Original Meaning

Abraham and Abimelech (20:1–18)

ABRAHAM’S ITINERANT LIFESTYLE, not a famine, drives him to Gerar. The location of Gerar is uncertain, but it is likely located on the plain along the road between Gaza and Beersheba. Most archaeologists point to Tell Haror (Tell Abu Hureireh), fifteen miles northwest of Beersheba, as its probable location. Verse 1 distinguishes between where Abraham settles (Heb. yšb; NIV, “lived”—between Kadesh and Shur) and where he wanders (Heb. gwr; NIV “stayed”—in Gerar). The former is his base of operations; the latter is one of the stations for his flocks and herds. Gerar is about thirty-five miles from Hebron (where Abraham was in the previous chapters).

This is the second time that the text records Abraham’s identifying Sarah as his sister, but it is not unlikely that this is their regular custom when they are in unfamiliar places (notice 20:13, “everywhere we go”). There is no point in asking why Abraham tries this again when it resulted in such disaster the first time. After all, we cannot rule out the possibility that he also uses it successfully on many occasions. Our ignorance concerning the reasons for this ruse can only be reiterated. For the text, the ruse is not central—the results are.

God informs Abimelech of his offense in a dream. In the ancient Near East, dreams are one of the most common forms divine revelation is believed to take for the uninitiated. In the Mari texts, it is usually those who are not among the professional temple personnel who receive messages by means of dreams. In Mesopotamian thinking, dreams are usually brought from the gods by the deity Zaqiqu, whose name is derived from a word meaning spirit or breath, but here God is depicted as speaking directly. It is not unusual for these dreams to feature conversation. In ancient Near Eastern literature there is a category called auditory message dreams. Well-known dreams in this category include those of the Egyptian king Thutmose IV (fifteenth century), Hittite king Hattushilis (thirteenth century), and Babylonian king Nabonidus (sixth century).

In auditory message dreams, God appears and sometimes startles the person awake. The content of the dream is a spoken message by the deity rather than events or symbolic images. There are a number of examples of the person responding verbally to the deity (e.g., Nabonidus). Such dreams often are momentous, sometimes validating either their kingship or tasks they are undertaking, and sometimes warning the king of offenses or approaching disasters.1 Here the accusation concerns the potential of adultery. In Egypt (marriage contracts), Mesopotamia (hymns to Ninurta and Shamash), and Canaan (king of Ugarit extradites and executes his wife), adultery is regularly referred to as “the great sin” and is considered extremely detrimental to society to the extent that it is characteristic of anarchy. Hittite laws, Middle Assyrian Laws, and the Code of Hammurabi all contain legislation against adultery.

Verse 7 contains the first occurrence of the term “prophet” in the Old Testament. God identifies Abraham as one who is capable of intercession on Abimelech’s behalf. The role of prophet was well understood in the ancient Near East—as evidenced by over fifty texts found in the town of Mari (eighteenth century B.C.) that report various messages given by various prophets. Generally the prophet offered a message from deity, but here Abraham is praying for healing (cf. v. 17). This reflects the broader view of a prophet as one who has powerful connections to deity, such that he can initiate or remove curses. In the ancient Near East, this role is typically played by an incantation priest, who would recite incantations and perform appropriate rituals. He also received omens to enable him to proclaim that the danger had passed.

It is clear that the plague on Abimelech’s house has something to do with barrenness or, more likely, with sexual dysfunction since Abimelech also requires healing. It appears that Sarah has not spent much time under Abimelech’s control, so the plague most likely manifests itself rather quickly. The most probable speculation is some sort of genital discharge affecting both Abimelech and his wives, though Abimelech’s malady may be impotence. Such conditions would bar any sexual contact and, therefore, would protect Sarah as well as making conception impossible for Abimelech’s wives. Anything that prevented childbirth could be described as “closing the womb” (v. 18), in that the diagnosis of medical conditions in the ancient Near East tended to be symptomatic (identifying consequences) rather than ontological (identifying causes).

Abimelech responds generously, probably as an act of appeasement to Abraham’s God. Unspecified amounts of cattle and slaves are given in addition to freedom to move about the land and a thousand shekels of silver. In Ugaritic literature this is the amount of silver paid as the bride price among the gods. In weight it equals about twenty-five pounds of silver, but in value it is more than a common worker could expect to make in a lifetime. In Genesis 14, Abraham had been the one on the giving end (to Melchizedek); now he is on the receiving end.

Bridging Contexts

THE ABIMELECH OBSTACLE. Though it is the wife-as-sister ruse that initiates this passage just as it does the pericope in chapter 12, there are important differences. As we discussed in the Bridging Contexts of chapter 12, the famine and Abraham’s being driven from the land are just as significant obstacles as the apparent loss of Sarah. There, all of the factors combine to constitute total covenant jeopardy.

In contrast, this passage features no famine to suggest God’s abandonment, nor is Gerar outside of the land. Perhaps the most significant difference here, however, is to be found in the timing. Unlike the prior occasion when Sarah was barren, Sarah is now fertile and the promised son is to be born within the year. Sarah is not obviously pregnant, or she would not have been taken and the ruse would not have been attempted.5 If Sarah spends even one night in Abimelech’s embrace, the question of the paternity of the child to be born would loom large and threatening.

This is an obstacle of a totally different nature. In chapter 12 Abraham was in danger of losing his wife. In chapter 20 he is in danger of losing claim to the heir, since he would not definitively be the father. We are reminded again that God is the One who closes the womb and opens it. In this way the narrative sets the stage for the birth of Isaac in the next chapter.

There are also connections to the previous chapter as Abraham observes that he believes there is no fear of God in the place. This revisits the theme of the impact the righteous may have on the wicked. Just as Lot was a ger (resident alien) in Sodom and unsuccessfully tried to impact the population, Abraham is a ger in Gerar and considers the king and population beyond his influence. In fact, however, God works through Abraham to make himself known to these people. The connection is further substantiated in Abimelech’s question (v. 4) whether God would destroy an innocent nation (cf. 18:23). Instead of being the righteous one bringing grace and deliverance to the nations, Abraham nearly brings destruction to the innocent (= same word as righteous). While this may not intend to criticize Abraham, it shows that God is able to carry out his blessing program even when Abraham cannot see how it will be done.

Finally, in this section we find another example of a nation being blessed through Abraham. Through his intercession, the wombs of every female in Abimelech’s house are opened. Of course, the twist here is that it was also through Abraham that all of them were closed. This is really a reflection of the clause indicating that those who bless him will be blessed while those who curse him will be cursed (12:3).

The fertility obstacle. With Isaac finally born, we must take a moment to marvel at the miracle of a child being born from a woman who was barren during her childbearing years and has passed through menopause. In that sense, Sarah’s womb is twice dead in terms of fertility. It is almost as if it is not enough to restore fertility to a woman who was barren; God also waits to do so until after her ovaries have shut down. We become so used to reading about miracles in the pages of the Bible that it is easy to lose an appreciation for how startling they are. In an attempt to recover the wonder, let’s take a moment to observe the responses to such an occurrence in a modern medical context. The details of the following account were reported in the Chicago Tribune, September 8, 1981.

A woman whose ovaries ceased to function almost three years ago has given birth to a healthy 9-pound baby girl, baffling doctors at three hospitals. “It is impossible, impossible,” the 35-year-old woman quoted one of the doctors as saying when he detected a fetal heartbeat. In effect, the birth took place after the woman . . . had gone through menopause, her doctors said.

The woman had been diagnosed with premature ovarian failure and was told she did not have to worry about getting pregnant. A further complication was that the woman was on hormone medications to ease the symptoms of menopause. These medications typically serve as effective contraceptives. Dr. Jerry Rakoff, director of the Scripps Clinic Medical Group’s Fertility Center had confirmed the diagnosis of another physician but was also the one who eventually discovered that the patient was pregnant.

Rakoff said neither he nor Dr. John Willens, the University Hospital physician who delivered the baby on August 18, had ever heard of birth by a woman with a well-documented case of premature ovarian failure. . . . Rakoff said that there is no medical therapy to reverse premature ovarian failure. He said that he and Willens believe an egg may have been left after the ovaries shut down.

We can see that even in today’s world of medical sophistication, this is a remarkable obstacle for God to overcome.

The Ishmael obstacle. Chapter 21 begins with the advance of the covenant. God provides a son for Sarah as he has promised and at the time he promised. Both the blessing of Genesis 1 and the covenant blessing continue. Abraham circumcises Isaac on the eighth day as God commanded. Here we have the fulfilling of obligations and recognition of the covenant and the incredible things that God has done.

But the text quickly returns to obstacles. Ishmael is not only a potential obstacle to Isaac, but he continues to be an obstacle to Abraham: Abraham is attached to his son Ishmael. This text details Ishmael’s separation just as chapter 13 moved Lot out of the picture. Lot’s removal had to do with claims to the land. He was put in place in his own land, distinct from the land promised to Abraham, and with no claims to the land of Abraham. In a similar fashion, Ishmael’s claims have to do with family. He is assigned his own family but has no claims within the covenant family of Abraham.

Verses 15–19 show a motif recognizable from the surrounding context: the threat of extinction. Abraham’s family has spent most of the chapters on the brink of extinction because of Sarah’s barrenness. Lot’s family was on the brink of extinction, leading to his daughters’ actions to preserve the line. Here Ishmael is near death, so it looks as if his line will be wiped out. This anticipates the next chapter where, instead of Ishmael, it is Isaac who is a breath away from an early demise. Even the wording of verse 17 (“the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven”) is found again in the next chapter when Abraham is ready to slaughter Isaac (22:11, “the angel of the LORD called out to him [Abraham] from heaven”; see also 22:15).6 In both cases the result of the encounter is the affirmation that the one whose life hangs in the balance will produce many descendants. God has the power to preserve life and, in so doing, plot the course of history.

Literary patterns. By now we may be able to detect a familiar narrative pattern in these chapters, similar to what we saw in chapters 12–14:

Threat from a foreign ruler	12:10–20	20:1–18
Division of the family	13:1–13	21:8–21
Granting of the promised blessing	13:14–17	21:1–7
Agreement with a foreign ruler	14:1–24	21:22–34
Heir crisis	15:1–4	22:1–2
Descendants as the stars	15:5	22:17
Recognition of Abram’s faith	15:6	22:12
Sacrificial context	15:9–11	22:1–11

This could be taken further, but it begins to break up. Even the comparison between 15 and 22 is less distinct, though still recognizable. Such literary patterning can serve to reveal God, especially if we have reason to believe that the author is intentionally creating these patterns. Moreover, if the text is in fact being consciously designed by the author, discerning that pattern will help us understand his message.

(1) The decision about the author’s intentionality is generally based on an assessment of how likely it is that the pattern is coincidental or simply the result of a logical development of the material. In light of the above chart, I consider it likely that the parallels between 12–14 and 20–21 are too extensive to dismiss as coincidence. In contrast, the parallels between 15 and 22, while intriguing, are less convincing. The first set works with entire sections, while the latter involves only single verses at times.

We ought to be conservative in the analysis of literary patterning and the identification of rhetorical strategies, for eventually biblical authority becomes involved. If an author is not intentional in his pattern, it is difficult to attach authority to the conclusions we may derive from the literary observations. But even if the author is including such things intentionally, he may not be expecting them to carry much weight. C. S. Lewis, for example, often went to other languages to find names of significance in the Narnia series. Aslan is Arabic for “origin”; the Calormene soldier whose faith is acceptable in Book 7 is named Emeth, Hebrew for “truth.” This is not coincidence—Lewis is doing it on purpose, and the meanings of the names are woven into his purpose for the book. But he does not expect many in his audience to know Hebrew or Arabic. His choices are intentional and meaningful, but they are not load-bearing.

(2) The most important elements of the biblical books are tied inseparably to the message, and the message has authority. It is our role as interpreters to uphold that authority by using sound hermeneutics and to understand the message as the author intended it. We cannot afford to be distracted by incidentals or digressions. If literary strategies or role models or theological traditions or scientific apologetics or canonical interpretations or critical analyses drive a wedge between us and the author, they threaten to snatch authority from our grasp.

If we conclude that the 12–14 / 20–21 parallels are part of the author’s strategy, what meaning can we as interpreters derive from the pattern? They can serve as road signs to identify or confirm the author’s purpose and so to let us know we are on the right highway. Thus, for instance, when we consider the treaty between Abimelech and Abraham in 21:22–34, we can keep one eye on chapter 14. Both sections contain legal agreements and sworn oaths. Items are seized and returned and gifts are given. In chapter 14 I suggested this was all part of a context in which Abraham submitted himself to the powers of the region and refused to take advantage of the situation to establish ownership of the land. In chapter 21, Abraham again submits to the local authority and settles in as a ger (v. 23) as he pitches his tent, digs a well, formalizes his rights to it, and plants a tree.

So why has the narrator included the story of this treaty? No pun intended on the tree, but I see it as having to do with roots—covenant roots. Gradually Abraham is establishing roots in the land—digging wells and planting trees. Additionally, as relationships are established with the peoples in the land, the blessing is taking root. Finally, the relationship with God is taking root as land and family become established. In one sense this sets up a false sense of security (literarily) as the narrator gets ready to drop the bombshell of Genesis 22. Just as the elements of the covenant are beginning to look routine, a major disruption is about to occur.

Contemporary Significance

OVERACHIEVEMENT AND UNDERSTATEMENT. “Sarah became pregnant and bore a son.” What?!? Say that again? The text has been tracking the obstacle of childlessness for ten chapters, but this report of resolution is so low-key that it captures our attention through its paradoxical understatement. It thereby brings out an important contrast. What God does should never cease to amaze us; but that he consistently shows himself capable of doing what he does, without apparent effort, is strikingly commonplace and entirely unremarkable. He is God; enough said—why should we be astounded? The text, for its part, is appropriately nonchalant. Are we impressed? By all means, yes; surprised?—decidedly not.

Have you ever had the experience of praying for the salvation of a loved one for years and years and then hardly noticing when, through a gradual process, that loved one accepts Christ? How about when someone close to you is diagnosed with cancer? Prayers and treatment begin and over several years, through mixed reports, uncertainties, successes, and failures, the word finally comes back that your friend is cancer-free. A word of thanks to God is shared, and life goes on. We lose our intensity over time, and often we lose our wonder at what God has done.

At its best this is an indication of our faith and confidence in God. At its worst, it shows our short attention span and our inability to rise above self-interest enough to bow in wide-eyed wonder and gratitude at the sovereign grace of God. One of the solutions to this is to create memorials. The best example is to be found in the use of festivals and sacraments so that we are periodically reminded of some of the significant acts of God.

Politics in the Middle East. In Genesis the origins of many of Israel’s near neighbors are explicated (Moab and Ammon, 19:30–38; Ishmaelites, 21:17–21; 25:12–18; Midian, 25:2; Edomites, 36:1–43). In the process at least two points are made. (1) None of these nations has a valid claim to the land. (2) Some of them are included among the nations of which Abraham is the father (Ishmaelites, Midianites, Edomites), while others are counted among those who should consider themselves as having been blessed through the family of Abraham (Moab and Ammon). In Israel’s history, these facts were in part responsible for a feeling of superiority on the part of the Israelites. They saw these neighbors as in some way indebted to them and to some degree rejected by God. When one is singled out for a special role, as Israel was, it is easy to start thinking of others as inferior.7 But, as we well know, beneficiaries of grace have no excuse for assuming an air of superiority.8

The modern conflict in the Middle East is not unrelated to these issues in that Israelis still base their claim to the land on the grant received from God in the covenant promises. They consider that the land belongs to them. But it is less certain what connections ought to be drawn between the Palestinian neighbors (or Lebanese, Syrian, Jordanian, etc.) and the ethnic groups that inhabited these lands in antiquity. The charter of the Palestinian Liberation Organization claims its right to the land based on their possession of the land prior to the Balfour declaration. As the inhabitants of the land, they claim the right to self-determination promoted by the charter of the United Nations. They make their claims on the basis of ancestry to the Philistines.

In contrast, Arabs claim to be descendants of Ishmael, but the historical data are sufficiently scant to make it difficult to trace that lineage with confidence, and they do not attempt to. They claim to be the children of Ishmael at least in the sense that they are the spiritual children of Muhammad, who is portrayed as a descendant of Ishmael (though neither Muhammad nor the Qurʾan make this claim). When the Bible or the Assyrian records refer to the Arabs, they simply indicate the population that inhabits the Arabah—the dry desert regions. In other words, this was not originally an ethnic designation.9 It was only in the seventh century A.D. in the wake of the development of Islam that the label took on ethno-religious connotations (not to mention linguistic and cultural ones). Regardless of whether Muhammad and modern Arabs are or are not descendants of Ishmael, their ancestry is not the basis of their claims on the land.

In the Bible there is no conflict between the Israelites and the Arabs or Ishmaelites. Historically this conflict only becomes serious after the development of Islam. It is the competing religious claims and eventually the competing geographical claims that have produced the entrenched animosity that exists today. The Palestinians point to a longer history of conflict going back to the wars between the Israelites and the Philistines as early as the Judges period.

Opening and closing of the womb. Though childbearing in Western culture today may not be as intertwined with a woman’s status in society as it was in the ancient world, there are many around us who are unable to bear children and would pay nearly any price to be able to do so. It is not uncommon for passages such as Genesis 21 to induce a sense of guilt and shame. Such a woman may well struggle with how to relate to this God who has closed her womb.

Do we believe today, in our medically informed and sophisticated world, that God is the one who opens the womb and closes it? Before responding, we need to be sure of the biblical data. Is this what the Bible teaches? There are clear verses that affirm that the Lord closed the womb of a woman (Gen. 20:18; 1 Sam. 1:5–6; Isa. 66:9) as well as statements that he opened it (Gen. 29:31; 30:22). Nevertheless, it must be recognized that most of these are responses. That is, God is usually identified as responding to situations by closing wombs that have already been opened and opening wombs previously been closed.10

The Bible does not make a point of saying that every womb that is fruitful or barren has been individually made so by God for some particular purpose. It is true that in the ancient world all fertility and all barrenness were attributed directly to the action of deity. But the Bible never explicitly teaches that. It is true that in the ancient world those who were fertile considered their fertility a gift from deity and those who were barren considered themselves out of God’s favor, if not cursed. But the Bible never explicitly teaches that either.

What conclusions can be drawn from this? (1) Clearly God is capable of opening or closing the womb. That capability is one that he sometimes uses to bestow blessing or inflict punishment. (2) On the theoretical level, we should be reluctant to isolate God from anything that takes place in our world, regardless of the availability of scientific or medical explanations. Therefore, we are never in a position to say that someone’s condition has nothing to do with God or has come about without any involvement from God. (3) However, we cannot conclude that the natural world that is governed by God always operates to reflect his attribute of justice. Job 38:26–27 clearly points out that while rain is a blessing from God, it does not always function within a blessing context. Not every act of nature expresses God’s administration of justice.

When we apply these conclusions to childbearing, we can identify the blessing of God in the opening of every womb in the original blessing of Genesis 1—be fruitful and multiply. Nonetheless, there are medical causes, arguably connected to a fallen world, that can work against this blessing. These medical causes cannot be considered evidence of God’s disfavor any more than any sickness can be so considered. We are rarely in a position to determine that a physical condition is judgment from God. Therefore, an infertile woman should not be considered (by herself or others) to be under God’s judgment.

Does the fact that God can open the womb mean that women who cannot bear children ought to pray for God to give them the ability to bear children, as Hannah did? Such petitions are on the same level as prayers for healing from those who are sick. We pray because we know that God is able, but we must also be ready to hear a “no” answer. If God chooses not to grant fertility, we can only accept his wisdom and seek to honor him as we are. God’s decisions will be designed to serve his purposes.

It is counterproductive to our service of God to allow bitterness to infect our spirits, whatever our complaints against him may be. When Christ was questioned about the offense that caused a man to be born blind (John 9:1–5), his answer is instructive. He did not answer the question in terms of cause but in terms of purpose. It is immaterial what caused the man’s condition, he said; what is important is that God be honored through it. We cannot determine cause; we cannot assume disfavor. We can only turn our attention away from the past and look toward the future, seeking to honor God in whatever situation he places us in.

Original Meaning

The Treaty (21:22–34)

IN A LAND of seasonally confined rainfall, wells are extremely important to the welfare of the human population and their herds and flocks. The area of Beersheba where Abraham had dug a well is apparently under the political jurisdiction of Abimelech but is unowned land (as much of the land in this region is). Abraham is claiming no ownership of the land, only the rights to the water in the well that he has dug. Such squatter’s rights are available to a ger (resident alien) and do not constitute anything like a formal deed to the property.

As in chapter 20, Abimelech’s servants take something that belongs to Abraham (this time a well rather than his wife), and Abimelech excuses himself as not knowing about the offense. In chapter 20 Abimelech gives sheep and cattle to Abraham (20:14), while in chapter 21 Abraham gives sheep and cattle to Abimelech (21:27). Abimelech gives Abraham a thousand shekels in 20:16 to signify that Sarah still belongs to Abraham, and Abraham gives Abimelech seven ewe lambs in 21:28 as a testimony that the well belongs to Abraham.

The designation of significance to a name is not necessarily a suggestion that the name originated at that time. Just as people’s names can be reinterpreted (e.g., Jacob in 27:36), so the name of a place can be reinterpreted. The ancients were less concerned with the origin of a name than they were with the significance the name acquired. This town at the southern extreme of the land becomes the home base for Abraham (and later for Isaac). The site identified by archaeologists as Beersheba has no remains prior to the Judges period (Iron Age, 1200 B.C.), but this story does not suggest that there is a town on the site in that day.

Abraham’s worship is expressed in 21:33 in a couple of different ways. (1) He plants a tamarisk tree. The tamarisk grows in sandy soil. It is deciduous and may reach over twenty feet in height, with small leaves that excrete salt. Its bark is used for tanning and its wood for building and making charcoal. Bedouin commonly plant this hearty tree for its shade and the branches, which provide grazing for animals. In third-millennium incantations, the tamarisk was a holy tree with purifying qualities. Images were made from its wood, and it was at times connected with cosmic stability.3 In this sense, planting a tree can have as much significance as building an altar.

(2) Abraham “calls on the name of the LORD” (see the comments on 4:26, where I indicated that calling on the name of the Lord at times involves a proclamation of his reputation or attributes). That seems to be the case here in that the epithet “Eternal God” (ʾel ʿolam) is attached to explain how Abraham designates God. The word translated “eternal” is the same one translated “everlasting” in 17:7 (see comments, where I noted that the significance of this word pertains more to perpetuity that to eternality).

ʾEl ʿolam likely does not invoke God as eternally existent (though there is no reason to suspect that Abraham has any doubts on that count); he is more probably the “Enduring God.” It is uncertain whether Isaiah’s use of the similar epithet (e.g., 40:28, using ʾ ^elohim instead of el) can be used as a basis for understanding this passage, but most likely they go the same direction. In Isaiah the epithet is part of the prophet’s presentation of Yahweh as the God who holds history, the nations, and Israel’s destiny in his hands.4

(3) Finally, Abraham’s dwelling is identified as “the land of the Philistines.” The first-known mention of the Philistines outside the Bible is in the records of Pharaoh Ramesses III (1182–1151 B.C.). As part of the invading Sea Peoples, they settled in five city-states along the southern coast of Canaan and were employed by the Egyptians as mercenaries and trading partners. The picture of Abimelech (a Semitic name) as “king of Gerar” in the land of the Philistines does not match the known history of these people. This story may thus represent contact with an earlier group of Philistines who settled the area prior to the Sea Peoples’ invasion, or perhaps it is an anachronistic use of the name Philistines for the area rather than the people Abraham encountered.

Bridging Contexts

THE ABIMELECH OBSTACLE. Though it is the wife-as-sister ruse that initiates this passage just as it does the pericope in chapter 12, there are important differences. As we discussed in the Bridging Contexts of chapter 12, the famine and Abraham’s being driven from the land are just as significant obstacles as the apparent loss of Sarah. There, all of the factors combine to constitute total covenant jeopardy.

In contrast, this passage features no famine to suggest God’s abandonment, nor is Gerar outside of the land. Perhaps the most significant difference here, however, is to be found in the timing. Unlike the prior occasion when Sarah was barren, Sarah is now fertile and the promised son is to be born within the year. Sarah is not obviously pregnant, or she would not have been taken and the ruse would not have been attempted.5 If Sarah spends even one night in Abimelech’s embrace, the question of the paternity of the child to be born would loom large and threatening.

This is an obstacle of a totally different nature. In chapter 12 Abraham was in danger of losing his wife. In chapter 20 he is in danger of losing claim to the heir, since he would not definitively be the father. We are reminded again that God is the One who closes the womb and opens it. In this way the narrative sets the stage for the birth of Isaac in the next chapter.

There are also connections to the previous chapter as Abraham observes that he believes there is no fear of God in the place. This revisits the theme of the impact the righteous may have on the wicked. Just as Lot was a ger (resident alien) in Sodom and unsuccessfully tried to impact the population, Abraham is a ger in Gerar and considers the king and population beyond his influence. In fact, however, God works through Abraham to make himself known to these people. The connection is further substantiated in Abimelech’s question (v. 4) whether God would destroy an innocent nation (cf. 18:23). Instead of being the righteous one bringing grace and deliverance to the nations, Abraham nearly brings destruction to the innocent (= same word as righteous). While this may not intend to criticize Abraham, it shows that God is able to carry out his blessing program even when Abraham cannot see how it will be done.

Finally, in this section we find another example of a nation being blessed through Abraham. Through his intercession, the wombs of every female in Abimelech’s house are opened. Of course, the twist here is that it was also through Abraham that all of them were closed. This is really a reflection of the clause indicating that those who bless him will be blessed while those who curse him will be cursed (12:3).

The fertility obstacle. With Isaac finally born, we must take a moment to marvel at the miracle of a child being born from a woman who was barren during her childbearing years and has passed through menopause. In that sense, Sarah’s womb is twice dead in terms of fertility. It is almost as if it is not enough to restore fertility to a woman who was barren; God also waits to do so until after her ovaries have shut down. We become so used to reading about miracles in the pages of the Bible that it is easy to lose an appreciation for how startling they are. In an attempt to recover the wonder, let’s take a moment to observe the responses to such an occurrence in a modern medical context. The details of the following account were reported in the Chicago Tribune, September 8, 1981.

A woman whose ovaries ceased to function almost three years ago has given birth to a healthy 9-pound baby girl, baffling doctors at three hospitals. “It is impossible, impossible,” the 35-year-old woman quoted one of the doctors as saying when he detected a fetal heartbeat. In effect, the birth took place after the woman . . . had gone through menopause, her doctors said.

The woman had been diagnosed with premature ovarian failure and was told she did not have to worry about getting pregnant. A further complication was that the woman was on hormone medications to ease the symptoms of menopause. These medications typically serve as effective contraceptives. Dr. Jerry Rakoff, director of the Scripps Clinic Medical Group’s Fertility Center had confirmed the diagnosis of another physician but was also the one who eventually discovered that the patient was pregnant.

Rakoff said neither he nor Dr. John Willens, the University Hospital physician who delivered the baby on August 18, had ever heard of birth by a woman with a well-documented case of premature ovarian failure. . . . Rakoff said that there is no medical therapy to reverse premature ovarian failure. He said that he and Willens believe an egg may have been left after the ovaries shut down.

We can see that even in today’s world of medical sophistication, this is a remarkable obstacle for God to overcome.

The Ishmael obstacle. Chapter 21 begins with the advance of the covenant. God provides a son for Sarah as he has promised and at the time he promised. Both the blessing of Genesis 1 and the covenant blessing continue. Abraham circumcises Isaac on the eighth day as God commanded. Here we have the fulfilling of obligations and recognition of the covenant and the incredible things that God has done.

But the text quickly returns to obstacles. Ishmael is not only a potential obstacle to Isaac, but he continues to be an obstacle to Abraham: Abraham is attached to his son Ishmael. This text details Ishmael’s separation just as chapter 13 moved Lot out of the picture. Lot’s removal had to do with claims to the land. He was put in place in his own land, distinct from the land promised to Abraham, and with no claims to the land of Abraham. In a similar fashion, Ishmael’s claims have to do with family. He is assigned his own family but has no claims within the covenant family of Abraham.

Verses 15–19 show a motif recognizable from the surrounding context: the threat of extinction. Abraham’s family has spent most of the chapters on the brink of extinction because of Sarah’s barrenness. Lot’s family was on the brink of extinction, leading to his daughters’ actions to preserve the line. Here Ishmael is near death, so it looks as if his line will be wiped out. This anticipates the next chapter where, instead of Ishmael, it is Isaac who is a breath away from an early demise. Even the wording of verse 17 (“the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven”) is found again in the next chapter when Abraham is ready to slaughter Isaac (22:11, “the angel of the LORD called out to him [Abraham] from heaven”; see also 22:15).6 In both cases the result of the encounter is the affirmation that the one whose life hangs in the balance will produce many descendants. God has the power to preserve life and, in so doing, plot the course of history.

Literary patterns. By now we may be able to detect a familiar narrative pattern in these chapters, similar to what we saw in chapters 12–14:

Threat from a foreign ruler	12:10–20	20:1–18
Division of the family	13:1–13	21:8–21
Granting of the promised blessing	13:14–17	21:1–7
Agreement with a foreign ruler	14:1–24	21:22–34
Heir crisis	15:1–4	22:1–2
Descendants as the stars	15:5	22:17
Recognition of Abram’s faith	15:6	22:12
Sacrificial context	15:9–11	22:1–11

This could be taken further, but it begins to break up. Even the comparison between 15 and 22 is less distinct, though still recognizable. Such literary patterning can serve to reveal God, especially if we have reason to believe that the author is intentionally creating these patterns. Moreover, if the text is in fact being consciously designed by the author, discerning that pattern will help us understand his message.

(1) The decision about the author’s intentionality is generally based on an assessment of how likely it is that the pattern is coincidental or simply the result of a logical development of the material. In light of the above chart, I consider it likely that the parallels between 12–14 and 20–21 are too extensive to dismiss as coincidence. In contrast, the parallels between 15 and 22, while intriguing, are less convincing. The first set works with entire sections, while the latter involves only single verses at times.

We ought to be conservative in the analysis of literary patterning and the identification of rhetorical strategies, for eventually biblical authority becomes involved. If an author is not intentional in his pattern, it is difficult to attach authority to the conclusions we may derive from the literary observations. But even if the author is including such things intentionally, he may not be expecting them to carry much weight. C. S. Lewis, for example, often went to other languages to find names of significance in the Narnia series. Aslan is Arabic for “origin”; the Calormene soldier whose faith is acceptable in Book 7 is named Emeth, Hebrew for “truth.” This is not coincidence—Lewis is doing it on purpose, and the meanings of the names are woven into his purpose for the book. But he does not expect many in his audience to know Hebrew or Arabic. His choices are intentional and meaningful, but they are not load-bearing.

(2) The most important elements of the biblical books are tied inseparably to the message, and the message has authority. It is our role as interpreters to uphold that authority by using sound hermeneutics and to understand the message as the author intended it. We cannot afford to be distracted by incidentals or digressions. If literary strategies or role models or theological traditions or scientific apologetics or canonical interpretations or critical analyses drive a wedge between us and the author, they threaten to snatch authority from our grasp.

If we conclude that the 12–14 / 20–21 parallels are part of the author’s strategy, what meaning can we as interpreters derive from the pattern? They can serve as road signs to identify or confirm the author’s purpose and so to let us know we are on the right highway. Thus, for instance, when we consider the treaty between Abimelech and Abraham in 21:22–34, we can keep one eye on chapter 14. Both sections contain legal agreements and sworn oaths. Items are seized and returned and gifts are given. In chapter 14 I suggested this was all part of a context in which Abraham submitted himself to the powers of the region and refused to take advantage of the situation to establish ownership of the land. In chapter 21, Abraham again submits to the local authority and settles in as a ger (v. 23) as he pitches his tent, digs a well, formalizes his rights to it, and plants a tree.

So why has the narrator included the story of this treaty? No pun intended on the tree, but I see it as having to do with roots—covenant roots. Gradually Abraham is establishing roots in the land—digging wells and planting trees. Additionally, as relationships are established with the peoples in the land, the blessing is taking root. Finally, the relationship with God is taking root as land and family become established. In one sense this sets up a false sense of security (literarily) as the narrator gets ready to drop the bombshell of Genesis 22. Just as the elements of the covenant are beginning to look routine, a major disruption is about to occur.

Contemporary Significance

OVERACHIEVEMENT AND UNDERSTATEMENT. “Sarah became pregnant and bore a son.” What?!? Say that again? The text has been tracking the obstacle of childlessness for ten chapters, but this report of resolution is so low-key that it captures our attention through its paradoxical understatement. It thereby brings out an important contrast. What God does should never cease to amaze us; but that he consistently shows himself capable of doing what he does, without apparent effort, is strikingly commonplace and entirely unremarkable. He is God; enough said—why should we be astounded? The text, for its part, is appropriately nonchalant. Are we impressed? By all means, yes; surprised?—decidedly not.

Have you ever had the experience of praying for the salvation of a loved one for years and years and then hardly noticing when, through a gradual process, that loved one accepts Christ? How about when someone close to you is diagnosed with cancer? Prayers and treatment begin and over several years, through mixed reports, uncertainties, successes, and failures, the word finally comes back that your friend is cancer-free. A word of thanks to God is shared, and life goes on. We lose our intensity over time, and often we lose our wonder at what God has done.

At its best this is an indication of our faith and confidence in God. At its worst, it shows our short attention span and our inability to rise above self-interest enough to bow in wide-eyed wonder and gratitude at the sovereign grace of God. One of the solutions to this is to create memorials. The best example is to be found in the use of festivals and sacraments so that we are periodically reminded of some of the significant acts of God.

Politics in the Middle East. In Genesis the origins of many of Israel’s near neighbors are explicated (Moab and Ammon, 19:30–38; Ishmaelites, 21:17–21; 25:12–18; Midian, 25:2; Edomites, 36:1–43). In the process at least two points are made. (1) None of these nations has a valid claim to the land. (2) Some of them are included among the nations of which Abraham is the father (Ishmaelites, Midianites, Edomites), while others are counted among those who should consider themselves as having been blessed through the family of Abraham (Moab and Ammon). In Israel’s history, these facts were in part responsible for a feeling of superiority on the part of the Israelites. They saw these neighbors as in some way indebted to them and to some degree rejected by God. When one is singled out for a special role, as Israel was, it is easy to start thinking of others as inferior.7 But, as we well know, beneficiaries of grace have no excuse for assuming an air of superiority.8

The modern conflict in the Middle East is not unrelated to these issues in that Israelis still base their claim to the land on the grant received from God in the covenant promises. They consider that the land belongs to them. But it is less certain what connections ought to be drawn between the Palestinian neighbors (or Lebanese, Syrian, Jordanian, etc.) and the ethnic groups that inhabited these lands in antiquity. The charter of the Palestinian Liberation Organization claims its right to the land based on their possession of the land prior to the Balfour declaration. As the inhabitants of the land, they claim the right to self-determination promoted by the charter of the United Nations. They make their claims on the basis of ancestry to the Philistines.

In contrast, Arabs claim to be descendants of Ishmael, but the historical data are sufficiently scant to make it difficult to trace that lineage with confidence, and they do not attempt to. They claim to be the children of Ishmael at least in the sense that they are the spiritual children of Muhammad, who is portrayed as a descendant of Ishmael (though neither Muhammad nor the Qurʾan make this claim). When the Bible or the Assyrian records refer to the Arabs, they simply indicate the population that inhabits the Arabah—the dry desert regions. In other words, this was not originally an ethnic designation.9 It was only in the seventh century A.D. in the wake of the development of Islam that the label took on ethno-religious connotations (not to mention linguistic and cultural ones). Regardless of whether Muhammad and modern Arabs are or are not descendants of Ishmael, their ancestry is not the basis of their claims on the land.

In the Bible there is no conflict between the Israelites and the Arabs or Ishmaelites. Historically this conflict only becomes serious after the development of Islam. It is the competing religious claims and eventually the competing geographical claims that have produced the entrenched animosity that exists today. The Palestinians point to a longer history of conflict going back to the wars between the Israelites and the Philistines as early as the Judges period.

Opening and closing of the womb. Though childbearing in Western culture today may not be as intertwined with a woman’s status in society as it was in the ancient world, there are many around us who are unable to bear children and would pay nearly any price to be able to do so. It is not uncommon for passages such as Genesis 21 to induce a sense of guilt and shame. Such a woman may well struggle with how to relate to this God who has closed her womb.

Do we believe today, in our medically informed and sophisticated world, that God is the one who opens the womb and closes it? Before responding, we need to be sure of the biblical data. Is this what the Bible teaches? There are clear verses that affirm that the Lord closed the womb of a woman (Gen. 20:18; 1 Sam. 1:5–6; Isa. 66:9) as well as statements that he opened it (Gen. 29:31; 30:22). Nevertheless, it must be recognized that most of these are responses. That is, God is usually identified as responding to situations by closing wombs that have already been opened and opening wombs previously been closed.10

The Bible does not make a point of saying that every womb that is fruitful or barren has been individually made so by God for some particular purpose. It is true that in the ancient world all fertility and all barrenness were attributed directly to the action of deity. But the Bible never explicitly teaches that. It is true that in the ancient world those who were fertile considered their fertility a gift from deity and those who were barren considered themselves out of God’s favor, if not cursed. But the Bible never explicitly teaches that either.

What conclusions can be drawn from this? (1) Clearly God is capable of opening or closing the womb. That capability is one that he sometimes uses to bestow blessing or inflict punishment. (2) On the theoretical level, we should be reluctant to isolate God from anything that takes place in our world, regardless of the availability of scientific or medical explanations. Therefore, we are never in a position to say that someone’s condition has nothing to do with God or has come about without any involvement from God. (3) However, we cannot conclude that the natural world that is governed by God always operates to reflect his attribute of justice. Job 38:26–27 clearly points out that while rain is a blessing from God, it does not always function within a blessing context. Not every act of nature expresses God’s administration of justice.

When we apply these conclusions to childbearing, we can identify the blessing of God in the opening of every womb in the original blessing of Genesis 1—be fruitful and multiply. Nonetheless, there are medical causes, arguably connected to a fallen world, that can work against this blessing. These medical causes cannot be considered evidence of God’s disfavor any more than any sickness can be so considered. We are rarely in a position to determine that a physical condition is judgment from God. Therefore, an infertile woman should not be considered (by herself or others) to be under God’s judgment.

Does the fact that God can open the womb mean that women who cannot bear children ought to pray for God to give them the ability to bear children, as Hannah did? Such petitions are on the same level as prayers for healing from those who are sick. We pray because we know that God is able, but we must also be ready to hear a “no” answer. If God chooses not to grant fertility, we can only accept his wisdom and seek to honor him as we are. God’s decisions will be designed to serve his purposes.

It is counterproductive to our service of God to allow bitterness to infect our spirits, whatever our complaints against him may be. When Christ was questioned about the offense that caused a man to be born blind (John 9:1–5), his answer is instructive. He did not answer the question in terms of cause but in terms of purpose. It is immaterial what caused the man’s condition, he said; what is important is that God be honored through it. We cannot determine cause; we cannot assume disfavor. We can only turn our attention away from the past and look toward the future, seeking to honor God in whatever situation he places us in.