by MOK Wing Kee Alex(莫荣基)
Abraham's Experience of the Divine Presence
1. Introduction
The encounter of God with the patriarchs is the foundation of Hebraic theology. Abraham being the father of the faithful portrays a unique figure which has a profound influence on the understanding of the divine presence in the human history. Chosen by God from among the peoples of the world, Abraham was called to take the possession of the land of Canaan and to be the father of a great nation (12:1-7)1. His special personal relationship with God has traditionally become a model for his descendents as well as a way for knowing God as the Creator of the universe and the human race.
Nevertheless, recent archaeological discoveries have shown that the literal historicity of the patriarchal narratives in Genesis is questionable.2 There is no evidence that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jacob's twelve sons were genealogically related as depicted in the biblical stories that were written primarily as expressions of Israel's relationship to God.3 Contemporary biblical scholars tend to accept that the Hebrew ancestors were not members of a single family but they were groups of caravan migrants and herdsmen of the semi-nomadic type4 "who practiced seasonal commerce and agriculture in limited areas, moved periodically on the highways of the Fertile Crescent, maintained contact with diverse ethnic and political groups, yet remained rigorously distinct from their cultural environment."5 Based on this understanding of the patriarchal traditions,6 this essay looks into the meaning of the divine presence that occurred to the patriarchs, and to Abraham in particular, and reflects on its theology. I will begin with a brief description of the lifestyles of the patriarchs and then discuss some characteristics of the God of the patriarchs. Having examined the patriarchal traditions in general, the main part of this essay will focus on Abraham and his encounters with God. The question I ask is, what type of God was encountered by Abraham and what type of faith did he have correspondingly? To answer this question, three episodes in Genesis, namely, the call of Abraham (12:1-7), God's covenant with Abraham (15:1-21) and the test of Abraham's faith (22:1-19), will be studied as these passages clearly demonstrate the patriarch's journey of faith.
2. The life of the patriarchs
In Genesis, the patriarchs are clearly depicted as nomadic herdsmen. They lived in tents (12:8; 13:3, 18; 18:1-10; 24:67; 31:25, 33, 34), they reared sheep and goats (30:32-43) and bred them (30:25-42). They dug wells (21:30; 26:15-22) and traveled from place to place with their flocks (12:9; 13:3).
Following the ideas of Alt7, developed further by scholars such as Cross8, Rainer9, Scullion10 and de Vaux11, the patriarchs were leaders of semi-nomadic societies or groups. In Genesis, nevertheless, the relationships among the ancestors of Israel are expressed genealogically. In Canaan, the groups of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob formed the link of one family. Outside Canaan, genealogies were also given to explain the relationships among different groups. For example, Lot, the father of the Moabites and the Ammonites (19:30-38), was the nephew of Abraham (12:5); Ishmael, the ancestor of twelve tribes in the area near the border of Egypt (25:13-16), was the brother of Isaac (25:9). During the patriarchal age, the patriarchs seemed to undergo a transition of life, from being nomadic to being settled.12 They moved into Canaan, lived there and made contact with the original inhabitants - the Canaanites - but did not identify with them (12:5; 13:7, 12; 16:3; 24:3, 4). They began to cultivate the soil and grow crops (26:12), and started to lead a settled life.13 The patriarchs were the heads of their families with utmost authority. For example, Abraham decided whom Isaac should marry (24:3-9) and Isaac in turn commanded Jacob whom to marry (28:1-2). Abraham had absolute possession of his wealth (25:5, 6) as well as power over his wife and concubines (12:11-13; 21:14; 25:6). Moreover, Abraham could freely choose his own successor and he designated his second son Isaac to be his heir (25:5).
According to Rowton, the type of nomadism in the patriarchal traditions is "based on a close symbiosis between pastoralism and agriculture and is conditioned by a physical environment in which economic risk is a dominant factor."14 This means that the nomads traveled through and into the areas occupied by the local residents or the sedentaries. The structure of the patriarchal society is dimorphic, composed of the double process of interaction between being nomadic and being sedentary or between tribe and state.15 The role of the patriarchal leader was like a "link between tribal society and urban society, living, as he did, part of the time within urban society."16 This lifestyle is clearly demonstrated by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in Genesis.
3. The God of the patriarchs
All the three sources, J, E and P, in Genesis emphasize that the patriarchs prayed to the same God as Moses (Ex 3:6, 15; 6:3), defending the perception of theological continuity. Moreover, the deity whom the ancestors of Israel worshipped is linked with the personal names such as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob17 (24:12; 26:24; 28:13; 31:53; Ex 3:6, 15, 16, etc.). In other words, the God revealed to Moses as YHWH was also the God of the patriarchs. Nevertheless, both Elohist and Priestly writers maintain that the name YHWH had not been disclosed until the time of Moses at the burning bush (Ex 3:13-15 and 6:2, 3) but the Yahwistic writer holds that "men began to call on the name YHWH" in the pre-patriarchal age (4:26). Therefore, as Terrien and other authors point out, "the relation between the origins of the Hebrew cultus and the actual events of the distant past remains obscure."18
It is noteworthy that in the patriarchal traditions God is linked with the fathers personally. The God of the fathers was not tied to any sanctuary and he led and traveled with the semi-nomadic patriarchs and appeared in different places such as Haran (12: 1-4), Shechem (12:6, 7) and Mamre (13:18; 18:1). In fact, archaeological and topographical findings have shown that the sites of the Palestinian sanctuaries were occupied long before the migration of Hebrews into the land of Canaan.19 The God of the father belonged to the patriarch and his extended family and revealed himself to the patriarch who recognized him and had a special relation with him. Unlike the nature gods who were linked to specific places, the narratives in Genesis portray a personal god who protected and guided the patriarch and his family society.20 He was deeply involved in the life of the patriarch and his social group who should always be faithful to him.21 The patriarchs met God naturally and personally with or without altars (12:7, 8; 13:18; 26:25; 28:22; 35:7; 15:1-7; 16:7-14; 18:1-14; 21:8-14). God knew the patriarchs well and dialogued directly with them (15:1-21; 17:1-22; 18:18, 19; 22:1; 32:22, etc.). There was no priest or ritual mediator. By fulfilling the covenant between God and the patriarchs, God gave promises of posterity and land (17:2-8). These promises were fully compliant with the underlying wishes of semi-nomadic herdsmen - the wish for posterity which would ensure continuity in the clan and the wish for land where they could come to territorial settlement.22 More importantly, these promises expressed the search for the identity of Israel in the context of universalism.23 In the ceremonial commemoration of Yahweh's revelation to their ancestors, the Israelites in the later generations learnt of their special role and purpose in the history of mankind and salvation.
The God of the fathers may therefore be described as a historical god "who enters into a covenantal relationship or kinship with a clan, and who guides the social group in its peregrinations, its wars, in short through historical vicissitudes to its destiny."24 Alt has further demonstrated that the Nabataean and Palmyrene inscriptions from the Hellenistic period very often mention the god of a particular individual. As nomadic clans came into the civilized land, this god of a particular individual was sometimes identified with one of the native great gods, such as Zeus Helios.25 There is also a great deal of evidence of this kind found in the documents from Nuzu and in the Aramaic inscriptions from the eighth century.26 In the same way, when the patriarchs and their clans arrived in Canaan, their gods might then be "identified by common traits or by cognate names with gods of the local pantheon"27 which could even be appropriated.28 The god of a particular individual or "the god of the father" was a common designation of religious faith expressing the relationship between the social group and their god. As Albertz asserts, "patriarchal religion can largely be understood as a form of personal piety, as a typical family piety of the kind that can also be demonstrated from other texts."29 The father as head of the family was like a priest who built altars (12:7, 8; 13:18; 26:25; 33:20; 35:7) and offered prayers as well as sacrifices (12:8, 20:17, 22:13).
It is significant that in the patriarchal traditions the God of the fathers is associated with other divine names frequently formed with the element el 30 followed by a noun or an adjective. The divine name thus illustrates particular attributes or phases of God's being. The common examples are El Elyon, "God Most High", in Salem31 (14:18-22), El Bethel, "God of Bethel", in Bethel (31:13; 35:7), El Olam, "God the Eternal", in Beersheba (21:33), El Roi, "God Who Sees", in the Negeb (16:13), and El Shaddai, "God Almighty"32 (17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3; 49:25; Ex 6:3). All of these names, with the exception of El Shaddai, are always connected to the locations of specific cults.33 According to the Priestly tradition, El Shaddai could have been the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Ex 6:3).34 As mentioned earlier, many contemporary authors35 have come to the conclusion that these El names might be related to the original Canaanite gods who were merged or identified with the God of the patriarchs after they had moved into the Canaanite region.36 It is important to note that in assimilating the El gods into the family religion, the Israelite ancestors did not relinquish any characteristics of their semi-nomadic religion, but rather enriched it with the resemblances between the original El religion and the family religion.37 Albertz further admits that the Canaanite religions with their cultic, local, historical and functional differentiations hardly played any role in the religion of the patriarchal family which had a relatively simple social structure. "The phenomenon can be seen most clearly in the personal family nomenclature: the theophorous elements can change in the names - here the family adapts to the changing religious situation in its environment - but the predicates which express what is experienced from the god remain largely constant."38 Whatever names the family god was given, he was always linked functionally to the family's central needs which were essentially unchanged. Terrain adds that the patriarchal traditions always maintain the religious nature of the Israelite sociological isolation.39 The narratives in Genesis always depict that the God of the patriarchs was not confined to any particular sanctuary. The patriarchs, nevertheless, built altars to commemorate the epiphanic visitations40 of their family god at different places (12:7; 13:18; 26:25; 35:7).
4. The call of Abraham
The history of salvation begins with the narrative of the call of Abraham. This narrative contrasts sharply with the previous episodes in Gen 1-1141 that describe the origin of the nations in the world and exhibit the repetitive theme of the primeval history about the human sin and the divine punishment and mercy. In the story of the Towel of Babel, the peoples of the world continued to choose to rebel against God by building a tower to heaven and God punished such human pride by confusing their language (11:1-9). God, however, continued his blessing to Noah by choosing Abraham as the successor whose descendants would constitute a great nation, Israel, that would then extend God's blessing to all the peoples in the world. Abraham, the founder of Israel, would learn his obedience and devotion to God and become the mediator of God's promises to the later generations of humanity. This explains why the story of Babel is placed at the end of the primeval history and is immediately followed by the genealogy that terminates in Abraham (11:10-32). The call of Abraham essentially brings us to the principle of election. In Noah's time, there had been election of a new race out of an old one given over to destruction. Now one family was taken out of the number of existing Semitic families, and the redemptive work of God was carried forward. This is the significance of the call of Abraham.42
The form-critical analysis of the episode of Abraham's call is the end result of the work of many scholars.43 The poetic structure of the epiphanic speech is especially worth noting:44
12:1 YHWH said to Abram,
"Go forth from your native land
and from your father's home
to a land that I will show you.
12:2 I will make of you a great nation,
bless you, and make great your name, that it may be a blessing.
12:3 I will bless those who bless you,
and curse those who curse you;
and through you shall bless them- selves all the communities on earth."45
12:4 Abram went, as YHWH told him.
There is testimony to this direct call in the New Testament. In Acts, it is added that the God of glory appeared to Abraham while he was in Mesopotamia before he lived in Haran (Acts 7:2-4). The author of Hebrews emphasizes the obedience of Abraham at the time of receiving the call which involved a special mission of Abraham and his posterity in the world (Heb 11:8). The promise made to Abraham included possession of the land of Canaan, abundant posterity, and through his descendants the blessing of all the families of the earth. Unlike other patriarchal traditions, the discourse here emphasizes the universalism of Israel's mission in the history of mankind.46 As the story of the call of Abraham is placed right after the earth-wide chaos produced by the construction of the Tower of Babel, the Yahwist clearly brings out the meaning of the call - the new blessings for all the peoples on earth (12:3).47 From the beginning, the Hebraic theology of presence had been connected to the salvation of all the peoples in the world. This conviction is reiterated in the festive hymn: "The princes of the peoples gather as the people of the God of Abraham" (Ps 47:9). The mission of Israel in history was to reconcile the world with its Creator.48 Although Abraham was told to renounce his country, his clan and his home, the promise of blessing was made to him and it also went beyond him to his family, his descendents and all the peoples on earth. To the Israelites, it is important that the promise of blessing extended to the future Israel. As Israel continued to search for her identity, her special role in the context of universalism became more prominent and significant.49 The call story of Abraham thus reveals two important features of Israel's God. The first one is that this God exercises choice and the second one is that the choice of Abraham is to be a means of universal blessing.
It should be noted that the promise of blessing is the "blossoming of a moment of divine proximity"50. As the moments of epiphanic visitations are brief and the realization of the blessing often comes at a later time, the Hebraic theology of presence implies also the elements of absence or hiddenness.51 Therefore, similar to other episodes of epiphanic visitations in the patriarchal traditions, the response to the epiphanic discourse always exhibits the Israelite conception of faith, which is usually expressed in terms of covenant theology.
5. The covenant
God's covenant with Abraham and Abraham's faith have always been the central message that the biblical writers say about Abraham52. The covenant (15:1-21) displays a unique and sacred relationship between God and Abraham. Some biblical authors even describe Abraham's special relationship with God as being the "friend of God" (2 Chron 20:7; Isa 41:8; Jas 2:23). Not unlike the episode of the call of Abraham, the encounter of God with Abraham in Gen 15:1-2153 is dominated by an epiphanic speech:54
15:1b "Fear not, Abram,
I am your shield;
your reward shall be very great."
Nevertheless, as Abraham was childless, his opposition was vividly declared by the author:
15:2 "O Lord YHWH, what wilt thou give me,
for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Elie'zer of Damascus?"
The Lord reassured Abraham by giving him a sign:
15:5 And he brought him outside and said,
"Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them."
Then he said to him,
"So shall your descendants be."
The passage concludes with Abraham's reaction to God's promise:
15:6 And he believed YHWH; and he reckoned it to him as righteousness.
This verse is the first explicit instance of Hebraic faith in the Bible. Moreover, it is remarkable that this conclusion was a theological reflection of the author in his own times.55 Abraham had faith in God and eventually became the "father of faith" for the later Israelite generations. He rested his entire trust in the epiphanic speech. Terrien says it well, "He responded with the entirety of his being to the articulated thrust of the divine presence... This is not an intellectual assent to a propositional truth. It is the insertion of the wholeness of one's personality into a relation of total openness toward the reality of God"56 Faith was the vital religious act in the life of Abraham. In fact, Abraham's whole life was a divine training of faith as clearly retold by later biblical authors on a number of occasions (Heb 11:8-12, 17-18). The tempering of Abraham's faith actually started in his homeland - Ur of the Chaldeans - where God summoned Abraham and asked him to leave the fertile land and go into a land unknown to him (12:1). The severe famine in the land of Canaan which compelled Abraham to go to Egypt (12:10) intensified this test of faith as it is very natural to wonder what value such a poor land would possess. The test of faith took on new dimensions when Abraham was a hundred years old (and Sarah was barren) but was still able to become a father (17:15-22). Yet the divine promise centered on a child to be born to him at this old age. The climax of the test of faith was the burnt offering of this special child, an act beyond comprehension. This ultimate test of faith will be discussed in details later. It is evident here already that the life of Abraham was actually a school of faith.57 Through all these divine tests "his faith became stronger, was deeply enriched, and revealed for all time the real character of a holy man's trust in God."58
It is remarkable that Abraham's faith is linked to his righteousness in Gen 15:6. As Abraham did not have any law to obey,59 this narrative of epiphanic visitation shows that righteousness is not a merit earned by one's achievement, but it is a way of life conformed to God's nature. Moreover, it specifies a dynamic and harmonious relationship between two human beings, between social groups, or between God and man.60 In the Hebraic theology of presence, the emphasis of righteousness is placed on the ongoing communion between God and man but not on legal judgment as usually misunderstood by the readers of Paul's writings such as Rom 4:1-15.61
It should be noted that God's covenant with Abraham had its basis in a sacrificial rite (15:7-18). The cutting of the animals in two and arranging the halves opposite each other, followed by the smoking firepot with a blazing torch passing between the pieces, would symbolically offer the meaning of the sacrifice. Only the signs of smoke and fire which represented God who could not be seen62 passed between the pieces. But Abraham himself did not.63 This disparity shows that the oath ritual was completely transferred to God. Therefore the ritual curse was actually meant to confirm a promise.64 God made the promise and bound himself to keep it. While Abraham made the sacrifice, he was not quite a party to the covenant but was essentially the beneficiary of the promise.
6. The ultimate test of Abraham's faith
The climax of the training of Abraham in faith is the test of the sacrifice of his son, which is again depicted in the framework of an epiphanic visitation. Although at the beginning of the episode the narrator alerts his audience to the fact that it is only a divine test for Abraham (22:1), he still stirs his audience by the inhuman demand of the God of the patriarchs: "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Mori'ah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you" (22:2). It ought to be remembered that, for Abraham, Isaac was not only his beloved son but also a channel and pledge of the fulfillment of all the promises from God. His cruel sacrifice would therefore be totally incomprehensible for Abraham. The author of Hebrews, nevertheless, reflects upon the meaning of this unparalleled test in human history65 and explains that Abraham "considered that God was able to raise men even from the dead; hence, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back" (Heb 11:19). Here the faith of Abraham was a trust in the omnipotence of God,66 who was El Shaddai (17:1). Abraham had never hesitated and his response was always positive even though the divine instruction was completely beyond what he could understand.
The narrator also describes the fear and awe of Abraham: "for now I know that you fear God" (22:12).67 But this is a fear that comes from reverence more than from dread68 and expresses Abraham's specific humility and supreme devotion for a deity who now conceals his godhood in appearances of hostility.69 This fearful experience, however, is not present in other epiphanic visitations70 in which the element of friendship and trust between God and Abraham is always predominant. For example, in the destruction of Sodom (18:16-33), God reflected genially, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?" (18:17) and Abraham courageously bargained with God six times trying to save the city. Here Abraham's title of the "friend of God" is definitely an adequate recognition of his special relationship with God.
It is important to note that the faith in the religious life of Abraham and other patriarchs spiritualized their stance toward the divine promises.71 As the fulfillment of the promises might not be realized during his life, Abraham "learnt to possess the promises of God, in the promising God alone."72 The promises were valuable only because they were centered on God: "For he looked forward to the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God" (Heb 11:10). The subject of the promises was always God himself. However, as the promises of God were gradually fulfilled in the later generations of Israel, the Israelites started to detach themselves from the spiritual significance and focus only on the material side of the promises.
It should be noted that the faith of Abraham also had a great impact on the idea of monotheism in the patriarchal religion. It is true that monotheism could not have been theoretically formulated at the times of the patriarchs. In fact, most scholars73 agree that the early Israelite families were more or less monolatrous, believing their own god while accepting the existence of other deities. The perfect faith of Abraham, nevertheless, shows that there could be "no room for the cultivation of or interest in any other 'divine' numen that might have been conceived as existent."74
7. Conclusion
The content of the patriarchal religion is determined by the central problems of survival experienced by the semi-nomadic family with its own characteristic group structures. The interpersonal relationship between the patriarchs and their god also reflects the close relations in the family. The God of the patriarchs is portrayed as a personal god of the family, who traveled with them from place to place and spoke to them of the great nation of Israel in the future. Like a father of the family, God protected the group entrusted to him from the changing and difficult environment in Canaan. God's care for the family was direct and unconditional and the faith of the patriarchs was pure and simple. Unlike the Israelite religion in the later generations, the patriarchal religion was pre-cultic, pre-political and pre-moral.75 It was closely linked to individuals and the everyday life of their families but not bound to any places, times and ritual mediators. This conception of the early family religion was handed down and integrated into the religion of the Israelites who would then meet new challenges and gain new experiences in the course of history.
The patriarchal narratives in Genesis present a unique character of the Hebraic theology of presence. The main concern of the Hebraic theologians is the stance of faith in regard to the experience of divine proximity that always points to the mystery of being. In the epiphanic visitations, the Israelites reached a significant theological perception when they learnt the paradox of presence in absence.76 They realized that the hidden God was always present in their history. Moreover, the elusive God, being free of human manipulation, had complete control of the human and cosmic conditions and also had a great intention for humanity in the future that was inconceivable in the ancient world. The God they believed would sometimes forsake them and even stand up as an enemy against them in order to give them lesson of the meaning of selfless devotion.77 The close encounter between God and Abraham not only leads to reorientation and renewal of the life of Abraham but also brings about new hope for the whole nation of Israel. In the Hebraic theology of presence, religion "no longer means the ritual exchange of sacrality with a static cosmos through which man attunes himself to the life of nature but, on the contrary, the courage to face the abyss of being, even the abyss of the being of God, and to confirm, at the risk of assuming all risks, the will to gamble away not only one's ego but even one's hope in the future of mankind.78" The test of Abraham in the epiphanic visitations was actually a tempering of faith which involved a revitalization of the way of living and thinking. Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his only son shows that he was prepared to surrender his love, his hope and even his faith to God, making "all the static hierophanies of sun, moon, water, earth, fertility, and sexuality obsolete."79
In this essay, all biblical references are taken from Genesis unless otherwise stated.
Thomas Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2002); John van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975).
Samuel Terrien, The Elusive Presence: Towards a New Biblical Theology (New York: Harper & Row, 1978) 66; Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, rev. ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995) 31-43.
N. K. Gottwald, "Were the Early Israelites Pastoral Nomads?" in J. J. Jackson and M. Kessler (ed.), Rhetorical Criticism (Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1974) 223; van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 13.
Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 67.
In fact, contemporary scholars have different views about the historicity of the patriarchal narratives. For example, L. Rost concludes that the three sources, J, E and P, in Genesis present merely an idealized image of the patriarchs' relationship with God, with their own special emphases, and that they hardly have any historical truth. See L. Rost, "Die Gottesverehrung der Patriarchen im Lichte der Pentateuchquellen," Supplements to Vetus Testamentum VII, (Congress Volume, 1959) 346-359. V. Maag, on the other hand, finds that the outline of the patriarchal religion is accurately depicted. See V. Maag, "Der Hirte Israels," Schweizerische Theologische Rundschau XXVIII, (1958) 2-28. This essay will take the middle position as maintained by the following authors: Helmer Ringgren, Israelitische Religion (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1963) 15-24; Theodore Vriezen, The Religion of Ancient Israel (London: Lutterworth Press, 1967) 119-123; Werner Schmidt, Alttestamentlicher Glaube und seine Umwelt (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukircher-Verl. des Erziehungsvereins, 1968) 17-30; Georg Fohrer, Geschichte der israelitischen Religion (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1969) 11-27.
Albrecht Alt, "The God of the Fathers. A Contribution to the Prehistory of Israelite Religion," Essays on Old Testament History and Religion (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966) 3-77.
Frank Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973) 1-75.
Rainer Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, vol. 1 (London: SCM Press, 1994) 23-39.
John Scullion, S. J., "The God of the Patriarchs," Pacifica 1 (1988) 141-156.
Roland de Vaux, The Early History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978) 221-240.
Ibid., 229-233.
Ibid., 233.
Michael Rowton, "Dimorphic Structure and the Parasocial Element," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 36 (1977) 196.
Michael Rowton, "Urban Autonomy in a Nomadic Environment," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 32 (1973) 202.
Rowton, "Dimorphic Structure and the Parasocial Element," 196.
Scullion, "The God of the Patriarchs," 141-145.
Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 64 and footnotes. Some scholars such as Scullion insist that the Yahwistic writer simply projects the name YHWH back to the very beginning.
G. E. Wright, "The Archaeology of Palestine" in G. Ernest Wright (ed.), The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays In Honor Of William Foxwell Albright (Garden City: Doubleday and Company, 1961) 101.
Scullion, "The God of the Patriarchs," 147-148.
de Vaux, The Early History of Israel, 273.
Ibid., 274. Scullion, nevertheless, argues that the promise of land is not necessarily the desire of nomadic groups. He believes that the promises of posterity and divine presence are more important for the nomadic way of life. See Scullion, "The God of the Patriarchs," 149.
Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology (New York: Harpercollins, 1965) 168.
Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 6.
Alt, "The God of the Fathers", 68-77.
William Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process (Garden City: Doubleday, 1957) 243.
Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 12.
Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 93.
Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, vol. 1, 29.
Some scholars assert that Elohim is derived from el, which is the most primitive Semitic name meaning "the strong one". See Herbert Lockyer, All the Divine Names and Titles in the Bible (Michigan: Zondervan, 1988) 7.
That is, Jerusalem.
Or "God of the Mountains".
Frank Cross, "Yahweh and the God of the Patriarchs," Harvard Theological Review, 55 (1962) 225-259.
Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, vol. 1, 31.
See, for example, Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, vol. 1, 31; Scullion, "The God of the Patriarchs," 156; de Vaux, The Early History of Israel, 272; Georg Fohrer, Geschichte der israelitischen Religion, 23.
Otto Eissfeldt, however, makes a clear distinction between El and the god of the patriarchs. Otto Eissfeldt, "El and Yahweh," Journal of Semitic Studies, I (1956) 35.
de Vaux, The Early History of Israel, 282; Ringgren, Israelitische Religion, 23.
Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, vol. 1, 32.
Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 67.
Following Terrien, the expression "epiphanic visitation" rather than "theophany" is used in this essay because the encountering of God in the patriarchal tradition is not limited to visual experience. In addition, the term "epiphanic visitation" implies "the concreteness, simplicity, and swiftness of the divine appearance." Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 68-70 and endnotes.
von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, 154; Ephraim Speiser, Genesis (Garden City: Doubleday, 1964) 87.
Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948) 76.
Norman Habel, "The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives," Zeitschrift fur Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft LXXVII (1965) 297.
Speiser, Genesis, 85.
Or "All the families on earth".
von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, 154; Speiser, Genesis, 86.
Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 100.
Ibid., 74-75.
Berend Gemser, "God in Genesis," Oudtestamentische Studi╴n, XII (1958): 21; Peter Altmann, Erw╴hlungstheologie und Universalismus im Alten Testament (Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1964) 9.
Terrien, The Elusive Presence 75.
Ibid., 76.
For example, Rom 4:1-22; Acts 7:2-8; Heb 11:8-12, 17-19.
Whether Gen 15 belongs to Elohistic or Yahwistic tradition is still controversial. See Claus Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985) 216-217.
The emphasis is on the conversation between two individuals. Note that there is no description of visual perception.
Ibid., 222-223.
Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 77.
The patriarchal narrators actually do not portray Abraham as a perfect person without any flaws. For a couple of times, Abraham tried to save his own life by giving up his wife Sarah (12: 10-13, 20:1-13). He endangered the divine promise by marrying his wife's maidservant Hagar in order to gain a son (16: 1-4). When God promised to give him a son by Sarah, Abraham doubted momentarily (17:15-18).
Chester Lehman, Biblical Theology No. 1: Old Testament (Goshen: Biblical Viewpoints, 1998) 96.
This is clear from the early Yahwistic and Elohistic traditions. In the Priestly tradition, however, there is the law of circumcision in the patriarchal narratives (17: 1-14).
von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 155.
See, for example, John Ziesler, Meaning of Righteousness in Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972).
As no person may see God directly (Ex 33:20), the rite was carried out in complete darkness (15:17a).
As stated in Jeremiah 34:18-20, both parties entering into a covenant relationship would pass between the divided pieces of the sacrifice. By so doing they were making up the curse of having their bodies split up should they violate the covenant obligation.
Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary, 228.
The burnt offering of children as sacrifice for appeasing the deity, however, was not uncommon in the ancient world. See, for example, Judg 11:30-39 and 2 Kgs 21:6.
Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments, 85.
The fear of God in the language of Hebrew religion meant supreme devotion. See Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 83.
Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments, 86.
Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 83.
In Gen 15:1, the expression "Fear not, Abram" is a stylized oracle of salvation consisting of a word of encouragement. Such an introduction is usually used to bring out the theme in the factitious narratives. In this case it is a promise to Abraham. See Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary, 218.
Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments, 86
Ibid., 87.
See, for example, Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, vol. 1, 32.
Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments, 87.
Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, vol. 1, 39.
Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 83.
von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, 233.
Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 83-84.
Ibid., 84; See also Mircea Eliade, Cosmos and History: The Myth of the Eternal Return (New York: Harper, 1959) 109.
Bibliography
Albertz R., A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, vol. 1. (London: SCM Press, 1994).
Albright W. F., From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process (Garden City: Doubleday, 1957).
Alt A., "The God of the Fathers. A Contribution to the Prehistory of Israelite Religion," in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966) 3-77.
Altmann P., Erw╴hlungstheologie und Universalismus im Alten Testament (Berlin: Alfred T╴pelmann, 1964).
Childs B., Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflections on the Christian Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992).
Clements R. E., God and Temple (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1965).
Clements R. E. (ed.), The World of Ancient Israel. Society for Old Testament Studies. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
Cross F. M., Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973).
Cross F. M., "Yahweh and the God of the Patriarchs," Harvard Theological Review, 55 (1962) 225-259.
De Vaux R., The Early History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978).
Eissfeldt O., "El and Yahweh," Journal of Semitic Studies, I (1956) 25-37.
Eliade M., Cosmos and History: The Myth of the Eternal Return (New York: Harper, 1959).
Fohrer G., Geschichte der israelitischen Religion (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1969).
Gottwald N. K., "Were the Early Israelites Pastoral Nomads?" in J. J. Jackson and M. Kessler (ed.), Rhetorical Criticism (Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1974) 223-255.
Habel N. C., "The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives," Zeitschrift f╴r Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft LXXVII (1965) 297-323.
Lehman C., Biblical Theology No. 1: Old Testament (Goshen: Biblical Viewpoints, 1998).
Lockyer H., All the Divine Names and Titles in the Bible (Michigan: Zondervan, 1988).
Maag V., "Der Hirte Israels," Schweizerische Theologische Rundschau XXVIII (1958) 2-28.
Ringgren H., Israelitische Religion. (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1963).
Rost L. "Die Gottesverehrung der Patriarchen im Lichte der Pentateuchquellen," Supplements to Vetus Testamentum VII (Congress Volume, 1959) 346-359.
Rowton M. B., "Dimorphic Structure and the Parasocial Element," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 36 (1977) 181-198.
Rowton M. B., "Urban Autonomy in a Nomadic Environment," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 32 (1973) 201-215.
Schmidt W., Alttestamentlicher Glaube und seine Umwelt. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukircher-Verl. des Erziehungsvereins, 1968).
Scullion J. J., "The God of the Patriarchs," Pacifica 1 (1988) 141-156.
Speiser, E. A. Genesis (Garden City: Doubleday, 1964).
Terrien S., The Elusive Presence: Towards a New Biblical Theology (New York: Harper & Row, 1978).
Thompson T., The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2002).
van Seters J., Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975).
von Rad G., Genesis: A Commentary, rev. ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995).
von Rad G., Old Testament Theology (New York: Harpercollins, 1965).
Vos G., Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948).
Vriezen T., The Religion of Ancient Israel (London: Lutterworth Press, 1967).
Westermann C., Genesis 12-36: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985).
Wright G. E., The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays In Honor Of William Foxwell Albright (Garden City: Doubleday and Company, 1961).
Ziesler J. A., Meaning of Righteousness in Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972).