to do so, they pretty much threatened not to release her until she signed a release form allowing a doctor to do it right away. Weird stuff. Anti-Semitism, or just ignorance? I don't know.

Anyway, getting to today's passage, God appears to Abram again, and makes another covenant with him. Now I've heard it discussed that this is a separate covenant than the one in chapter 15, and this one is a conditional one. I have to admit I'm not real clear on what the difference is, and while part of it is just me being tired, it's also not super clear in the text. The fact that God doesn't give the land to him in his lifetime is something I've already discussed in recent posts, but I'd say verse eight is particularly confusing as the construct "I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee" seems to be clearly specifying the giving of the land to Abraham himself. I don't know what the deal is with that.

Now Abram ("exalted father"), who is renamed Abraham ("father of a multitude") has to do something a bit more challenging than cutting up a few animals; he has to cut off his foreskin, and talk every man living in his house into doing it as well. The SAB questions whether circumcision is necessary, and while looking at some of the New Testament verses on the matter can be confusing out of context, I think there is a fairly unified message concerning it. The main N.T. texts that discuss it at length are Acts 15, in which the early church fathers meet together to discuss the matter of circumcision of gentile converts to Christianity, and a large portion of the book of Romans, particularly chapter four, in which Paul points out that Abram was called righteous over thirteen years before he was circumcised. The upshot is that if you're a Jew and you're going to follow the law of the Jews, then you have to be circumcised. If you're a non-Jew who wants to follow God, you don't have to be circumcised. I don't believe I'm mistaken in my understanding that even Jews believe this. This is the first of many commands in the Bible that are specifically for Jews (although Muslims also circumcise), a subject I'll talk about a lot if I ever make it out of Genesis. Circumcision is to be taken very seriously by the Jews, though, to the point that God says a man who is not circumcised can't be part of the Jewish community, another point I'd have to say is rather odd, since one might assume that, as a Jew, it's really his parents' fault if he's not circumcised.

Sarai's name gets changed to Sarah, which changes the meaning from "princess" to "noblewoman", not a big change. The real point of changing the names was in some way that it was significant in this case to add an "H" to each one, I seem to recall being taught when I was a kid, although I can't remember why; it was something to do with God's spirit being on them in some way. The SAB mentions here that Sarah was Abraham's half-sister, which makes the relationship between them incestuous, yes, but Biblical scholars have pointed out that God never said anything against incest until after the Israelites leave Egypt, probably because with the smaller population in the first few hundred years after the flood, incest would have been harder to avoid.

In changing Sarah's name, God also says that He's going to give Sarah a child, and since she's eighty years old and has never conceived, Abraham laughs. God tells Abraham that the child will be named Isaac, a Hebrew name meaning "he laughs" because, as explained more in the next chapter, everyone is going to laugh at the idea of an 80-year-old woman having a child. (The SAB doesn't put its laughing "absurdity" icon next to verse 16, a place where one might actually consider it respectful to do so!)

So the chapter ends with Abraham circumcising himself, his son Ishmael (Muslims circumcise at age 13, following the tradition of their forefather!), and all of his male servants. While the Bible doesn't say this all happened in one day, it probably did happen in a short time frame, and the SAB is right in painting the rather disturbing picture it does in responding to verse 23. I imagine the announcement; "Hey everyone, I'm giving you the rest of the day off, right after you do just one little thing..." Yikes.

I guess the only thing I haven't covered here is the issue of Ishmael's age, but I think that's really a matter to cover in chapter 21, if indeed it's a matter at all. I don't think it is, but I'll address it when I get there.