Tag: Abraham

Abimelech’s Challenge

Posted on by jovial_cynic

But Abimelech had not come near her; and he said, “Lord, will You slay a righteous nation also?”
Genesis 20:4 (NKJV)

When Abimelech, who does not know Abraham’s God, is challenged by God in a dream, his response is fascinating.

“Will you slay a righteous nation as well?”

On the one hand, Abimelech defends himself and his actions, so his statement can be rendered this way: If you destroy this nation with me in it, you’ll have destroyed a righteous man.

This links to the previous chapter, where a city was destroyed.

On the other hand, Sodom and Gomorrah are like the wicked world destroyed in the flood. The rabbis say that Abimelech’s word might be as follows:

“If this is how You judged the generation of the Flood and the generation of the Dispersion, perhaps they too were innocent.”

You might think, “how could Abimelech possibly dare to speak to God like this?!”

Perhaps this is why God came to him *in a dream,* and why Abimelech merely refers to God as Adonai, and not as the divine name or as God Himself.

Faithfulness

Posted on by jovial_cynic

But God came to Abimelech in a dream of the night, and said to him, “Behold, you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is married.”
Genesis 20:3 (NASB)

The rabbis suggest that the people of Abraham’s day believed that faithfulness is of such great importance that adultery was considered worse than murder.

Back in Genesis 12, Abram’s fear was that the men of Egypt would be willing to MURDER him, but he’s not worried that they’ll simply abduct Sarai and sleep with her or take her as their own wife.

It came about, when he was approaching Egypt, that he said to his wife Sarai, “See now, I know that you are a beautiful woman; and when the Egyptians see you, they will say, ‘This is his wife’; and they will kill me, but they will let you live.
Genesis 12:11-12 (NASB)

Perhaps part of this idea comes from seeing that God commanded faithfulness first in Genesis 2:24, but the story of murder isn’t shown until Genesis 4 when Cain kills Abel.

And perhaps this is why God warns Abimelech the way He does.

Abraham’s Heartache

Posted on by jovial_cynic
In the plain reading of Genesis 19 and 20, it’s unclear if Abraham knows Lot survived.

Given that, consider Abraham’s view: He pleads with God for mercy, to which God said “ok, for the sake of so few, I’ll spare the cities,” but then the cities are destroyed. Abraham got up in the morning to see smoke billowing up.

What must Abraham think?

Perhaps this goes unresolved for Abraham. And perhaps life is like that sometimes.

Sarah and the Ark

Posted on by jovial_cynic

And there Abraham said of his wife Sarah, “She is my sister.” Then Abimelek king of Gerar sent for Sarah and took her.
Genesis 20:2 (NIV)

It’s easy to think that Abraham’s lie to Abimelek is just like his lie to Pharaoh, but the differences are the key to understanding the story.

For starters, there’s no mention of Sarah’s beauty. She’s 90 now, so it’s unlikely that her physical appearance is related.

Second, there is no mention of fear. Genesis 12 mentions the fear of famine that drove them to Egypt and the fear that Pharaoh would kill Abram. But here in Gerar, Abraham isn’t afraid, and he doesn’t think that the men of the city are going to try to kill him. At least, not in the same way. In Genesis 12, the fear is truly about dying. But in Genesis 20:11, the fear mentioned is that the people here don’t “fear God.” The fear of dying, then, isn’t like Genesis 12. Abraham believes he will be kept alive because God has proven Himself faithful. So perhaps Abraham’s fear is about something else.

The rabbis point out an unusual way Abraham relates to Sarah in this verse.

“and there Abraham said of his wife Sarah…”

The text reads “of Sarah,” or אֶל־שָׂרָה in Hebrew. The word “of” here is אֵל (el).

It should be עַל (al), not אֵל (el).

What’s the difference?

“al-Sarah” would mean “about Sarah,” or “of Sarah.” But instead, we are given “el-Sarah,” which really means “towards Sarah.” The word implies a directional relationship, and it carries with it a sense of utility.

The rabbis tie this story to 1 Samuel 4:21.

She named the boy Ichabod, saying, “The Glory has departed from Israel”—because of the capture of the ark of God and the deaths of her father-in-law and her husband.
1 Samuel 4:21 (NIV)

Here, we have “of the ark,” or “el haron” and it’s the same usage, and the story involves a fissure in the relationship where the ark is used as utility, and not relationally.

The whole story of 1 Samuel 4 involves the people of God taking the ark and believing that simply using it will get them a victory or reward.

This may be the meaning: Abraham isn’t repeating a mistake from the past. He is taking God and his wife for granted. Perhaps he has the following mindset:

“The last time something like this happened, we walked out with treasure. Perhaps we can do it again.” For Abraham, Sarah becomes a means to an end.

The lesson is that we who are within God’s covenant can find ourselves misusing our relationship with one another and with God. It should not be this way.

The ark in the land of the Philistines is Sarah in Gerar.

Abimelek is the King of the Philistines.

Shame

Posted on by jovial_cynic

Now Abraham journeyed from there toward the land of the Negev, and settled between Kadesh and Shur; then he lived for a time in Gerar.
Genesis 20:1 (NASB)

Genesis 20 starts with Abraham. Without Lot. Lot is not mentioned again during his lifetime, and the rabbis speculate on this.

One view is Abraham abandoned Lot due to the shameful act with his daughters, but I disagree. I think Lot stayed behind because he was ashamed.

Shame is so powerful. It’s soul crushing and paralyzing, and it’s right there in the very beginning of the story of sin, when the serpent deceived humanity.

Lot’s hesitation, his drunkenness… he is a man drowning in shame and worthlessness.

He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”
Genesis 3:10 (NIV)

But God, who knows all things, remained kind to Lot’s descendants. We read in Deuteronomy 2 that a portion of the Promised Land has been preserved for them, and that Israel is not to make war against them to take their land.

Yes, Psalm 83 shows the sons of Lot are remembered for their rebellion and aggression against God’s people.

But we should consider the way God gave them a possession of the Land first. This tells us the future: perhaps He will again.

Furnace of God

Posted on by jovial_cynic

Now Abraham got up early in the morning and went to the place where he had stood before the Lord; and he looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the surrounding area; and behold, he saw the smoke of the land ascended like the smoke of a furnace.
Genesis 19:27-28 (NASB)

In Genesis 11, which covers the Tower of Babel, I wrote about the relationship between the bricks and the furnaces that made them, tying bricks and furnaces to human bondage. To Empire.

So when Abraham sees “the smoke of a furnace” (literally kiln), I wondered about the connection.

The word for “furnace” here is כִּבְשָׁן (kivshan), and it is not the same word used in Daniel for the furnaces in Babylon. That word is אַתּוּן (atun).

Both mean “furnace.”

The Babylonian furnace is tied to human bondage and enslavement. But what about the kivshan here in Genesis 19?

Perhaps kivshan isn’t man’s furnace, but God’s. Here in Genesis, it’s used to describe fire and brimstone from heaven, but later, it describes the very presence of God, descending on Sinai.

Now Mount Sinai was all in smoke because the Lord descended upon it in fire; and its smoke ascended like the smoke of a furnace, and the entire mountain [a]quaked violently.
Exodus 19:18 (NASB)

This presence is tied to a different picture of “bondage” or “enslavement.” Here, we have the 10 Commandments that show up in the next chapter, followed by several chapters of laws and ordinances, which all culminate in the commitment made in Exodus 24. The whole time, and for the next 40 days, God is the Fire on the Mountain.

Then Moses came and reported to the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do!”
Exodus 24:3 (NASB)

Kivshan, or “God’s furnace” as I’m calling it, has an interesting root: כָּבַשׁ (kavash) which means… bondage. Slavery.

But this isn’t slavery under man. In scripture, this word is most frequently used to describe ordered servitude under God, starting in Genesis 1.

I. to subject, subdue, force, keep under, bring into bondage
– 1. (Qal)
– – 1. to bring into bondage, make subservient
– – 2. to subdue, force, violate
– – 3. to subdue, dominate, tread down
– 2. (Niphal) to be subdued
– 3. (Piel) to subdue
– 4. (Hiphil) to bring into bondage
Strongs H3533 כָּבַשׁ: kavash

God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Genesis 1:28 (NASB)

This word is often used to describe land being subdued for God’s people, for God’s purposes, which makes the Exodus kavash so poignant: God’s presence is tied to commitment. That commitment is akin to being a “slave” for God.

It sounds quite awful, unless you know that God is Good.

But there’s something else here. In Micah, we read that God, in His great compassion, will kavash our iniquities. Capture it, subdue it, wrestle it down and cast it into the depths of the sea.

He will again have compassion on us,
And will subdue our iniquities.
You will cast all our sins
Into the depths of the sea.
Micah 7:19 (NASB)

So what we learn is that the furnaces of man (Babylon) are a corruption of the furnace of God, because slavery under the boot of Empire is not like slavery under God who loves us.

The furnace of God is God’s own presence among us, wiping out our sin and cleansing us.

Just the Crackers

Posted on by jovial_cynic

But he urged them strongly, so they turned his way and entered his house. He prepared a feast for them and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.
Genesis 19:3 (The Contemporary Torah, JPS, 2006)

It’s curious that the messengers of God ate the meal Abraham and Sarah prepared for lunch, but when they visited Lot, it is described differently.

According to the rabbis, the meaning of the text is that Lot prepared a great meal, just like Abraham did, but the messengers only snacked on the crackers. They abstained from the feast itself.

An Insignificant Number

Posted on by jovial_cynic
When Abraham asks God if He would spare the cities from destruction if there were 50, 45, 40, 30, 20, and 10 righteous people there, God says He will not destroy the cities if a requisite number of righteous people were present.

So what is the minimum number of people that are needed to prevent God from destroying a city?

We know that God will save a city on account of 10, because that’s what God said in Genesis 18:32. But how many righteous people were in the city? Is it just Lot? If so, does that mean that one righteous person not sufficient?

Actually, the text might demonstrate that one is all that’s necessary. One is sufficient.

If you remember, the region of Sodom and Gomorrah consists of 5 separate cities: Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboyim, and Bela (that is, Zoar).

These kings went to war against Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboyim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar).
Genesis 14:2 (NIV)

Do you notice something interesting about Bela? Aside from having the nickname “Zoar,” the king of the city isn’t named. It sticks out, right? The rabbis say that the king of Bela isn’t named because the city is so insignificant that the king’s name wasn’t even recorded. It didn’t even matter.

But pay close attention: when we jump ahead to Genesis 19 when Lot is being rescued, where does he ask to go? He’s afraid he can’t get out in time, so he asks if he can go to the little insignificant town along the way. It’s Zoar, one of the 5 wicked cities!

Interestingly, God does not destroy it.

But Lot said to them, “No, my lords, please! Your servant has found favor in your eyes, and you have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can’t flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I’ll die. Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it — it is very small, isn’t it? Then my life will be spared.”

He said to him, “Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of. But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it.” (That is why the town was called Zoar.)
Genesis 19:18-22 (NIV)

Perhaps Lot is the ony righteous person there. And with just one person, as insignificant as that may seem, God spares the city.

Perhaps the rabbis are right: “a single righteous person could save the rest of the world.”

Praying for All of Them

Posted on by jovial_cynic

What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare[a] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it?
Genesis 18:24 (NIV)

[a] Or forgive

In Genesis 18, Abraham uses the word נָשָׂא (nasah) which means “to bear,” or to carry. The picture is God carrying the weight of the consequence of our actions. To endure. It also suggests withholding judgement.

Abraham is praying for the wicked and for the righteous.

To Know Us

Posted on by jovial_cynic
“To know” is the way sexual intimacy is described throughout the Bible, but Hebrew word means so much more than that. It also carries the meaning of “experiential knowledge.” It’s not just knowing about something, but it’s also having lived it out.

For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.
Genesis 18:19 (KJV)

‎Here in Genesis 18:19, God says “I know him” about Abraham. It is יָדַע. Yadah.

‎This says so much.

In the previous chapter, where Abraham and God entered a two-way covenant, with God committing himself to Abraham and Abraham going through the commitment of circumcision, we see a change. God is now with Abraham, not merely next to him.

I think “yadah” is the key to understanding what’s happening in Genesis 18. Perhaps the text isn’t showing us three men/angels with one of them being God. I know it appears that way, because only two men show up in the next chapter, but I think something else is being shown to us.

Now the Lord appeared to Abraham by the [b]oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day.
Genesis 18:1 (NASB)

Perhaps Abraham sees three men, but he understands that God is there in the midst of them. That’s why Genesis 18:1 is written the way it is. It’s not a chapter heading. It’s a statement of awareness, given the new in-dwelling relationship with God.

The chapter continues with the interactions of Abraham and the men, and then in the middle, God just shows up again in verse 13.

But the Lord said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh, saying, ‘Shall I actually give birth to a child, when I am so old?’
Genesis 18:13 (NASB)

I think the right reading of the passage is this: when one of the men asked about Sarah, Abraham understood it to be God’s words, and that these three men were messengers of God.

Later, when the men leave to investigate the city, God tells Abraham that He will go to the city, and that if the outcry is not true, He “will know.” It’s that same word: יָדַע. Yadah.

I will go down now and see whether they have done entirely as the outcry, which has come to Me indicates; and if not, I will know.”
Genesis 18:21 (NASB)

‎But also, if it is true, wouldn’t God also certainly know? Either way, He will experience it. But how?

What does it mean to be a messenger of God? We typically think of someone who is God’s spokesperson to humanity, but doesn’t a messenger bring a message back to God as well? Don’t they return with a report of what has happened?

This makes me wonder if the true reason only two angels show up to rescue Lot isn’t because the third one is God, and that God remained behind. Remember, as messengers, they all three represent God.

Perhaps one actually went ahead first before the other two… and suffered violence.

For we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the Lord that the Lord has sent us to destroy it.”
Genesis 19:13 (NASB)

The two angels who came to rescue Lot were on a mission to get him out of the city. The text says they were set to destroy the city, not because of the attempted violence against them, but because of the outcry. The cries for help.

And this is what God knew. It’s what God experienced.

A God who knows our suffering is a God who experiences our suffering. When God says He knows Abraham, I think he’s also telling us that He knows us: our wounds, our pain, the violence we have suffered.

And he’s inviting us to know him.