Word biblical commentary. [621175]

WORD
BIBLICAL
COMMENTARY
VOLUME 2
GENESIS 16 –50
GORDON J. WENHAM

—————— General Editors ——————
David A. Hubbard
Glenn W. Barker*
—————— Old Testament Editor ——————
John D. W. Watts
—————— New Testament Editor ——————
Ralph P. Martin
WORD BOOKS, PUBLISHE R • DALLAS, TEXAS
WORD BIBLICAL COMMEN TARY
Genesis 16 –50
Copyright © 1994 by Word, Incorporated
All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced in any form without the
written permission of the publi sher.

Library of Congress Cataloging -in-Publication Data
Main entry under title:
Word biblical commentary.
Includes bibliographies.
1. Bible —Commentaries —Collected works.
BS491.2.W67 220.7‘7 81 –71768
ISBN 0 -8499 -0201 -0 (vol. 2) AACR2
Scripture quotations in the body of the Commentary, unless otherwise indicated, are
generally from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright 1946 (renewed
1973), 1956, and © 1971 by the Division of Christian Education of the National
Council of Churches of Christ in the USA and are used by permission. The author‘s
own translation of the Scripture text appears in italic type under the heading
Translation .
For John, Mary, Elizabeth, and Christopher
Genesis
Table of Contents
Editorial Preface
Author ‘s Preface
Main Bibliography
INTRODUCTION
HISTORICAL SETTING O F THE PATRIARCHS
THE EGYPTIAN BACKGRO UND TO THE JOSEPH ST ORY
THE CHRONOLOGY OF TH E PATRIARCHS
THE RELIGION OF THE PATRIARCHS
HISTORY, THEOLOGY, A ND THE COMMENTATOR
THE BIRTH OF ISHMAEL (16:1 –16)
THE COVENANT OF CIRC UMCISION (17:1 –27)
THE OVERTHROW OF SOD OM AND GOMORRAH (18: 1–19:38)
SARAH AND ABIMELEK ( 20:1–18)

ISAAC DISPLACES ISHM AEL (21:1 –21)
COVENANT WITH ABIMEL EK (21:22 –34)
THE TESTING OF ABRAH AM (22:1 –19)
THE GENEALOGY OF REB EKAH (22:20 –24)
PURCHASE OF BURIAL GR OUND (23:1 –20)
THE BETROTHAL OF REB EKAH (24:1 –67)
CONCLUDING THE LIFE OF ABRAHAM (25:1 –11)
THE FAMILY HISTORY O F ISHMAEL (25:12 –18)
THE STORY OF ISAAC ( 25:19 –35:29)
FIRST ENCOUNTERS OF JACOB AND ESAU (25:1 9–34)
Isaac and the Philistines (26:1 –33)
Jacob Cheats Esau out of His Blessing (26:34 –28:9)
Jacob Meets God at Bethel (28:10 -22)
Jacob Arrives at Laban‘s House (29:1 –14)
Jacob Marries Leah and Rachel (29:15 –30)
The Birth of Jacob‘s Sons (29:31 –30:24)
Jacob Outw its Laban (30:25 –31:1)
Jacob Leaves Laban (31:2 –32:3[2])
Jacob Returns Esau‘s Blessing (32:4 –33:20)
Dinah and the Hivites (34:1 -31)
Journey‘s End for Jacob and Isaac (35:1 –29)
THE FAMILY HISTORY O F ESAU (36:1 –37:1)
THE JOSEPH STORY (37 :2–50:26)
JOSEPH IS S OLD INTO EGYPT (37:2 –36)
Tamar and Judah (38:1 –30)
Joseph and Potiphar (39:1 –20)
Joseph in Prison (39:21 –40:23)
Joseph in the Palace (41:1 –57)
First Visit of Joseph‘s Family to Egypt (42:1 –38)
Second Visit of Joseph‘s Family to Egypt (43:1 –45:28)
Third Vis it of Joseph‘s Family to Egypt (46:1 –47:31)
The Last Days of Jacob and Joseph (48:1 –50:26)
Author’s Preface
It is with a great sense of relief and thankfulness that after fourteen years I have finally
reached the end of this commentary. As the author, I am only too aware of its

shortcomings. Much more could have been said on nearly every page, but I have tried to
resist the modern urge to ever longer commentaries. I think most readers wil l prefer a
manageable volume to an exhaustive one.
The format of this volume is similar to the first. Those looking for a compact overview
of my interpretation should read first the Explanation section, which sums up the more
detailed exegesis of the Comme nt section. Though of course based on a detailed study of
the Hebrew text, I have tried to write both sections so that those who do not know the
language may follow the argument. Do not be put off by the occasional use of Hebrew
words: they are either tran slated, or the context should make their meanings plain.
However, the Notes do presuppose some knowledge of Hebrew as they discuss problems of
Hebrew grammar and text -critical issues. Like the Notes , the Form/Structure/Setting
sections are intended primari ly for scholars and serious students, who wish to enter into the
critical debates about the arrangement and growth of the text, issues that often have an
important bearing on interpretation. Finally, the bibliographies should, as in the first
volume, be se en as supplementary to Westermann‘s: they do not pretend to be exhaustive.
While trying to list fully the more recent scholarly literature on Genesis available to me, I
have only cited the most significant earlier publications.
Again I have many people to thank for help in this volume. My colleagues for several
terms of sabbatical leave. The British Academy and Tyndale House for research grants.
Mrs. Margaret Hardy for typing it. Professor K. A. Kitchen for reading parts of the
manuscript, and various stude nts, especially Dr. Y. Endo, P. Barker, C. Bartholomew, and
T. Renz for help with checking it. Mrs. Melanie McQuere and Mrs. Terri Gibbs for all their
work in preparing it for publication. And last, but not least, my wife and family, for putting
up with me writing it.
GORDON J. WENHAM
Cheltenham July 1993
Editorial Preface
The launching of the Word Biblical Commentary brings to fulfillment an enterprise of
several years‘ planning. The publishers and the members of the editorial board met in 1977
to explore the possibility of a new commentary on the books of the Bible that would
incorporate several distinctive features. Prospective readers of these volumes are entitled to
know what such features were intended to be; whether the aims of the commentary have
been fully achieved time alone will tell.
First, we have tried to cast a wide net to include as contributors a number of scholars
from around the world who not only share our aims, but are in the main engaged in the
ministry of teaching in university, college, and seminary. They represent a rich diversity of
denominational allegiance. The broad stance of our contributors can rightly he called
evangelical, and this term is t o be understood in its positive, historic sense of a commitment
to Scripture as divine revelation, and to the truth and power of the Christian gospel.
Then, the commentaries in our series are all commissioned and written for the purpose

of inclusion in the Word Biblical Commentary . Unlike several of our distinguished
counterparts in the field of commentary writing, there are no translated works, originally
written in a non -English language. Also, our commentators were asked to prepare their own
rendering of the original biblical text and to use those languages as the basis of their own
comments and exegesis. What may be claimed as distinctive with this series is that it is
based on the biblical languages, yet it seeks to make the technical and scholarly appr oach to
a theological understanding of Scripture understandable by —and useful to —the fledgling
student, the working minister, and colleagues in the guild of professional scholars and
teachers as well.
Finally, a word must be said about the format of the se ries. The layout, in clearly
defined sections, has been consciously devised to assist readers at different levels. Those
wishing to learn about the textual witnesses on which the translation is offered are invited
to consult the section headed Notes . If th e readers‘ concern is with the state of modern
scholarship on any given portion of Scripture, they should turn to the sections on
Bibliography and Form/Structure/Setting . For a clear exposition of the passage‘s meaning
and its relevance to the ongoing bibl ical revelation, the Comment and concluding
Explanation are designed expressly to meet that need. There is therefore something for
everyone who may pick up and use these volumes.
If these aims come anywhere near realization, the intention of the editors wi ll have been
met, and the labor of our team of contributors rewarded.
General Editors: David A. Hubbard
Glenn W. Barker*
Old Testament: John D. W. Watts
New Testament: Ralph P. Martin
Main Bibliography
COMMENTARIES (QUOTED BY AUTHOR ‘S NAME ALONE )
Aalders, G. C. Genesis I, II. 5th ed. Korte verklaring der Heilige Schrift. Kampen: Kok,
1974.
Brueggemann, W. Genesis. Interpretation Commentary. Atlanta: John Knox 1982.
Cassuto, U. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis 1 –11. Tr. I. Abrahams. Jerusalem:
Magnes, 1961, 1964.
Calvin, J. A Commentary on Genesis. Tr. J. King, 1847. Repr. London: Banner of Truth,
1965.
Coats, G. W. Genesis. FOTL 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983.

Cook, F. C. Genesis -Exodus. Speaker‘s Bible. London: Murray, 1871.
Davidson, R. Genesis 1 –11, 12 –50. Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: CUP,
1973, 1979.
Delitzsch, F. A New Commentary on Gen esis. Vols. 1,2. Tr. S. Taylor. Edinburgh: Clark,
1888; repr. Klock, 1978.
Dillmann, A. Die Genesis . Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch . 6th ed. Leipzig: Hirzel,
1892.
Driver, S. R. The Book of Genesis. 3rd ed. Westminster Commentary. London: Methuen,
1904.
Ehrlich, A. B. Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel , vol. 1. Hildesheim : Olms , 1968
(original edition 1908).
Gibson, J. C. L. Genesis I, II. Edinburgh: St. Andrew Press, 1981, 1982.
Gispen, W. H. Genesis I –III. Commentar op het Oude Testament . Kampen: Kok, 1974 –83.
Gunkel, H. Genesis. 9th ed. (=3d ed.) Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1977 (1910).
Hamilton, V. P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1 –17. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990.
Jacob, B. Das erste Buch der Tora . New York: Ktav, 1974 (1934).
Junker, H. Das Buch Genesis . Echter Bibel. 4th ed. Wurzburg: Echter Verlag, 1965.
Keil, C. F. The Pentateuch I . Biblical Commentary. Tr. J. Martin. Repr. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, n.d.
Kidner, D. Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary . Tyndale OT Commentary. London:
Tyndale, 1967.
König, E. Die Genesis eingeleitet, übers etzt, erklärt . Gütersloh: Bertelsman, 1919.
Leibowitz, N. Studies in Bereshit . 4th ed. Jerusalem: World Zionist Organization, 1981.
Procksch, O. Die Genesis übersetzt und erklärt . 2d ed. Leipzig : Deicherische
Verlags -buchhandlung , 1924.
Rad, G. von. Genesis . 2nd ed. Tr. J. H. Marks and J. Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1972.
Rashi. Pentateuch with Rashi‘s Commentary . Tr. M. Rosenbaum and A. M. Silbermann.
New York: Hebrew Publishing Company.
Sarna, N. M. Genesis . The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society, 1989.
Skinner, J. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis . ICC 2d ed. Edinburgh:
Clark, 1930.
Speiser, E. A. Genesis . Ab New York: Doubleday, 1969.

Spurrell, G. J. Notes on the Text of the Book of Genesis . 2d ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1896.
Vawter, B. On Genesis: A New Reading . Garden City: Doubleday, 1977.
Weinfeld, M. Sefer Bereshit . Tel-Aviv: Gordon, 1975.
Westermann, C. Genesis . 1–11, 12 –36, 37 –50. Biblischer Kommentar: Altes T estament.
Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag , 1974 –82. Vols. I, II, III. Tr. J. J. Scullion. London:
SPCK, 1984, 1986. (Quotations are usually from Scullion‘s translation; my own
translations are indicated by dual page numbering with German page number first , e.g.,
296, ET 217).
Zimmerli, W. 1. Mose 1–11:Die Urgeschicte . Zürich: Zwingli, 1967.
OTHER FREQUENTLY CITED WORKS
Aharoni, Y. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography . Tr. A. F. Rainey.
Philad elphia: Westminster, 1967.
Alter, R. The Art of Biblical Narrative . New York: Basic Books, 1981.
Anderson, F. I. The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch . Nashville: Abingdon,
1970.
Blum, E. Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte . WMANT 57. Neukirchen: Neukirchener
1984.
Clines, D. J. A. The Theme of the Pentateuch . JSOTSup 10. Sheffield: JSOT, 1978.
Dahood, M. ―North -west Semitic Notes on Genesis.‖ Bib 55 (1974) 76 –82.
Fishbane, M. Text and Texture. New York: Schocken, 1979.
Fokkelman, J. P. Narrative Art in Genesis . Amsterdam: van Gorcum, 1975.
Fowler, J. D. Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew . JSOTSup 49. Sheffield,
JSOT, 1988.
Freedman, D. N. ―Notes on Genesis.‖ ZAW 64 (1952) 190 –94.
Humphreys, W. L. Joseph and His Family: A Literary Study . Columbia: University of
South Carolina, 1988.
Jacob, E. Theology of the Old Testament . Tr. A. W. Heathcote and P. J. Allcock. New
York: Harper, 1958.
Kirkpatrick, D. , ed. Faith Born in the Struggle for Life . Tr. L. McCoy. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1988.
Longacre, R. E. Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence . Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
1989.

McEvenue, S. E. The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer . AnBib 50. Rome: Biblical
Institute, 1971.
Millard, A. R. , and Wiseman, D. J. , eds. Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives . Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983.
Noth, M. Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen
Namengebung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1928.
Radday, Y. T. , and Shore, H. Genesis: An Authorship Study in Computer -Assisted
Statistical Linguistics . Rome: Biblical Institute, 1985.
Redford, D. B. A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph . VTSup 20. Leiden: Brill, 1970.
Rendsburg, G. A. The Redaction of Genesis . Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1986.
Rendtorff, R. Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch . BZAW 147.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1976.
Ross, A. P. Creation and Blessing . Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1988.
Schmidt, L. Literarische Studien zur Josephsgeschichte . BZAW 167. Berlin: de Gruyter,
1986.
Schmitt, H. -C. Die nichtpriesterliche Josephgeschichte . BZAW 154. Berlin: de Gruyter,
1980.
Seters, J. Van. Abraham in History and Tradition . New Haven: Yale UP, 1975.
Soggin, J. A. OT and Oriental Studies . BibOr 29. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1975.
Speiser, E. A. Oriental and Biblical Studies . ed. J. J. Finkelstein and M. Greenberg.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1967.
Sternberg, M. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative . Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1985.
Strus, A. ―La poétique sonore des récits de la Genèse .‖ Bib 60 (1979) 1 –22. ——— .
Nomen -Omen: La stylistique sonore des noms propres dans le Pentateuque . Rome:
Biblical Institute, 1978.
Stuart, D. K. Studies in Early Hebrew Meter . HSM 13. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976.
Thompson, T. L. The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the
Historical Abraham . BZAW 133. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1974.
Vaux, R. de. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Ins titutions . Tr. J. McHugh. New York:
McGraw -Hill, 1961. ——— . The Early History of Israel . Tr. D. Smith.
London/Philadelphia: DLT/Westminster, 1978.
Vergote, J. Joseph en Egypte . Louvain: Publications universitaires, 1959.
Volz, P. , and Rudolph, W. Der Elohi st als Erzähler ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik? An
der Genesis erläutert . BZAW 63. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1933.

Weisman, Z. From Jacob to Israel . (Heb.) Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986.
Wellhausen, J. Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel . Reprint. Cleveland: World,
1965.
Whybray, R. N. The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study . JSOTSup 53.
Sheffield: JSOT, 1987.
Zohary, M. Plants of the Bible . Cambridge: CUP, 1982.
Introduction
In the Introduction to Volume 1 of this series, I surveyed current critical approaches to the
book of Genesis as a whole and then looked at some of the special problems raised by Gen
1–11 for the modern reader. Here I shall consider some of the issues raised by the stories o f
the patriarchs in chaps. 12 –50. Limitations of space prevent a full review of modern debate,
which has been intense and detailed. What follows is merely an attempt to orient the reader
to current discussion and to clarify some of the assumptions that und erlie the rest of the
commentary.
Historical Setting of the Patriarchs
Bibliography
Bimson, J. J. ―Archaeological Data and the Dating of the Patriarchs.‖ In Essays on the Patriarchal
Narratives , ed. A. R. Millard and D. J. Wi seman. Leicester: IVP, 1980. 59 –92. Coats, G. W.
Genesis with an Introduction to Narrative Literature . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Dever, W.
G., and Clark, W. M. ―The Patriarchal Traditions.‖ In Israelite and Judaean History , ed. J. H.
Hayes and J. M. Miller. London: SCM Press, 1977. 70 –166. Eichler, B. L. ―Nuzi and the Bible: A
Retrospective.‖ In in Dumu -e2-dub-ba-a. FS Å W. Sjöberg, ed. H. Behrens, D. Loding, and M. T.
Roth. Philadelphia: Pub lications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 11. Pennsylvania: University
Museum, 1989. 107 –19. Kitchen, K. A. The Bible in Its World . Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1977.
Laessoe, J. ―Literacy and Oral Tradition in Ancient Mesopotamia.‖ In Studia orientalia Ioann i
Pedersen septuagenario … dicata. Munksgaard, Copenhagen, 1953. 205 –18. Luke, J. T. ―Abraham
and the Iron Age: Reflections on the New Patriarchal Studies.‖ JSOT 4 (1977) 35 –47. Malamat, A.
Mari and the Early Israelite Experience. Oxford: British Academy, 1989. Mazar, A. Archaeology
and the Land of the Bible . New York: Doubleday, 1992. Millard, A. R. ―Abraham.‖ ABD 1:35–41.
——— and Wiseman, D. J., eds. Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives . Leicester: IVP, 1980.
Rowton, M. B. ―Dimorphic Structure and Topology.‖ OrAnt 15 (1976) 17 –31. ——— . ―Dimorphic
Structure and the Problem of the >apiruÆ ->ibréÆm .‖ JNES 35 (1976) 13 –20. Selman, M. J. ―The
Social Environment of the Patriarchs.‖ TynBul 27 (1976) 114 –36. ——— . Comparative Customs
and the Patriarchal Age.‖ In Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives , ed. A. R. Millard and D. J.

Wiseman. Leicester: IVP, 1980. 93 –138. Seters, J. Van. Abraham in History and Tradition . New
Haven: Yale UP, 1975. ——— . Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis .
Louisville: Westminster, 1992. Talmon, S. ―‗400 Jahre‘ oder ‗vier Generationen‘ (Gen 15:13 –15):
geschichtliche Zeitangaben oder literarische Motive ?‖ In Die hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache
Nachgeschichte : FS R. Rendtorff , ed. E. Blum, C. Macholz, and E. W. Stege mann. Neukirchen:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1990. 3 –12. Thompson, T. L. The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives .
BZAW 133. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974. Vaux, R. de. The Early History of Israel . Tr. D. Smith.
Philadelphia: Westminster/London: DLT, 1978. Weeks, N. ―Mari, Nuzi and the Patriarchs.‖ AbrN
16 (1975/76). Westbrook, R. ―The Purchase of the Cave of Machpelah.‖ ILR 6 (1971) 29 –38.
The chronology of Genesis dates Abraham about 2000 B.C. and his descendants in the
following centuries. Between Joseph and the time of Moses, it places a long interlude of
four generations (15:16) or four centuries (15:13; Exod 12:40 –41). Whether this
chronological framework can be trusted has long been debated, especially since the
composition of Genesis occurred long after the events it purports to relate (cf. Wenham,
Genesis 1 –15, xxvi –xlv). The most conservative critic would admit a gap of six to seven
centuries between Abraham and the composition of Genesis, while the more radical would
double that. Are there any grounds for holding that Gen 12 –50 describes historical events
and people, or are its stories merely the creation of a gif ted novelist?
The New Literary Criticism (cf. Wenham, Genesis 1 –15, xxxii –xxiv) often sidesteps
side-steps this question. The new critics tend to be concerned with the final form of the text
and the narrator‘s art as a writer: for them it does not matter very much whether what is
described really happened. It is the story that counts: whether it tells exact history or pure
fiction is irrelevant. While this commentary owes much to the new criticism, the old
historical questions are still valid, even though answers are not easy to find.
An assessment of the historical worth of the patriarchal narratives must take into
consideration four issues. First, their character or genre: are they trying to report events?
Second, is it possible that reports of patriarchal deeds could have been reliably transmitted
to form the written sources of Genesis? Third, can a patriarchal period be identified? Dates
suggested for the patriarchal period vary from about 2200 B.C. to 1200 B.C.. If we can
determine when the patriarchs may have lived, we can then address the final issue: do the
accounts of their lifestyle and customs match what we know from external sources? I shall
look at these questions in turn.
First, what kind of story are we dealing with in Gen 12 –50? Older theories that the stories
were originally about astral or Canaanite gods have been abandoned. Nor can the patriarchs
be viewed simply as pe rsonifications of tribal groups. The Genesis stories are essentially
stories about family life: birth, rivalry between wives and siblings, marriage, and death are
the dominant interests of these stories. Westermann aptly sums them up: ―The whole has
the fo rm of a family history over three generations‖ (2:28). Working within this general
framework, Coats has classified every part of Genesis form -critically as report, tale,
novella, and so on. This broad consensus about the character of the material in Gen 12 –50
clarifies the intentions of the author, but it does not show whether the book gives a reliable
account of events.
Comparison with other literature from the ancient Near East shows the unusual, if not
unique, quality of the patriarchal story. Apart from royal inscriptions and myths about the
gods, oriental narratives about human subjects fall into three main groups. Autobiographies,
and occasionally biographies, are written close to the events described and recount events

in a straightforward unmiraculou s style. The stories of Sinuhe and Wenamun ( ANET 18–22,
25–29) fall into this category. Then there are historical legends, such as the epic of
Gilgamesh. These deal with historical figures, but they are written centuries later and are
full of fantastic deeds, which are clearly the product of imaginative storytellers. Finally,
there are purely fictional stories, e.g. ―The Three Ox -Drivers of Adab,‖ about people who
never existed. K. A. Kitchen ( The Bible in Its World , 65) observes that the patriarchal
narratives fall somewhere between the first and second types of narrative. ―In sober content
and mode of express ion, they are clearly closest to the first category. … They share their
third person narrative form with occasional texts of the first category and all texts of the
second group, but entirely lack the fantasy -embellishments of the second group.‖ Like the
historicallegends, the patriarchal stories are written centuries after the events recorded, but
unlike them they lack the fantastic details, apart from the great ages of the patriarchs. But
even were we to class them as legends, rather than as biographies, oriental parallels would
suggest that we are dealing with real historical figures, not make -believe.
The question of the survival of valid historical reminiscence over centuries of oral
transmission is more problematic. Ancient historians tend to be very s uspicious of oral
tradition more than a hundred years old. Can we place any trust in stories that appear to
have been handed down by word of mouth for centuries? De Vaux ( The Early History of
Israel , 182) points to the methods of Arab storytellers as givin g some reason for holding
that the patriarchal stories have not been completely distorted in the retelling. ―Nomadic
and semi -nomadic Arabs still narrate in their tents the traditions, genealogies and stories of
their tribes or families. Both adults and ch ildren hear the same stories again and again and
whenever the narrator omits or adds something, they correct him at once. Different versions
of the same story are often found in different families. Everyone knows the history of his
tribe or clan by heart.‖ And this history can cover many centuries. The orally transmitted
reminiscences of the Taamira tribe from the Bethlehem area go back four centuries.
Mohammed‘s ancestral history went back seven centuries, while Yemenite tribes traced
their genealogy back for ten centuries before the rise of Islam. De Vaux observes that while
―these traditions are to some extent credible, they are not entirely reliable‖ ( Early History ,
183). These parallels certainly show that complicated folk history may be passed down ove r
many generations, so that the relatively simple outline of the Genesis story could have been
preserved intact.
Various dates have been proposed for the patriarchal age. The extreme proposals may
be quickly dismissed. To date the patriarchs to the Late Br onze Age (fourteenth century
B.C.) allows too little time between the entry into Egypt in Joseph‘s time and the exodus.
On the other hand, the proposal to date the patriarchs in the Early Bronze Age (c. 2300
B.C.) rests on rather a narrow basis. It depends on equating the destruction of the towns near
Bab edh -dra with that of Sodom and Gomorrah as described in Gen 19. Most modern
scholars have preferred to identify the patriarchal age either with Middle Bronze Age I (MB
1), which spans roughly 2200 –2000 B.C. or Middle Bronze Age 2 (MB 2), 2000 –1700 B.C..
MB 1 is an intermediate period between the great urban civilizations of the Early Bronze
and MB 2. During MB 1 the cities seem to have been largely abandoned, but the Negeb, the
dry and sparsely populated so uth of Canaan, had quite a number of settlements at this time.
This fits in with the activities of Abraham and Isaac, whose main sphere of action seems to
have been in the south of the country around Beersheba, Gerar, and Hebron.
Against identifying MB 1 w ith the patriarchal age is the apparent absence of settlement at
some of the major cities visited by them, Dothan, Schechem, Bethel, Hebron, Beersheba

(cf. Dever and Clark, Israelite History , 99–101). But many sites were rebuilt in MB 2 , so
that if we place the patriarchs in this era, many of the details of their wanderings make
sense.
Bimson (―Archaeological Data,‖ 59 –92) has suggested that it may be unnecessary to
choose between MB 1 and MB 2, if we admit that the patriarchal period sp anned more than
a century or so. The Abraham/Isaac stories could fit in MB 1, and the Jacob stories in MB
2. But there are many uncertainties, which make it unwise to be dogmatic. Do the biblical
references to a place, e.g., Beersheba, imply there was a town there when the patriarchs
visited it? Have archeologists correctly identified the site mentioned in the Bible and been
able to excavate there, e.g., Hebron? In our present state of knowle dge, we must admit to
some uncertainty and take it as likely that the patriarchs lived sometime in the early second
millennium.
Finally, does Genesis‘ picture of patriarchal life match what is known from
extrabiblical sources in the early second millennium ? This was the subject of heated debate
in the 1970s and early 1980s, but more recently the debate has moderated. R. de Vaux
(Early Israel , 161 –266) offers a magisterial discussion of the issues. Some scholars did
indeed create parallels between the storie s of Genesis and extrabiblical texts where there
were none and then on the basis of real or imagined parallels made strong claims for the
historicity of Genesis. The studies of Thompson ( Historicity ) and Van Seters ( Abraham in
History ) were a salutary reac tion to these excesses, but they go too far in belittling the
historical accuracy of Genesis and trying to place its customs and ideas in the first
millennium. The picture of patriarchal life and religion drawn in Genesis does not fit well
with what we kno w of Israel in 600 –500 B.C.. But once again we cannot discuss the
evidence in detail; we simply point to what conclusions may fairly and reasonably be
drawn.
Genesis places Abraham‘s origins in Ur in southern Iraq. (The epithet ―of the
Chaldeans‖ is a late r clarificatory gloss.) Ur was a flourishing center long before 2000 B.C.,
but it is remarkable how many of the biblical names are attested in southern Mesopotamia
at this period, e.g., Serug (Abraham‘s great -grandfather), Nahor (Abraham‘s brother),
Jacob -El (cf. Abraham‘s grandson). Several names seem to be connected with the worship
of the moon, whose god and goddesses were patrons of Ur: they include Laban, Sarah,
Milcah, and Terah. No one claims that any of the people named in the nonbiblical texts
should be identified with the biblical figures: the evidence simply shows that the patriarchal
stories fit the environment in which they are set.
Abraham then moved to Harran in northern Syria (upper Mesopot amia), and it is to this
region that he sent his servant to find a wife for Isaac and to which Jacob went for the same
purpose. Once again, personal and place names found in this area (e.g., Serug, Terah,
Nahor, Jacob) echo those in Genesis. Particularly striking proof of the antiquity of the
biblical tradition are names like Ishmael, Isaac, and Jacob, which are Amorite imperfects.
De Vaux observes that the names Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ―belong to onomastic types
which wer e well known before the Israelites emerged as a people and, what is more, they
appeared in the very regions from which the patriarchs came according to the Bible.‖ ―One
is bound to conclude that these traditions have a firm historical basis‖ ( Early History , 199,
200). More recently A. Malamat ( Mari , 31) has affirmed that the patriarchal names
common to Mari and the OT constitute ―a most potent argument in favour of the antiquity
of Israel‘s proto -historical core.‖

The Amorite background of the patriarchs ma y explain their close relationship with the
Arameans (e.g., Laban‘s family), who were probably descended from the Amorites who
appeared to have settled in this area in the early second millennium (cf. de Vaux, Early
History , 200 –209). Another striking feature of the patriarchs is their lifestyle. They are not
bedouin who migrate across deserts on camels, nor are they traders on donkeys, although
they own donkeys and keep to the trade routes. Rather, they are seminomadic: they move
from place to place when the situation demands it but stay for longish periods in one place
making agreements with local townspeople. Their main occupation is keeping flocks and
herds, but sometimes they sow and raise crops. Stud ies by Rowton ( OrAnt 15 [1976]
17–31) and Malamat ( JNES 35 [1976] 13 –20) suggest that patriarchal society was
dimorphic, i.e., a tribal grouping partially settled in towns or v illages but partially on the
move with their flocks. Such social groupings have doubtless existed throughout Middle
Eastern history, but it is striking that the texts from Mari (c. 1700 B.C.), which lies between
Ur and Harran, exemplify this type of existe nce. Not only does patriarchal society seem to
be organized like Mari‘s, but many Mari terms (e.g., pasture land, inheritance, tribes,
leaders; cf. Malamat, Mari , 33) find parallels in the Bible. While i t would be wrong to insist
that these parallels demonstrate that the patriarchal age is contemporary with Mari, as
dimorphism is a recurrent phenomenon, the differences between patriarchal society and that
of the monarchy period in Israel suggest that Gene sis enshrines valid historical
reminiscence of earlier times.
Finally, since family issues are so prominent in Genesis, it is natural that many customs in
Genesis about adoption, marriage, inheritance, and burial have been compared with
extrabiblical texts. These texts come from a wide range of periods and locations, and they
shed much light on biblical practice; indeed, they show that the accounts in Genesis are true
to life and reflect authentically the customs of the ancient Orient. However, some scholars
have gone further and attempted to demonstrate close affinit ies between the record of
Genesis and particular Near Eastern texts. Hence, appeal was made to the Nuzi texts to
demonstrate that the patriarchs were of Hurrian origin or that the patriarchs lived in about
the fourteenth century B.C.. But in most instances this overpresses the comparative evidence
(cf. Eichler, ―Nuzi and the Bible,‖ 107 –19). Indeed, in some cases such parallelomania has
led to quite false comparisons being made, e.g., in 12:10 –20 (wife -sister). More generally,
social customs in the ancient Orient changed so slowly that it is difficult to use them for
dating purposes. For instance, the dowry was a regular part of marriage arrangements
throughout the ancient world, so its mention in Gen 29:2 4, 29 says nothing about the age of
the story.
If social laws and customs are to be used for dating purposes, we must be able to trace
their evolution chronologically and geographically across the ancient Near East. A careful
attempt to do this has been ma de by M. J. Selman (―Comparative Customs‖; TynBul 27
[1976] 114 –36). He concludes that ―the patriarchal narratives accurately reflect a social and
historical setting which belongs to the second and first millennia B.C.‖ (―Comparativ e
Customs,‖ 128). In other words, most of the stories would be perfectly at home at any point
in this era. However, he does note three points at which Genesis seems more at home in the
second millennium than later: in its use of the term rab for the eldest son in 25:23, in the
adoption of a slave as heir in 15:3, and in the adoption by a grandfather of his grandsons in
48:8–20 (―Comparative Customs,‖ 126 –27). In a similar comparative study, Westbrook
(ILR 6 [1971] 38) argues that the l aw underlying the purchase of land in Gen 23 reflects

earlier, not later, custom.
Further discovery may shed light on these and other parallels, showing perhaps their
persistence over a wider span of time and area. However, comparative study may be done
within the OT itself, and this clearly shows that some of the practices apparently taken for
granted by the patriarchs were forbidden by later law. For example, Abraham married his
half sister (20:12), which is prohibited in Lev 18:9, 11; 20 :17, and Jacob married two
sisters (29:21 –30), which is banned in Lev 18:18. Judah and Simeon married Canaanites,
and Joseph an Egyptian, whereas intermarriage with foreigners was later fiercely
condemned (Exod 34:16; Deut 7:3). Isaac and Jacob both change the order of seniority of
their descendants in making their will (27; 48:13 –20), something prohibited by Deut
21:15 –17. If the patriarchal stories were merely the invention of later writers, it is hardly
likely that the patriarchs would have been portraye d as flouting the law at so many points.
For, whenever these stories were written down, it is certain that they portray the patriarchs
as paradigms, the fathers of the nation with whom God related in remarkable ways. These
discrepancies between the behavio r of the patriarchs and later legal norms clearly suggest
that the traditions were old and were preserved despite the moral waywardness of those
whose lives were recalled.
A similar picture emerges in the study of patriarchal religion. At many points the b eliefs
and practices of the patriarchs seem to be at variance with those inculcated in the later
books of the Pentateuch or the prophets. This is discussed more fully below. But once again
this discrepancy between the witness of Genesis and the other books suggests that Genesis
is based on traditions going back to much earlier times.
In his recent authoritative discussion of the archeological evidence, A. Mazar writes, ―The
patriarchal narrative known to us from the Book of Genesis must have been very old
traditions which were orally passed on from generation to generation until they were
written for the first time, perhaps during the time of the United Kingdom of David and
Solomon. To substantiate this theory and identify the earliest nucleus of these tradi tions, we
should note the many details which do not correspond to the period of the Israelite
settlement and monarchy. As is the nature of oral transmission, many features have been
added, yet the origin of the traditions might go back as early as MB II‖ ( Archaeology and
the Land of the Bible , 225 –26). What Mazar says about the archeological data in Genesis
applies just as aptly to the social and religious data too.
The Egyptian Background to the Joseph Story
Bibliography
Geyer, J. B. ―The Joseph and Moses Narrative: Folk -Tale and History.‖ JSOT 15 (1980) 51 –61.
Herrmann, S. Israels Aufenthalt in Ägypten . SBS 40. Stuttgart: Katholisc hes Katholiches
Bibelwerk, 1970. Humphreys, W. L. Joseph and His Family: A Literary Study. Columbia:
University of South Carolina, 1988. Janssen, J. M. A. ―Egyptological Remarks on the Story of
Joseph in Genesis.‖ JEOL 14 (1955/56) 63 –72. Kitchen, K. A. Review of The Biblical Story of
Joseph by D. B. Redford. OrAnt 12 (1973) 233 –42. ——— . ―Some Egyptian and Near Eastern

Background to Genesis 12 –50.‖ In He Swore an Oath, ed. R. S. Hess, P. E. Satterthwaite, and G. J.
Wenham. Cambridge: Tyndale House, 1993. 67 –92. Redford, D. B. A Study of the Biblical Story of
Joseph . VTSup 20. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Schulman, A. R. ―On the Egyptian Name of Joseph: A New
Approach.‖ In Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur, ed. H. Altenmüller and D. Wildung. Hamburg:
Buske Verlag, 1975. 2:235 –43. Vergote, J. Joseph en Égypte Louvain: Publications Universitai res,
1959. ——— . Review of The Biblical Story of Joseph by D. B. Redford. BO 29 (1972) 327 –30.
——— . ―‗Joseph en Égypte ‘: 25 ans après.‖ In Pharaonic Egypt, ed. S. Israelit -Groll. Jerusalem:
Magnes Pre ss, 1985. 289 –306. Ward, W. A. ―The Egyptian Office of Joseph.‖ JSS 5 (1960)
144–50. Willi -Plein, I. ―Historiographische Aspekte der Josefsgeschichte .‖ Hen 1 (1979) 305 –31.
It is often argued that the Joseph Story (Gen 37 –50) constitutes a discrete, independent
unit within Genesis. For reasons explained below (p. 345), I prefer to regard it as the
second half of the Jacob story, which begins in 25:19. The Jacob story has been split in two
by the insertion of the family history of Esau (36:1 –37:1). But though there are many close
links in style, theme, and actors between chaps. 25 –35 and 37 –50, the latter chapters are
unique in setting most of the action within Egypt instead of in Canaan or Mesopotamia.
Particularly in chaps. 39 –42, Egyptian life and institutions are described in astonishing
detail and color. The narrator relishes reporting the exotic customs of the Egyptian court to
entertain and instruct his readers. Clearly h e was someone well informed about Egypt.
Indeed, according to Vergote, he must have had experience living in Egypt, for his
knowledge extends to the smallest details (Vergote, Joseph en Égypte, 209 ; cf. Schulman,
―Egyptian Name of Josep h,‖ 236). The names of people in the story, Potiphar, Asenath,
Zaphenath -Paneah are well -known types of Egyptian names. The rise of Semites to high
positions in the Egyptian court is well attested. The description of Joseph‘s investiture
corresponds well w ith Egyptian paintings of such ceremonies. The dreams are full of
authentic Egyptian color: their importance and that of official dream interpreters are also
true to life. The comments on land tenure in Egypt, that all land except for the priests‘
holdings was held by the Pharaoh, is also an apt generalization. Finally, the mummification
of Jacob and Joseph is typically Egyptian; and Joseph‘s age at death, 110, was the ideal
span of life in ancient Egypt. Further minor points of correspondence between the s tory of
Joseph and Egyptian life are noted in the studies of Janssen ( JEOL 14 [1955/56] 63 –72),
Vergote ( Joseph en Égypte ), Redford ( Biblical Story of Joseph ), de Vaux ( Early History ),
and Kitchen (―Some Egyptian‖) and at appropriate points in the commentary.
But can all these references to Egyptian customs be used to date Joseph‘s career and the
composition of the narrative? Here it is much harder to be dogmatic, because as in other
parts of the ancient Near East, society was conservative and Egyptian customs changed
very slowly. Thus many features of the Joseph story could fit with what we know of
Egyptian life from 2000 B.C. to the Christian era. Furthermore, as in other parts of the
patriarchal story, the past is describ ed with the terminology of the narrator‘s own era.
Particularly names of places and peoples seem to have been modernized in Genesis, e.g.
Dan (14:14), Ur of the Chaldeans (15:7), possibly Philistines (21:32, 34), and Aramea ns
(31:20, 24). These terms may be, strictly speaking, anachronisms, but they represent the
narrator‘s way of clarifying the story for his contemporary readers, just as a modern writer
might describe Babylon as being near Baghdad, although Baghdad did not exist in
Nebuchadrezzar‘s day. Thus, when we read the story of Joseph, we view his career from
the standpoint of a later writer, who has described Joseph in terms that made sense to the
first readers rather than with the terminology that a contemporary of Joseph would have

used. But with these cautions we shall try to suggest a date for Joseph and a date for the
composition of the Joseph story.
There is little that enables us to date Joseph firmly. His name, like that of Jacob, Isaac,
Ishmael, is an early A morite one, typical of the early second millennium. Texts from Egypt
of this era (the Middle Kingdom) show there were many Asiatic slaves there then, probably
brought by slave traders. It is usually thought though that Joseph‘s rise to power coincided
with the Hyksos dynasty c. 1650 –1540 B.C., when Semitic chieftains ruled Egypt.
―Into this background Joseph fits perfectly. Like so many others, he was a Semitic
servant in the household of an important Egyptian. The royal court is punctiliously
Egyptian in e tiquette (Gen 41:14; 43:32); yet the Semite Joseph is readily appointed to high
office (as in the case of Huµr, perhaps, a little later). The peculiar and ready blend of
Egyptian and Semitic elements mirrored in the Joseph -narrative fits the Hyksos period
perfectly. Furthermore, the E. Delta is prominent under the Hyksos (Avaris), but not again
in Egyptian history until Moses‘ day‖ (K. A. Kitchen, IBD, 420).
However, Vergote suggests that Joseph should be dated somewhat later in the
eighteenth Egyptian dynasty (c. 1550 –1300 B.C.), as he observes that famine and Semites
settling in the delta and rising to high office are found in many periods. He holds that the
titles given to Joseph in 41:40 –41 and 45:8 fit the eighteenth dynasty best (Vergote, Joseph
en Égypte, 98–102, 212). However, in this era the Pharaohs lived in Thebes (330 miles
south of Cairo) and Memp his, which does not fit the biblical account so well.
None of these arguments are very cogent, but if we cannot be sure when Joseph lived,
we may be confident that he did. As de Vaux observes: ―This early tradition must have a
historical basis. There is no reason to doubt that a person called Joseph really existed‖
(Early History, 313).
The narrative itself has also been dated very differently by different scholars. Despite
accepting the documentary hypothesis, Vergote ( Joseph en Égypte, 210) maintains that the
Ramesside coloring of the narrative is so pronounced that it must have originally been
written then, perhaps by Moses. At the other extreme, Redford ( Biblical Story of Joseph )
holds that it was written in about the sixth century B.C. Most writers adop t a mediating
position. A date in the reign of Solomon (c. 970 –930 B.C.) is often suggested as a
possibility in view of his close connections with Egypt.
Once again the problem lies in dating evidence. On the one hand, the evidence is at home in
many perio ds of Egyptian history; on the other, the Ramesside period is much better
documented than later eras. The issues here are complicated and can be dealt with
adequately only by Egyptologists. Here I can merely set out the arguments in favor of
different date s.
Vergote ( Joseph en Égypte, 203–9) points to names in the Joseph story that apparently
originated in the new kingdom era. Potipher(a) belongs to a class of names that developed
in the eighteenth dynasty, though most examples come from later periods. Acco rding to
Vergote, the same may be said of Joseph‘s Egyptian name, Zaphenath -Paneah, and his
wife‘s, Asenath. Similarly, the word Pharaoh becomes a title for the Egyptian king in this
era and the words for ―reed grass‖ ( 
), ―magician‖ ( 
), and ―bow d own‖ (
) seem to come into use in this period. Details in the investiture ceremony also seem to
reflect customs in about the thirteenth century. Similarly, the phrase ―the Land of Rameses‖

(47:11) fits this era. Vergote admits such practices and termin ology may have continued in
use later than 1200 B.C., but if Joseph lived long before then, why should the narratives
about him reflect thirteenth -century Egyptian practice unless they were first committed to
writing about that time?
Whereas Vergote looks for the era in which terms and customs originated as a way of
dating the narrative, Redford ( Biblical Story of Joseph ) looks for eras in which they are
clearly attested and dates the writing to this period. Since the spice trade is not mentioned
until the sixth century, Gen 37 cannot be earlier than that. This appeal to negative evidence,
however, proves nothing save that Egyptian records do not tell us everything. However,
Redford does contest some of Vergote‘s specific arguments, e.g., about the term
―magicians,‖ Zaphenath -Paneah, and the investiture, which he claims only fit a late
composition. But, on closer examination, none of Redford‘s arguments are conclusive (cf.
reviews of Redford by Vergote, BO 29 [1972] 327 –30, and Kitchen, OrAnt 12 [1973]
233–42).
But this i s not to accept that Vergote has demonstrated that the Joseph story was first
written down in the time of Moses. The evidence he cites is suggestive but not decisive. In
fact, Vergote himself points to features within the story in its present form that ind icate it
was at least revised in Canaan. For example, in Canaan the grain shrivels up in the east
wind (41:6, 23, 27), whereas in Egypt it is the south wind that is hot and drying. Similarly
if the title ―lord over his house‖ (45:8) is understood in the He brew sense of ―prime
minister,‖ i.e., the official next to the king, it fits the story better than if it is given its
Egyptian meaning, which would suggest that Joseph was a lesser official. These features
show that, whenever the Josep h story originated and was first put in writing, its present
form at least dates from post -settlement or early monarchy times.
The Chronology of the Patriarchs
Bibliography
Fokkelman, J. P. ―Time and the Structure of the Abraham Cycle.‖ OTS 25 (1989) 96 –109. Gevirtz,
S. ―The Life Spans of Joseph and Enoch and the Parallelism: sûib>aµtayim -sûib>éÆm
weásûib>aµh .‖ JBL 96 (1977) 570 –71. Hughes, J. Secrets of the Times . JSOTSup 66. Sheffield:
Academic Press, 1990. Labuschagne, C. J. ―The Life Spans of the Patriarchs.‖ OTS 25 (1989)
121–27. Young, D. W. ―On the Application of Numbers from Babylonian Mathematics to Biblical
Life Spans and Epochs.‖ ZAW 100 (1988) 331 –61. ——— . ―The Influence of Babylonian Algebra
on Longevity among the Antediluvians.‖ ZAW 102 (1990) 321 –35.
Scientifically minded Western readers are perplexed by the ages of the patriarchs. We
find it hard to believe that Isaac was 180 years old when he died or that Abraham was 100
when Isaac was born. In otherwise quite sober family tales, the ages at which the patriarchs
marry, give birth to their first child, and die all seem distinctly high.
There are other problems too. Apparen tly on their deathbeds both Abraham and Isaac
give their parting instructions to their servant (chap. 24) or son (chap. 27), but a look at
their obituary notices in 25:7 and 35:28 suggests that Abraham lived another thirty -five

years and Isaac perhaps anot her forty -five years. It could be that they did not die as soon as
they expected, but 24:55 –67 certainly gives the impression that Abraham‘s servant did not
stay long with Laban and that when he returned Abraham was dead.
Furthermore, many of the figures s eem to be round numbers: 14, 20, 40, 60, 100 are
common. Fourteen years elapsed between the birth of Ishmael and the birth of Isaac
(17:24 –26). Jacob worked 14 years for Leah and Rachel (29:18, 30). On inclusive
reckoning, Joseph was a slave and imprisoned for a total of 14 years (37:2; 41:46). There
were 14 years of plenty and famine in Egypt (41:26 –27). Rebekah waited 20 years for the
birth of children (25:20, 26). Jacob spent 20 years in Laban‘s household (31:41). Isaac and
Esau both marry at the age of 40 (25:20; 26:34). Joseph was about 40 when his father
arrived in Egypt (41:46 –47; 45:6). Isaac was 60 when Jacob was born (25:26). Joseph was
30 (half of 60), when he entered Pharaoh‘s service (41:46). Abraham was 100 at the birth of
Isaac (17:17), and 10 0 years elapsed between his departure from Harran and his death
(12:4; 25:7).
The announcement of the birth of Isaac is marked out as specially significant, not
simply by the five divine speeches in Gen 17 but by the clustering of chronological detail
(16:16; 17:1, 17, 24, 25). This recalls the flood story, which is also marked by its
abundance of chronological data (7:6, 11, 17, 24; 8:3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 13, 14). The flood divides
world history into two epochs: it marked the end of the old world and the beginn ing of the
new and is therefore chronicled in terms of Noah‘s life. The birth of Isaac is of similar
significance and is therefore carefully dated, too, in terms of his parent‘s and brother‘s
ages.
Outside Genesis it has long been recognized that Moses‘ li fe falls into three periods of
40 years, making a total of 120 years. The 40 years of the wilderness wanderings are often
regarded as a round number.
D. W. Young, in studies of Babylonian mathematics ( ZAW 100 [1988] 331 –61; ZAW 102
[1990] 321 –25), has drawn attention to their use of the sexagesimal (base 60) number
system. This he has suggested may explain some of the numbers in the Sumerian king li st
and the ages of the antediluvian patriarchs. Babylonian mathematicians were very familiar
with the fractions of 60, e.g., 40, 30, 20, 15, 12, 10, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and did many calculations
with them and the squares of thes e numbers, e.g., 302=900, 52=25, etc. It is noticeable that
many of the prominent numbers in the patriarchal stories seem to be fractions or multiples
of 60, e.g., 20, 30, 40, 60, 90, 180., or a square 100 = 102. Gevirtz ( JBL 96 [1977] 570 –71)
noted that the ages of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at death formed an interesting sequence:
175 (Abraham) = 7 x 52
180 (Isaac) = 5 x 62
147 ( Jacob) = 3 x 72

The prominence of 7 within Genesis (7 years of plenty/famine, 7 years working for Rachel)
may also be related to the sexagesimal system, 7 being the first prime number that is not a
factor of 60.
Against the suggestion that the years of th e patriarchs should be regarded as round
numbers, it could be argued that 17:1 states that Abraham was 99 when God appeared to
him. However, if we regard 100 years as a round figure, then all 99 need mean is ―one year
before Abraham was a hundred years old .‖ This sort of calculation may explain other
figures in the narrative that do not appear immediately related to basic numbers in the

sexagesimal system.
The Religion of the Patriarchs
Bibliography
Alt, A. ―The God of the Fathers.‖ Tr. by R. A. Wilson from Der Gott der vä Väter (Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 1929). In Essays on OT History and Religion . Garden City: Anchor Books, 1968.
1–100. Blum, E. Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte . WMANT 57. Neukirchen: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1984. Cazelles, H. ―La religion des Patriarches .‖‖ DBSup 7:141 –56. Cross, F. M.
Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic . Cambridge, MA: Ha rvard & UP, 1973. Eissfeldt, O. ―Jahwe,
der Gott der Väter .‖ KS 4 (1968) 79 –91. ——— . ―Der Kanaanäische El als Geber der den
israelitischen Erzvätern geltenden Nachkommenschaft – und Landbesitzverheissungen .‖ KS 5.50–62.
Emerton, J. A. ―The Origin of the Promises to the Patriarchs in the Older Sou rces of the Book of
Genesis.‖ & VT 32 (1982) 14 –32. Freedman, D. N. ―Who Is like Thee among the Gods?‖ In
Ancient Israelite Religion : & FS F. M. Cross, ed. P. D. Miller, P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987. 315 –35. Haran, M. ―The Religion of the Patriarchs.‖ ASTI 4
(1965) 30 –55. Heimerdinger, J. -M. ―The God of Abraham.‖ VE 22 (1 992) 41 –55. Hoftijzer, J.
Die Verheissungen an die drei Erzväter . Leiden: Brill, 1956. Köckert, M. Vätergott und
Väterverheissungen . FRLANT 142. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988. Koch, K.
―paáhaád yishaq —eine Gottesbezeichnung ?‖ In Werden und Wirke n des ATs: FS C. Westermann,
ed. R. Albertz, H. -P. Müller, H. W. Wolff, and W. Zimmerli. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1980. 107 –15. Maag, V. ―Malkut Jhwh .‖ VTSup 7 (1960) 129 –53. Martin, W. J. Stylistic Criteria
and the Analysis of the Pentateuch. . London: Tyndale Press, 1953. Mettinger, T. N. D. In Search of
God: The Meaning and Message of the Everlasting Names . Tr. F. H. Cryer. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1988 . Moberly, R. W. L. The Old Testament of the Old Testament . Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1992. Moor, J. C. de. The Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism . BETL 41.
Leuven: Leuven & UP, 1990. Rendtorff, R. Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des
Pentateuch . BZAW 147. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1976. Seters, J. Van. ―The Religion of the Patriarchs in
Genesis.‖ Bib 61 (1980) 220 –33. Weidmann, H. Die Patriarchen und ihre Religion im Licht der
Forschung seit Wellhausen . FRLANT 94. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968. Wellhausen,
J. Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel . Reprint. Cleveland: World, 1965. Wenham, G. J.
― The Religion of the Patriarchs.‖ In Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives, ed. A. R. Millard and D.
J. Wiseman. Leicester: & IVP, 1980. 157 –88. Westermann, C. Die Verheissungen an die Väter .
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976.
In reviewing the historical setting of the patriarchs and the Egyptian back ground to the
Joseph story, we suggested that we are dealing with old traditions refracted through the lens
of a later period. Thus, in describing Abraham‘s victory over the eastern kings, 14:14 states
that he pursued them as far as Dan, a site that was ca lled Laish until centuries after
Abraham (Judg. 18:29). Similarly, the Joseph story describes Joseph, who possibly lived in
the Hyksos period, in terminology that is no older than the New Kingdom. Something
similar is observable in the Genesis account of t he religion of the patriarchs: pre -Mosaic
religion is described from a post -Mosaic perspective. The author of Genesis, who lived
centuries after the patriarchs, describes their religious practices in terms that made sense to

the first readers of the book.
This dual focus poses problems for the modern reader, who wants to distinguish the
beliefs and practices of the patriarchs themselves from the interpretation of them given by
the author of Genesis. How can we know that Genesis is not just reflecting the wo rship and
ideas of the era in which it was written, as opposed to the period in which it sets the
patriarchs? Does Genesis simply project back the religious practice and ideals of the
monarchy period into the era of the patriarchs? This was, of course, the view of
Wellhausen, who wrote: ―[W]e attain to no historical knowledge of the patriarchs, but only
of the time when the stories about them arose in the Israelite people; this later age is here
unconsciously projected, in its inner and its outward features , into hoar antiquity, and is
reflected there like a glorified mirage‖ ( Prolegomena, 318–19). Wellhausen still has his
modern disciples who are completely skeptical about ever knowing anything about the
patriarchs and their religion. However, the dominant view this century is that there are
some old elements within Genesis that enable us to sketch the basics of patriarchal religion.
This approach, however, does not eliminate the need to distinguish between the
narrator‘s standpoint and earlier tradition. In deed, the OT points to this distinction. Exod
3:13–15 tells how God first told Moses that his name was Yahweh, the LORD. And Exod
6:3 is even more explicit. ―God said to Moses, ‗I am the LORD [Yahweh]. I appeared to
Abraham, to Isaac and t o Jacob, as God Almighty [El Shaddai], but by my name the LORD I
did not make myself known to them.‘‖ Here God‘s revelation to the patriarchs is explicitly
contrasted with his revelation to Moses. The patriarchs are said not to have known God as
Yahweh, on ly as El Shaddai: the term ―Yahweh‖ was revealed first to Moses.
The significance of this comment is frequently minimized for two main reasons. First, since
Exod 6:2 –3 belongs to the latest source P, it cannot be trusted. Second, the similar
comment in 3:1 3–15 (E) also tends to be disregarded, because at numerous points in
Genesis the god of the patriarchs is called the LORD (Yahweh). These passages are usually
ascribed to J, the earliest of the traditional sources, and they therefore have more credibility
than the remarks of E and P.
There have been many attempts to harmonize Exod 6:3 with Genesis by reinterpreting
Exodus. For example, some Jewish and Christian commentators hold that ―Name‖ means
character, that though the patriarchs knew the word ―Yahweh,‖ they did not know the full
divine character implied by this name. Others have suggested that the sentence should be
read as a question, ―Did I not make myself known?‖ (W. J. Martin), or as an assertative,
―Surely I made myself known‖ (Andersen, & SBH, 102). But none of these reinterpretations
is very convincing (Wenham, ―Religion,‖ 177 –80), especially if 6:3 is read in the light of
3:13–15 which also indicates that the name Yahweh was new in Moses‘ time ( Moberly,
The OT of the OT, 21–35). Nor is de Moor‘s attempt ( The Rise of Yahwism, 244–47) to prove
that Yahweh -Il was a minor deity of patriarchal times convincing, as he has to ignore the
plain sense of Exod 6:3 and posit a purge of Yahwistic names from pre -Mosaic tradition.
It is better with the earliest translators and most critical commentators to take Exod 6:3
in its straightforward meaning and to accept that the patriarchs knew God as El Shaddai and
that it was only i n the time of Moses that Yahweh came into use. A careful reading of
Genesis confirms this view. Unfortunately, in considering the question of the divine names,
most scholars have failed to distinguish the words of God in Genesis and the narrator‘s
remarks. When this is done, it is apparent that generally it is the narrator who speaks of
God as the LORD, whereas when God describes himself, he calls himself El, or El Shaddai.
For example, 17:1 (narrator), ―The LORD appeared to Abram, and said to him [God], ‗I am

El Shaddai.‘‖ This distinction between the terminology used by God himself and by the
narrator is most clearly maintained in the Joseph story: in the prose of Gen 37 –50, Yahweh
is used only in the narrative framework, never in the speeches within the s tory. Elsewhere
the data are more complex, and I have analyzed them more fully in my essay, ―Religion of
the Patriarchs‖ (1980). I think it fair to conclude that the author of Genesis held, first, that
the patriarchs knew God as El or El Shaddai, not as Ya hweh, and, second, that El Shaddai
and Yahweh were the same God. Thus, because the narrator believed Yahweh and El were
identical, he felt free to interchange ―the LORD‖ and ―God‖ in his own descriptions of the
past and even in the speech of the human acto rs, but in the words of God, he tended to
preserve the more historically accurate terminology, ―El‖ or ―El Shaddai.‖
Earlier we argued that the patriarchs should be dated in the early second millennium. It
is striking that Genesis should portray them as wo rshiping El, for in this era El was the
head of the Canaanite pantheon, the supreme creator God. He was known as the old, wise,
and merciful God. He is king over all other gods. Nothing important in the world can
happen without El‘s permission. He has powe r over life and death. He is the only God who
can bless people with children (de Moor, Rise of Yahwism, 69–76). Later in the second
millennium (cf. Ugaritic texts) and certainly in the first millennium, El seems to have been
displaced b y Baal as the most powerful god. Though El still retained his authority as the
oldest God, in later times Baal had become the most significant and active deity. Yet in the
patriarchal narratives there is no hint of this, unlike Num 25, 1 Kgs 18, or Hosea, where
Baal is seen as the arch -rival to Yahweh. In thus portraying El as the God of the patriarchs,
Genesis is preserving an old and reliable memory of the religious situation in the early
second millennium.
As already observed, many of the personal and pl ace names of the patriarchal era include
―El‖ in them, e.g., Ishmael, Israel, Bethel, Peniel, Bethuel, and it is often surmised that the
names Jacob and Isaac are abbreviated ―El‖ names (Jacobel and Isaacel). Often an epithet is
attached to ―El‖ in Genesis, El Elyon (14:18 –22), El -Roi (16:13), El Olam (21:33), El of
Bethel (31:13), El the God of Israel (33:18 –20), and attempts have been made to find
equivalents to these titles in n onbiblical texts. (For further discussion, see my article
―Religion of the Patriarchs,‖ 168 –71).
The most common ―El‖ name is Genesis is El Shaddai, often translated ―God
Almighty.‖ This may be the oldest name for God in Genesis (so T. N. D. Mettinger, In
Search of God, 67–72). Unfortunately, the meaning and etymology of ―Shaddai‖ are
obscure. Two suggestions have had a wide following. ―Shaddai‖ is related to Akk. sûaduÆ
―mountain,‖ and this refers to the ancient belief that El dwelt on a high mountain, whe re he
presided over the divine council (e.g., Cross, Canaanite Myth, 52–56). Another possibility
is that it is a modification of an Amorite title for God, beÆl sûadeÆ ―lord of the steppe‖
(R. de Vaux, Early History, 276–78), which would be another link between the patriarchs
and Amorites (see above).
Genesis never gives an explanation of the epithet ―Shaddai,‖ another indication of its
antiquity, but the title ―El Shaddai‖ always occurs in Genesis in connection with the
prom ise of descendants (17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3; 49:25). This is particularly fitting,
for El is the only Canaanite deity who can grant children (de Moor, Rise of Yahwism, 69).
The title ―creator of heaven and earth‖ (14:19) is also paralleled outside t he Bible.
A. Alt, in a very important study, ―The God of the Fathers‖ (1929), made much of the
titles in Genesis, such as ―the God of Abraham‖ or ―the God of my Father‖ (e.g., 24:12;
31:5). On the basis of parallels in Naba tean inscriptions, he argued that these sorts of titles

were the oldest in Genesis. They represented the piety of nomads, who knew no name for
God but simply worshiped the God known to their ancestors. He was a god without a name
or attachment to a particu lar sanctuary, and he was chiefly concerned with the protection of
the clan; so promises of progeny and divine assistance would have been central in this sort
of religion. Since Alt‘s theory posits close continuity between patriarchal piety and the
descrip tion of it in Genesis, it has attracted widespread following.
However, Alt‘s view has received trenchant criticism down the years, most recently
from Köckert ( Vätergott ), and it seems too much to claim that epithets like ―God of
Abraham/my father‖ are unique to nomadic religion, or that the patriarchal God was
necessarily nameless. As in 49:25, El Shaddai could be simultaneously called ―the God of
your father.‖ Thus Alt‘s attempt to discover what was distinctive about patriarchal religion
on the ba sis of titles such as ―God of your father‖ seems misconceived; the ―El‖ names and
their Canaanite parallels give a better insight into the differences between patriarchal and
later Israelite religion.
Of course, according to the Pentateuch, there was a fun damental continuity between the
religion of the patriarchs and post -Mosaic religion. Thus they built altars and offered
sacrifice (e.g., 12:7, 8; 13:18; 31:54; 46:1). Sacrifice is rarely mentioned, but the sacrifice of
the ram instead of Isaac (22:1 –19) does appear to be of cardinal importance and a model for
later worship. Abraham and Jacob are both said to have offered tithes (14:20; 28:22) and to
have prayed (e.g., chaps. 18, 32). Circumci sion was widely practiced by Israel‘s neighbors.
Gen 17 traces its introduction among the Hebrews to Abraham‘s day, and Gen 34
presupposes its practice in Israel. As de Vaux has argued ( Early History, 286–87), this is
historically quite plausible.
More int riguing are the points of dissimilarity between patriarchal religion and later
practice. The absence of reference to Baal or any other Canaanite deities has already been
noted. In view of the dominance of Baal in later Canaanite religion, this is a strikin g
testimony to the antiquity of the traditions of Genesis. As Mettinger observes: ―It is thus
astonishing to note to what degree the patriarchal stories keep silent about Baal. If these
texts were really explicable as literary products of the period of the monarchy, this would
hardly be the case‖ ( In Search of God, 53).
On the other hand, the patriarchs do indulge in worship practices that later generations
regarded as improper. They erect pillars, pour libations over them, and plant trees (28:18,
22; 35:14 ; 21:33), whereas Deut 12:2 –3 condemns worship ―upon the hills under every
green tree‖ and commends the uprooting of pillars and Asherim. What is more, the
patriarchs seem to frequent the great sanctuary sites of Shechem, Bethel, Hebron, and
Beersheba, pre sumably offering their sacrifices at these famous shrines. There is, however,
no explicit mention of their worshiping at Jerusalem. Admittedly, Ps 110 appears to
identify Salem (Gen 14:18) with Jerusalem, and 2 Chr 3:1 identifies Mount Moriah (Gen
22:2) wi th the temple mount, but this is not obvious in Genesis itself. Yet from the time of
David onwards, Jerusalem was the holy city, and it surely would be expected that, if
Genesis were merely the projection of the monarchy period, Jerusalem would have been
given a much higher profile and the associations of the patriarchs with other shrines and
their suspect practices glossed over.
What is more, from the Mosaic period onward, official Israelite religion was concerned
with a strict exclusivism toward other rel igions, ―You shall have no other gods before me,‖
and a devotion to holiness, ―You shall be holy to me; for I the LORD am holy‖ (Exod 20:3;
Lev 20:26; cf. Moberly, The OT of the OT, 99–103). In contrast, the patriarchs are portrayed

as religiously tolerant, apparently worshiping the Canaanite high god El and visiting the
local shrines dedicated to him. Though the patriarchs are faithful followers of their God,
they generally enjoy good r elations with men of other faiths. There is an air of ecumenical
bonhomie about patriarchal religion, which contrasts with the sectarian exclusiveness of the
Mosaic age and later prophetic demands.
If these contrasts between patriarchal and later religious practice point to the
authenticity of the traditions in Genesis, can anything be said about the faith of the
patriarchs? They are pre -eminently portrayed as men to whom God spoke and made
far-reaching promises. Indeed, as is universally recognized, these promises and their
fulfillment are the theme of Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch. These promises in
Genesis are clearly central to the author‘s understanding of his story. So it is easy to argue,
as many do, that these promises are largely, if not en tirely, the creation of later editors
trying to link the individual tales of the patriarchs into a coherent overarching plan (e.g.,
Hoftijzer, Die Verheissungen Van Seters, Bib 61 [1980] 220 –33; Rendtorff, Probl em; Blum,
Die Komposition ). The promises are the editorial glue that gives unity to what were
originally short independent traditions.
Now it is difficult to argue that this could not be the case. We just do not know how far the
author of Genesis rewrote a nd remodeled the traditions that he received. But if the picture
of oral transmission among Arab tribesmen may be applied to ancient Israel (see above),
clearly Hebrew storytellers would have had much less freedom to adapt and modify
material than is often alleged. If everyone knew the stories by heart and corrected the
storyteller when he deviated, development of the traditions must have been slow.
Furthermore, many of the stories in Genesis make little sense without the promises in them.
The promise of de scendants is a vital element throughout the Abraham and Jacob stories.
Only in the Joseph story does this concern retreat in importance, but this part of Genesis is
remarkable for its rare reference to the promises.
Various scholars have tried to show that different aspects of the promises are intrinsic to
the story and therefore must rest on ancient tradition. Alt ( The God of the Fathers ), for
example, insisted that the idea of a god protecting his people was intrinsic to a belief in a
God of the fathers. Thus, promises of divine presence and protection are likely to be
authentic. Westermann argued that the family character of the Genesis stories made it likely
that they would be concerned with descendants and land, but only very briefly. Maag
(VTSup 7 [1960] 129 –53) insisted that the promise of land would be pertinent to nomads on
the move. Eissfeldt (― Der Kanaanäische El ‖) observed that, according to the Ugaritic texts,
El promised land and descendants t o his worshipers. And Cazelles ( DBSup 7:141 –56)
pointed out that similar promises are found in numerous religious inscriptions from the
third to the first millennium B.C.
These considerations prompt Mettinger to argue for the authenticity of the promises of
descendants, land, and God‘s presence. Further, he notes that ―In the patriarchal narratives,
God‘s promise has no antithesis: the word of judgment is notably absent . This is to be
compared with the alternation between judgment and promise that we find in the prophetic
writings, for example.‖
Second, ―God‘s promise to the fathers is freely given: any condition for the promise is
strikingly absent . Elsewhere in the OT we find a radically different situation, for we see that
the divine promise is usually supplied with a ‗conditional clause,‘ which is introduced by
the conditional conjunction ‗if‘‖ ( In Search of God, 63).

Mettinger‘s second point perhaps over draws the contrast between the unconditionality of
the patriarchal promises and later covenantal thinking, for often God‘s words contain
commands as well as promises (e.g., 12:1; 17:1; 22:2). Nevertheless, there is a contra st that
suggests that the promises are unlikely to be merely the creation of later editors. But to
prove that the content, let alone the formulation of any particular promise, goes back to
patriarchal times is quite another matter. For our purpose, it is s ufficient to show that the
case for the late creation of the promises is unproven and that they may be an early and
integral part of the traditions used by the author of Genesis.
History, Theology, and the Commentator
Bibliography
Alter, R. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981. ——— . ― 1981. ——— .
The World of Biblical Literature . London: SPCK, 1992. Barr, J. ―The Literal, the Allegorical, and
Modern Biblical Scholarship.‖ JSOT 44 (1989) 3 –17. Harvey, V. A. The Historian and the Believer .
London: SCM, 1967. Hirsch, E. D. Validity in Interpretation . New Haven: Yale UP, 1967. Kuhn,
T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions . 2nd ed. Chicago: UP, 1970. Noble, P. R. ―The Sensus
Literalis : Jowett, Childs, and Barr.‖ JTS 44 (1993) 1 –23. Popper, K. R. The Logic of Scientific
Discovery . 3rd ed. London: Hutchinson, 1968. Rad, G. von. OT Theology . Vol. 1. Tr. D. M. G.
Stalker. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1962. Ramsey, G. W. The Quest for the Historical Israel .
London: SCM Press, 1982. Sternberg, M. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative . Bloomington: Indiana
UP, 1985. Thiselton, A. C. New Horizons in Hermeneutics . London: Harper Collins, 1992. Vaux,
R. de. ―Is It Possible to Write a ‗Theology of the Old Testament‘?‖ In The Bible and the Ancient
Near East . London: DLT, 1971. 49 –62. Wenham , G. J. ―Contemporary Bible Commentary: The
Primacy of Exegesis and the Religious Dimension.‖ Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress of
Jewish Studies 1 (1990) 1 –12. ——— . ―The Face at the Bottom of the Well: Hidden Agendas of
Pentateuchal Commentators.‖ I n He Swore an Oath, ed. R. S. Hess, P. E. Satterthwaite, and G. J.
Wenham. Cambridge: Tyndale House, 1993. 185 –209.
Classical critical commentaries, to which this commentary makes constant reference,
are chiefly concerned wit h historical issues. They are concerned with discovering the
meanings of words, phrases, and customs mentioned in the text; with the sources of the
biblical books, when and how they have been combined and edited; and with clarifying
how far the description s in the text correspond to the historical reality behind the text.
These concerns are obvious in the three preceding sections of this Introduction .
However, modern literary studies of the Bible tend to emphasize the final shape of the
text. Their focus is on the present text and its composition, its poetic devices, and its themes
and ideas. Indeed, for some new critics, it is irrelevant what lies behind the text, the identity
of the author, his historical context, or even the events to which the text refer s. It is the
world created by the text that matters, not the world that created the text. It is the story told
by the Bible that concerns us, not the historical events behind the Bible. It therefore makes
no difference to us the readers whether the Bible r elates fact or fiction: according to Alter,
for example, the books of Samuel and Kings are historical fiction, having as much

relationship to history as do the plays of Shakespeare.
This emphasis on the final form of the text and its essential fictionality is especially
attractive to those who are pessimistic about the historicity of the Pentateuch. It enables
them to assert the theological value of the these books without having to defend their
historical accuracy. With some truth G. W. Ramsey has observed that it is the biblical story
that has down the centuries inspired faith, not the bare facts. ―It is not the inaugural events
which claim and sustain us but the stories . … Generations have found in these stories (as
they are, and not in some critically re constructed history ‗behind‘ them) affirmations that
shaped their understanding of what it meant to live in 900 B.C. or 500 B.C. or A.D. 1600 in
the presence of the Lord God‖ ( The Quest for the Historical Israel , 124).
Thus, the new literary criticism and popular piety affirm that the central task of the
commentator is to explain the meaning of the text as it stands, not its putative sources; it is
not the task of the commentator to reconstruct the history of the patriarchs ―as it really
was.‖ But should we ignore history altogether and just treat Genesis as an ancient novel? Or
is it essential to cling to the essential historicity of the narratives?
Four observations about the nature of the biblical narrative in general will put these
questions in context. First, biblical writers offer a suprahistorical interpretation of events.
They relate events to the mind and purpose of God. Whereas ordinary historians describe
events in terms of human agents and their decisions, motives, and plans, the biblical writers
profess to give a God‘s -eye view of events. ―The narrators of the biblical stories are of
course ‗omniscient,‘ and that theological term transferred to narrative technique has special
justification in their case, for the biblical narrator is presumed to kn ow, quite literally, what
God knows, as on occasion he may remind us by reporting God‘s assessments and
intentions, or even what He says to Himself‖ (Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative , 157).
At some points, Genesis does not go much beyond putting a religiou s interpretation on
events. A modern believer could say of his successes. ―The Lord was with me,‖ in much
the same way as Gen 39 says, ―The LORD was with Joseph.‖ But often Genesis lets us into
the mind of God and portrays the patriarchs as prophets privy to the secret intentions of
God (e.g., 15:13 –21; 18:17 –19; 49:1 –27). Sometimes it lets the reader know even more of
God‘s plans than the patriarchs did themselves, e.g., 22:1, ―Go d tested Abraham.‖ It is this
prophetic perspective, this insight into the mind of God himself, that distinguishes biblical
writing from modern historical writing and from most ancient Near Eastern historical texts.
We might still try to write history from a providential or moralistic perspective today, but
we could never write it from God‘s standpoint as the biblical writers claim to do.
Second, this suprahistorical, or prophetic, interpretation is undemonstrable. Modern
historians may explain the causes o f the Second World War in terms of Hitler‘s ideas or
upbringing or of the economic plight of Germany in the interwar years, but they can never
interpret the war from God‘s perspective, because they are not prophets. Genesis tells us
why God overthrew Sodom , and Kings why he allowed the sack of Jerusalem. But a
modern historian cannot discuss events in these terms, because he is not a prophet who
knows the mind of God. This means that if the biblical authors are not right in their
interpretation of God‘s mot ives, we shall never find another path to understanding his
ways.
Third, it is the suprahistorical prophetic interpretation that is theologically significant; it
is what matters to the biblical writers. They are not interested in events for events‘ sake.
This is well illustrated in Kings. The episodes related serve to illustrate theological points.
They show that those kings who did what was right in the eyes of the LORD brought

prosperity to the nation, and those who did not brought disaster. The stories d emonstrate
how God‘s promises to David never failed. Similarly, the stories of Genesis demonstrate
the slow but sure fulfillment of the promises to the patriarchs. It is this theme of the
outworking of God‘s plan that gives unity to the book.
Fourth, the d etails within the stories could be altered without altering the theological
message. It would not make any difference to the theology of Genesis if Abraham had left
Harran at the age of seventy -four rather than seventy -five. The significance of his call an d
the promises made to him are quite independent of his age at the time. In other words, the
theological and moral points of the story, the suprahistorical interpretation, are largely
independent of the details in the story. If the biblical accounts were p ure fiction, they would
still carry the same message.
These observations have led some to argue that history is quite irrelevant to the
interpretation of the OT If its message is still the same, whether or not the books are
historical, why bother with the historicity or factuality of the accounts?
But this will not do. First, ignoring the historicity of the scriptures fails to do justice to the
biblical writers‘ self -understanding of what they were doing. At least in the patriarchal
stories in Genesis, it is clear that they believed that they were telling about real people
visiting actual places at particular times.
Second, a historical approach is necessary if we are to understand the narratives, as
Sternberg, the arch exponent of the new l iterary criticism, has cogently argued. Even if the
OT were fiction, we should still have the problem of understanding Hebrew words and
custo ms. It is not written in late twentieth -century English nor does it reflect modern
society, so at the very least we need all the light that historical study can shed to understand
what the authors intended. Modern critics have rightly drawn attention to th e problem of
discovering the original author‘s meaning, but unless recovering that meaning remains the
goal, biblical interpretation will dissolve in subjectivism.
Third, though historical details in the stories may be marginal to the suprahistorical
interpretation, which I have argued is central, they are not ultimately insignificant. It may
make no difference whether Abraham was seventy -four or seventy -five when he was
called, but if he never existed, the promises could not have been given to him, and the
theological heart of Genesis is destroyed. Similarly, it may not matter whether kings like
Manasseh reigned fifty or fifty -five years, but if they did not reign long enough to sin, the
biblical writer‘s point that God punished Jerusalem for their sins is invalidated.
Thus we are arguing that the suprahistorical interpretation of events is what matters
most and that it is ultimately undemonstrable, for no modern person can check the mind of
God. However, this interpretation is also open to disproof, for if the events never occurred,
the interpretation of them is vacuous. This may seem a curious position, but in fact
scientific hypotheses are similar according to the philosopher of science Karl Popper. To be
scientific, a theory must be open to disproof; one must be able to suggest an experiment
that could falsify it. A hypothesis that cannot be tested in this way is unscientific. Yet if the
experiment works as the theory predicts, that does not prove the theory in an absolute
sense. Dropping apples did not prove Newton‘s theory of gravitation. Later, Einstein
offered a more comprehensive theory that superseded Newton‘s. One day a theory superior
to Einstein‘s may be advanced. But both Newton‘s and Einstein‘s theories are good
scientific ones, because though ne ither are ultimately demonstrable, experiments may be
devised that could falsify them. So it is with the suprahistorical biblical interpretation of
history. It is not positively demonstrable, but because it depends on the historicity of certain

events, it could be disproved. Similarly, prophecies are open to disproof, if they do not
come true; but even if they do come true, that does not necessarily show that the prophet is
expressing the mind of God (cf. Deut 13:2 –4 [1–3]).
A grounding in historical events is important for biblical faith. It differentiates faith from
mere human theorizing and protects it from claims that are just the projection of fevered
religious brains. ―If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are yet in your
sins,‖ said Paul. Perhaps we cannot be quite so dogmatic about the importance of history in
the OT; nevertheless, de Vaux was right to insist that the faith of Israel ―rested on the
interpretation of events in which it saw at w ork the hand of its God. But if such an
interpretation is to command the faith of Israel and my own faith, it must be true and
originate from God himself‖ ( Bible and Ancient Near East , 57). Sternberg puts it more
bluntly: ―Were the narrative written or rea d as fiction, then God would turn from the LORD
of history into a creature of the imagination, with the most disastrous results ( Poetics , 32).
The Birth of Ishmael (16:1 –16)
Bibliography
Alexander, T. D. ―The Hagar Traditions in Gen 16 and 21.‖ VTSup 41 (1990) 131 –48. Berg, W.
―Der Sündenfall Abrahams und Saras nach Gen 16:1–6.‖ BN 19 (1982) 7 –14. Booij, T. ―Hagar‘s
Words in Gen 16:13b.‖ VT 30 (1980) 1 –7. Brenner, A. ―Female Social Behaviour: Two Descriptive
Patterns within the ‗Birth of the Hero‘ Paradigm.‖ VT 36 (1986) 257 –73. Cohen, C. ―Studies in
Extrabiblical Hebrew Inscriptions: 1. The Semantic Range and Usage of the Terms 
and 
.‖ Shnaton 6–7 (1978/79) xxv –liii. Conrad, E. W. ―The Annunciation of Birth and the Birth of the
Messiah.‖ CBQ 47 (1985) 656 –63. Dahood, M. ―The Name yisûmaµ>eµl in Gen 16:11.‖ Bib 49
(1968) 87 –88. ——— . ―Nomen -Ome n in Gen 16:11.‖ Bib 61 (1980) 89. ——— . ―Eblaite, Ugaritic,
and Hebrew Lexical Notes.‖ UF 11 (1979) 141 –46. Görg, M. ―Hagar, die Ägypterin .‖ BN 33 (1986)
17–20. Grayson, A. K., and Seters, J. Van. ―The Childless Wife in Assyria and the Stories of
Genesis.‖ Or 44 (1975) 485 –86. Hackett, J. A. ―Rehabilitating Hagar: Fragments of an Epic
Pattern.‖ In Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel, ed. P. Day. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.
12–27. Irsigler, H. ―Erhörungsmotiv und Ismaelname in Gen 16:11 und 21:17.‖ In Die Väter
Israels : FS J. Scharbert, ed. M. Görg. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989. 107 –38. Irvin, D.
Mytharion: The Comparison of Tales from the OT and the Ancient Near East. AOAT 32. Kevelaer:
Butzon & Bercker, 1978. Janzen, J. G. ―Hagar in Paul‘s Eyes and in t he Eyes of Yahweh (Gen 16):
A Study in Horizons.‖ HBT 13 (1991) 1 –22. Jepsen, A. ―Amah und Schipchah .‖ VT 8 (1958)
293–97. Kardimon, S. ―Adoption as a Remedy for Infertility in the Period of the Patria rchs.‖ JSS 3
(1958) 123 –26. Knauf, E. A. Ismael. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz, 1985. Koenen, K. ―Wer sieht
wen? Zur Textgeschichte von Gen 16:13.‖ VT 38 (1988) 468 –74. Loretz, O. ―Repointing and
Redivision in Gen 16:11.‖ UF 8 (1976) 452 –53. McEvenue, S. E. ―A Comparison of Narrative
Styles in the Hagar Stories.‖ Semeia 3 (1975) 64 –80. Mothes, P. ―Le fils de la migrante: note
exégétique sur Genèse 16.‖ ETR 67 (1992) 67 –70. Naaman, N. ―The Shihor of Egypt and Shur That
Is before Egypt.‖ TA 7 (1980) 95 –109. Neff, R. W. ―The Annunciation in the Birth Narrative of
Ishmael.‖ BR 17 (l972) 51 –60. Rouillard, H. ―Les feintes questions divines dans la Bible .‖ VT 34

(1984) 237 –42. Schoors, A. ―A Tiqqun Sopherim in Gen 16:13b?‖ VT 32 (1982) 494 –95. Seebass,
H. ―Zum Text von Gen 16:13b.‖ VT 21 (1971) 254 –56. ——— . ―A titre d‘exemple: réflexions sur
Gen 16//21: 8 –21 et 20:1–18//26:1 –33.‖ In Le Pentateuque en question, ed. A. de Pury. Geneva:
Labor et Fides, 1989. 215 –30. Seters, J. Van. ―The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law
and the Patriarchs of Israel.‖ JBL 87 (1968) 401 –8. Trible, P. ―The Other Woman.‖ In
Understanding the Word: FS B. W. Anderson, ed. J. T. But ler, E. W. Conrad, and B. C. Ollenburger.
JSOTSup 37. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. 221 –46. Tsevat, M. ―Hagar and th e Birth of Ishmael.‖ In
The Meaning of the Book of Job and Other Biblical Studies. New York: Ktav, 1980. 53 –76. White,
H. C. ―The Initiation Legend of Ishmael.‖ ZAW 87 (1975) 267 –306. Zucker, D. J. ―Conflicting
Conclusions: The Hatred of Isaac and Ishmael.‖ Judaism 39 (1990) 37 –46.
Translation
1aNow Sarai, Abram‘s wife, hadb borne him no children,a but she had an Egyptian maid
named Hagar, 2 so Sarai said to Abram, ―Sincea the LORD has prevented me from having
children,b go into my maid. Perhaps I may have sonsc through her.‖ Then Abram obeyed
his wife.
3 So, ten yearsa after Abram had settleda in Canaan, Sarai, Abram‘s wife, took
Hagar, her Egyptian maid, and gave her to Abram, her husband, as a wife. 4 He w ent in
to Hagar, and she conceived. Seeing that she was pregnant, she lookeda down on her
mistress.
5Then Sarai said to Abram, ―You are to blame for the violence done to me! It was Ia
who gave my maid into your arms. Now that she has seen she is pregnant she looks
down on me. May the LORD judge betweenb you and me!‖
6So Abram said to Sarai, ― As the maid is under your authority, treat her as you see
fit.‖ So Sarai humiliated her, and she ran away from her.
7Now the angel of the LORD found hera near a certainb spring of water in the
wilderness, near the spring on the way to Shur. 8 He said, ―Hagar, Sarai‘s maid, where
have you come fro m and where are you going to?‖ She said, ―I am running away from
Sarai, my mistress.‖
9The angel of the LORD said to her, ―Return to your mistress and submita to her.‖
10The angel of the LORD said to her, ―I shall so greatly multiply your descendants
that they will be too manya to count.‖b
11The angel of the LORD said to her,
―You are now pregnanta
and will give birthb to a son.
You will name him Ishmael
for the LORD has noticed your opp ression.
12But he will be a a wild ass of a man.a
He will be against everyone,
and everyone will be against him.
And he shall dwell oppositeb all his brothers.‖
13She called the name of the LORDa who spoke to her, ―You are El, b who sees me,‖b
for she said, c ―Truly here I have seen him who looks after me?‖c
14For this reason the well is calleda ―Well ofb the livingc who sees me.‖ Itd is now
found between Qadesh and Bered.

15Hagar gave birth to a son for Abram. Abram called his son, that Hagar bore him,
Ishmael. 16 Abram a was eighty -six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael.a
Notes
1.a-a. Episode -initial circumstantial clause introducing new epis ode ( SBH, 80, 87).
1.b. On the appropriateness of the pluperfect translation in a circumstantial clause, see
GKC 142a,b.
2.a. For this translation of 
, see Lambdin, 168; WOC, 579. Joüon, 105c, sees it as a way of introducing a polite
request.
2.b. 
+ inf constr of 2.c. 1 sg impf. niph 
―to build.‖ GKC, 51g suggests it is a denominative from 
―son,‖ but 
is regular ly used for having children; cf. Deut 25:9; Ruth 4:11.
3.a-a.  ]
. Note the use of ]
to express the gen ―of‖ following a numeral and its pointing with shewa not aµ
because of ―Abram‖ making 
a constr (GKC, 102f, 129f).
4.a. Waw consec + 3 fem. sg impf. qal  5.a. The independent pronoun 
―I‖ is emphatic ( GKC, 135a; ―a sign of self -assertion,‖ EWAS, 52).
5.b. SamPent 
for 
is more usual. In MT the second 
has above it one of the fifteen ―extraordinary points‖ in the MT, possibly indicating
doubt about the spelling ( GKC, 5n, 103o).
7.a.  "
. Note the suffix with a&#181 ; instead of the more usual e&#181 ; (GKC, 60d).

7.b. The def art on ―spring of water‖ should be translated here ―a‖ or ―a certain‖ (Joüon;,
137n; GKC, 127c).
9.a. Waw + 2 fem. sg impv hithp [
.
10.a. 
= 
―from, because of‖ (Joüon;, 170i) + 
―multitude,‖ lit., ―it [i.e., descendants] will not be countable because of number.‖
10.b. 3 masc. sg impf. niph of 
―to count.‖ On the potential meaning of niphal ―countable,‖ see Lambdin, 177.
11.a. 
= 
+ 2 fem. sg suffix. 
stresses the present immediacy of the action (Lambdin, 169).
11.b. BHS and Joüon, 89j, regard this as a mixed form, i.e., a combination of waw + fem.
sg ptcp 
and waw consec + 2 fem. sg pf :
―you shall bear.‖ More probably 
is the older form of the participle ( GKC, 94f; Gispen 2:127). The same form occurs in
Judg 13:5, 7. Especially with 
, the participle often has the force of an imminent future ( GKC, 116p: ―You are about to
give birth to‖).
12.a-a. 
. On this construction, a generic gen, cf. GKC, 128l; Joüon;, 129f. G paraphrases:
―countryman, i.e., rough‖; Vg similarly: ―wild, rough.‖
12.b. On this meaning of [
, see Gispen 2:128; cf. 25:18; also BDB, 818b: ―with collateral idea of defiance.‖
13.a. Westermann‘s conject ured restoration of  13.b-b. 

may be an abstract noun, ―seeing,‖ so BDB, 909a. In which case translate ―you are El,
[a god] of seeing.‖ But it may be repointed as 
, i.e., ptcp 
+ 1 sg suffix, and translated ―who sees me.‖ This is the interpretation of G and Vg, and
maybe SamPent,  13.c-c. Without emendation, the Heb. is diff icult, lit. ―Have I really
seen hither after he has seen me?‖ BHS and many modern translations emend ―hither‖ ( 
) to ―God‖ (
) and insert 
―and I lived,‖ so that the whole remark reads ―Have I really seen God and lived after
my seeing (him)?‖ Cf. Exod 33:20. While Westermann thinks that this probably expresses
Hagar‘s thought, he does not feel it was nec essary for her to have expressed herself so
explicitly and, while retaining the emendation of ―hither‖ to ―God,‖ does not insert ―and
lived.‖ He reads ―Have I really seen God after he has seen me?‖ ( 
). Another possibility relies on reinterpreting ―aft er(wards)‖ as ―back of,‖ so KB, 34b.
This avoids the need to emend 
―hither‖ to ―God,‖ for the whole may be rendered ―Have I really seen here the back of
the one who sees me?‖ Cf. Exod 33:23, where Moses sees God‘s back. Schoors, VT 32
(1982) 494 –95, thinks ―back‖ is a euphemism for ―face.‖ This is possible, but preferable is
T. Booij‘s proposal ( VT 30 [1980] 1 –6), which is to accept ―hither‖ and understand it to
refer to Hagar coming into the wilderness. Nowhere else does the idiom  
―see after‖ = ―search for‖ occur. But following other verbs, 
often has a purposive s ense (e.g., 35:5; 44:4), while 
can mean ―search,‖ ―look for‖ (e.g., 18:21). Thus we may literally translate Hagar‘s
remarks ―Would I have indeed looked hither for the one who sees me?‖ Koenen, VT 38
(1988) 468 –74, points out that if 
is taken as a ptcp (see n. 13.b -b), ―El, who sees me,‖ this is echoed at the end of the
verse. Like Booij he takes the question in v 13b as essentially rhetorical and thus translates
the whole ―You are the God who sees me,‖ for she said, ―Truly I have seen him here who
sees me.‖
14.a. 
―he called.‖ 3 masc. sg ―he‖ is here used for indefinite ―one,‖ here rendered by pass ― is
called‖ ( GKC, 144d; Joüon;, 155d,e.)
14.b. 
―of‖ ( GKC, 129c).

14.c. 14.d. Pace BHS, 
―it‖ may be elided after 
when the subj is evident from the context (EWAS, 140; cf. 18:9).
16.a-a. Episode -final circumstantial clause rounds off the story (cf. 17:24 –25; 25:26; SBH,
81).
Form/Structure/Setting
This tale of family strife falls into three scenes, Sarai‘s sche me of surrogate motherhood
(vv 2 –6), Hagar‘s encounter with the angel (vv 7 –14), and the birth of Ishmael (v 15). The
account of these events is preceded by an introduction (v 1) and followed by an epilogue (v
16).
v 1
Introductory note on Sarai‘s infertil ity

vv 2–6
Scene 1: Sarai‘s scheme

v 2a
Sarai‘s proposal
A

v 2b
Abram‘s response
B

vv 3–4
Sarai‘s action and Hagar‘s reaction
C

v 5
Sarai‘s complaint
A1

v 6a
Abram‘s response
B1

v 6b
Sarai‘s action and Hagar‘s reaction
C1

vv 7–14
Scene 2: Hagar‘s encounter with the angel

v 7
Angel finds Hagar by well
A

v 8
First speech by angel and Hagar‘s reply
B

v 9
Second speech by angel
C

v Third speech by angel
C1

vv 11 –13
Fourth speech by angel and Hagar‘s reply
B1

v 14
Name of the well
A1

v 15
Scene 3: Hagar bears Abram a son

v 16
Concluding note on Abr
In its present form, the tale is a tightly constructed narrative. The paragraph divisions
are those suggested by the use of explicit noun subjects within the na rrative. Note how the
first scene is constructed of two parallel panels, i.e., two similar sequences in 2a, 2b, 3 –4//5,
6a, 6b, while the second is constructed palistrophically, A, B, C, C1, B1, A1. The first and
third scenes are both set in Abram‘s camp, while the central scene takes place in the

wilderness. This enhances the balance of the narrative. The concluding note on Abram‘s
age, ―when Hagar bore Abram Ishmael‖ (v 16), makes an inclusion with the opening, ―Now
Sarai, Abram‘s wif e, had borne him no children‖ (v 1), and also makes a link with v 15,
―Hagar gave birth to a son for Abram.‖
In each scene, women are the principal actors. Sarai takes the initiative in scene 1, while
Abram merely agrees to her suggestions. The action in t he second scene is prompted by
Hagar‘s flight. Here the angel of the LORD is dominant, and Hagar accepts his orders and
his promises, while Sarai does not appear at all. In the third scene, Hag ar gives birth, and
Abram names the child (v 15). The tale portrays the conflict between two women vying for
one man‘s respect and affection. Though Sarai is portrayed as mistress throughout, not
simply exploiting her maid Hagar but also telling her husban d what to do, it is apparent that
Hagar comes out best in the end. She becomes Abram‘s wife. She receives divine promises.
And eventually she bears a son not for Sarai as was planned (v 2) but, as the narrative says
three times (vv 15 –16), for Abram.
Van S eters has noted the affinity of this story with that in 12:10 –20. In both there are:
a situation of need (16:1; cf. 12:10)
a plan to deal with problem (16:2; cf. 12:11 –13)
plan carried out, but with complication ( 16:3–6; cf. 12:14 –16)
unexpected divine intervention (16:7 –11; cf. 12:17)
consequences (16:12; cf. 12:18 –20)
He therefore describes it as an anecdotal folktale. He argues that 16:13 –14 is irreleva nt
to the story and therefore secondary. However, as our analysis of the structure shows, these
verses match vv 7 –8 in the second scene and should not be so quickly dismissed.
Furthermore, the real resolution of the story is not to be found in the angel‘s promise in v
12 but in the record of Ishmael‘s birth in v 15. The mention of Hagar‘s pregnancy in v 4
would normally be followed by a remark that she gave birth. This is not found until v 15,
where it is then mentioned twice. There the initial problem is a t last resolved.
According to standard critical theory, this story is mainly J, because ―The LORD‖ is so
frequently mentioned (vv 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13). Vv 1, 3, 15 –16 are generally assigned to P.
The grounds for assigning these verses to P are the chron ological data in vv 3 and 16, the
mention of the ―land of Canaan‖ in v 3 (a P -phrase), and the naming of the child by the
father in v 15. These grounds are not strong: ―land of Canaan‖ also occurs in E, e.g., 35:6,
and in J , 44:8; and fathers name their children in 4:26; 38:3, both J. The chronological data
of Genesis certainly have an important function unifying the material redactionally, but
whether this proves they originated in a separate P source should be left open.
More recent critical studies have tended to minimize the presence of P in this chapter. Van
Seters argued that without v 1, with its mention of Sarai‘s barrenness, the story loses its
point. Therefore, it must be part of the original folktale used by J. In this he has been
followed by several writers (e.g., Rendtorff [ Problem ], Coats, Tsevat [―Hagar‖], Knauf
[Ismael ]), while Westermann frankly acknowledges the force of Van Seters‘ argument by
saying v 1 is common to P and J. Van Seters argues similarly that v 3 is integral to the
storyline while admitting that the mention of ten years of childlessness could be P. But this
too is contested by Tsevat and Rendtorff, while Berg points out that the conjunction of
―taking‖ and ―givi ng to her husband‖ is very akin to 3:6 (J). The parallel between vv 3 –4
and 6b (Sarai‘s action and Hagar‘s reaction) is also marred if v 3 is assigned to a different
source. A few writers, e.g., Rendtorff, Tsevat, Alexander , hold that vv 15 –16 are not P but

belong to the main story; the majority say that these verses are P. But v 15 is the
indispensable conclusion to the story: without a mention of Hagar giving birth, the story is
left in suspense. Similarly, v 16 underlines v 15 and provides a nice inclusion with v 1. So
at least in this chapter it is hard to assign any verses to P with confidence. It could all be the
work of J.
Attempts to distinguish between J‘s work and the sources he was using have failed to
reach a cons ensus. The threefold mention of the angel of the LORD speaking has prompted
many to suppose that J has inserted extra divine speeches into the narrative, but opinions
differ over which one is original and which is secondary. Neff regards v 10 as original, but
Tsevat holds it is secondary. While Van Seters regards vv 13 –14 as an etiological appendix,
Kilian ( Die vorpriesterlichen Abrahamsüberlieferungen , BBB 24 [Bonn: Hanstein, 1966])
holds it is the core of the narrative. Elimi nating any of these points would disturb the
present balance of the story (see our earlier analysis). Furthermore, the central scene of the
next chapter (17:1 –21) also consists of five divine speeches, and this is generally
considered a source -critical uni ty, so perhaps it is superfluous to suppose the presence of
four angelic speeches here indicates multiple authorship or redaction (cf.
Form/Stucture/Setting on chap. 17). However, these observations do not prove that every
point in 16:1 0–14 is equally original, simply that it is difficult to distinguish source and
redaction in this chapter. J‘s theological reinterpretation of the material is clearest in v 13,
where Hagar calls the deity ―El,‖ but the narrator calls him ―the LORD who spok e to her.‖
This phenomenon is found elsewhere in the patriarchal narratives (e.g., 28:21), but it is
hardly a sufficient criterion for reconstructing the original form of the story (cf.
Introduction , ―Th e Religion of the Patriarchs‖).
Comment
1 This verse gives the background to the whole story. Frequently new episodes are
marked by a circumstantial clause as here, ―Now Sarai, Abram‘s wife, had borne him no
children‖ (cf. 3:1; 4:1; 21:1), which sets the scene for the subsequent action. Sarai, the
prime mover, is immediately introduced, and then motives for her activity, ―no children,‖
are hinted at. The problem of her barrenness was mentioned back in 11:30, but it had been
exacerbated by the promises made to Abram in 15:4 that he would have a real son, not just
an adopted one. And as Sarai was ―Abram‘s wife,‖ that seemed to imply she would bear a
child.
―She had an Egyptian maid named Hagar‖ spells out the relationship betw een Sarai and
Hagar, the central woman in this story. She is here called a ―maid‖ ( 
), that is, the servant companion of a rich woman (Ps 123:2). Often such maids were
part of the dowry that a rich woman brought with her into her marriage, as Bilhah an d
Zilpah were (30:24, 29). At any rate, the maid was not merely subject to her mistress but
belonged to her as well. That Hagar is under Sarai‘s control is emphasized in the following
story by the personal adjectives, ―my maid,‖ ―her maid.‖ Sarai gives Hag ar to Abram, and
even afterwards Abram states, ―As the maid is under your authority‖ (vv 2, 3, 6). In some
contexts 
―maid‖ is interchangeable with 
―slave -girl,‖ the usual feminine of [
―slave‖ (e.g., Exod 20:1 0). However, ―slave -girls‖ usually seem to be answerable to a

master as opposed to a mistress. Indeed, they often serve as concubines, second -class
wives, either because the master has another wife as well or because the girl‘s family was
too poor to pay a dowry for her (Exod 21:7 –11). In this connection, it is interesting that
16:3 states that Hagar was given to Abram as a wife, and in the next episode where she
appears, she is called an 
―slave -girl/wife‖ (21:10 –13). However, on the basis of 32:23(22) ; 33:1, 2, 6, where
Jacob refers to Bilhah and Zilpah as maids (although they are slave -wives who have borne
him children), Cohen ( Shnaton 5–6 [1978] xxv –1iii) argues that there is no difference in
meaning between the terms: 
―slave -girl‖ is used in le gal contexts, whereas  Since Hagar is described as an
Egyptian, it seems more likely that Sarai acquired her in Egypt (cf. 12:16) than that she
brought her from Mesopotamia in her dowry. Despite her ethnic origins, her name 
seems to be Semitic rather than Egyptian (cf. Arabic hegira ), and it may mean ―flight,‖
perhaps anticipating her later actions. The Bible does not make any connection between
Hagar and the Hagrites, a people living in northern Transjor dan (1 Chr 5:10, 18 –22). Ps
83:7(6) mentions them as allies of the Ishmaelites. In Genesis at any rate, ―The name
‗Hagar‘ is meant purely as a personal name; suggestions that it may be the name of a
people (Gunkel) or an artificial name meaning ‗the drivin g out‘ (Noth) are unnecessary and
improbable‖ (so Westermann 2:238).
2–6 The first scene is dominated by Sarai and cast in two parallel panels (see above).
She gives the orders, and Abram and Hagar simply carry out her wishes. When Hagar is
cheeky, Sarai b lames Abram for the problem. He again allows Sarai to do as she pleases.
―Since the LORD has prevented me from having children.‖ Though the term ―prevent‖
([
) is used of infertility only here and in 20:18, the idea that it is God who gives or denies
conception is commonplace in the OT (25:21; 30:2; Lev 20:20, 21; Deut 28:11; Ps 113:9).
It was a serious matter for a man to be childless in the ancient world, for it left him without
an heir. But it was even more calamitous for a woman: to have a great brood of children
was the mark of success as a wife; to have none was ignominious failure. So throughout the
ancient East polygamy was resorted to as a means of obviating childlessness. But wealthier
wives preferred the practice of surrogate motherhood, whereby they allowed their husbands
to ―go in to‖ ( 
) their maids, a euphemism for sexual intercourse (cf. 6:4; 30:3; 38:8, 9; 39:14). The
mistress could then feel that her maid‘s child was her own and exert some control over it in
a way that she could not if her husband simply took a second wife. So Sarai here expresses
the hope that she may ―have sons through her.‖ ―The verb as it stands ( 
) can only mean ‗I shall be built up. … At the same time, however, it is an obvious
word play on 
‗son‘‖ (Speiser, 117).
This practice of surrogate motherhood is attested throughout the ancient Orient from the
third to the first millennium B.C., from Babylon to Egypt. Though much has been made of
the closeness of certain cases of surrogacy in Nu zi and Assyria to biblical practice, it is
unwise to draw any conclusions about the date of the patriarchs or the exact legal
background for their conduct. Thompson ( Historicity , 252 –69) has given a full and
judicious review of the various cases and convin cingly argues that the variations between

one text and another are not determined by chronology or geography but by the different
concerns of those involved.
Given the social mores of the ancient Near East, Sarai‘s suggestion was a perfectly
proper and res pectable course of action. It is therefore understandable when some
commentators like Westermann suppose that the author of Genesis approved of her action.
Yet a close reading of the text suggests that von Rad and Zimmerli are right to hold that the
narrat or regards their action as a great mistake. There is first the general consideration that
Sarai‘s proposal seems to be the normal human response to the problem of childlessness in
the ancient world, whereas the promise of a real heir in 15:4 suggests somet hing abnormal
would happen. Second, the way in which Sarai takes the initiative to solve a problem
instead of waiting for the LORD‘s intervention smacks of Abram‘s approach in 12:10 –20,
where in a difficult situation he called Sarai his sister. Third, clos e attention to the wording
of vv 2 –3 suggests the narrator‘s disapproval, for he clearly alludes to Gen 3.
―Abram obeyed his wife.‖ The fact that the phrase ―obey,‖ lit. ―listen to the voice‖
(
), occurs only here and in Gen 3:17 would be suggestive on its own. But more than that, in
both instances, it is a question of obeying one‘s wife, an action automatically suspect in the
patriarchal society of ancient Israel. That this is more than a chance allusion to the fall
seems to be confirmed by v 3, where further echoes of that narrative are found.
3 ―Sarai, Abram‘s wife, took Hagar … and gave her to Abram, her husband.‖ Note the
identical sequence of key nouns and verbs in 3:6: ―The woman [wife] … took … gave it to
her husband.‖ But as Berg points out, it is not merely the terminology that is close here but
also the actions involved.
―The actors correspond: in Gen 16:3 the woman takes the initiative as she does in 3:6b.
The recipient of the gift is in both texts the man, in Gen 16:3 the husband, in Gen 3:6b the
man for whom the woman was created as partner. In both stories the man reacts
appropriately to the woman‘s action. In 3:6b he eats the proffered fruit: in 16:4a he goes in
to the offered Haga r. The means (of sin), the fruit/Hagar, is accepted by the man. The
sequence of events is similar in both cases: the woman takes something and gives it to her
husband, who accepts it.
―This leads to the conclusion. By employing quite similar formulations a nd an identical
sequence of events in Gen 3:6b and 16:3 –4a, the author makes it clear that for him both
narratives describe comparable events, that they are both accounts of a fall‖ (W. Berg, BN
19 [1982] 10).
―Ten years after Abram ha d settled in Canaan.‖ This comment may be double -edged. It
obviously explains Sarai‘s concern to do something about their childlessness, but it may
also hint that the promise of the land is proving valid. The passing years should strengthen
faith as the fu lfillment of the promises is seen, but they also test it because that fulfillment
is only partial.
―Sarai … gave her to Abram, her husband, as a wife.‖ Normally the girl‘s father gives
her to be married, but in the case of a ―maid‖ her mistress gives her a way (cf. 29:28 with
30:4).
4 ―He went in to Hagar.‖ Note the absence of an explicit subject. In consummating the
marriage, Abram and Hagar are simply instruments of Sarai. ―And she conceived‖ leads to
the expectation that Sarai‘s scheme will be a success, but Hagar‘s reaction, ―she looked
down on her mistress,‖ provokes so much jealousy on Sarai‘s part that without divine

intervention it would have been a complete disaster. 
―looked down‖ need not imply that she actually expressed h er pride in conceiving by
―disdaining‖ (piel of 
) Sarai. To disdain Abram was to bring oneself under the divine curse (cf. 12:3), and
there is no evidence that Hagar is looked on in this way in this story. Her pride and her
mistress ‘ antagonism were almost inevitable in a world that put such store by childbearing.
Ancient marriage laws envisage the tensions that are liable to arise in such situations and
seek to regulate them (cf. Laws of Ur -Nammu 22 –23; Law of Ha mmurabi 146 [ ANET, 172];
cf. Prov 30:21 –23).
5 Her anger roused, Sarai again takes the initiative and blames Ab ram for the fairly
predictable outcome of her scheme (cf. a similar attempt to shift the blame in 3:12 –13). Her
anger comes through not only in ascribing her troubles to Abram but in calling Hagar‘s
new-found pride ―violence‖ ( 
), a term used elsewhere in Genesis to describe the sins that prompted the flood (6:11, 13)
and the vicious retaliation wreaked by Simeon and Levi (49:5; cf. 34:25). Her outburst
closes with what is virtually a curse: ―May the LORD judge bet ween you and me‖ (cf. 1 Sam
24:13, 16 [12, 15]).
6 Abram tried to mollify his wife by reaffirming her authority over her maid. Whether
he was justified in simply reasserting the status quo ante is more dubious, for Hagar was
now his wif e and the mother of his child and therefore worthy of his protection. However,
LH 146 allows a concubine who has claimed equality with the chief wife to be reduced to a
slave, but it is not clear that Hagar has gone this far. Rather, i t looks as though Abram
hoped his soft answer, ―treat her as you see fit,‖ would turn away Sarai‘s wrath.
But it did not. ―Sarai humiliated her.‖ The same term ( [
) is used to describe the suffering endured by the Israelites in Egypt in 15:13; Exod
1:12. So intolerable was her suffering that she ran away ( 
), another term used of the Israelites leaving Egypt (Exod 14:5) but very frequently used
of people escaping from attempts to kill them (27:43; 35:1; Exod 2:15; 1 Sam 19:12, 18).
Thus the first scene ends in total disaster for all concerned. Hagar has lost her home,
Sarai her maid, and Abram his second wife and newborn child.
7–14 The second scene is set in the wilderness on one of the roads to Egypt through the
Sinai peninsula. Ha gar is making her way to her native land but encounters the angel of the
LORD, who sends her back to Sarai. This apparently harsh intervention is viewed by the
narrator as an act of divine grace that salvages at least temporarily something from the
wreck o f human relationships described in the first scene. The scene opens with the angel
finding Hagar by a well and closes with the well being named, enhancing the scene‘s
concentric symmetry (cf. Form/Structure/Setting ).
7 ―The angel of the LORD‖ (
) is mentioned fifty -eight times in the OT, ―the angel of God‖ eleven times. Angels of
the LORD appear either singly as here or in groups. When first seen, they are usually taken
to be men, but by the end of the encounter one of them is realized to be God (18:2, 22; Judg
6:11–22; 13:3 –22). When, as here, the text simply speaks of a single angel of the LORD,
this must be understood as God himself appearing in human form, nearly always to bring
good news or salvation. The ang el of the LORD appears frequently in Genesis and in the
Book of Judges but rarely in the literature dealing with later periods. The exact relationship

between the angel and God himself has been the subject of much inconclusive discussion.
The Fathers ident ified him with the Logos. Modern scholarship has seen the angel as a
creature who represents God, as a hypostasis of God, as God himself, or as some external
power of God. (For further discussion, see THWAT 2:900 –908; Westermann, 2:289 –91; EM
4:975 –90; G. von Rad, OT Theology , 1:285 –89.) Within Genesis, the angel of the LORD
tends to appear at moments of dire personal crisis (cf. 21:17; 22:11, 15).
This story, like others in which the angel of the LORD appears, presupposes that initially
Hagar did not realize to whom she was talking. He was just a man who had come to the
well, a typical setting for male/fem ale encounter in OT narrative (cf. 24:11; 29:2). It was
only in the course of the conversation that she realized his identity, though to readers who
knew the law was given at Sinai, it was perhaps not surpris ing that divine revelation
occurred in this region.
―The way to Shur‖ denotes the more southerly of the routes from Canaan to Egypt, from
Beersheba via Kadesh -Barnea to the Bitter Lakes. ―Shur‖ is also the name of the desert in
northwestern Sinai, next to Egypt (Exod 15:22). It may mean ―wall‖ and be named after the
frontier fortification of Egypt, ―the wall of the ruler,‖ though this is disputed by Naaman,
who thinks Shur is located between Gerar and Kadesh, possibly at Tell el -Farah ( TA 7
[1980] 95 –109; cf. EM 7:600 –602).
8 For the first time, Hagar is addressed by name and is called ―Sarai‘s maid.‖ This may
have surprised Hagar. How could a stranger have known about her identity? The reader,
knowing that the stranger is the angel of the LORD, is not surprised. But the question that
follows, ―Where have you come from?‖ although sounding quite natural to Hagar, strikes
the reader as rhetorical. It is as unnecessary as the LORD asking Adam ―where are you ?‖
(3:9) or Cain ―where is Abel?‖ (4:9). This is, in fact, the first time the LORD has asked
someone their whereabouts since Gen 4, and it emphasizes the parallel between this story
and those earlier ones.
But whereas Adam and Cain prevaricated, Hagar is p erfectly honest in her answer, ―I
am running away from Sarai, my mistress.‖ She admits that she is a runaway slave, and her
chosen verb ―run away‖ implies she has very good reason to escape (cf. v 6).
9 The threefold repetition of ―The angel of the LORD said to her‖ has prompted the
suspicion that one or more of vv 9 –12 are redactional. But it is hard to know which. At any
rate, in its present setting this introduction serves to underline the importance of the angelic
words and helps to explain how Hagar came to recognize his identity.
―Return to your mistress and submit.‖ Note how the angel reaffirms that Sarai is still
Hagar‘s mistress. This harsh and uncompromising command seems callous, the more so
when it is realized that ―submit‖ (h ithpael of [
) comes from the same root as ―humiliate‖ (v 6) and ―oppress‖ (15:13). Hagar is being
told to submit not just to her mistress‘ authority but to suffering at her hand. The reason for
this surprising injunction begins to emerge in the subseque nt promises.
10 ―I shall so greatly multiply your descendants‖ is a regular ingredient of the promises
to the patriarchs (cf. 17:2; 22:17; 26:24). Again the phraseology ―I shall greatly multiply‖
seems to ech o Gen 3:16, but there it was part of God‘s curse; here it is part of divine
reassurance. Abram has been told his descendants will be too many to count (13:16; 15:5;
cf. 32:13), and now Hagar learns that her offspring are included in tha t promise. Just as
Abram had been told in chap. 15 that suffering and numerous descendants are
interconnected, so too is Hagar here.

11–12 The mysterious identity of the one who can make such harsh demands and make
such amazing promises is at last apparent when the angel of the LORD gives a birth oracle,
an annunciation that was to become a hallmark of angelic prediction in the Bible (cf.
18:9–15; Judg 13:3 –7; Isa 7:14 –17; Luke 1:31 –33).
In the other biblical oracles, the statement about pregnancy usually refers to the near future;
here the angel comments on Hagar‘s present condition. The promise of a son looks to the
future as does his name Ishmael. This is a common Semitic name meaning ―El [God] has
heard‖ the parents and given them a s on, or ―May El [God] hear‖ the boy and help him. The
particular interpretation given here is closest to the first, ―The LORD has noticed [lit.
‗heard‘] your oppression.‖ As elsewhere in the patriarchal stories, El/God is identified with
the LORD (Yahweh), the God of Israel. [
―oppression‖ is the noun derived from the verbal root [
used in vv 6, 9 . So although Hagar was not promised relief from oppression, she was
reassured that her suffering had been and would be taken note of by God. Similarly, Leah
says ―The LORD has seen my oppression‖ in 29:32, as does Hannah in 1 Sam 1:11. It is also
used of the sufferings of Israel in Egypt (Exod 3:7; 4:31; Deut 26:7).
12 This verse describes Ishmael‘s future destiny, to enjoy a free -roaming, bedouinlike
existence. The freedom his mother sought will be his one day. The ―wild ass‖ ( 
, Equus hemoinus hemippu s) lives in the desert, looks more like a horse than a donkey,
and is used in the OT as a figure of an individualistic lifestyle untrammeled by social
convention (Jer 2:24; Hos 8:9). ―He will be against everyone.‖ ―Ishmael‘s love of freedom
will bring him into mutual conflict in his dealings with all other men‖ (Gispen, 2:128). ―He
shall dwell apart from his brothers‖ describes the bedouin living on the fringes of a more
permanent settlement. [
―apart from,‖ ―opposite‖ suggests the haughty, defiant at titude of Ishmael toward those
caught up in a more conventional way of life (cf. 25:18).
13 The scene comes to a climax with Hagar recognizing God‘s presence in the angel
and his mercy toward her. But as usual in such situations, ―As ma n comes to realize the
presence of God, as he recognizes Him, God has disappeared‖ (Tsevat, 65).
―You are El, who sees me.‖ In Scripture when God sees, he cares (cf. 29:32; Exod 3:7).
In appearing to Hagar, the LORD has shown he cares f or her. Note though that she calls God
El, whereas the narrator calls him the LORD, Yahweh, the name of God revealed to Moses
(Exod 3:14 –15; 6:3). The God who rescued Hagar in the wilderness is the one who
redeemed Israel from Egypt.
―Truly here I have see n him who looks after me?‖ The Hebrew of this half -verse has
caused much perplexity and prompted many emendations (see Notes ). However, Booij and
Koenen have plausibly argued that emendation is unnecessary and have suggested a
translation that makes a sati sfying climax to the narrative. The emendation most commonly
adopted (e.g., BHS), ―Have I seen God and lived after seeing him?‖ merely expresses
astonishment. Booij‘s rendering expresses not just surprise but a recognition of God‘s care
for Hagar even in the most unlikely situations, a theme most beautifully developed in Ps
139:1 –12; cf. Amos 9:2 –3.
14 The mention of the well rounds off the scene. Like Ishmael‘s name, its name stands
as a permanent reminder of God‘s merciful care. ―Well of the living who sees me.‖
However, the precise location of the well is uncertain. Kadesh (cf. 14:7) is well known,

but Bered is mentioned only here. Targum Jonathan renders it Halusa, but this may reflect
the importance of this town in the Roman and Byzantine period. Another identification is
Umm el Bared on the western side of Wadi el -Jerafi (cf. EM 2:337; GTOT, 368). Delitzsch
(2:24) prefers the old traditional site of Muweileh on the caravan route south of Beersheba.
15 The third scen e finds Hagar back with Abram bearing him a son Ishmael. The
absence of Sarai is noteworthy. The child was intended to be Sarai‘s, but three times the
text says ―Hagar gave birth to a son for Abram.‖ In fulfillment of the angelic prediction, he
is called I shmael. So although Sarai‘s scheme finally succeeded, she seems to have been
shut out from enjoying its success. There may also be a hint that Abram is protecting
Hagar.
16 The note on Abram‘s age (cf. 12:4; 16:3) rounds off the story. Eleven years have passed
since his arrival in Canaan; another thirteen are to elapse before the promise of a son is
renewed (17:1).
Explanation
The opening verse of the chapter, ―Now Sarai … had no children,‖ explains both its
relationship to the other sto ries about Abram and the particular issues addressed here. It
focuses on Sarai‘s childlessness, which was discussed in the previous chapter. There it was
Abram who had raised the problem. He had been reassured that his descendants would be
as numerous as t he stars of heaven. And his trust was ―counted to him as righteousness.‖
Abram was apparently content to wait for the fulfillment of the divine promise in the
divine time. But Sarai was not. Here ten years after their settlement in Canaan, she grasps
the initiative. Blaming God for her infertility and following long -established Near Eastern
practice, she proposes that Abram should cohabit with her maid Hagar. For if Hagar had a
baby, this could count as Sarai‘s child. Her husband consents, and Hagar soon conceives.
So Sarai‘s initiative seems vindicated, at least in the short term.
Nevertheless, it is clear from the outset that the narrator does not endorse Sarai‘s
scheme. Her very fi rst words blame her creator for her predicament, suggesting that she is
in her own way going to sort out God‘s mistakes, hardly a model of piety. Then in the
deliberate echoes of Gen 3, Abram ―obeying his wife,‖ Sarai ―taking and giving to her
husband,‖ th e narrator suggests we are witnessing a rerun of the fall. Though the
consequences are not as calamitous as the disobedience in Eden, they were sufficient to
abort Sarai‘s enterprise had not the LORD intervened to salvage the situation.
Once she is pregnan t, the social standing of Hagar, though not her legal standing, is
transformed. Whereas in Western societies pregnancy is a state that women often try to
avoid, in more traditional societies it was and is a most desirable objective, and quite
naturally, if unadvisedly, Hagar looks down on her mistress. In angry jealousy Sarai blames
her husband for this situation, despite the fact that she had originated it. He, rather weakly,
abjures any responsibility for the one whom he has recently made his wife and enc ourages
Sarai to take her feelings out on Hagar. ―Treat her as you see fit.‖ That Sarai does with a
vengeance. She humiliates and oppresses Hagar (the same term as is used later of the
Egyptian slave masters) to such an extent that Hagar fears for her life and flees.
Hagar attempts to return to her native land of Egypt, but beside a spring of water, she
meets the angel of the LORD. As usual in such encounters, the human person involved
initially fails to realize who the angel of the LORD is. But the dialogu e gradually discloses
his supernatural knowledge and power. He first orders Hagar to return and submit to her

oppressive mistress. But then he goes on to promise Hagar a progeny beyond counting, a
son whose name ―God has heard‖ and whose career as a free b edouin will demonstrate
divine concern for the oppressed and his desire for their liberation.
As the angel disappears, Hagar realizes to whom she has been talking and therefore gives
the LORD a new name, ―El -Roi,‖ ―God who sees me‖; for even in the wildern ess he sought
her and cared for her. And the well too commemorates that divine concern: Beer -lahay -roi
means ―Well of the living one who cares for me.‖ In her moment of greatest distress, Hagar
has discovered God‘s concern for her.
So strengthened in spirit, she returns to Abram and bears him a son. Nothing is said
about the child being Sarai‘s, which had been the original intention. Ishmael is the child of
Hagar and Abram, not of Sarai: it is Hagar who suffers and is vindicated in t his story, not
Sarai, despite all her authority and scheming. At the end Abram has a son. But is he the son
of promise (15:4) or not? The story in chap. 16 leaves us wondering. The fulfillment of the
angelic word to Hagar shows that conception and birth ar e certainly under divine control
and may be suggesting that Sarai should hope for her own child. The unhappy
circumstances surrounding the conception of Ishmael leave question marks: only time will
tell whether he is the child of promise.
In the longer per spective of Genesis, it emerges that Ishmael‘s birth was a diversion.
Indeed, Sarai‘s anxiety to have a child seems to have delayed the promise‘s fulfillment
some fourteen years. Hasty action springing from unbelief does not forward the divine
purpose. Yet human error can be redeemed at least partially by God‘s grace. Ishmael
becomes the much -loved son of Abram (17:18). And in God‘s protection of Hagar, we see
how he is concerned with the afflicted, whoever they may be, particularly downtrodden
foreigners l iving in Israel (Exod 22:21 –23). Her experience of suffering as an Egyptian
slave of Sarai is a counter -type to the suffering of the Israelites in Egypt. ―What the
Egyptians would later do to Sarai‘s children, Sarai did to a child of Egypt. But God listene d
to both; His compassion is with all his creatures‖ (Ps 145:9; Tsevat, ―Hagar,‖ 70). And it
was Hagar who was the first to receive an angelic message: ―You will give birth to a son
and name him Ishmael for the LORD has noticed your oppression.‖ Two thousa nd years
later Mary, handmaid of the Lord, was to be similarly addressed: ―Behold, you will
conceive … and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.‖ Both Hagar and Mary stand
as examples of women who obediently accepted God‘s word and thereby brought blessing
to descendants too many to count.
The Covenant of Circumcision (17:1 –27)
Bibliography
Alexander, T. D. ―Gen 22 and the Covenant of Circumcision.‖ JSOT 25 (1983) 17 –22. Althann, R.
―mwl, ‗Circumcise‘ with the lamedh of Agency.‖ Bib 62 (1981) 239 –40. Berger, P. R. ―Die bisher
ältesten keilschriftlichen Äquivalente zu zwei althebräischen Namen?‖ UF 1 (1969) 216 –17.
Conrad, E. W. ―The Annunciation of Birth and the Birth of the Messiah.‖ CBQ 47 (1988) 656 –63.
Cunchillos, J. L. ―Gen 17:20 et KTU 2:10:5 –7: À propos de sûm>l l.‖RB 92 (1985) 375 –82.

Davidsen, O. ―Bund: Ein religionssemiotischer Beitrag zur Definition der alttestamentlichen
Bundesstruktur.‖ LingBib; 48 (1980) 49 –96. Dell’acqua, A. P. ―<el sûaddaj: un nome divino
ancora misterioso .‖ BeO 22 (1980) 31 –54. Dumbrell, W. J. Covenant and Creatio n. Exeter:
Paternoster, 1985. Emerton, J. A. ―The Priestly Writer in Genesis.‖ JTS 39 (1988) 381 –400.
Fokkelman, J. P. ―Time and Structure of the Abraham Cycle.‖ OTS 25 (1989) 96 –109. Fox, M. V.
―The Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in the Light of the Priestly <oÆt Etiologies.‖ RB 81
(1974) 557 –96. Fuchs, E. ―The Literary Characterization of Mothers and Sexual Politics in the
Hebrew Bible.‖ Semeia 46 (1989) 151 –66. Gross, W. ―Bundeszeichen und Bundesschluss in der
Priesterschrift.‖ TTZ 87 (1978) 98 –115. Gruber, M. I. ―The Reality behind the Hebrew Expression

.‖ ZAW 103 (1991) 271 –74. Hahn, J. ―Textkritisches zu Gen 17:4a.‖ ZAW 94 (1982) 642 –44.
Hoenig, S. B. ―Circumcision: The Covenant of Abraham.‖ JQR 53 (1962 –63) 322 –34. Kilwing, N.
―
‗ja, gewiss‘ —‗nein, vielmehr‘?‖ BN 11 (1980) 23 –28. Kline, M. G. ―Oath and Ordeal Signs.‖ WTJ
27 (1965) 115 –39. Knauf, E. A. ―El Sðaddai —der Gott Abrahams?‖ BZ 29 (198 5) 97 –103. Koch,
K. ―Sðaddj. ‖ VT 26 (1976) 299 –332. Külling, S. R. Zur Datierung der ―Genesis -P-Stücke ‖:
Namentlich des Kapitels Genesis 17. Kampen: Kok, 1964. Lohfink, N. ―Die pr iesterschriftliche
Abwertung der Tradition von der Offenbarung des Jahwenamens an Mose.‖ Bib 49 (1968) 1 –8.
——— . ―Textkritisches zu Gen 17:5,13,16,17.‖ Bib 48 (1967) 439 –42. Neff, R. W. ―The Birth and
Election of Isaac in the Priest ly Tradition.‖ BR 15 (1970) 5 –18. Oliva, M. ―Las revelaciones a los
patriarcas en la historia sacerdotal. ‖ Bib 55(1974) 1 –14. Ronning, J. ―The Naming of Isaac: The
Role of the Wife/Sister Episodes in the Redaction of Genesis.‖ WTJ 53 (1991) 1 –27. Ska, J. –L.
―Quelques remarques sur Pg et la dernière rédaction du pentateuque. ‖ In Le Pentateuque en
question, ed. A. de Pury. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1989. 95 –125. Specht, H. ―Von Gott enttäuscht:
Die priesterschriftliche Abrahamgeschichte. ‖ EvT 47 (1987) 395 –411. Weimar, P. ―Gen 17 und die
priesterschriftliche Abrahamgeschichte. ‖ ZAW 100 (1988) 22 –60. Westermann, C. ―Gen 1 7 und die
Bedeutung von Berit .‖ TLZ 101 (1976) 161 –70. Wifall, W. ―El Shaddai or El of the Fields .‖ ZAW 92
(1980) 24 –32.
Translation
1 When Abram was ninety -nine years old, the LORD appeareda to him and said: ―I
am El Shaddai. Walk in my presence and be blameless, 2 so that I may makea my
covenant between me and you, and multiply you exceedingly.‖
3 Then Abram fella on his face, and God spoke to him: 4 ―For my part,a since my
covenant isb with you, you shall become fatherc of a multitude of nations. 5 Your a name
shall no longer be Abram, butb it shall be Abraham, because I have made you father of
a multitude of nations. 6 I shall make you exceedingly fruitful and make you into
nations, and kings shall be descended from you. 7 I shall confirma my covenant between
me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an eternal
covenant in order to be your God and your descendants‘ God. 8 I shall give to you and
your descendants after you the land ato which you have migrated,a the whole land of
Canaan, as a permanent holding, and I sha ll be their God.‖
9 Then God said to Abraham: ―As for you,a you must observe my covenant,b you and
your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant which
you must observe, my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you: all

youra males must be circumcised.b 11 You must be circumciseda inb the flesh of your
foreskin, so that itc may be a sign of a covenant between me and you. 12All youra
eight -day-old males must be circumcisedb throughout your generations, those born in
your household and those bought from foreigners who are not descended from you.c 13
Hea who is born in your household or bought with your money must be circumcised, so
that my covenant may be in your flesh as an eternal covenant. 14 An uncircumcised male
whose foreskin is not circumciseda shall be cut off from his relations:b c he has brokend
my covenant.‖c
15 Then God said to Abraham: ―As for Sarai your wife,a do not call her Sarai, but
Sarah. 16 I shall bless her, and I shall give you a son from her. I shall bless hera and she
will become nations: b kings of peoples shall come from her.‖b c
17 Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, thinking ―Cana a hundred -year-old man
becomeb a father or Sarah,c a ninety -year-old woman, give birth?‖ 18 And Abraham said to
God, ― May Ishmael live in your presence.‖
19 But God said, ―Indeeda Sarah your wife is going to bear you a son, and you must
call him Isaac. I shall confirm my covenant with him as an eternal covenantc for his
descendants after him. 20a As for Ishmael, I have heard you.a b I have blessed him and
shall make him fruitful and multiply him exceedingly; c he wi ll father twelve princesc
and I shall maked him a great nation. 21 My covenanta I shall confirm with Isaac whom
Sarah will bear you this time next year.‖ 22 Then he stoppeda talking to him, and God
went awayb from Abraham.
23 So Abraham took his son Ishmael, all those born in his household, and all those he had
purchased, every male among the me n of his household, and he circumciseda their foreskins
that very day as God had spoken to him. 24 Abraham was ninety -nine years old when he
was circumciseda in his foreskin. 25 Ishmael was thirteen years old when he was
circumcised in his foreskin. 26 Thata very day Abraham and his son Ishma el were
circumcised.b27 All the men of his household, those born in his household and those
purchased from foreigners, were circumcised with him.
Notes
1.a. Cf. n. 12:7a.
2.a. Waw + 1 sg coh 
―to give.‖ Coh following an impv ―be perfect‖ expresses ―an intention or intended
consequence‖ ( GKC, 108d; cf. 19:5; 23:4; 27:4; WOC, 577–78).
3.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. 4.a. The extraposed 
―I,‖ ―for my part‖ contrasts with 
. ―As for you‖ (v 9) spells out the obligations of the two parties to the covenant ( SBH,
151); cf. 6:17, 21; 9:7, 9.
4.b. For this translation of 
, see Lambdin, 169. Alternatively, 

draws attention to the immediacy of the statement and could be rendered ―My
covenant is now with you.‖ Cf. WOC, 676–77.
4.c. Note the unusual constr 
instead of 
―father‖ used only here and v 5, probably to rhyme with Abraham ( GKC, 96).
5.a. Though SamPent and some MT MSS omit 
before 
, it is quite common to have 
before the effective subj of a pass verb ( GKC, 121b).
5.b. Following a negative clause, 
before a verb may be translated ―but‖ ( GKC, 163a).
7.a. Cf. n. 6:18.a.*
8.a-a. 
, lit. ―your sojourning.‖ The 9.a. Note 
―as for you‖ matches 
in v 4.
9.b. The preverbal position of ―my covenant‖ is unusual except in law (cf. EWAS,
40–41). Here it may highlight ―my covenant‖ (cf. GKC, 142f).
10.a. 
―for you.‖ 
is used to express a gen relationship, to show to whom the verbal action relates (Joüon,
130g). Thus ― every male must be circumcised for you‖ = ―all your males must be
circumcised.‖ Alternatively, 
may express the agent here. ―All males shall be circumcised by you.‖ Cf. v 12; 34:15,
22; Althann, Bib 62 (1981) 239 –40.
10.b. Inf abs niph 
as an emphatic impv (GKC, 113bb).
11.a. Waw consec + 2 masc. pl. pf niph 
; on form, see GKC, 67dd.

11.b. 
mark of acc, of the part most affected by the action ( GKC, 121d; cf. WOC, 181).
11.c. 3 masc. sg may be used as here for an action just mentioned ( GKC, 144b).
12.a. Cf. n. 10.a.*
12.b. 3 masc. impf. niph 12.c. The resumptive 
―he‖ is required in a negative relative clause (Joüon, 158g); cf. 7:2.
13.a. SamPent has 
―those born‖ for MT 
―he who is born.‖ Lohfink favors SamPent because it matches v 23 ( Bib 48 [1967]
439).
14.a. SamPent, G add ―on the eighth day.‖
14.b. Though [
most often means ―people,‖ as here, it also means a clan, or a member of one‘s clan (a
relative through one‘s father; KB, 792).
14.c-c. Apposition clause explaining preceding one (Joüon, 170b; SBH, 58).
14.d. 3 masc. sg hiph pf pause  15.a. ―Sarai, your wife‖ is here casus pendens before
the main clause ―Do not call her Sarai‖ and ―announces the topic of the whole statement to
be made‖ (EWAS, 94; cf. WOC, 76).
16.a. SamPent reads 
―I will bless him‖ for 
; also S, Vg, but not paceM BHS by G (Wevers edition). This reading is preferred by
Speiser and Lohfink ( Bib 48 [1967] 439 –40), but MT may be retained.
16.b-b. Clause in expository apposition with preceding ( SBH, 47), therefore no need to
begin with ―and‖ (with SamPent, G).
16.c. G, SamPent support MT ―her‖ pace BHS
17.a. 
. The doubling of the consonant, here 
, following interrogative 
is unusual ( GKC, 100l).

17.b. 
3 masc. sg impf. niph 
, lit. ―will he be born to.‖ For the use of impf. to express potential or surprise, cf. GKC,
107t.
17.c. 
or the following 
are often deleted, because double -barrelled questions usually take the form 
… 
, not as here, 
… 
(SBH, 114). This unusual construction underlines Abraham‘s disbelief ( GKC, 150g).
19.a. On 
as a stron g asseverative, ―Abraham‘s doubt and mistrust are emphatically
controverted,‖ see EWAS, 129; cf. N. Kilwing, BN 11 (1980) 23 –28; cf. G ijdou; .
19.b. SamPent inserts 
after 
, making phraseology more typical of annunciation; cf. 16:11.
19.c. Pace Westermann, it is unnecessary with some G MSS to insert ―to be his God.‖
20.a-a. On the syntax of this clause, cf. J. L. Cunchillos, RB 92 (1985) 375 –82.
20.b. Possibly ― an accidental perfective whereby a speaker vividly and dramatically
represents an action both as complete and independent‖ (WOC, 490).
20.c-c. Clause in apposition specifying numbe r of children ( SBH, 47).
20.d. Waw + 1 sg pf 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
21.a. Note 
attached to obj ―my covenant,‖ making this clause disjunctive and contrasting it with

clause in v 20 (cf. n. 20.b; SBH, 180).

22.a. Waw + 3 masc. sg impf. apoc piel 
; cf. 2:2.
22.b. Waw + 3 masc. sg impf. apoc qal [
; cf. 13:1.
23.a. Waw + 3 masc. sg impf. qal 24.a. 
+ inf constr niph 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
26.a. This time reference is in apposition to preceding clauses, characteristic of epic
style ( SBH, 41); cf. 7:10–16.
26.b. 3 masc. sg pf niph 
. On sg verb with pl. subj, see GKC, 146f.
Form/Structure/Setting
This chapter is a watershed in the Abraham story. The promises to him have been
unfolded bit by bit, gradually building up and becoming more detailed and precise, until
here they are repeated and filled out in a glorious crescendo in a long and elaborate divine
speech. From this point in GE.nesis, divine speeches become rarer and little new content is
added to the promises, but the fulfillment of these promises becomes more visible.
Gen 12:1 –3 promised Abraham a land, descendants, and a covenant relationship. It is
worth tracing these three aspects of the promise through the following chapters to see how
chap. 17 constitutes a climax.
The land becomes ―this land‖ in 12:7, ―all the land which you can see‖ in 13:15, and
―from the river o f Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates‖ in 15:18. Though the
narrator has frequently identified the promised land with Canaan, it is first explicitly
promised by God in 17:8, ―I shall give to you … the whole land of Canaan as a permanent
holding.‖
In 12:2 Abraham is assured he will become a ―great nation.‖ In 13:16 he is told his
descendants will be as numerous as the dust of the earth; in 15:5 that he would himself
father a child and his descendants will be as many as the stars. In chap. 16 Abraha m did
father a child, whose offspring will be too many to count. But this apparently miraculous
achievement is dwarfed by the promises here. Abraham is not merely to father a nation but
a ―multitude of nations,‖ and ―kings shall be descended from you.‖ He is to father a child
not simply through a youthful slave -girl but through his elderly wife, who at ninety will
bear her first child (vv 4 –6, 15 –16).
The nature of the covenant relationship is also defined more clearly in chap. 17 than
previously. In 12:3 t here was a vague guarantee of protection: Abram‘s blessers will be
blessed and his disdainer cursed. But this too becomes more explicit. Chap. 15 predicts
Egyptian slavery and exodus, but 17:7 announces an eternal covenant with Abraham and
his descendants, ―in order to be your God and your descendants‘ God.‖
To mark these great promises, the names of Abram and Sarai are changed to the more

familiar Abraham and Sarah, and the national rite of circumcision is instituted as a sign of
the covenant between God a nd Abraham‘s descendants. But the significance of the
occasion is marked too with literary devices: five long and elaborate divine speeches set
this episode apart within Genesis.
In arrangement, this chapter bears a number of similarities to chap. 16.
v 1a
Introductory note on Abraham‘s age
vv 1b –22
Scene 1: Dialogue between God and Abraham
v 23
Scene 2: Abraham circumcises his household
vv 24 –27
Closing note on Abraham and Ishmael‘s age

The chief similarities with chap. 16 are in the opening and closing time references (1a,
24–27; cf. 16:1, 16) and in the content of the main scene. In chap. 17 this consists of five
divine speeches (vv 1b –2, 4–8, 9–14, 15 –16, 19 –21) wit h two questions by Abraham (vv
17, 18); in chap. 16 the central scene consists of four angelic speeches (vv 8a, 9, 10, 11 –12)
with two comments by Hagar (vv 8b, 13). In both chapters some of the introductory ―And
God/the angel of the LORD said‖ strike the modern reader as redundant, serving only to
break up the speeches. The second scene in chap. 17 is very brief in comparison with the
first. But such variation in scenic length is common elsewhere in Genesis; cf. 16:7–14 with
16:15, or 6 :13–21 with 6:22.
McEvenue has noted that chap. 17 is arranged both palistrophically and in two parallel
panels.
A Abraham 99 (1a)
B The LORD appears (1ba)
C God speaks (1bb)
D First speech (1bc –2)
E Abraham falls on his face (3a)
F Second speech (name -change, nations, kings) (4 –8)
G THIRD SPEECH (9 –14)
F1 Fourth speech (name -change, nations, kings) (15 –16)
E1 Abraham falls on his face (17)
D1 Fifth speech (19 –21)
C1 God ceases speaking (22a)
B1 God goes up from him (22b)
A1 Abraham 9 9 and Ishmael 13 (24 –25)
Alternatively, the chapter may be read as two parallel panels.
A Yahweh‘s intention to make an oath about progeny (1 –2)
B Abraham falls on his face (3a)
C Abraham father of nations (4b

D God will carry out his oath forever (7)
E The sign of the oath (9 –14)
A1 God‘s intention to bless Sarah with progeny (16)
B1 Abraham falls on his face (17 –18)
C1 Sarah mother of a son, Isaac (19)
D1 God will carry out his oath forever (19b, 21a)
E1 The sign of the oath (23 –27)
Palistrophic arrangement of material is frequent in Genesis (e.g., chaps. 2 –3, 4, 6 –9,
18–19, 22); less usual is the use of parallel panels (cf. chaps. 15, 18 –19), particularly in
conjunction with palist rophic arrangement. The complexity of the literary form used here
underlines the importance of the material; note how both structures focus on circumcision,
the sign of the covenant, and make implausible any attempt to split the material in the
chapter int o two sources (McEvenue, 147 –48). Westermann (2:255) rightly states ―the
chapter is carefully thought out right down to the finest detail; it is an artistic composition.‖
On the other hand, Weimar‘s attempt ( ZAW 100 [1988] 22 –60) to contest this unity and find
four layers of reduction within Gen 17 overpresses nuances in the text and is too
complicated to be convincing.
Source critics with few exceptions (Jacob, Kü lling, Alexander) ascribe this chapter to P on
the grounds of its distinctive vocabulary. Terminology characteristic of P includes ―God‖
(
); ―El Shaddai‖ (v 1; the LORD, v 1, is either reductional or a scribal error [Skinner, 289]);
―put [
] or co nfirm [
] my covenant‖ (vv 2, 7); ―very much‖ ( 
; v 2); ―be fruitful and multiply‖ ( 
; v 20); and ―that very day‖ (vv 23, 26). The affinity of this language with other passages
conventionally ascribed to P is unmistakable, most obviously with 9:1 –17, the Noahic
covenant, and to a lesser extent with passages looking back to chap. 17, i.e., 28:3–4;
35:11 –12; 48:3 –4. But the distinctive terminology of these passages may be ade quately
explained by their subject matter and genre (divine speech about covenants) as by common
authorship, so despite the accumulation of distinctive terms, the case for ascribing the
material to P is not clear cut.
It should be noticed that this chapter both presupposes what precedes it in Genesis and
is presupposed by what follows. The change of Abram and Sarai‘s names to Abraham and
Sarah is recorded nowhere else, yet the narrative always uses the old names before this
chapter and the new names after i t. Similarly, Abraham‘s plea ―May Ishmael live in your
presence‖ presupposes chap. 16, as do his remarks about Sarah‘s barrenness. 21:1 –5,
recording the birth and circumcision of Isaac, looks back to chap. 17, as do 24:36 and the
account of his sacrifice i n chap. 22, according to Alexander ( JSOT 25 [1983] 17 –22). The
demand to circumcise the Shechemites (chap. 34) also presupposes chap. 17 and appears to
quote it (see below on chap. 34). So wh atever the history of this chapter prior to its
incorporation into Genesis, it has been carefully and thoroughly integrated into the present
work. And there are signs that the editor responsible for doing this was J. The clearest sign
of his work is the op ening comment ―The LORD appeared to him.‖ Not merely the mention

of the LORD (Yahweh) but also the verb ―appear‖ (niphal of 
) as in 12:7; 18:1; 26:2, 24 marks this as J. Compare too the double mention of the
LORD in 21:1, recounting the fulfillment of the promise to Sarah. Westermann ( TLZ 101
(1976) 161 –62) has noted that 17:1 –3a with its command -promise -affirmative response
pattern corresponds very closely to 12:1 –4a, so that it is ―quite clear that P in chap. 17 is
working with the Abraham tradition as a whole.‖ Westermann assumes that P is responsible
for shaping 17:1 –3, but in the light of the other parallels with J material, it is questionable
whether this view can be sustained. Further evidence of J‘s activity is t he organization of
chap. 16, which is like chap. 17 but largely ascribed to J. Similarly, chaps. 18 –19 are
structurally similar to chap. 17 yet assigned to J. Thus the centrality of chap. 17 within the
overall patriarchal narratives and the evidence of J -like reduction suggest, contrary to
dominant critical opinion, that the material is early and that if it comes from P, P antedates
J.
The dependence of chap. 17 on chap. 15 is widely supported (e.g., Skinner, von Rad,
McEven ue, Westermann, Coats). McEvenue and Westermann also hold that 18:4 –15 is the
source of 17:15 –22. Though there are certain similarities between chaps. 15 and 17 (both
concern covenant making and promises of land and descendants), these are not sufficient t o
outweigh the great differences in covenant ceremonies and to conclude that chap. 17 is
simply a reworking of chap. 15. Nor does the promise of a son in chap. 18 have to be the
origin of the promise in 17:15 –22. Repeating the promise, like the doubling of dreams,
shows the certainty of fulfillment (41:32).
As for the immediately following chap. 18, it apparently presupposes chap. 17. The
present form of 18:9 –15 appears to be formulated in the knowledge of chap. 17. The
assumption of the etymology of Isaac and the use of the names Abraham and Sarah
introduced in chap. 17 are clear indicators that the writer of chap. 18 knew the substance of
the previous chapter. That Abraham expresses no surprise himself at the announcement is
also easier to explain if chap. 17 is presupposed. Finally, the restatement of the promise of
18:10 in 18:14 includes the phrase ―at the set time‖ from 17:21, which shows knowledge of
that chapter by the compiler of chap. 18.
The parallels between chaps. 17 and 18 may as easily be ascri bed to editorial assimilation
as to independent traditions of the same event. Thus if Gen 17 was once an independent
early tradition, possibly P, it has been reworked by J (cf. Form/Structure/Setting on chaps.
5, 10, 11).
Comment
1 ―When Abram was ninety -nine years old‖ indicates that thirteen years have passed
since the last episode (cf. 16:16). Thirteen years in which Sarah‘s inability to bear children
has been further demonstrated. Thirteen years in which Abraha m‘s hopes of an heir have
focused on Ishmael (17:18). This passing reference to Abraham‘s age thus sets the frame
for the revelation that follows. All aspects of the promises are enhanced in what follows,
but none more so than the promise of descendants th rough Sarah. The mention of
Abraham‘s age obliquely reminds the reader how amazing the divine promise is.
1b–22 The first scene is a divine monologue, once interrupted by Abraham‘s thoughts and
plea for Ishmael (vv 17 –18).
1b ―The LORD appeared to Abram.‖ Elsewhere the personal name ―The LORD‖

(Yahweh) is not used in this chapter, simply God or El Shaddai, the name by which God
was known to the patriarchs according to Exod 6:3. But as in Gen 16:13, the narrative
makes the point that the God who revealed him self to the patriarchs as El was the same
God who spoke to Moses as the LORD.
―I am El Shaddai.‖ Melchizedek knew God as El -Elyon (―God most high,‖ 14:19 –20),
and Hagar called God El -Roi (―God who sees me,‖ 16:13). Here another name of God
compounded with El, the high god of the Canaanite pantheon, is introduced. Indeed, it is
used more often than other epithets of El in Genesis, 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3. Shaddai on
its own appears thirty -one times in Job and occasionally elsewhere. The combination El
Shadd ai (
) occurs only in Genesis, Exod 6:3, and Ezek 10:5.
But the meaning and etymology of the epithet Shaddai is obscure (see Introduction ,
―The Religion of the Patriarchs‖). However, it is always used in connect ion with promises
of descendants: Shaddai evokes the idea that God is able to make the barren fertile and to
fulfill his promises. The LXX sometimes translates it pantokravtwr or Vg omnipotens
―almighty,‖ and the early Jewish etymologizing 
= 
―suff icient‖ + 
―which,‖ i.e., ―he who is sufficient,‖ may not be too far from the ideas evoked by this
title. ―El Shaddai is the God who so constrains nature that it does His will, and so subdues
it that it bows to and subserves grace‖ (Delitzsch, 2:32).
―Walk in my presence and be blameless so that I may put my covenant … ‖ In structure
and content this opening sentence seems to echo 12:1 –2, ―Go … be a blessing … that I may
bless.‖
―Walk in my presence.‖ Enoch and Noah walked with God (5:22, 24; 6:9), but the
patriarchs walked before/in the presence of God (24:40; 48:15). It is doubtful whether the
different preposition makes much difference. Westermann sums up well the meaning of the
phrase: ―God directs Abraham (who here represents Is rael) to live life before him, a life in
which every step is taken looking to God and every day of which is accompanied by him‖
(my translation 2:311; cf. ET 2:259). However, he is wrong to state that this is not a high
demand but somet hing quite natural. When shortly before their deaths Abraham and Jacob
speak of walking before God, they are claiming to have been devout and pious throughout
their lives. And certainly Enoch and Noah are seen as very devout. ―Be blameless‖ ( 
), an ext reme demand; cf. Comment on 6:9. Abraham is expected to emulate Noah‘s
moral perfection.
2 This verse goes straight to the heart of the topic: ―so that I may make my covenant
between me and you.‖ 
―put,‖ lit. ―give,‖ is used only here and Num 25:12 with the object ―covenant.‖ It is not
immediately obvious in what sense God needs to give a covenant to Abraham, as it has
already been inaugurated ( 
―cut‖) in 15:18. But this is clarified later: the chief concern of thi s chapter is to ―confirm‖
or ―ratify‖ (
, vv 7, 19, 21) the covenant, just as the covenant with Noah was confirmed in Gen 9.
Whereas inaugurating the covenant was entirely the result of divine initiative, confirming it
involves a human response, summed up in v 1 by ―walk in my presence and be blameless‖

and spelled out in the demand to circumcise every male. But even though Abraham is now
expected to respond actively to the covenant demands, he is the beneficiary: he will be
multiplied exceedingly. The promise of a multitude of descendants is the key theme of this
chapter. Note too that the phraseology anticipates his new name, 
… 
―I shall multiply … exceedingly‖ is an anagram of Abraham.
3 ―Abram fell on his face.‖ Compare v 17 in which Moses fell on his face when
shocked by the outrageous blasphemy of the people (Num 14:5; 16:4). Joab prostrated
himself before David to show his gratitude (2 Sam 14:22), but prostration is also a proper
and appropriate expression of awe before God (Lev 9:24; Josh 5:14; 7:6). Here Abram, in a
gesture more powerful than words, shows his humility before God and his willingness to
listen.
4–8 The second divine speech picks up terms from the first speech. The covenant
(
) is mentioned three times (vv 4, 7) again, and now, like Noah‘s covenant (9:11, 16), it
is to be confirmed and made eternal. In v 2 God promised to ―make‖ ( 
) a covenant; now he promises to ―make‖ Abraham a father of nations (vv 5, 6) and to
―give‖ him the land of Ca naan as a permanent (eternal) holding. In v 2 Abraham was
assured that he would be multiplied 
―very much/exceedingly.‖ Now the other verb usually paired with ―multiply,‖ ―make
fruitful,‖ is used with the same phrase (v 6).
But this second speech goes well beyond the first. Three times it states that Abraham
will father nations (vv 4, 5, 6), that the covenant and its blessings will be not just for
Abraham but for his descendants after him (vv 7, 8), and that the ultimate covenant
blessing, ―I shall be your God‖ (vv 7, 8), will be his and theirs (cf. Lev 26:12, where this is
also seen as the greatest of all divine benefits).
As befits a scene where Abram‘s name is changed to Abraham, there are several plays
on his name, most obvio usly /} 
―father of a multitude,‖ which almost rhymes with 
―Abraham.‖ But several of the other key words in this passage have identical or similar
consonants suggesting a play on Abraham‘s name, e.g., 
―covenant,‖ 
―multiply,‖ 
―be fruitful,‖ and 
―exceedingly‖ (Strus, Nomen -Omen, 106 –7).
4 The tone of the speech is set by the opening word 
―I‖ ―for my part.‖ What God is doing and will do for Abraham is the subject of this
speech. Here the promissory aspect of the covenant is all -embracing, particularly the
promise of descendants to which this chapter returns time and again. v 2 stated that it was
God‘s intention to ―make‖ his covenant with Abraham. v 4 clarifies this: since there i s
already a covenant with Abraham, God will make him ―father of a multitude of nations.‖
Previously the promise had simply been that Abram should be a great nation (12:2), beyond
counting (16:10). This promise goes much further.
5 The magnitude of the prom ise is marked by the change of Abram‘s name to Abraham,

probably little more than a dialect variant of Abram (cf. Comment on 11:26).
But in traditional societies, and particularly in the OT, names were much more important
than they are today. If for us personal names are little more than labels, in the OT they
express a person‘s character and destiny, at least as the parents perceive them (cf. 4:1, 25;
5:29; 16:15); usually children are named at birth by their parents . Here, however, and later
with Sarah (v 15) and Jacob (32:28), we have God himself dictating a name change in
midlife. This makes the name Abraham more than a pious parental hope that the child may
or may not fulfill but a divinely guaranteed statement ab out Abraham‘s identity and future
destiny. His very name guarantees that he will father many nations.
6 ―I shall make you exceedingly fruitful.‖ Here the root 
, regularly paired with 
―multiply,‖ reappears, linking this verse with v 2. To ―be fruit ful and multiply‖ was the
first command given to man (1:28) and was repeated to Noah (8:17; 9:1, 7). Here a similar
remark is made to Abraham, who, like Adam and Noah, stands at the beginning of an epoch
in human history. God‘s original purpose for mankind , thwarted by the fall and faltering
again in the post -Noah period, is eventually to be achieved by Abraham‘s descendants. It
may be noted that whereas Adam and Noah were simply commanded ―be fruitful‖ (qal
imperative), God makes Abraham a promise, ―I shall make you fruitful‖ (hiphil). This
change of conjugation suggests that Abraham will be given divine power to achieve this
fertility, whereas his predecessors, left simply to themselves, failed.
―Kings shall be descended fr om you.‖ Kingship was implicit in the promise of great
nationhood (12:2), a passage rich in royal ideology. However, here it is made explicit for
the first time. Throughout the Pentateuch, it is anticipated that Israel will one day have a
king, but rarely is it mentioned (17:16; 35:11; 49:10; Num 24:17; Deut 17:14 –20; 28:36).
7 The LORD now adds to the great promise of kingship what are seen in the OT as even
more valuable blessings. The covenant is not to be just between God and Abraham but
between God and Abraham‘s descendants after him. Hitherto he has been promised
descendants (13:16 ) and the land has been promised to them (13:15), but this is the first
occasion that the covenant is extended to include Abraham‘s seed. This makes the covenant
with Abraham like the Noahic covenant, as do the phrases ―I shall confirm my covenant …
for an eternal covenant‖ (9:9, 11, 16). Though the land had been promised in perpetuity
(13:15), this is the first time that the Abrahamic covenant has been described as ―eternal‖ or
that the covenant formula  
―to be your God‖ has appeared. This la tter phrase, used twice here and not again till
28:21, expresses the heart of the covenant, that God has chosen Abraham and his
descendants, so that they are in a unique relationship: he is their God, and they are his
people (cf. Exod 4 :16; 6:7; Lev 11:45; 26:12, 45).
8 Though the promise of land to Abraham‘s descendants is not new (cf. 13:15; 15:18),
this is the first time its title ―Canaan‖ has been used by God, and the description of it as
―the land to which you ha ve migrated‖ (28:4; 36:7; 37:1) is fresh: its use suggests that
Abraham has already lived a long time in Canaan but that he is still an alien there. It will
eventually be their 
―permanent holding,‖ that is, their inalienable property (cf. 48:4; Lev 25:34). But their
tenure of the land is dependent upon the overarching goal of the covenant: ―I shall be their
God.‖
9–14 These verses constitute both the central and the longest divine speech in this chapter,

dealing with circumcis ion, the principal human obligation of the covenant. Its key terms are
―covenant‖ and ―circumcise,‖ both of which occur six times. ―Flesh‖ occurs three times,
and many other words or phrases each occur twice. ―There is no need to think of a
conflation of s ources here, or of additions, as the thought progresses with perfect logic‖
(McEvenue, The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer, 169). The general principle for
observing the covenant is enunciated in v 9. This means circumcision of all males (v 10).
This is the sign of the covenant (v 11). It involves circumcising eight -day-old boys and
slaves who join the household (vv 12 –13). To be uncircumcised is to break the covenant
and will lead to divine retribution (v 14).

Excursus on Circumcision
The rite of circumcision, which involves the removal of the foreskin on the
penis, is practiced in many parts of the world by different tribes. Only in Europe and
Central and East Asia is the custom unknown. In the ancient Near East, the majority
of Israel ‘s neighbors practiced circumcision, including the Egyptians, Canaanites,
and Arabs (cf. Jer 9:24 –25 [25 –26]). Among Israel‘s immediate neighbors, the
Philistines, frequently disparagingly referred to as the unc ircumcised (Judg 14:3),
and the Shechemites, who are described as Hivites, were also uncircumcised (Gen
34:2, 14). It also seems likely that circumcision was not practiced in Mesopotamia.
This is suggested by Ezek 32:21 –24 and by the fact that Abraham was not
circumcised until he came to Canaan.
The significance of the rite outside Israel has been much discussed, but since
those who practice it often have no explanation save tradition, i.e., this is what our
forefathers did, it remains obscure. Philo (Special Laws, 1.2 –11) lists four reasons
given by others for circumcision: (1) for health, to prevent infection, (2) for
purification, (3) for teaching the similarity between procreation and thought, and (4)
for improving fertility. Then he adds two other reasons of his own that he regards as
most important: first, to teach in a symbolic way that a man must remove lust from
himself and control his thoughts; second, to teach that no one can achieve perfection
if he does not remove every evil from his heart.
Modern suggestions include the idea that circumcision is a preparation for
marriage, marks a man‘s coming of age, or is an offering to the deity. Functionally,
it often incorporates a man into society and is a major rite of passage, usually at
puberty. Sometimes it has a magical function, for it is believed to avert sickness and
bad luck.
These last two observations fit Israelite practice. According to Gen 17,
circumcision marks one as a member of the covenant community. Every Israelite
male must be circumcised (17:10 –11). And those who refuse to be circumcised are
warned that they are liable to be ―cut off from their relations‖ (17:14). This sentence
of extirpation is often mentioned in Leviticus (e.g., 7:20–21; 17:4) and is a warning
that the sinner is liable to suffer a sudden mysterious death (cf. Wenham, Leviticus
[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979] 242, 285 –86; H. H. Cohn, ILR 5 [1970] 72).
But circumcision is more spe cifically called ―the sign of the covenant‖ (Gen 17:11). A
consideration of this key phrase is necessary to understand the idea of circumcision in
Scripture. There are three kinds of signs ( 
) in the OT. First, proof signs that convince the observer abo ut something. The plagues

were intended to persuade Pharaoh and Israel of divine sovereignty (Exod 7:3 –5). Second,
certain acts, e.g., acted prophecies, are signs in that they resemble the situation announced
(e.g., Ezek 4:3). Third, certain signs are mnemonic in that they are reminders of something.
Thus the eating of unleavened bread reminds Israel of the exodus and reminds them to keep
the law (Exod 13:9; cf. Deut 6:8; 11:18). The altar covering is a sign warning laymen not to
offer incense (Num 17:3, 5 [16:38, 40]). The sabbath is a sign reminding the people of
Israel that they are called to be God‘s holy people (Exod 31:13). But closest of all to the
usage in Gen 17 is 9:12–17, where the rainbow is said to be the sign of the covenant
between God and all mankind. The rainbow reminds God of his promise never to destroy
the earth with another flood (9:14 –16).
On the basis of the close parallels with the Noahic covenant, Fo x argues that
circumcision, like the rainbow, reminds God of his promise: in this case, that he will
multiply Abraham‘s descendants exceedingly. ―We cannot suppose that it is a
reminder to the Israelites to fulfill some duty, because this covenant requires
nothing of Israel other than circumcision, and circumcision cannot be a reminder of
itself‖ ( RB 81 [1974] 595). However, unlike the rainbow, it is not said that
circumcision reminds God of his promises. And though the covenant with Abrah am
does have many parallels with that made with Noah, in other respects circumcision
is much closer to the other cultic obligations placed on Israel, such as passover and
the sabbath, which clearly were intended to remind Israel of its status as the LORD‘s
people and their obligations to keep the law. And despite Fox, it is not true that
there are no other duties imposed on Israel. God‘s speech to Abraham begins ―Walk
in my presence and be blameless‖ (17:2). The permanent marking of the body
reflects the et ernity of the covenant between God and Israel (17:7, 13, 19). The
marking of a man‘s most intimate member with the sign of the covenant coupled
with the call to blamelessness may well have prompted prophetic criticism of
Israelites as uncircumcised in hear t and ears (Jer 6:10; 9:24 –25[25 –26]). The people
of Israel were called to love God with all their heart, soul, and might, and the rite of
circumcision reminded them of this. This does not exclude the notion that
circumcision may also have reminded God of his promises, but it seems likely that
its primary function was manward, to remind the Israelite man to walk blamelessly
with God, as Noah and Abraham did.
9 God‘s side of the covenant promise had been stated in vv 3 –8; now Abraham‘s
obligations are stated , ―As for you,‖ but the phraseology closely echoes v 7 (―covenant,‖
―generations,‖ ―you and your descendants after you‖). ―Observe my covenant.‖ Though
both the verb 
―observe‖ and the noun ―covenant‖ are very common, this combination is rare,
occurring but thirteen times: seven times the LORD is described as observing covenant and
steadfast love (e.g., Deut 7:9), and three times (here, v 10, and Exod 19:5) Israel is ur ged to
observe the covenant.
10 Here the command to observe the covenant is repeated, this time in the plural. Plural
suffixes are also used on 
―between you‖ and on 
―all your males.‖ The covenant is not just with Abraham but with his whole group an d
his descendants —―males.‖ Though female circumcision is practiced among some peoples,

the OT especially emphasizes the necessity for men to participate in religion (Exod 23:17;
34:23; Deut 16:16). Restricting circumcision to men is of a piece with this at titude.
11 After stating the general principle that all males must be circumcised, the law now
goes into specific detail. First, it specifies where it is to be performed: ―the flesh of your
foreskin,‖ lit. ―of your uncircumcision.‖ On ―the sign of the covenant,‖ see ―Excursus on
Circumcision‖ above.
12 Next, the timing and the subjects of circumcision are defined more precisely. ―All
your males‖ (v 10) covers all baby boys eight days old. Ritual acts at weekly intervals
(eight days reckoned inclusively is a week) are often prescribed in Leviticus. Circumcision
covers all boys born in the household, whether freeborn or sons of slaves. In their case,
circumcision is done at eight days. ―But in the case of those bought from foreigners,‖ it is
implied that they must be circumcised when they join Abraham‘s household, i.e., when they
are purchased. Sarna (125) argues that the OT‘s insistence that circumcision should
normally be carried out eight days after birth, not at puberty or prior to marriage as is
commonly the case in other societies, represents the radical reinterpretation of a social
custom as a covenantal symbol.
13 This verse underlines that all male members of the household, whatever their origin,
must submit to circu mcision.
14 Adults may, of course, be reluctant to undergo circumcision, and a warning of the
consequences is appended. ―An uncircumcised male … shall be cut off from his relations.‖
This sentence is often invoked against offenses that tend to be committed in secret, where
the threat of divine punishment would be the main deterrent (e.g., Lev 18:29; 19:8; 20:3,
5–6, 17 –18). Though it has been supposed to involve excommunication from the
community, to be ―cut off‖ seems more likely to be divine punishment resulting in the
offender‘s untimely death. ―The threat of being ‗cut off‘ by the hand of God, in His own
time, hovers over the offender constantly and inescapably; he is not unlike the patient who
is told by his doctors that his disease is incurable and that he might die any day‖ (H. H.
Cohn, ILR 5 [1970] 72; cf. W. Horbury, VT 35 [1985] 31 –33).
―He has broken my covenant.‖ Breaking ( 
) the covenant is the oppo site of observing ( 
; vv 9, 10) or confirming ( 
) it (v 7). But whereas God observes and confirms covenants, he never breaks them
(Judg 2:1), though man frequently does. When a man breaks a woman‘s vow, it is made
void. When he says nothing, the vow is confirmed or ratified (Num 30). With both vows
and covenants, only the superior party may confirm or break them, so as to terminate them.
The inferior party may choose to observe or break them, but in this case the covenant is not
terminated. The non -observer simply brings on himself the threats built into the covenant,
in this case ―being cut off‖ (cf. Deut 28:15; Isa 24:5).
15–16 The fourth speech does not build on the third; it takes an entirely new turn. For
the first time, a pro mise is specifically addressed to Sarai. Hitherto the LORD has promised
to bless Abraham (12:2 –3) and has promised to give him children, but it has never been
made quite clear how this is to be achieved. By referring more than once to Sarah‘s old age,
the narrator has led us to suppose that she is to be the mother of Abraham‘s child, but this
has never been made explicit. Chap. 16 shows that Sarah herself at least supposed surrogate
motherhood using Hagar might have been the answer. That indeed provided Abr aham with
a son and Hagar with promises about his future, but nothing was said about Sarah.

There are close parallels with vv 4 –8, the second speech. There the narrative prepared
us for the momentously significant name change; here it is sprung without exp lanation.
Sarah is just an alternative pronunciation of Sarai; they both mean ―princess.‖ Then comes
the explanation. Twice God says ―I shall bless her‖ and ―I shall give you a son from her.‖
This may sound quite prosaic, but every word is significant. Bac k in 15:3 Abraham had
complained ―You have not given me descendants.‖ Since then the LORD has given him the
land (15:18) and a covenant (17:2) but no son except Hagar‘s. Now there is to be a son for
him from Sarah. Indeed, the nations and kings promised to Abraham in v 6 are to be
descended from Sarah.
17–18 The promises to Sarah are abruptly, even rudely, interrupted. As Westermann notes,
such an interruption is most uncharacteristic of P (2:267). But this break gives a chance for
the promises to be reiter ated even more emphatically in what follows. And as Abraham
voices his incredulity, this allows the reader‘s own doubts to be raised as well.
17 The narrative makes Abraham‘s astonishment very clear in three ways. First,
―Abraham fell on his face,‖ a gestu re of awe, amazement, and gratitude (cf. v 3). In itself,
prostration is ambiguous: clearly it indicates that Abraham found the remarks about Sarah
more amazing than his own name change and the command to circumcise his household.
But i s he showing faith? ―And laughed,‖ his second astonished response, indicates the
opposite; he is not simply laughing with joy, as Jacob maintains. Sarah‘s laughter in Gen
18:12 –15 clearly expresses unbelief. Yet the very word 
―and laughed‖ spells ―A nd Isaac.‖ So in laughing at God‘s promise, Abraham
unwittingly confirms it. Third, he is so overcome by the announcement that he can hardly
think straight. The way he frames his doubt, ―Can a man … give birth?‖ combines two
different constructions for a d ouble -barreled question (see n. 17.c.). To smooth his
grammar, various emendations have been proposed. However, they are unnecessary.
Probably the confused syntax reflects Abraham‘s inward confusion. He is so overcome by
the announcement that he changes th e sentence structure in midstream.
From a human perspective, Abraham‘s doubts, ―Can a hundred -year-old man become a
father or Sarah, a ninety -year-old woman, give birth?‖ seem completely justified. Partly for
this reason and partly because he had not uttered them aloud, Abraham‘s thoughts are not
rebuked. Indeed, his plea, in which he indirectly expresses his unbelief, ―May Ishmael live
in your presence!‖ is treated with g reat consideration. Superficially, this is just a prayer that
God‘s care and protection will be granted to Ishmael (cf. Hos 6:2), but in not taking up the
promise of a son through Sarah, Abraham shows his reservations.
19–21 But God, wh o knows man‘s thoughts and hears our unspoken as well as our
spoken prayers, addresses Abraham‘s doubts directly. This final speech has a well -ordered
palistrophic structure.
A Sarah will bear a son … Isaac (19a)
B I shall confirm my covenant with him (19b )
C Ishmael (20)
B1 I shall confirm my covenant with Isaac (21a)
C1 Sarah will bear next year (21b)
19 God rebukes Abraham very firmly. His doubt is emphatically contradicted by the
opening 

―indeed‖ instead of 
―behold,‖ which is more usual in an announcement scene (Neff, BR 15 [1970] 14). It
then continues in the standard fashion, giving the child‘s name, Isaac, and future destiny.
The name Isaac is typical of early second -millennium Amorite names, consisting of a verb
in the imperfect and a divine name (cf. Ishmael or Israel). Thus it is usually surmised that
the full name of Isaac was Isaac -el, just as the full name of Jacob was probably Jacob -el. If

is the correct full name of Isaac, then it may be translated ―The god El laughs/smiles/looks
with favor‖ (cf. Berger, UF 1 [1969] 216). Like the name Ishmael, it records divine mercy in
granting the child‘s birth. Another possibility is that Isaac is not a shortening of Isaac -el but
a name in its own right and refers to the laughter and pleasure of the parents over the chil d.
Hence it could be interpreted ―(The father) laughs/smiles.‖ However, as usual with names,
the Bible is not interested in a historic etymology so much as in the associations evoked by
the name. Wherever the name Isaac is discussed, it is associated with the verb 
―to laugh‖ or in the piel ―make sport of‖ and reflects the skeptical laughter of his parents
when told of his birth (v 17; 18:12 –15) or Ishmael‘s mistreatment of him (21:9).
Earlier, God had promised that he would confirm his eternal covenant with Abraham
and his descendants (17:7). Now this promise is focused on the as -yet-unborn Isaac. ―I shall
confirm my covenant with him.‖ By implication, this excludes Ishmael.
20 The exclusion of Ishmael from the eternal covenant is now spelled out. But
Abraham‘s prayer for him is answered. Note the play on Ishmael‘s name, 
―I have heard you.‖ Furthermore, as the son of Abraham, he is to enjoy the blessing of
multiplication and fruitfulness. The order to ―be fruitful and multiply‖ was given to all
mankind (1:28; 9:1), but Ishmael is guaranteed divine success in fulfilling this duty. Indeed,
he will become ―a great nation‖ just as had originally been promised to Abraham (12:2). In
this chapter, of course, Abraham‘s sights have been set higher: he is t o father a multitude of
nations, and kings are to be descended from him. Ishmael is to become just a great nation,
and twelve ―princes‖ are to come from him. 
means ―prince‖ or ―tribal leader.‖ Later, of course, Israel was to be divided into twelve
tribes headed by ―princes‖ (cf. Num 7), but here the narrative looks forward to the twelve
tribes descended from Ishmael (25:13 –16).
21 But however splendid the prospect in store for Ishmael, the covenant is to be with
Isaac, who is to be born in just a year‘s time. For twenty -five years the hope of offspring
has been dangled intermittently before Abraham, but nothing ever seemed to happen.
Abraham has confessed his own despair to God, and now suddenly he is assured that in
only a year‘s t ime his elderly wife will give birth. God‘s promises in this chapter have been
breathtaking in their scope and serve to give the stories about Abraham a new sense of
direction. But this last phrase does more: it raises the tension of the narrative and inje cts a
feeling of suspense and drama into it.
22 To draw attention to God‘s dramatic exit, the end of his speech is described much
more fully than usual. Usually nothing is said about God ceasing to speak or going away:
he just stops and the next event is d escribed (cf. 18:33; 35:13). Here it is solemnly stated
―he stopped talking to him, and God went away from Abraham.‖
23 This verse constitutes the second scene in the story of the covenant of circumcision.
Its brevity, especially in contrast with the lengthy first scene filled with five divine
speeches, is striking. This terseness conveys the new sense of urgency that the last remark,

―this time next year,‖ has engendered. Abraham looks forward impatiently to its fulfillment
and therefore acts promptly, ―that very day.‖ But the listing of all those circumcised
carefully echoes v 12 to insist that Abraham‘s obedience was not merely prompt; it was
exact, ―as God had spoken to him.‖
24–27 The epilogue rounding off the story with a note of the age of Abraham and Ishmael
is much longer than usual (cf. 16:16; 13:18; 12:9; 21:34). It not only gives this
chronolo gical detail but mentions all the other men who were circumcised at the same time.
The prolixity of this epilogue counterbalances the compression of v 23, which might lead
one to suppose that the act of circumcision was not really important. On the contrar y, by
repeating the phrase ―that very day,‖ the narrator stresses that the day Abraham circumcised
his family was one of the turning points in world history, comparable to Noah‘s entry into
the ark or the exodus from Egypt (cf. 7:13; Ex od 12:17, 41, 51).
Explanation
This most significant episode in the Abraham cycle begins rather dully with a note
about his age, ―When Abram was ninety -nine.‖ Yet this remark is important, for it puts the
momentous promises that constitute the centerpiece of this episode in context and makes it
possible for us to appreciate how amazing they are. They are addressed to a man and his
wife well past the age of childbearing in modern and ancient experience (cf. 17:17). The
note about Abram‘s age also links this story with the account of Ishmael‘s birth in the
previous chapter. In the thirteen years that have elapsed since, Abram has, it may be
assumed, accepted that Sarai‘s infertility is incurable and that Ishmael is his sole heir
through who m the divine promises will be fulfilled.
In its arrangement, chap.17 closely parallels chap. 16 (see Form/Structure/Setting ), but
this similarity really underlines the way that the promise of Isaac‘s birth far outstrips the
promises about Ishmael in import ance. This is at once hinted at by ―The LORD appeared,‖
which intimates that something of great import is about to be announced. It was simply the
angel of the LORD who had spoken to Hagar (16:9 –11); here ―the LORD‖ himself ―appears,‖
a remark signaling ne w or important revelation (cf. 12:7; 18:1; 26:2).
Furthermore, the LORD here introduces himself by the preferred name of the patriarchal
era, ―I am El Shaddai.‖ Its etymology is obscure, but wherever it is used in Genesis, it is
associa ted with divine omnipotence, his ability to fulfill his promises and especially to
make the barren fertile (28:3; 35:11; 48:3). But the power and grace of this God of
Abraham is also complemented by his moral demands. ―Walk in my presence and be
blameless‖ expresses the expectation that Abram‘s piety and behavior must match that of
the greatest saints of the old covenant, of men like Enoch and Noah who walked with God
and were blameless (5:22; 6:9).
―So that I may make my covenant and multiply you exceedingly.‖ This reference to making
a covenant surprises in that a covenant has already been initiated with Abram in chap. 15.
So too the promise to ―multiply very much,‖ an anagram containing Abram‘s new name, is
at first mysterious, for this had also been promised long before (cf. 13:16; 15:5). Yet both
the nature of the covenant with Abram and the identity of descendants are the key themes
of this chapter, so that this mysterious intr oduction exactly indicates its contents. But
clearly it was the presence of the LORD rather than his opening words that prompted Abram
to prostrate himself in humble awe.
The second divine speech goes right to the heart of the matter. Abram is not simply t o

become a great nation (12:2) but to be the ―father of a multitude of nations.‖ His name,
given by his parents, is changed to Abraham, ―father of a multitude,‖ by God himself as an
unforgettable guarantee of the fulfillment of this promise. Furthermore, h e is assured ― I
shall make you exceedingly fruitful‖ (v 6). Abram and Noah had simply been told to ―be
fruitful‖ (1:28; 9:1). Here the creator promises to give what he commands. Abraham will be
enabled to achieve the impossible through divine aid (cf. Phil 4:13). Furthermore, through
him God‘s plans for humanity, often frustrated by sin, will at length be realized. Indeed,
―kings shall be descended from you.‖ Given the ancient concept of nationhood, the promise
that Abraham would father a multitude of nations involved the idea that kings would be
descended from him, but here it is made explicit to underline the seriousness of the
promises of descendants. It may also suggest that Abraham‘s offspring will fulfill the other
aspect of man‘s o riginal mandate ―to fill the earth and subdue it‖ (1:28).
Just as important, however, are the fresh remarks about the covenant (vv 7 –8). Already
implicit in 12:1 –3 and explicit in 15:18, it is now defined more precisely with a view to its
confirmation or r atification. This covenant is not simply between God and Abraham but
between God and Abraham‘s descendants ―after you throughout their generations.‖ It is to
be an ―eternal covenant.‖ Though ―eternal‖ may simply mean ―without predetermined
end,‖ comparison of God‘s promise to Abraham, with that made to Noah, also termed an
―eternal covenant‖ (9:16), shows that a permanent relationship is envisaged, as durable as
life itself (cf. 8:20–22; 9:11). Eternal, too, is Israel‘s tenure of the la nd of Canaan, here
named by God for the first time: Canaan is a region whose political boundaries are clearly
defined in thirteenth – and fourteenth -century Egyptian texts; it corresponds roughly to the
modern state of Israel together with part of southern Syria and Lebanon. Abraham had
migrated to Canaan; it is now ceded to him as a permanent holding. Finally, and most
important of all, the essential heart of the covenant is defined: ―I shall be their God.‖ I, El
Shaddai, the omnipotent creator of the world and redeemer of mankind, will be Israel‘s
God. This nation descended from Abraham is to be unique, because unlike the other
nations, Israel enjoys a unique relationship with the only true God. This relationship is the
basis of all subsequent divine interv entions on the nation‘s behalf (cf. Exod 6:7; Deut 29:12
[13]; Jer 24:7; 32:38; Ezek 11:20; 34:24; Zech 8:8).
These mind -bursting promises demand a response. But by comparison with the
obligations God has taken upon himself for the bene fit of Abraham‘s descendants, the
duties imposed on Abraham are quite slight (vv 9 –14). He is to institute the circumcision of
all the males in his household, a practice well -known in the ancient Near East but here
invested with a peculiar significance. Th e ineradicable mark of circumcision reflects the
eternity of the covenant, the permanent bond between God and Israel (v 13). It is a sign of
the covenant (v 11) that reminds the Israelite of his special spiritual relationship and of his
obligation to walk before God and be perfect.
Though circumcision is quite an easy custom to enforce, at least on eight -day-old baby
boys, the speech goes into considerable detail, specifying that every male member of the
household, slave and freeman, must submit to this rit e. Total commitment is required of
Abraham and his household. Failure to comply is to ―break the covenant.‖ Covenants
broken by man are not terminated; rather the covenant sanctions come into play (cf. Isa
24:5–6), here the threat of be ing cut off: a sudden untimely death hangs over the head of the
man who fails to carry out the obligation of being circumcised (v 14).
At this point, one might have anticipated that the LORD would have stopped speaking.
Both sides of the covenant have been explained. The natural next step would have been to

report Abraham‘s obedience: how he circumcised his household as God commanded. But
instead God goes on talking, and indeed the narrative tension rises dramatically. Suddenly
God announces that Sarai‘s na me must be changed to Sarah. There is no difference in
meaning, so the significance of the change is not immediately apparent. God had prefaced
his name -change of Abraham by explaining why he was doing it. Abram was to become
―father of a multitude of nati ons … kings shall be descended from you‖ (vv 4, 6). Could
this be the reason behind Sarai‘s new name? The narrative does not leave us in suspense
long. ―I shall bless her, and I shall give you a son from her.‖ Nations and indeed kings will
be descended fro m her (vv 15 –16).
This bombshell stuns Abraham as much as did the original revelation of the LORD. He
again falls on his face and laughs, thinking ―Can a hundred -year-old man become a father
or Sarah, a ninety -year-old woman, give birth?‖ The omniscient na rrator‘s insight into
Abraham‘s feelings at this moment allows us to identify with his unbelief and to share in
the divine reassertion of these amazing promises. He does, however, put his doubts
positively in the form of a prayer for his son, ―May Ishmael live in your presence.‖
The LORD is not put off by this. In a final dramatic speech, he emphatically reaffirms
that Sarah will have a child to be named Isaac, a name already anticipated by Abraham‘s
laughter (v 17). This yet -to-be-conceived Isaac is going to see the confirmation of the
eternal covenant. Ishmael is not forgotten: princes, not kings, will descend from him, and
he will become a great nation, but Isaac is the one with whom the covenant will be
confirmed. And ―Sarah will bear him this time next year.‖ With this final astonishing
remark, God left Abraham. More than twenty -five years of childlessness had surely proved
Sarah could never conceive. But what Abraham thought is not recorded: the reader is
simply left to fill it in for himself.
Though Ab raham‘s thoughts are left unrecorded, his deeds are not. His prompt and total
obedience to the divine injunction to circumcise his household is recorded: ―that very day.‖
Beginning with his son Ishmael, on whom all his hopes had rested hitherto, Abraham
circumcised all the men of his household, including himself. Whatever his doubts about the
possibility of Sarah conceiving, they did not prevent Abraham from obeying God‘s
commands. And his obedience as well as the content of the revelation itself make this day
one of the greatest days in redemptive history: ―that very day‖ is a phrase used elsewhere to
describe the day the flood came and the day Israel left Egypt (7:13; Exod 12:17). Thus from
first to last, the narrator indicates the importance of what is re corded here: the covenant
promises are the charter for Israel and are enormous in their scope, yet God can fulfill them
just as surely as he made good his promise of a son to Abraham.
Within the book of Genesis, the importance of this episode is obvious: t he birth of Isaac is
the indispensable next step if God‘s promises are to be fulfilled. The rest of the book tells
how indeed Isaac was born within a year and relates the story of his life and his
descendants. Without him there would have been no Israel.
But Israel‘s national character as the people of the LORD who lived in the land of
Canaan depended on the eternal covenant between God and Abraham‘s descendants. The
covenant announced here was the basis of the nation‘s existence. That God made an eternal
covenant with Abraham and his descendants is the assumption of the rest of the OT, even
though the phrase ―eternal covenant‖ is not all that common (Ps 105:10). On this covenant
rested Israel‘s claim to the land of Canaan and to a unique relationship with G od. So at
turning points in their careers God reaffirms these promises to Isaac (26:3 –5) and Jacob
(28:13 –15). It is the motive for the exodus (Exod 6:4 –6) and the guarantee of the conquest,

as Deuteronomy persistently reiterates (e.g., 9:5). But more than that, even when Israel
rebels and disregards the covenant, bringing upon herself the curse of exile, the covenant is
not thereby invalidated: national repentance will lead to national restoration, as Lev
26:40 –45 and Deut 30:1–10 affirm.
So when the nation lost its freedom and was deported to Babylonia, the prophets spoke
encouragingly about the permanence of the covenant relationship (Isa 24:5). In particular
they looked forward to a new and eternal covenant: new in that t his time Israel, not just the
LORD, would observe it loyally (Jer 31:31 –37; 32:40; Ezek 16:60; 37:26). Indeed, through
this new and eternal covenant, all nations would be blessed (Isa 55:3; 61:8).
The NT, of course, sees these predictions of the new covena nt as fulfilled in Christ, and
especially by the incorporation of the Gentiles into the people of God (Acts 15:16 –18; Eph
3:1–6; Heb 8:8 –13). But though the scope and the validity of these promises are extended
in the epistles, this reinterpretation does n ot undermine their old narrow sense, according to
Paul. His long discussion of the place of Israel in the divine plan (Rom 9 –11) proceeds on
the assumption that God‘s promises to Abraham are still valid despite Jewish unbelief. God
has not rejected his peo ple (Rom 11:1), ―for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable‖
(Rom 11:29). So he anticipates that one day ―all Israel will be saved‖ (Rom 11:26).
The human obligation of this covenant, the rite of circumcision, is, of course, equally
fundamental to t he OT and to Judaism, but like the eternity of the covenant, it is rarely
mentioned. It is simply assumed that all Abraham‘s descendants will be circumcised (so
21:4; 34:15, 17, 22, 24). More frequent are references to the uncircumcised nations
surrounding Israel, which show that it was a custom taken for granted within Israel. It is the
sign of the covenant, which reminds its possessor of his obligation to walk before God and
be perfect. Submission to it expresses submission to God and humility before him (Lev
26:41; Deut 10:16). Thus the disobedient generation in the wilderness who allowed the
practice to lapse had to be circumcised before they could take possession of the land of
Canaan (Josh 5:2 –7).
Several passages (Lev 26:41; Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4) speak of the circumcision of the
heart, suggesting that the rite itself expressed faith and obedience to God. And it is this
spiritual aspect of circumcision that Paul stresses in expounding the new relationship
between God and man inaugurated by the deat h of Christ (Rom 2 –4). ―Real circumcision is
a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal‖ (Rom 2:29). So he argued violently against
those in Galatia who wanted to make circumcision an obligation for Gentile converts. Such
an idea blurs the truth that salvation is found through faith in Christ, not through works of
the law. But this is not to say that Paul regarded circumcision as wrong for Christians of
Jewish descent. Just as he regarded the covenant with Abraham as still valid for the Jew, he
still regarded it as appropriate for Timothy to be circumcised (Acts 16:3: cf. Gal 2:3). For
Paul, the universal applicability of the gospel did not make the old covenant and its
obligations redundant for those born into it; rather, its exten sion to the Gentiles underlines
the astonishing mercy of God.
Seventeen hundred years after Paul, Frederick the Great asked his physician for a proof
of the existence of God. ―Your majesty, the Jews,‖ he replied. Two hundred years later,
after the holocaus t and the establishment of the state of Israel, readers of Gen 17 even more
skeptical than Frederick might be forced to agree.

The Overthrow of Sodom and
Gomorrah (18:1 –19:38)
Alexander, T. D. ―Lot‘s Hospitality: A Clue to His Righteousness.‖ JBL 104 (1985) 289 –91.Alston,
W. M. ―Genesis 18:1 –11.‖ Int 42 (1988) 397 –402. Alter, R. ―How Convention Helps Us Read: The
Case of the Bible‘s Annunciation Type -Scene.‖ Prooftexts 3 (1983) 115 –30. ——— . ―Sodom as
Nexus: The Web of Design in Biblical Narrative.‖ Tikkun 1.1 (1986) 30 –38. Andersen, F. I. ―A
Short Note on Construct k in Hebrew.‖ Bib 50 (1969) 68 –69. Balentine, S. E. ―Prayers for Justice in
the OT: Theodicy and Theology.‖ CBQ 51 (1989) 597 –616. Baumgarten, A. ―A Note on the Book
of Ruth.‖ JANESCU 5 (1973) 11 –15. Begrich, G. ―Die Freundlichkeit Gottes als Grundform
theologischen Redens: Ein Nachdenken über Gen 18:1 –16a.‖ EvT 49 (1989) 218 –31. Ben Zvi, E.
―The Dialogue between Abraham and YHWH in Gen 18:23 –32: A Historical –Critical Analysis.‖
JSOT 53 (1992) 27 –46. Blenkinsopp, J. ―Abraham and the Righteous of Sodom.‖ JJS 33 (1982)
119–32. ——— . ―The Judge of All the Earth: Theodicy in the Midrash on Gen 18:22 –33.‖ JJS 41
(1990) 1 –12. Brueggemann, W. ―‗Impossibility‘ and Epistemology in the Faith Tradition of
Abraham and Sarah (Gen 18:1 –15).‖ ZAW 94 (1982) 615 –34. Brunner, H. ―Gen 19 und das
‗Frauenverbrechen.‘‖ BN 44 (1988) 21 –22. Childs, B. S. ―Anticipatory Titles in Hebrew Narrative.‖
In Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World III: I. L. Seeligman Volume , ed. A. Rofé and Y.
Zakovitch. Jerusalem: Rubinstein‘s, 1983. 57–65. Coats, G. W. ―Lot: A Foil in the Abraham Saga.‖
In Understanding the Word: FS B. W. Anderson , ed. J. T. Butler, E. W. Conrad, and B. C.
Ollenburger. JSOTSup 37. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. 113 –32. Deurloo, K. A. ―Narrative
Geography in the Abraham Cycle.‖ OTS 26 (1990) 48 –62. Fields, W. W. ―The Motif ‗Night as
Danger‘ associated with Three Biblical Destruction Narratives.‖ In ― Sha>arei Talmon ‖: Studies in
the Bible, Qumran and the Ancient Near East presented to S. Talmon , ed. M. Fishbane and E. Tov.
Winona Lake: Eisenbrau ns, 1992. 17 –32. Fisch, H. ―Ruth and the Structure of Covenant History.‖
VT 32 (1982) 425 –37. Goodman, D. ―Do Angels Eat?‖ JJS 37 (1986) 160 –75. Gruber, M. I. ―The
Many Faces of Hebrew 
‗lift up the face.‘‖ ZAW 95 (1983) 252 –60. Haag, H. ―Abraham und Lot in Gen 18 –19.‖ In
Mélanges bibliques et orientaux : FS M. Henri Cazelles , ed. A. Caquot and M. Delcor. AOAT 212.
Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker, 1981. 173 –99. Hattem, W. C. van. ―Once Again: Sodom and
Gomorrah.‖ BA 44 (1981) 87 –92. Jeansonne, S. P. ―The C haracterization of Lot in Genesis.‖ BTB
18 (1988) 123 –29. Keel, O. ―Wer zerstörte Sodom?‖ TZ 35 (1979) 10 –17. Kilian, R. ―Nachtrag und
Neuorientierung: Anmerkungen zum Jahwisten in den Abrahamserzählungen.‖ In Die Väter
Israels: FS J. Scharbert , ed. M. Görg. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989. 155 –67. Klein,
J.-P. ―Que se passe -t-il en Genè se 18?‖ Le point théologique 24 (1977) 75 –98. Krasûovec, J. ―Der
Ruf nach Gerechtigkeit in Gen 18:16 –33.‖ In Die Väter Israels: FS J. Scharbert , ed. M. Görg.
Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989. 169 –82. Kümpel, R. ―Die ‗ Begegnungstradition‘ von
Mamre.‖ In Bausteine biblischer Theologie: FS G. J. Botterweck , ed. H.-J. Fabry. BBB 50. Köln:
Hanstein, 1977. 147 –68. Lasine, S. ―Guest and Host in Judges 19: Lot‘s Hosp itality in an Inverted
World.‖ JSOT 29 (1984) 37 –59. Loretz, O. ―k>t hyh ‗wie jetzt ums Jahr‘: Gen 18:10.‖ Bib 43
(1962) 75 –78. Mafico, T. J. ―The Crucial Question concerning the Justice of God.‖ JTSoA 42
(1983) 11 –16. Massignon, L. ―Die drei Gebete Abrahams.‖ IKZ 4 (1975) 19 –28. Matthews, V. H.
―Hospitality and Hostility in Gen 19 and Judg 19.‖ BTB 22 (1992) 3 –11. Niditch, S. ―The
‗Sodomite‘ Theme in Judges 19 –20: Family, Community, and Social Disintegration.‖ CBQ 44
(1982) 365 –78. Peacock, H. F. `Translating ‗Mercy,‘ ‗Steadfast Love‘ in the Book of Genesis.‖ BT
31 (1980) 201 –7. Porter, J. R. ―The Daughters of Lot.‖ Folklore 89 (1978) 127 –41. Rodd, C. S.
―Shall Not the Judge of All the Earth Do What Is Just (Gen 18:25).‖ ExpTim 83 (1971/72) 137 –39.
Rudin -O’Brasky, T. The Patriarchs in Hebron and Sodom (Gen 18 –19): A Study of the Structure

and Composition of a Biblical Story. (Heb.) Jerusalem: Simor, 1982. Schmidt, L. ―De Deo‖:
Studien zur Literarkritik und Theologie des Buches Jona, des Gesprächs zwischen Abraham und
Jahwe in Gen 18:22ff und von Hi 1. BZAW 143. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1976. Schweizer, H.
―Determinat ion, Textdeixis —erläutert an Gen 18:23 –33.‖ VT 33 (1983) 113 –18. ——— . ―Das
seltsame Gespräch von Abraham und Jahwe (Gen 18:22 –33).‖ TQ 164 (1984) 121 –39. Ska, J. L.
―L‘arbre et la tente: la fonction du dé cor en Gen 18:1 –15.‖ Bib 68 (1987) 383 –89. Stol, M.
―Blindness and Night -Blindness in Akkadian.‖ JNES 45 (1986) 295 –99. Tapp, A. M. ―An Ideology
of Expendability: Virgin Daughter Sacrifice in Gen 19:1 –11, Judg 11:30 –39 and 19:22 –26.‖ In
Anti-Covenant: Counter -Reading Women‘s Lives in the Hebrew Bible , ed. M. Bal. JSOTSup 81.
Sheffield: Almond Press , 1989. 157 –74. Turner, L. A. ―Lot as Jekyll and Hyde.‖ In The Bible in
Three Dimensions , ed. D. J. A. Clines, S. E. Fowl, and S. E. Porter. JSOTSup 87. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. 85 –101. Uffenheimer, B. ―Gen 18 –19, A New Approach.‖ In
Mélanges A. Neher , ed. E. A. Levy -Valensi. Paris: Librairie d‘Amérique et d‘Orient, 1975. 145 –53.
Vogels, W. ―Lot, père de s incroyants.‖ EgT 6 (1975) 139 –51. Weisman, Z. ―Ethnology, Etiology,
Genealogy, and Historiography in the Tale of Lot and His Daughters (Gen 19:30 –38).‖ (Heb.) In
―Sha>arei Talmon ‖: Studies in the Bible, Qumran and the Ancient Near East presented to S.
Talmon , ed. M. Fishbane and E. Tov. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992. 43 –52. Wenham, G. J.
―Attitudes to Homosexuality in the OT.” ExpTim 102 (1991) 359 –63. ——— .―Method in
Pentateuchal Source Criticism.‖ VT 41 (1991) 84 –109. Wolff, H. W. ―Sodom und Gomorrha:
Predigt über 1. Mose 19:1 –29.‖ In Werden und Wirken des Alten Testaments: FS C. Westermann ,
ed. R. Albertz. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1980. 131 –37. Xella, P. ―L‘épisode de Dnil et Kothar
(KTU 1:17 [= CTA 17] 5:1 –31) et Gen 18:1 –16.‖ VT 28 (1978) 483 –88. Yaron, R. ―kaµ>eth
h•iayyah and koh leh•ay. ‖ VT 12 (1962) 500 –501. Young, J. B. de. ―The Contributions of the
Septuagint to Biblical Sanctions against Homosexuality.‖ JETS 34 (1991) 157 –77. Zakovitch, Y.
―Explicit and Implicit Name -Derivations.‖ HAR 4 (1980) 167 –81. ——— . ―The Threshing -Floor
Scene in Ruth and the Daughters of Lot.‖ (Heb.) Shnaton 3 (1978/79) 29 –33.
Translation
1The LORD appeared to him at the oaks of Mamre, a as he was sitting inb the
doorway of his tent inc the midday heat.a2 He looked up and noticeda three men standing
by him. Seeing them, he ranb from the door of his tent toward themc and bowedd himself
to the ground. 3 He said, ―Sir,a if indeedb youc have favored me, pleaseb do not leave
yourc servant. 4 Takea a little water and wash your feet and rest yourselvesb under the
tree, 5 so that I may fetcha a bit of food and revive your spirits. Afterwards you can go
on. b For this is whyb you have come, for your servant‘s benefit.‖ They said, ―All right,
do as you have said.‖
6a Abraham hurrieda into the tentb to Sarah and said, ―Hurry,c three seahs of best
wheat flour, kneadc it, and makec loaves.‖ 7a Meanwhile Abraham dashedab to the cattle,
took a fine tender bull, gave it to ac lad who hurried to make it ready. 8 Then he took
yogurt and milk and the bull which he had made ready and he set it before them. a
While he stood under the tree waitingb on them,a they ate.
9They said to him,a ―Where is your wife Sarah?‖ He said, ―Thereb in the tent.‖ 10
He said, ―I shall certainlya come back to you next year,b and Sarah your wife is going
to have a son.‖ c Now Sarah was listening atd the door of the tent, whichc was behind
him.e‖11 And Abraham and Sarah were old,a well on in years, andb Sarah c was past the
menopause.c12 So Sarah laughed to herself thinking, ―After I am worna out, shall I haveb

pleasure? c And my husband is old too.‖c13 Then the LORD said to Abraham, ―Whya did
Sarah laugh, thinking ‗Shall I evenb I reallyc give birth as d I am old?‘de14 Is anything
too difficulta for the LORD ? At the set time next yearb I shall come back to you, and
Sarah will have a son.‖ 15 Sarah denied it. ―I did not laugh,‖ she said, because she was
frightened. But he said, ―No ta so;b you did laugh.‖
16Then the men stooda up there and lookeda out over Sodom, and b Abraham was
going with them to accompanyc them.c
17a But the LORD thought: ―Shall I hideb from Abraham what I am about to do?c18
For Abraham is indeeda to become a great and powerful nation, and all the nations of
the earth will find blessingb in him. 19 For I have chosena him in order that he may
direct his children and his household after him that they may observe the LORD‘s way to
dob righteousness and equity so that the LORD may bringc on Abraham what he has
spoken about.‖20 So the LORD said: ―The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeeda
great, and theirb sin is indeeda very serious. 21 I wanta to go down and see if they b
deserve destructionb as implied by the outcryc which has comed to me about it,e and if
not, I wanta to know.‖
22Then the men turneda from there and went toward Sodom, b but Abraham was still
standing before the LORD .b23 Then Abraham approacheda and said, ―Would you evenb
sweep away the righteous along with the wicked? 24 Suppose there area fifty righteous
in the city, would you evenb sweep away and not sparec the placed for the sake of the
fifty righteous in her?e 25 Far be it from your doinga something like this, to put to deathb
the righteous with the wicked and to treat thec righteous and the wicked the same.c Far
be it from you. Shall not the judge of all the earth act justly?‖ 26So the LORD replied, ―If
I find fifty righteous in the town of Sodom, I shall sparea the whole place for their
sake.‖
27So Abraham replieda and said, ―Since I have undertakenb to speak to my
sovereign,c d though I am but dust and ashes,d 28 suppose the fifty righteous are five
short,a would you ruinb the whole city for the sake ofc five?‖ He said, d ―I shall not ruin
it if I find forty -five there.‖d
29He spoke yet againa to him and said, ―Suppose there are forty foundb there.‖ He
said, ―I shall not doc it for d the sake of forty.‖
30He said, ―Do not be angry,a my sovereign, so I may speak.b Suppose thirty are
found there.‖ He said, ―I shall not do it, if I find thirty there.‖
31He said, ―Since I have undertaken to speak to my sovereign, suppo se twenty are
found there.‖ He said, ―I shall not ruin it for the sake of twenty.‖
32He said, ―Do not be angry, my sovereign, so I may speak just oncea more, suppose
ten are found there.‖ He said, ― I shall not ruin it for the sake of ten.‖
33Then when the LORD had finished speaking to Abraham he left, a but Abraham
returned to his place.a
19:1 The a two angelsa came to Sodom in the evening, b while Lot was sitting in the
gateway of Sodom.b Seeing them, Lot stood up to greet them,c then bowedd to the
ground. 2 He said, ―Since a you are here sirs,b please come to your servant‘s house,
stay, wash your feet, and early tomorrowc god on your way.‖ But they said, ―Note so,f
we shall stay g in the street.‖g3 But he pressed them very hard, and they came and
entered his house, and he prepared a feast, a baking them unleavened bread,a and they
ate.

4Beforea they lay down, the menb of the city of Sodom, young and old, the wholec
population, surroundedd the house. 5 They called out to Lot and said to him, ―Where
are the men who came into you tonight. Bringa them out to us, so that we may knowb
them.‖ 6 So Lot went out to the entrancea bbut shutc the door behind him.b7 He said,
―Pleasea do not do evilb my brothers. 8 Since I have two virgin daughters, let me bringa
them out to you and do to them as you see fit: only b do not do anything to thesec men
for they have come under the protection of my roof for this reason.‖d9 Then they said,
―Come on.‖a They said, ―Will a single immigrant try to be a judge?b Now we shall do
more evilc to you than to them.‖ They manhandled Lot se verely and camed to batter the
door down. 10 Then the men put out their hand and broughta Lot into the house with
them, shut the door, and 11 strucka the men at the entranceb of the house, young and old,
with sudden blindness,c so they grew tiredd of trying to find the way in.
12Then the mena said to Lot, ―Who is still here belonging to you? Bring them outb
from thec place, sons -in-law,d your sons, your daughters, and all in the city who are
yours, 13 because we are about to ruina this city. For their outcry is great in the LORD‘s
presence, and the LORD has sentb us to ruinc it.‖
14So Lot went out and spoke to his sons -in-law, who were to marrya his daughters,
and said, ―Comeb on, leavec this place, for the LORD is destroying the city.‖ But his
sons-in-law thought he was joking.
15Ata crack of dawn, the angelsb hurriedc Lot saying, ―Comed on, take your wife and
the two daughters you havee lest you are sweptf away in the punishment of the city.‖ 16
But he dallied,a so the men grabbedb him by the hand and his wife and his two
daughters, because the LORD had compassionc on him, and they broughtd them out and
putd them outside the city.
17a As soon as they had broughtb them outside, hec said, ―Escaped for your life. Do
not looke behind you. Do not stay in the valley. Escaped to the hills lest you are swept
away.‖ 18 But Lot said to them,a ―No, LORD .b19 Even thougha you have been so kind to
your servant and have extendedb your kindness in acting to savec my life, I cannot
escaped to the hills, so that the disaster will catche me and I shall die.f20 Since this city is
nearby to flee to, and it is little, let me escapea there. Is it not a little one? So my life
will be saved.‖b21 He then said to him, ―Since I have granted your request about this,
not to overturna the city about which you have spoken, 22 be quick,a escape there, for I
cannotb do anything till you enter it.‖ That is why the city is called Zoar.
23a As the sun roseb over the land,a cLot entered Zoar,c 24a and the LORD rained
brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah:a it was from the LORD b from the sky.b 25
So he overthrew thesea cities, the whole valley and their inhabitants and the vegetation
of the soil. 26 His wife looke da behind himb and becamec a pillar of salt.
27Then Abraham wenta early in the morning to the place where he had stood before
the LORD . 28 He lookeda out over Sodom and Gomorrah and the wholeb area of the
valley and sawc the smoke of the area was like the smoke of ad kiln.
29When God ruineda the cities of the pl ain, God remembered Abraham, and he sent Lot out
of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in which Lot lived.
30Then Lot left Zoar and dwelt in the hills with his two daughters, because he was
afraid to livea in Zoar. He and h is two daughters lived in ab cave.c 31 Then the eldera
said to the younger,b ―Our father is old, and there is no manc at all in the are a to come
intod us as they do in all the world. 32 Come,a let us give our father wine to drinkb so we

may lie with him and produce descendants from our father.‖ 33 So they plieda their
father with wine thatb night, and the elder went in and lay with her father, but he did not
know about her lyingc or her leaving.cd
34Next morning the elder said to the younger, ―Since I lay last night with my father,a
let us plyb him with wine tonightc as well, and you go and lie with him and we shall
raise descendants from our father.‖ 35 So that night too they plied their father with
wine, and the younger wenta and lay with him, but he did not know about her lying or
her leaving.
36Lot‘s two daughters became pregnanta from their father. 37 The elder gavea birth to a son,
and she named him Moab:b he is the ancestor of the Moabites to this day. 38 The youn ger
also gave birth to a son, and she named hima Ben-Ammi: he is the ancestor of the
Ammonites to this day.
Notes
1.a-a. Circumstantial clause with participle, expressing a state contemporar y with main
action ( GKC, 141e; SBH, 82).
1.b. Omission of prep 
―in‖ i s frequent ( GKC, 118g), especially before 
―doorway‖ Joüon, 126h; cf. 19:11).
1.c. 
―in/at‖ expresses the concurrence of two events. ―The LORD appeared … just as the
midday heat did‖ Joüon, 166m).
2.a. 
lit. ―and behold‖ shows how things looked to the spectator.
2.b. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. 2.c. 
+ inf constr 
―to meet‖ (virtually a prep ―toward‖) + 3 masc. pl. suffix.
2.d. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. hishtaphel (not used in Heb. except with this root)

(KB, 283–84).
3.a. }
. The MT pointing interprets it as ―Lord‖ (cf. G, Vg), implying Abraham recognized the
divinity of the visitor immediately. Context suggests }3.b. Frequent use of 
expresses deference and politeness ( GKC, 105b).

3.c. SamPent has ―you‖ instead of MT sg ―thee/thy.‖ MT implies leading visitor being
addressed, SamPent all three as in vv 4 –5. Smoothing typical of SamPent (Waltke, 218).
4.a. 3 masc. sg juss qal pass 
(lit. ―let a little water be taken‖).
4.b. Waw + 2 masc. pl. impv niph [5.a. Waw + 1 sg coh 
. Simple 2aw + coh or impf. expresses purpose (Lambdin, 119; SBH, 112).
5.b-b. 
(cf. 19:8.). ―A peculiar phrase emphasizing the ground (for an action) pleonastically‖
(BDB, 475b).
6.a-a. Note the chiasmus with v 7, ―Abraham hurried … Abraham dashed,‖ used to
suggest Abraham doing everything at once ( SBH, 129).
6.b. 
suffix directional ending ―towards, to (the tent)‖ ( GKC, 90c; Lambdin, 51–52; not as
traditionally supposed an old accusative [WOC, 185]).
6.c. 1 fem. sg impv 
(piel)/
/[7.a-a. Note chiasmus with v 6.
7.b. 3 masc. sg pf qal 7.c. Heb. uses def art for something particular but undefined,
where English prefers indefinite (cf. 14:13; 15:1; GKC, 126r ; WOC, 243).
8.a-a. Circumstantial clause; cf. n. 1.a -a. (SBH, 82).
8.b. For this sense of  [
, cf. Judg 3:19; 1 Kgs 22:19.
9.a. The dots above 
are one of fifteen examples of ―extraordinary points‖ in the MT, probably early critical
marks ( GKC, 5n).
9.b. 
can dispense with a subject (EWAS, 140; GKC, 147b; cf. Lambdin, 168–69).
10.a. Inf abs in a promise reinforces the assurance (EWAS, 86; Joüon, 123de).
10.b. On this phrase, cf. Comment .

10.c-c. Circumstantial clause with ptcp; cf. vv 1, 8.
10.d. On omission of 
with 
, cf. n. 1.b.
10.e. SamPent reads 
―she‖; so too does G (see Comment ).
11.a. Composite subj with nouns of different gender takes masc pl. predicate ( GKC,
146d; Joüon, 148a, d).
11.b. He b. lacks ―and.‖ Clause in apposition specifying aspect of old age, the
menopause, relevant to problem ( SBH, 47).
11.c-c. BHS suggests emending to 
; cf. 31:35. However, F. I. Andersen, Bib 50 (1969) 68 –69, retains MT, holding 
helps signal the constr relationship.
12.a. Inf constr 
+ 1 sg suffix.
12.b. 
―pleasure‖ is the grammatical subj of the verb. Here the question is no t prefaced by an
interrogative pronoun or particle ( GKC, 150a). The use of the pf 
for the future is quite rare. Joüon (112j) describes it as an astonished question and
suggests translating as a fut pf, ―Shall I have had?‖ (cf. 21:7; Num 17:28 [13]; Judg 9:9, 11,
13).
12.c-c. Circumstantial clause turning question into virtual negation ( SBH, 90); cf. v 13.
13.a. Note enclitic 
suggesting surprise in the questi on ―why‖; cf. 3:13 ( GKC, 136c; EWAS, 136).
13.b. On th is nuance of 
, see EWAS, 141.
13.c. For this translation of 
, see EWAS, 133, 141.
13.d-d. cf. n. 12.c-c.*

13.e. Pf of stative verb 
has present meaning ( GKC, 106g).
14.a. 
interrogative + 3 masc. sg impf. niph  14.b. cf. n. 10.b.*
15.a. SamPent has 
―to her‖ for 15.b. 
―so‖ according to EWAS (163), but GKC (163a) and Joüon (172c) translate it ―but‖ after
the negation.
16.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. pl. impf. 
(hiph)/  16.b-b. Circumstantial clause marking end of paragraph ( SBH, 82).
16.c. Inf constr piel 
+ 3 masc. pl. suffix.
17.a. vv 17 –19 are in effect a complex circumstantial clause ( SBH, 85).
17.b. Interrogative 
+ masc. sg ptcp piel  17.c. Masc sg ptcp [
. This ptcp and the preceding (n. 17.b.) here express imminent future ( GKC, 116p).
18.a. Inf abs 
emphasizing verb ( GKC, 113n).
18.b. cf. note and Comment on 12:3.
19.a. 1 sg pf [
―know‖ + 3 masc. sg suffix. SamPent, G, Vg omit suffix.
19.b. 
+ inf constr [
here expands and explains observing the LORD‘s way Joüon, 124o).
19.c. Inf constr hiph 20.a. 
here used as emphatic corroboration ( GKC, 148d, 159ee; EWAS, 162).
20.b. 3 masc. pl. suffix ―their‖ refers to the inhabitants of the cities. SBH, 118, n. 2,

suggests suffix is fem. dual, referring to the two cities (fem).
21.a. 1 sg coh 
/[
. Enclitic 
gives a sense of urgency Joüon, 114d).
21.b-b.  [
is an idiom: ―make destruction‖; cf. Jer 30:11; 46:28. God is usually the subj. BHS
suggests repointing  21.c. Note dagesh forte in 
following interrogative 21.d. By stressing the penultimate syllable, MT understands

to be 3 fem. sg pf qal 
. BHS transfers accent to final syllable, understanding it as fem. sg ptcp. WOC, 339, n. 332,
concurs.
21.e. 3 fem. sg suffix 
―her‖ probably refers to ―the outcry about her sin‖ (fem). Some MSs, G, Tg read
―their.‖
22.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. pl. impf. 22.b-b. Circumstantial clause marking end of
paragraph. It is the first of the Tiqqune sopherim (ancient scribal corrections) according to
which the original re ading, ―The LORD stood before Abraham,‖ was reversed on grounds of
piety. SBH (84–85) argues for the originality of this reading, though 19:27 may support MT.
23.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. 23.b. 
―can be employed in a rhetorical question which … often expresses something
unexpected, unbelievab le, or an exaggerated, extreme case . … The particle relates not to
the word immediately following, but to the entire clause‖ (EWAS, 141).
24.a. 
expresses existence Joüon, 154k).
24.b. cf. n. 23.b.*
24.c. 2 masc. sg impf. 24.d. G paraphrases: ―the whole pla ce.‖
24.e. N.B. 
―place‖ can be fem. (GKC, 122l; Joüon, 134m; pace BHS).

25.a. 
+ inf constr [25.b. 
+ inf constr hiph 25.c. Note the use of the prep 
before both 
and [
. This usage (cf. Jos 14:11; 1 Sam 30:24) does not say simply that A is like B, or B is
like A, but that A is like B and B is like A. ―In other words the two terms are declared
identical in one respect‖ Joüon, 174i).
26.a. On the use of waw + pf in an apodosis of a conditional, see GKC, 112ff; Joüon,
176d.
27.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. [27.b. 1 sg pf hiph 27.c. Some MSs read ―the
LORD.‖
27.d-d. Circumstantial clause with concessive meaning ( SBH, 90; Joüon, 171f).
28.a. 3 masc. pl. impf. 
+ paragogic nun ( GKC, 47m).
28.b. 
interrogative + 2 masc. sg impf. hiph  28.c. On use of 
prefix, see GKC, 119p.
28.d-d. Note here how the main clause (apodosis) precedes protasis (if clause). This
unusual order indicates that the more important aspect is in the apodosis Joüon, 167v).
29.a. cf. n. 8:10.b.*
29.b. 3 masc. pl. impf. niph 
+ paragogic nun; cf. n. 28.a.
29.c. SamPent reads 
, assimilating to vv 28, 31, 32 ( Waltke, 222); apparently followed by G, Vg.
29.d. lit. ―the forty‖ as in vv 31b, 33b, ―the twenty, the ten.‖ Numbers may be preceded
by def art where referring to number already mentioned ( GKC, 134k).
30.a. 3 masc. sg juss  30.b. Waw + 1 sg coh piel 
. On the se quence juss + coh, here with consecforce ―so that,‖ see GKC, 108d; Joüon, 116b;

SBH, 118.
32.a. cf. Exod 10:17; Judg 6:39.
33.a-a. Episode -final circumstantial clause ( SBH, 81).
19:1.a -a. BHS gratuitously emends to ―the men‖; cf. vv 12 , 16.
1.b-b. Circumstantial clause expressing continuing action contemporary with main verb
―came‖ ( GKC, 116o, 141e; Joüon, 121f; 166h).
1.c. cf. n. 18:2.c.*
1.d. cf. n. 18:2.d.*
2.a. Note unique pointing of 
(GKC, 100o).
2.b. Note pointing of }
, indicating men, rather than God, being addressed ( GKC, 135q).
2.c. Waw consec + 2 masc. pl. pf hiph 
―do early‖ (Lambdin, 238–39).
2.d. Pointing in BHS follows L. Others offer usual pointing, }"2.e. Dagesh in 
following unaccented 
(GKC, 20g).
2.f. cf. n. 18:15.b.*
2.g-g. Putting the adverbial phrase ― in the street‖ before the verb emphasizes it ( GKC,
142g; Joüon, 155p). ―Emphasis … is a feature essentially belonging to lively conversation‖
(EWAS, 43).
3.a-a. Note chiasmus ―bread … baked‖ with main clause ―prepared … meal ‖: different
aspects of one action ( SBH, 128).
4.a. 
is followed by impf. (GKC, 107c, 152r).
4.b. On the repetition of ―men of,‖ see Joüon, 131i.
4.c. 
―in its entirety‖ (BDB, 892a).
4.d. 3 masc. pl. pf niph 

(cf. Joüon, 82h, on the use of niph instead of qal).
5.a. 2 masc. sg impv hiph 
+ 3 masc. pl. suffix.
5.b. Waw + 1 pl. coh [
. For the sequence impv + simple waw + coh of intended consequence, see GKC, 108d;
Lambdin, 119.
6.a. SamPe nt omits directional 
(Waltke, 217).
6.b-b. Circumstantial clause closing paragraph ( SBH, 81).
6.c. SamPent reads pl. ―they [i.e., angels] shut.‖
7.a. Note the polite enclitic 
(GKC, 105b1).
7.b. 2 masc. pl. impf. hiph [[8.a. 1 sg coh hiph 8.b. 
introduces important exceptions (EWAS, 131).
8.c. SamPent modernizes archaic MT orthography to  8.d. On this phrase, cf. n.
18:5.b -b.
9.a. 2 masc. sg impv 
. On pointing, see GKC, 66e.
9.b. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. + inf abs 
(cf. GKC, 113r).
9.c. 1 pl. impf. hiph [[9.d. Waw consec+ 3 masc. pl. impf. 10.a. Waw consec+ 3 masc.
pl. impf. hiph 11.a. 3 masc. pl. pf hiph 11.b. On absence of prep before 
, cf. n. 18:1.b.
11.c. Note the def art with ―blindness‖ ; common with abstract nouns ( GKC, 126n; WOC,
246).
11.d. Waw consec + 3 masc. pl. impf.  12.a. SamPent reads ―angels‖ as in v 1.
12.b. 2 masc. sg impv hiph 12.c. SamPent, G, S read ―this‖ as in vv 13, 14.
12.d. Delitzsch: ―an indefinite collective singular‖ ; cf. JPs. But Gunkel, Speiser, and
Westermann suggest ―son -in-law‖ is an interpolation from v 14. See Comment .

13.a. Masc pl. hiph ptcp 
. Ptcp is used for imminent fut Joüon, 12e).
13.b. Waw consec+ 3 masc. sg impf. piel 
+ 1 pl. suffix.
13.c. 
+ inf constr piel 
+ 3 fem. sg suffix. Typically, SamPent has hiph for piel (Waltke, 216).
14.a. Ptcp is timeless. GKC (116d) suggests a fut sense would be apt, ―were to marry,‖
but ―had married‖ is also possible.
14.b. Here impv 
has ex clamatory, introductory function ( GKC, 120g; SBH, 57).
14.c. 2 masc. pl. impv 
. Note dagesh in 
following unaccented 
; cf. 19:2 ( GKC, 20g).
15.a. A poetic term (cf. BDB, 455b –56a).
15.b. BHS again conjectures ―men‖; cf. n. 19:1.a -a.
15.c. Waw consec+ 3 masc. pl. hiph 15.d. cf. n. 19:14.b.*
15.e. 
def art + fem. pl. niph ptcp  15.f. 2 masc. sg impf. niph  16.a. Waw consec+ 3 masc.
sg impf. hithpalpel  16.b. Waw consec+ 3 masc. pl. impf. hiph 16.c. 
(―because,‖ Joüon, 170j) + inf constr  16.d. Waw consec+ 3 masc. pl. impf. hiph 
/17.a. 
marks major new development ( GKC, 111g).
17.b. 
(cf. n. 18:1.c.; Joüon, 166m) + inf constr hiph 
+ masc. pl. suffix.

17.c. G, Vg, S have pl. ―they.‖
17.d. 2 masc. sg impv niph  17.e. 2 masc. sg impf. hiph 18.a. BHS proposes ―to
him.‖ Unnecessary.
18.b. BHS proposes sg suffix, i.e.,“my lord, sir.‖ But cf. Comment and n. 18:3.a*
19.a. On this meaning of 
, cf. WOC, 579.
19.b. Waw consec+ 2 masc. sg impf. hiph 19.c. 
+ inf constr hiph 
; cf. 6:19, 20.
19.d. 
+ inf constr niph  19.e. 2 fem. sg impf. 
+ 1 sg suffix (cf. GKC, 60d).
19.f. Waw consec+ 1 sg pf qal 20.a. 1 sg coh niph  20.b. 3 fem. sg juss 
. On the sequence coh + juss, cf. GKC, 109f.
21.a. Inf constr 
+ 1 sg suffix.
22.a. 2 masc. sg impv piel  22.b. 1 sg impf. 23.a-a,c-c. Circumstantial clauses to
24.a-a. (SBH, 87), suggesting three events in rapid succ ession ( GKC, 164b; Joüon, 166c).
23.b. Sebir and some SamPent MSs have 3 fem. sg 
, making 
―sun‖ fem.. Can be either gender (BDB, 1039).
24.a-a. On syntax, see n. 23.a -a. No textual evidence for transposing it after v 26 as BHS
suggests.
24.b-b. No textual evidence for supposing it a gl oss, pace BHS.
25.a. cf. n. 19:8.c.*
26.a. Waw consec+ 3 fem. sg impf. hiph 26.b. BHS suggests reading ―behind her.‖ MT
―him‖ refers to Lot.
26.c. Waw consec+ 3 fem. sg impf. (apoc) 27.a. Waw consec+ 3 masc. sg impf. hiph


―do early.‖ Usually followed by another verb; hence BHS suggests inserting ―and he
went.‖ Probably unnecessary (Gispen, 2:189).
28.a. Waw consec+ 3 masc. sg impf. hiph  28.b. G omits ―whole.‖ For other possible
emendations, see BHS.
28.c. 
―and behold‖ : the scene described from Abraham‘s perspective ( SBH, 95).
28.d. Def art is used especially frequently in comparisons ( GKC, 126o; Joüon, 137i).
29.a. 
+ inf constr piel 
. SamPent has hiph; cf. n. 13.c.
30.a. cf. n. 13:6.b.*
30.b. Note use of def art in Heb. = ―the cave‖ in this story ( GKC, 126r).
30.c. SamPent, G add ―with him,‖ assimilating to v 30a.
31.a. 
lit. ―firstborn.‖ Heb. uses the simple adjective for the comparative and superlative, old,
older, oldest.
31.b. cf. n. 31.a.*
31.c. When the subj, ―man,‖ precedes 
―is not,‖ it is emphasized (EWAS, 104).
31.d. 
is more usually followed by 
rather than [
, but cf. Deut 25:5.
32.a. 2 masc. sg impv 
. Here little more than an interjection; hence lack of concord remedied by SamPent 
(2 fem. sg). MT to be followed ( GKC, 69x; SBH, 57).
32.b. 1 pl. impf. (coh) hiph 
followed by waw + coh (

and 
piel) ―in order that‖ (Lambdin, 119).
33.a. Waw consec+ 2 fem. pl. impf. hiph  33.b. Absence of def art on 
(cf. SamPent) is for euphony ( GKC, 126y) or result of haplography Joüon, 138h) or
double -duty 
on 
(I. O. Lehmann, JNES 26 [1967] 93 –101).
33.c. 
+ inf constr 
/
+ 3 fem. sg suffix.
33.d. Dot (extraordinary point) over 34.a. G has ―with the father.‖
34.b. 1 pl. impf. (coh) hiph 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
34.c. lit. ―the night.‖ Def art often functions as demonstrative = ―this night, tonight‖
with temporal nouns ( GKC, 126b).
35.a. Waw consec+ 3 fem. sg impf. 36.a. Waw consec+ 3 fem. pl. impf.  37.a. cf. n.
4:1.c.*
37.b. G adds ―from my father,‖ explaining etymology of Moab.
38.a. G inserts Amman and translates Ben -Ammi ― son of my race.‖
Form/Structure/Setting
Chaps. 18 –19 constitute a clear unit within Genesis and fall into four main sections:

18:1–15
Isaac‘s birth announced to Abraham and Sarah

18:16 –33
Abraham pleads for Sodom

19:1–29
Lot and his family escape fro m Sodom

19:30 –38
Lot‘s daughters commit incest with their father

The unity of these stories is shown by the same actors appearing in most of the scenes,
most obviously the angels in 18:1 –19:23, Lot throughout chap. 19 and by implication in
18:20 –32, an d Abraham throughout chap. 18 and in 19:29. Furthermore, the storyline in
19:1–22 closely parallels that in 18:1 –30 (see further below), encouraging a comparison to
be made between the righteous heroes of these chapters, Abraham and
But the author does no t simply compare Lot with Abraham; he is also interested in
comparing the destruction of Sodom with the flood. Clearly the theme is the same: the mass
destruction of the world (cities of the plain) and the escape of one righteous man and his
family. There are many verbal echoes of the flood story (e.g., ―God remembered Abraham,‖
19:29; cf. 8:1; see further below), and the overall structures o f the narratives are similar: in
both cases the story of the hero‘s escape and the destruction of the wicked, told in a
carefully worked out palistrophe (6:9 –9:17//18:16 –19:28), is followed by his intoxication
and shameful treatment by his children (9:20 –27//19:30 –38).
Although these two chapters invite comparison with the story of Noah, they are
perfectly at home in the Abraham cycle, presupposing knowledge of what goes before at
many points, e.g., Abraham‘ s relationship with Lot, his move to Sodom, Sarah‘s barrenness,
and the promises to Abraham (12:1 –3). Particularly striking is the relationship of chaps.
18–19 to chap. 17. The change of names from Abram to Abraham and Sarai to Sarah
described in chap. 17 is presupposed in chap. 18. Both begin with the LORD appearing
(17:1; 18:1); in quoting the promise of a child, 18:14 echoes 17:21; and both are cast in
palistrophes combined with parallel panels (see below).
We must now turn to a more detailed analysis of chaps. 18 –19.
The account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (18:16 –19:29) is closely
integrated: the action spans less than twenty -four hours and falls into eleven scenes. It is
preceded by a reaffirmation of the promise of Isaac (18:1 –15) and foll owed by an account
of the birth of Lot‘s sons, Moab and Ben -Ammi (19:30 –38). Analyzing the account of the
destruction of Sodom as a series of scenes, like the flood story (cf. Wenham, Genesis 1 –15,
157), produces the following:
1. Abrah am‘s visitors look toward Sodom (18:16)
(N) Mamre
2. Divine reflections on Abraham and Sodom (18:17 –21)
(M) Overlooking Sodom
3. Abraham pleads for Sodom (18:22 –33)
(D) Overlooking Sodom
4. Angels arrive in Sodom (19:1 –3)
(N/D) Sodom city gates
5. Assault on Lot and his visitors (19:4 –11)
(N/D) Outside Lot‘s house
6. Destruction of Sodom announced (19:12 –13)
(M) Inside Lot‘s house
7. Lot‘s sons -in-law reject his appeal (19:14)
(N/D) Outside Lot‘s house
8. Departure from Sodom (19:15 –16)

(N/D) Through city g ate
9. Lot pleads for Zoar (19:17 –22)
(D) Outside Sodom
10. Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed (19:23 –26)
(N)
11. Abraham looks toward Sodom (19:27 –28)
(N) Mamre
Summary (19:29)

As frequently in the OT (cf. Gen 2 –3, 6–9, 17), the scenes are arranged palistrophically so
that the second half of the story is a mirror image of the first. Thus scene 1 closely parallels
scene 11; both are narrative (N) descriptions of people leaving Abraham‘s tent to look
(
) toward Sodo m. Scene 2 is a divine monologue (M) reflecting on Abraham‘s character and
the alleged character of Sodom and Gomorrah, which it is hinted may merit destruction.
Scene 10 is a narrative (N) describing their destruction. Scene 3 is dialogue (D) in which
Abraham pleads with the LORD to save ―the city‖ (presumably Sodom), if sufficient
righteous people are found in it. Scene 9 is a similar dialogue, in which Lot pleads for Zoar
to be spared. Though Lot‘s intercession is much briefer than Abraham‘s, there are e choes of
the former dialogue in his plea. Abraham said, ―Far be it from your doing something like
this to put to death the righteous‖(18:25). Lot argues that if he is not allowed to flee to
Zoar, ―I shall die‖ (19:19). The LORD promises to spare ( 
) the place if some righteous are found in it (18:26). He uses the same verb when telling Lot
―I have granted your request‖ (19:21). In both scenes, the rather colorless verb ―do‖ ( [
) is used to describe the destruction (18:17, 25, 29, 30
Scenes 4 and 8 resemble each other in subject matter and form. They both contain a
mixture of narrative and dialogue. Scene 4 describes the angels‘ arrival in Sodom, scene 8
their departure. These are the only scenes in the narrative where they are called angels
(
). It is striking that in both scenes there is a great reluctance to follow advice: in scene 4
Lot has to force the angels to stay, ―he pressed them very hard‖ (v 3; cf. same verb
―manhandled,‖ v 9), and in scene 8 they have to compel hi m to leave, ―the men grabbed
him by the hand‖ (v 16).
Scenes 5 and 7 are again mixtures of narrative and dialogue, both describing the
Sodomites‘ rejection of the angels and their message. In both, ―Lot goes out‖ ( 
, only in vv 6, 14) to appeal to them, and in both cases he is rudely rebuffed (cf. v 9 with
v 14).
Scene 6 is the central scene in the story, a monologue in which the angels for the first
time explicitly declare the cities‘ fate and advise Lot to prepare to leave, ―we are about to
ruin this city.‖ As often in narratives cast in palistrophic form (cf. God remembered Noah,
8:1; cf. 3:6), the central scene marks the turning point in the story. Up to this point,
Sodom‘s fate has been hinted at; now it becomes certain, and the narrative unwinds with
them leaving the city.
It should also be noted how the scene of the action also moves palistrophically from
Mamre (scenes 1 –3), to Sodom‘s city gate (scene 4), to outside Lot‘s house (scene 5),

inside his house in the central scene (scene 6), and then back again outside Lot‘s house
(scene 7), through the city gate (scene 8), outside the city (scene 9), and finally back to
Mamre (scene 11). This movement parallels that found in the garden of Eden story, where
the action moves from outside the garden to its center before the tree of knowledge and
then exactly reverses itself. Similarly, the flood story tells of Noah entering the ark and then
coming out.
Finally, the palistrophe that governs the story of Sodom is further enhanced by the outer
panels. The narrative begins with the promise of Isaac‘s birth (18:1 –15) and closes with the
account of the birth of Lot‘s sons (19:30 –38), thus enhancing the concentric organization of
these two chapters.
Similarities between the account of Sodom‘s destruction and the flood story have often
been noted. Both stories are tales of universal destruction brought about by human
wickedness, a destruction from which one righteous man and his family are saved by divi ne
grace. Both stories are followed by the hero‘s intoxication with wine and the disgraceful
actions of his children. And as already pointed out, the main story in each case is organized
as an elaborate palistrophe.
But besides these thematic parallels, th ere are many verbal similarities between the
accounts. It begins with Abraham ―going [ 
qal] with them‖ (18:16), which evokes 6:9, ―Noah walked [ 
hithpael] with God.‖ Like righteous Noah (6:9; 7:1), Abraham teaches his family to do
righteousness (18 :19), and he bases his whole argument for the sparing of Sodom on the
presence of ―righteous‖ in the city (18:23 –32). Though Lot is never described as righteous,
the fact that he is brought out suggests that he is regarded as relatively righteous at least.
The divine self -reflection in 18:17 –21 is akin to that in 6:5 –8, the depravity of man in
general and the righteousness of one man in particular constituting their common theme. In
both stories ―ruin‖ ( 
) is one of the key verbs to describe the destruction (6:13, 17; 9:11, 15; 18:28, 31, 32;
19:13, 14, 29). The angels‘ action in putting out their hand and bringing Lot into the house
resembles Noah‘s similar action when he put out his hand and brought the dove into the
safety of the ark (19:10; 8:9). And maybe their shutting of the door recalls the LORD‘s
shutting Noah in (19:10; 7:16). As in the flood, where God first warns Noah of the need to
build and enter the ark before commanding him to enter (6:13 –21; 7:1 –4), so here the
angels warn Lot in the evening (19:12 –13) and then make him leave next morning
(19:15 –16). The list of escapers, Lot, his wife, and his two daughters, recalls that of Noah,
his wife, his sons, and their wives. In pleading with angels to allow him to enter Zoar, Lot
speaks of ―finding favor in their eyes‖ (19:19), admittedly a common idiom but used in a
special sense of Noah in 6:8 so that his life will ―be saved‖ (hiph of 
), one of the key verbs in the flood story (6:19 ,20), and later used by his daughters is the
expression ―to produce descendants‖ (piel + [
; 7:3; 19:32, 34). In both accounts the LORD makes it rain (hiph 
; 7:4; 19:24). Finally, and most clearly, ―God remembered Abraham‖ exactly recalls
―God remembered Noah‖ (19:29; 8:1).
By themselves, some of the resemblances between the two stories might be
coincidental, but their number suggests that the parallels between the flood and the
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah are being deliberately expl oited by the author of

Genesis. And this observation must inform both the interpretation of the narrative and
discussion of its unity. It is striking, too, that these allusions to the flood story are drawn
from parts conventionally ascribed to P: as well as to J, which requires a reassessment of the
normal source -critical analysis of the flood story (cf. Wenham, VT 41 [1991] 84 –109).
Although the narrative in 18:16 –19:29 could stand as a literary unit, it does need an
introduction to explain why the LORD is speaking to Abraham and where the angels in
Sodom have come from. 18:1 –15 supplies the necessary background information. But this
is not t o say it is a tradition independent of what follows; the references to the time of day
in 18:1 and 19:1 show it is an integral part of the narrative. Furthermore, as noted by Van
Seters, Rudin -O‘Brasky, and Alexander, there are many parallels between the t wo chapters,
as the following table shows:
Chapter 18
Chapter 19
―he was sitting in the doorway‖ (v 1)
―Lot was sitting in the gateway‖ (v 1)
―seeing them he ran toward them‖ (v 2)
―Seeing them Lot stood to greet them‖ (v 1)
―and bowed himself to the groun d‖
―then bowed to the ground‖ (v 1)
―He said, ‗Sir‘
―He said ‗ … Sirs‘ (v 2)
‗please do not leave your servant‘ (v 3)
‗please come to your servant‘s house‘
‗wash your feet and rest‘ (v 4)
‗stay, wash your feet‘
‗afterwards you can go on‘ (v 5)
‗tomorrow, go on your way‘ (v 2)
‗for this is why you have come‘‖ (v 5)
‗for they have come under my roof for

this reason‘‖ (v 8)
―he took yogurt … ‖ etc.
―he prepared a feast‖
―they ate‖ (v 8)
―they ate‖ (v 3)
―Where is your wife‖ (v 9)
―Where are the me n‖ (v 5)
―Sarah laughed‖ ( 
qal) (vv 12, 13, 15)
―His sons -in-law thought he was joking‖

(
piel) (v 14)
―The outcry of Sodom is
―their outcry is great‖ ( 

) (v 13)
great‖ (
) (vv 20 –21)
Abraham‘s plea for Sodom (vv 23 –32)
Lot‘s plea for Zoar (vv 18 –22)
―sweep away‖ (vv 23, 24)
―sweep away‖ (v 17)
―put to death‖ (v 25)
―die‖ (v 19)
―spare [
] the whole place‖ (v 26)
―granted [
] your request‖ (v 21)
―do‖ = ―destroy‖ (v 25, 29, 30)
―do‖ = ―destroy‖ (v 22)

The parallels ar e clearest in the two hospitality scenes (18:1 –8; 19:1 –3) and in the pleas
for the two cities (18:23 –32; 19:18 –22). But even in the two texts between these two
sections there are some interesting similarities. In other words, Gen 18 and 19:1 –22 are told
in two parallel panels (for this terminology, see McEvenue, The Narrative Style of the
Priestly Writer ). McEvenue drew attention to the use of this technique combined with a
broad palistrophe in chap. 17 (see Form/Structure/Setting on 17:1 –27). It is strikin g that the
same combination of techniques, palistrophe + parallel panel -writing, is found in the
successive chapters, although according to traditional source analysis, chap. 17 is nearly
pure P, whereas chaps. 18 –19 are almost pure J.
More precisely, all of 18:1 –19:38 except 19:29 (P) is conventionally ascribed to J.
However, doubts have sometimes been expressed about the unity of the material in J (e.g.,
Kilian; Haag; c f. Rudin -O‘Brasky) on the grounds of the variation in the number and
identity of the visitors in the story. Sometimes they are described as men, sometimes as
angels, and one of them is identified as the LORD. Sometimes the visitors spea k and are
addressed in the singular, at others in the plural. So attempts have been made to isolate
coherent stylistic units within these chapters. But since these units do not make good sense
on their own, these attempts are widely rejected by mainstream commentators.
More widely accepted (e.g., Gunkel, Skinner, von Rad, Westermann, Blenkinsopp) is the
suggestion (originally Wellhausen‘s) that Abraham‘s intercession is a later addition to the
story. It is often alleged that the concept of individual responsibility is the invention of
prophets like Jeremiah and Ezekiel in the late seventh and early sixth centuries and that
since Gen 18:23 –32 reflects these ideas, it must come from this period or later (e.g.,
Westermann, Haag; cf. Van Seters, Kilian). However, it is far from certain that this idea
originated with the later prophets: it is found in second -millennium Mesopotamian
literature (e.g., GE 11.180) and is an assumption of the wisdom books of the OT. So it seems
wiser to see this section as integral to the whole plot of these chapters and the work of J (so
Van Seters, Coats), not a later interpolator. The integrity of this section within the narrative
is confirmed by our analysis above, which shows Abraham‘s intercession to be a vital part
of both the palistrophe and the parallel panels that are used to organize this story. Indeed,
the way in which Abraham is allowed into the secrets of the divine purposes and then

intercedes for Sodom shows that he is a prophet, a point made explicitly in 20:7 and imp
That the present narrative is based on earlier tradi tion is clear, but attempts to
reconstruct earlier forms of the tradition are quite speculative (cf. Van Seters, Abraham ,
210). It may be that chaps. 18 –19 originally formed part of an independent Lot cycle and
that 18:1 once followed 1 3:18, which also refers back to the oaks of Mamre. On the other
hand, ―The LORD appeared to him‖ (18:1) invites comparison with 17:1: ―The LORD
appeared to Abram.‖ Clearly both verses are redactional, but it is impossible to know how
they differ, if at all , from the wording of the original sources.
At the other end of the narrative, 19:29 causes problems. In its present setting, it serves as a
summary of the preceding narratives (cf. 16:16; 17:26 –27). It is usually assigned to P on the
grounds that only here is God, as opposed to the LORD, mentioned in Gen 18 –19. As
already noted, this usage serves to make the parallel between the destruction of Sodom and
the flood unmistakable (cf. 8:1). On this occasion God remembered Abraham, just as earlier
he had remembered Noah (8:1). This parallel would seem sufficient explanation of the
usage here, since all the other terms in this verse seem to be drawn from the preceding
narrative. Another pointer to the antiquity of this verse, whether it be P or editorial, is its
summary in Amos 4:11 and Isa 13:19. As Westermann (2:298) points out, this is the only
place in Amos where 
is used. Because he believes that P is late, he postulates that Amos is quoting a tradition
independent of Genesis, but this seems special pleading; it is easier to suppose Amos knew
Gen 18 –19 in something like its present form.
Comment
1–15 Abraham‘s hospitable welcome of three visitors fo rms a charming introduction to
the great and serious matter of Sodom. Its two scenes, vv 1 –8, the welcome meal, and vv
9–15, the guests‘ promise, depict an idyllic picture of the ancient Orient. Abraham‘s
exceedingly warm hospitality is rewarded by the rea ffirmation of the imminent birth of a
son to Sarah.
1–5 These verses describe the arrival of the visitors and Abraham‘s warm welcome of
them.
1 ―The LORD appeared to him at the oaks of Mamre‖ is clearly an editorial comment
like 17:1. We have already noted the lack of an explicit naming of Abraham here, which
shows it is part of a sequence of narratives.
―The LORD appeared‖ reflects the narrator‘s standpoint: the identity of his visitors was
not immediately apparent to Abraham. As v 2 makes clear, he at fir st thought they were
simply men. His warm welcome and alacrity in serving them was in no way prompted by
his recognizing them. Rather, this comment, ―the LORD appeared,‖ functions like 22:1,
―God tested Abraham,‖ to make the reader aware from the start of the story of the real
nature of the encounter so that we can interpret the narrative more accurately. What we
know from the start about the identity of the visitors Abraham only gradually discovers in
the course of conversation.
The circumstantial clause ― as he was sitting … in the midday heat‖ is the real start of the
story. Abraham has finished his morning work and is just preparing for his siesta, which he
would take during the hottest part of the day.
2 ―He looked up.‖ The pair of verbs ―look up and see ‖ indicates that what he sees will

prove very significant (cf. 22:4; 24:63). ―Noticed three men standing by him.‖ The storyline
suddenly switches to describing events through Abraham‘s eyes. Where had these men
come from? The narrator d oes not tell us, for Abraham did not know. Perhaps he had dozed
off, and that is why he did not notice them coming. Or is this the first hint that the men are
not quite what they seem to be? Visitors from the supernatural world suddenly appear and
then dis appear again in OT narratives describing encounters with them (Judg. 6:11 –21).
There is a gap in the narrative opened by these two possibilities: was Abraham dozing, or
are the visitors supernatural? Presumably Abraham works on the former assumption, and
this partly explains his eagerness to make amends for not noticing them before. ―Seeing
them, he ran … toward them and bowed himself to the ground.‖ These gestures express
both the warmth of Abraham‘s welcome and his deep respect for his vi sitors. Elsewhere in
Genesis people run to greet long -lost relatives (29:13; 33:4), and they bow down to the high
and mighty (23:12; 37:9; 42:6). But unwittingly Abraham is also treating the
representatives of the deity in a fitting way, for bowing down ( 
) is also the word translated ―worship‖ when its object is God (24:26; Exod 20:5).
3 His greeting is eloquent, indeed quite long -winded by biblical standards (cf. 19:2) and
very deferential. ―Sir, if indeed you have favored me‖ is a conventional, polite opening to
an important request (cf. 33:10; 47:29; 50:4), suggesting that Abraham is laying on the
charm in his attempt to make them stay, ―please do not leave.‖ But again the phraseology
suggests Abraham‘s wo rds are truer than he realizes. ―Sir,‖ lit. ―my lord,‖ is vocalized in
the MT in the way appropriate in addressing God, which in 15:2, 8 was translated
―sovereign.‖ And hithe rto the only other use of the phrase ―to favor,‖ ―to find grace‖ is of
Noah, ―who found grace in the eyes of the LORD.‖ This unwitting double entendre in
Abraham‘s speech is enhanced by his use of the singular in this verse as opposed to the
plural in vv 4 –5. Evidently, in pressing them to stay, Abraham is addressing the leader of
the group, whereas his subsequent remarks are addressed to all three. Yet given the identity
of the leader, which the reader knows but Abraham does not, his use of the singular ― thou
hast favored … thy servant‖ has an added significance.
4 After his generous welcome, Abraham offers what hot and weary travelers would
most appreciate, a drink of water, a wash of their feet (Luke 7:44), and a rest under a shady
tree.
5 His offer of ―a bit of food‖ ( 
), lit. a ―morsel of bread,‖ presumably something like a flat Arab pita roll, sounds quite
modest, even mean. But it shows his anxiety to persuade his visitors to stay. Had he
disclosed what a feast he was going to put on, they might have felt they were imposing on
him and declined his invitation. So he only mentions part of what he will provide. Such
understatement is characteristic of generous people in Scripture.
His final plea, ―For this is why you have come, for you r servant‘s benefit,‖ stresses
Abraham‘s pleasure at being able to entertain. It is as if he said ―It is my pleasure you have
come, you have made my day.‖ Yet like some of his earlier remarks in v 3, these too are
unwittingly prophetic, for, as the story w ill soon disclose, it is for Abraham‘s benefit that
the LORD has come.
And Abraham‘s charm works, for they agree to stay.
6–8 Then suddenly Abraham changes gear. Despite the midday heat, he hurries to
Sarah, tells her to hurry, and runs to the lad, who in turn hurries. The feeling of hurry also
comes through in the syntax. His commands to Sarah are snapped out in four clauses: one,

―three seahs of fine flour,‖ lacks a verb, and there is only a single ―and‖ linking the clauses.
The chiasmus between vv 5 and 6 (see Notes ) suggests Abraham hurrying to the tent and
running to the cattle almost simultaneously.
6 His ―bit of food‖ turns out to be a feast. If a seah is about two gallons (eight liters) (de
Vaux, Ancient Israel , 202), ―three seahs of best wheat flour ‖ would make a great quantity
of bread, while to kill ―a bull‖ for just three visitors shows royal generosity: a lamb or a
goat would have been more than adequate (cf. 2 Sam 12:4; Luke 15:27 –30).
8 The energetic preparations over, the meal is at last served. As is still customary
among the bedouin, yogurt or lebben is served with the bread and the meat. Abraham, as
the good host, waits discreetly in the background, allowing his guests to enjoy their lavish
banquet.
As far as Abraham was concerned, his warm -hearted hospitality was just the proper
way to entertain visitors. But is the reader, who knows who they are (v 1), also meant to
reflect on how appropriate these offerings are? Elsewhere in the Pe ntateuch ―best wheat
flour‖ (on this rendering, see R. Rendtorff, Leviticus [Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1970]
91–95) is only used in cereal offerings and for making the bread of the presence (Lev 24:5),
and the regulations about the sacrifice constantly ins ist on the necessity of offering only
top-quality animals (cf. Abraham‘s ―fine tender bull‖). The narrative may be hinting that he
is behaving more wisely than he realized.
9–15 Now at last the meal is over; conversation begins, and the purpose of the visit and
the identity of the visitors become plain. This scene actually concerns the LORD and Sarah,
but as a married woman she apparently stays inside the tent out of sight of the visitors,
while the LORD addresses her by talking to Abrah am. This change of focus makes this
account of the promise of the birth of Isaac rather different from that in 17:15 –21. There the
promise was made directly to Abraham, apparently unbeknown to Sarah; here the promise
is made to her. There Abraham expressed his astonished unbelief by falling down and
laughing. Here Sarah simply laughs to herself inside the tent, and Abraham apparently
accepts the promise without demurral. In 17:19 the child is named Isaac, ―he laughed,‖ as a
reminder of his father‘s doubts; here, although the same verb is mentioned four times,
nothing is made of it. Clearly the narrative assumes the etymology of Isaac in the previous
chapter and sees no need to repeat it here.
9 ―Where is your wife Sarah?‖ sounds like a straightforward questi on; certainly Abraham
replies directly, ―there in the tent.‖ But surely they ought to have realized from the
preparation of the meal where she was, so why ask? And if they did not know where she
was, how did they know her name? Gunkel and Rudin -O‘Brasky ( The Patriarchs )are right
to see this question as the first hint to Abraham that his visitors are no ordinary men: they
know the name of a woman they have never met. Like 3:9, ―Where are you?‖ and 4:9,
―Where is Abel your brother?‖ it is not a real question, for the questioner knows the
answer. In this case, it rather shows something about the questioner and indicates the real
recipient of the message about to be given.
10 ―Next year‖ ( 
) is problematic, occurring only here, v 14, and 2 Kgs 4:16, 17 in a similar context. But
the translation ―next year‖ is made probable by the analogous Akkadian phrase ana balat
(see AHW, 99a; CAD, 51–52; see also R. Yaron, VT 12 [1962] 500 –501; O. Loretz, Bib 43
[1962] 75 –78, as well as 17:21).
―I shall certainly come back to you‖ suggests another visit is planned, but the verb is

used elsewhere of God‘s gracious intervention, e.g., Zech 1:3; Ps 80:15(14), and this must
be its sense he re, as ―Sarah your wife is going to have a son‖ makes plain. Compared with
the threefold announcement of the birth in 17:16, 19, 21, this time it is much shorter and
briefer. The promise is for Sarah alone here, and the phrasing ( 
) makes its fulfillment sound even closer. It could be rendered ―Your wife Sarah now
has a son,‖ yet on this occasion we hear of no doubts expressed by Abraham. The attention
is now focused on Sarah, full of curiosity, ―listening at the door of the tent.‖ Not only is the
tent door between her and the messenger, the latter has his back to the tent. SamPent and G
―she was behind him‖ may suggest that she was out in the doorway but he was not facing
her. Whichever the correct reading, the important point for the narrative is that the
mysterious speaker cannot see her reaction to the news. The promise of a son implies that
the speaker is a divine messenger; the fact that he can discern Sarah‘s reactions without
seeing her proves his status and guarantees his message.
11 17:17 has already said that Sarah is ninety, so it seems superfluous to tell us again
that she is ―old.‖ This repetition is easily explained if chap. 17 comes from a tradition
different from that of chap. 18. But in the context of Genesis, ninety is no great age (cf.
Noah, who became a father at 500 [5:32]), and 12:11 has said she is very attractive, a point
assumed in chap. 20 also. Thus the new piece of information given here, ―Sarah was past
the menopause,‖ may not have seemed so self -evident to the original readers as it does to
us. It certainly underlines the magnitude of the miracle of Isaac‘s birth: it was not simply
that Sarah had long been infertile but that she was well past the menopau se too.
Conception, let alone birth, was impossible.
12 Knowing these personal details about Sarah, we tend to excuse her laughter, and this
is no doubt the writer‘s intention: he wants to explain why someone who laughed at God‘s
promise suffered so mild a rebuke. It was something very hard to believe. Abraham had
apparently laughed aloud but kept his doubts to himself or at least only expressed them
indirectly (17:17 –18). Sarah keeps all her emotions hidden. ―So Sarah laughed to herself
thinking, ‗After I am worn out, shall I have pleasure?‘‖
When the narrator spoke of Sarah being past the menopause, he was quite matter -of-fact
about her situation. Sarah describes herself as ―worn out,‖ a decrepit old woman. She could
certainly not expect to enjoy the pleas ures of younger women in being a mother or perhaps
even of sexual intercourse with her husband, for he too is quite old.
These remarks of Sarah‘s show us the basis of her doubts. She laughed not out of cocky
arrogance but because a life of long disappointm ent had taught her not to clutch at straws.
Hopelessness, not pride, underlay her unbelief. Her self -restraint in not openly expressing
her doubts and the sadness behind them go far to explain the gentleness of the divine
rebuke.
13 The LORD continue s to speak to Abraham, but really to Sarah. If Sarah was
astonished at the promise of a child, the LORD professes astonishment that she should not
have believed him. The phraseology of the Hebrew (see Notes and Translation ) expresses
the divine surprise. T he way he phrases Sarah‘s doubts is instructive. The narrator was
direct —―past the menopause‖; Sarah was pathetic and blamed her husband, ―I am worn out
and my husband is old,‖ but the LORD is kindly. He does not describe Sarah as ―worn out‖
or her husband as too old; rather, he simply says that Sarah said, ―Shall I even I really give
birth as I am old?‖ But what is most significant is that he knows that Sarah had laughed and
what she thought even though he had his back to her and she was inside the tent. T his

proves who he is and is the foundation for his next remark.
14 ―Is anything too difficult for the LORD?‖ is a rhetorical question that demands the
answer no. God, this passage teaches, is both omniscient and omnipotent. As Sternberg
points out, these b eliefs inform the whole of biblical narrative, but rarely are they quite so
explicit as here.
―Too difficult‖ (niphal of 
) is used elsewhere of lawsuits too difficult for lower judges to handle (Deut 17:8), of
the impossibility of Amnon marrying Tamar (2 Sam 13:2), and of the unimaginable future
peace of Jerusalem (Zech 8:6). But Jer 32:17 and 27 offer the closest parallels to Gen
18:14. In both, God‘s almighty power is explicitly affirmed.
―At the set time next year I shall come back to you, and Sarah will have a son.‖ The
original assurance of v 10 is repeated. But note the addition of ―at the set time‖ from 17:21,
thereby reaffirming both that promise to Abraham and the one just made to Sarah.
15 Sarah‘s denial is surprising, and the narrator therefor e explains that ―she was
frightened‖ by the nature of the messenger and by the substance of his message. But if she
now recognized that she was dealing with a divine messenger, why try to deny what he
knew? Does this reflect an inadequate theology? The god s of the ancient Orient were not all
credited with omniscience. Or is she just telling a half -truth, ―She had laughed to herself‖
(lit. ―inside herself,‖ v 12), so to say ―I did not laugh‖ was inexact but not absolutely false.
Whatever the t hinking, her denial allowed her to pronounce, albeit in jumbled form, the
name of her future son ( s\aµh\aqtéÆ ―I laughed‖; yis/a#181;q ―Isaac‖). In this way, Sarah
unwittingly confirms the divine promise and provides a simple reiteration. ―Not so, you did
laugh‖ ( s\aµh\aqt) clinches the discussion. There is no room for doubt. Sarah will have a
son, and he will be called Isaac.
18:16 –19:29 These verses focus on the destruction of Sodom. As explained in
Form/Structure/Setting , this section falls into eleven s cenes arranged concentrically around
the angelic announcement of Sodom‘s fate in 19:12 –13.
18:16 The first scene, like the final scene 19:27 –28, tells of Abraham leaving his
encampment to ―look out‖ from the hills near Hebron ―over‖ the Dead Sea plain to t he city
of ―Sodom.‖ But ―the men looked out over Sodom‖ is the first hint that they are interested
in the city. The discussion after the meal had been about Sarah‘s future pregnancy, and
Abraham accompanied them on their way as a parting act of respect wit h apparently no
inkling of their plans. But their look toward Sodom has already alerted the reader to what is
afoot.
17–21 The second scene consists of a divine soliloquy. It begins by describing God‘s
thought about Abraham, thereby making the reader wiser than Abraham at this point, and
continues with a statement of God‘s worry about Sodom and Gomorrah. In subject and
style, these divine reflections resemble those that precede the flood (cf. 6:5–13), and this
gives an ominous feel to th e whole scene, although nothing explicit is said about the fate of
Sodom.
17 It is characteristic of the true prophet that he is privy to the divine secrets (cf. Amos
3:7). When the LORD asks here ―Shall I hide from Abraham what I am ab out to do?‖ the
question seems to be directed at the two ―men‖ accompanying the LORD, who are
presumably members of the divine council (Jer 23:18). The point of the question is whether
Abraham is going to enjoy the privilege of access to the divine committ ee‘s deliberations
that prophets enjoy.

18 This verse gives the reason for such a privilege: the promise made to Abraham. ―For
Abraham is indeed to become a great and powerful nation, and all the nations of the earth
will find blessing in him‖ is a slightl y modified version of 12:2 –3. The addition of the
adjective ―powerful‖ (cf. Num 14:12; Deut 9:14; 26:5) and the substitution of ―nations‖ for
―families‖ and ―clans‖ seem to enhance the original promise.
19 ―I have chosen [lit. ‗known‘] him.‖ For the use of [
―to know‖ in the sense to ―choose, elect,‖ cf. Amos 3:2; Exod 33:12, 17; Deut 34:10; 2
Sam 7:20. If the ground of election was God‘s promise (v 18 ), its fuller purpose is now
stated for the first time: to create a God -fearing community (v 19). In 17:11 the future
obligation placed on Abraham‘s descendants appeared to be limited to the duty of
circumcision. But here he is told to command his sons to do righteousness. The obligation
of instructing children is constantly reiterated in the law (Exod 12:25 –27; Deut 6:1 –3, 6–7,
20–25) and in the wisdom literature (Prov 1:7; 13:1). In Job 23:11, observing the LORD‘s
way is equated with observing his command s: here and in Ps 18:22(21), it is identified with
doing ―righteousness.‖ On this term, see Comment on 6:9b. The terms ―righteousness and
equity,‖ frequently paired in the psalms, appear so often in Ezek 18 (vv 5 , 19, 21, 27) that
they are probably making allusion to this passage in Genesis. Both passages are dealing
with the question of how far divine judgment operates on individuals and in groups. ―So
that the LORD may bring on Abraham what he has spoken about.‖ This clause makes the
fulfillment of the promise contingent on Abraham‘s obedience, similarly in 22:15 –18; 26:5.
This pattern of promise -obedience -fulfillment of promise is ubiquitous in Scripture, so for
Gunkel and Westermann to claim that the earliest f orm of the promise was unconditional
seems rash. It is integral to OT covenant theology (e.g., Exod 19:4 –5).
20–21 ―The LORD said‖ suggests that the following words were spoken aloud so that
Abraham heard t hem. He notes the cities‘ reputation; ―outcry‖ refers to the protests of those
offended (cf. Prov 21:13). Like the blood of Abel, unpunished sin cries out to heaven for
vengeance (cf. 4:10). That the LORD describes t he outcry as great and the sin as very serious
is ominous, especially in the light of the similar phraseology in 6:5, which presaged the
flood. ―I want to go down‖ (coh of 
) sounds like the ―let us go down‖ (11:7) that preceded God‘s ju dgment at Babel. It is not
that God needs to go down to confirm what he knows, but that he is visiting it with a view
to judgment. It sounds like a foregone conclusion (―deserve destruction‖), but the final ―if
not‖ gives a chink of hope, and on this slend er hope Abraham bases his plea. ―It is God
himself, who wants intercession made, and Abraham must be the intercessor‖ (Jacob,
448–49).
22–33 These verses constitute the third scene, in which Abraham intercedes for Sodom.
It matches the ninth scene in this sequence (19:17 –22), in which Lot pleads for Zoar. Both
scenes are dialogues set outside the city of Sodom. Here Abraham puts in a sixfold plea for
the city, each time accepted by the LORD. Each time he asks, ―Suppose there are x
righteous‖; every time God accedes to his plea.
Plea
Reply
―Would you sweep away and not‖
If I find … I shall spare‖ (26)
spare … ? (23 –25)

―Since I have undertaken … would
―I shall not ruin … if I find‖ (28)
you ruin?‖ (27 –28)
―(Suppose there are forty?)‖
―I shall not do it … for the sake of‖ (29)
―Do not be angry my sovereign … ‖
―I shall not do it … if I find‖ (30)
―Since I have undertaken … ‖
―I shall not ruin it … for the sake of‖ (31)
―Do not be angry, my sovereign‖
―I shall not ruin it … for the sake of‖ (32)

Threefold repetition is commonplace in biblical narrative; the doubling of the pattern
here is significant and gives Abraham‘s intercession solemnity and weight. Note, too, the
elegant repetition and variation in the pleas and replies: ―spare‖ — ―spare‖ (vv 24, 26);
―ruin‖ —―ruin‖ (v 28); ―I have undertaken‖ (vv 27, 31); ―Do not be angry‖ (vv 30, 32); ―If I
find … ‖ (vv 26, 28, 30); ―I shall not ruin‖ (vv 28, 31, 32); ―for the sake of‖ (vv 29, 31, 32).
Based on these patterns, it would seem that there is a pr ogression in both the pleas and the
replies. Abraham starts off with a confident appeal in vv 23 –25 and ends with a hesitant
―Do not be angry, my sovereign.‖ On the other hand, while the LORD in every case accepts
his plea, the tone of his acceptance perce ptibly cools. He begins with the positive pair of
words ―If I find … I shall spare.‖ He ends with two more ominous pairs, ―I shall not ruin it
… for the sake of.‖ So it is not altogether surprising that Abraham ends his intercession
where he does; the tone of God‘s replies conveys the feeling that he cannot be pushed much
further.
22 ―Then the men … but Abraham was still standing before the LORD.‖ Throughout these
chapters, the relationships between ―the LORD,‖ ―the men,‖ and ―the angels‖ are shrouded
in my stery. Initially it is said that ―The LORD appeared‖ (v 1), but Abraham sees three men
(v 2); there is also the strange alternation between singular and plural address in vv 3 –4, as
though Abraham regarded one as the leader. The supernatural nature of the visitors
becomes evident in their conversation, and the promise of a son seems to prove that at least
one of them speaks for the LORD. Nevertheless, the exact relationship between them is
again blurred in vv 16 –17 when ―the men stood up … But the LORD thought.‖ Here at last
the identity of the visitors is clarified: one is or represents the LORD; the other two are
angelic companions. When they arrive in Sodom, they are called angels (19:1). It is never
explicitly said that the LORD entered Sodom; the underl ying assumption is no doubt that he
could not endure the presence of such sin. Even the angels are most reluctant to stay a night
(19:2). Gunkel, Westermann, and Haag see the variation in description of the visitors and
the alternation of singular and plur al address as proof of the composite nature of the
narrative. With Delitzsch, Dillmann, and Jacob, I see these confusions as deliberate: they
express the difficulty of human comprehension of the divi
23–25 ―Then Abraham approached and said‖ sounds redundan t since he was already
standing before the LORD. It may, as Jacob suggests, refer to his internal approach, for this
is the first time a man in Scripture initiates a conversation with God. But elsewhere in the
Pentateuch the words ―approach and say‖ mark t he beginning of a request in which the
speaker has a special interest (cf. 43:19; 44:18).

―Would you even sweep away the righteous along with the wicked?‖ The verb 
―sweep away‖ is used again in the next verse and in 19:15, 17. On t he term ―righteous‖
(
), cf. 6:9; ―wicked‖ ( [
) is the opposite and is often contrasted with the righteous. Ezek 18 gives many
examples of the abominable things, flagrant breaches of the law, that characterize the
behavior of the wicked. If God should not distinguish between good and bad behavior, that
would be a grave affront to morality and piety. Indeed, that he does distinguish and does
reward men according to their deeds is a fundamental assumption of ancient religion, and
especially of the OT. The law, the prophets, and the wisdom literature all assert it: indeed,
the Book of Job is shocking precisely because in allowing Job to suffer, God seems to be
flouting his usual principles. ―The LORD loves the righteous … but the way of the wicked
he brings to ruin‖ (Ps 146:8, 9) is the presupposition of all the OT. Indeed, in the divine
reflections on Abraham in v 19, the principle of reward for righte ous behavior has just been
reasserted. And it is on this principle that Abraham builds his case. Three times he points
out the incongruity, even the inconceivability, of treating righteous and wicked alike. Each
time Abraham returns to the point, he makes it more sharply. ―Would you even sweep away
the righteous along with the wicked?‖ suggests perhaps an oversight on God‘s part if the
righteous are lost with the wicked; but ―to put to death‖ (hiph 
; v 25) with its overtones of judicial sent ence (Lev 20:4; Num 35:19, 21) suggests that
God‘s condemnation is deliberate, while the final phrase, ―to treat the righteous and the
wicked the same‖ (see note on grammatical construction), makes the point clear beyond
doubt. In this case, God would be c old-bloodedly failing to distinguish good from evil.
Israelite judges are expected to acquit the righteous and condemn the wicked (Deut 25:1; cf.
Exod 23:6 –7; Prov 17:15). If these are the standards enjoined on human judges, ―Shall not
the judge of all the earth act justly?‖ If God expects those who rule in his name to ―love
righteousness and hate wickedness‖ (Ps 45:8 [7]), how can he behave differently himself?
26 The LORD accepts Abraham‘s logic. ―Spare‖ ( 
) was the key word in Abra ham‘s plea (v 24). The verb literally means to ―lift up,‖ so to
―lift someone‘s face‖ (19:21) is to show favor. It is often followed by ―sin,‖ ―iniquity‖ as an
object, in which case it means ―forgive.‖ Moses uses the same term in his great intercession
for Israel (32:32), and eventually the LORD declares his character as the one who is
―merciful and gracious … forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin‖ (Exod 34:6 –7). Here
God‘s response to Abraham foreshadows his later declaration to Moses.
―Fifty righteou s.‖ It is not clear why Abraham began with fifty and worked down to ten.
Jacob, relying on Amos 5:3, suggests a small city could field a hundred fighting men;
consequently, fifty might represent half the city. So Abraham may be starting from the
hypothetic al situation of equal numbers of righteous and wicked in the city. It would be
unjust to destroy all because half were sinners. He then works down to less obvious cases.
27–28 Note Abraham‘s polite diffidence, expressed in his formal language, ―I have
unde rtaken‖ (used only here and v 31 in Genesis) and ―sovereign,‖ and in only reducing the
number by five. Later, he drops it by ten each time. ―Ruin‖ ( 
), here used for the first time, is a key term in this story and in the flood story; also see
Exod 32:7 (see Form/Structure/Setting ). The LORD uses the same term in assenting to
Abraham‘s plea.

29 The third plea is the briefest and most colorless, as if Abraham feels that another five
less will not make much difference.
30 But with the second round of three pleas, the tension starts to rise again, as the very
conciliatory opening, ―Do not be angry, my sovereign,‖ ushers in a request that the speaker
regards as most important (cf. 31:35; 44:18; Exod 32:22 ; Judg 6:39), and then Abraham
drops the threshhold for salvation by another ten.
31 Though Abraham‘s request has the same polite diffidence as in v 27, the reply has a
slightly ominous ring. The LORD himself introduces the word ―ruin‖ in his reply to
Abra ham, whereas on the previous occasion he had used the more colorless ―do,‖ perhaps
giving a hint that he cannot be pressed much further.
32 Clearly Abraham feels he has reached the limit of what he dare ask. He opens with
the conciliatory ―Do not be angry‖ (v 30) and asks to speak ―just once more.‖ And again his
request is granted, albeit with the same threatening formula as in v 31: ―I shall not ruin it.‖
33 As the LORD had hinted in v 21 that he wanted intercession for Sodom, so he now
closes the prayer b y going on his way. It was not, as often suggested, that Abraham did not
have the courage to go further and press his case to the logical conclusion: ―Suppose one is
found there . … ‖ Rather, God himself had hinted that he should go no further (v 31), and
he now terminates the conversation. Nevertheless, Abraham put the case so strongly against
the indiscriminate slaughter of the righteous that every reader must wonder what God will
do if there are fewer than ten righteous in Sodom. The narrator, too, is aw are of the
problem: the next few scenes, set in the city itself, will show there are no righteous in
Sodom at all, except for Lot, who is only a sojourner there, not a full citizen (19:9).
In interceding for Sodom, Abraham is portrayed as fulfilling a role particularly
associated with prophets. We have already noted verbal links with Moses‘ great
intercession in Exod 32 –34. Samuel (1 Sam 12:23), Amos (7:1 –9), and Jeremiah (e.g., Jer
14:7–9, 13; 15:1) also pleaded with God on the nation‘s behalf. Here Abraham is not
praying for his own people (he does not mention Lot) but for Sodom, and this makes this
episode unique among prophetic intercessions.
19:1–3 The fourth scene of the Sodom material tells of the angels‘ arrival in So dom‘s city
gate. In the palistrophe, it matches their departure through the gate (19:15 –16). This scene
also invites comparison with the description of their arrival in Mamre and the hospitality
Abraham provided there (18:1 –8). The account of their arrival at Sodom is somewhat
briefer than at Mamre, but this need not be taken to show Lot was less warm in his
welcome than was Abraham. The narrator feels no need to repeat all the details; rather, he
highlights the differences in the situation.
1 First, it is observed that two ―angels‖ came to Sodom. 
―angel‖ may simply be ―messenger‖ (32:4 [3]), as opposed to ―angel‖ = a messenger
from God. The translation ―angel‖ seems appropriate here in the light of what we have
discovered about Abraham‘s visitors in t he previous chapters and in view of what they are
about to do. Presumably, to Lot they at first seemed just to be men, as they did to Abraham
when they arrived in Mamre. But notice that now they are only two; one, presumably the
LORD, has not come (cf. 18:22, 33). This clarifies this scene‘s relationship to the preceding,
as does the time reference, ―in the evening,‖ i.e., toward sunset. This seems to imply they
have spent most of the day with Abraham before transporting themselves to Sodom. The
distance between Mamre and Sodom is too great (at least twenty miles) to suppose they
actually walked that distance after their leisurely lunch with Abraham.

―While Lot was sitting in th e gateway of Sodom.‖ The gateway was the public square
of the city where the elders sat, public meetings were held, and legal disputes were
adjudicated. That Lot was here suggests that he was a respected member of the community,
but it is strange that no e lders of Sodom are mentioned. It is characteristic of Bible
storytelling to focus on the main actors and to omit reference to other figures of less
consequence who are present but passive. Nevertheless, one would have expected others to
have greeted the an gels, but nothing is said. Does this indicate a lack of hospitality among
the Sodomites: only Lot the immigrant welcomes the visitors? Or does Lot‘s sitting by
himself suggest his estrangement from the men of Sodom? The gap in the narrative here
will soon be filled. Lot, at least, shows the proper courtesy: ―he stood up to greet them and
bowed to the ground‖ (cf. 18:2).
2 Lot‘s warm welcome is quite similar to Abraham‘s (cf. 18:3–5). But the different time
of arrival makes it appropriate to offer them a bed for the night, rather than just a meal and
a rest under a shady tree. But their reply is most unexpected and apparently ungrateful.
―Not so, we shall stay in the street.‖ If oriental convention dictated that one sho uld offer
strangers a bed for the night, it just as firmly dictated the acceptance of such offers (cf.
24:23, 54; Judg 18:2; 19:4 –20), so the angelic reluctance to stay with Lot increases the
apprehension that the opening has already ar oused by mentioning the arrival of just two
angels (why has the third not come?) and by Lot‘s solitary greeting (why did not the
Sodomites welcome the visitors?). Why should angels be afraid of spending the night with
Lot? Are they intent on doing somethin g else overnight —inspecting the city? Or are they
fearful of the repercussions of staying with Lot? Their unexpected refusal of Lot‘s
invitation creates more gaps and invites the reader to reflect.
3 Whatever the angelic motives, Lot is scared of what may happen if they do not spend the
night with him. So scared that ―he pressed them‖ to come in. The verb ―press‖ ( 
) means ―to urge, to insist‖ (cf. 33:11; Judg 19:7; 2 Kgs 5:16). Here and in 19:9 it is
intensified by the addition of 
―very,‖ so that I have translated it ―manhandle.‖ Perhaps here ―he twisted their arm‖
would be an equivalent English idiom. But what did Lot think might happen if they stayed
outside? The apprehensions already aroused by vv 1 –2 are further heightened by Lot‘s
arm-twisting.
But for a moment the narrative allows us to relax, telling how they relented in the face
of Lot‘s pressure and ―entered his house.‖ ―And he made them a feast.‖  [
describes the banquets given on special occasions, e.g., the weaning of Isaac (21:8),
weddings (29:22; Judg 14:10), and royal entertaining (40:20; 1 Kgs 3:15). ―Baking them
unleavened bread‖ probably because that was quick to make (cf. Exod 12:39; 1 Sam 28:24),
and li ke Abraham, Lot was hurrying to make his guests welcome.
4–11 The fifth scene, like the seventh, takes place in Sodom outside Lot‘s house. In
both, Lot‘s appeals are rudely rejected. In this scene, the narrative gaps left in the previous
scene are filled; that is, the questions raised but left unanswered are now resolved. The
angels discover what the whole population of Sodom is like. We learn that the Sodomites
are most inhospitable toward visitors, which explains why the angels were so reluctant to
enter Lot‘s house and why Lot insisted they must. But not only does this scene disclose the
character of the Sodomites; it also discloses Lot‘s commitment to his visitors and, indeed,
the nature of his visitors. This is essential if Lot is to take their warning seriously.
4 Note the very emphatic insistence that ―the whole population,‖ ―young and old,‖ were

involved in this crime. There are no righteous in Sodom except for Lot, who is only an
immigrant. Lot, as soon will be made clear, will leave, so there is no question of divine
injustice in the overthrow of Sodom. The righteous will not be swept away with the wicked
as Abraham feared.
5 The mob shouts out that Lot‘s visitors be brought out, ―so that we may know them.‖ It
is because of this remark and Lot‘s subsequent comments that homosexuality has been
identified as the sin of Sodom. But this has bee n contested. Certainly their wording is not
quite so explicit: ―that we may know them.‖ Their words stand in ironic contrast to the
LORD‘s expressed intention to know about them (18:21). The mob could mean simply that
they want to know who these visitors a re, but since the visitors came through the public
gateway and were publicly greeted by Lot, this cannot be all they mean. And since [
―to know‖ is frequently used in Genesis of sexual intercourse, this seems the likeliest
meaning here (cf. 4:1, 17, 25; 24:16). Indeed, it is made inescapable by Lot‘s reply, in
which he describes his daughters as ―virgins,‖ lit. ―who have not known a man.‖ [
must here be intended to mean sexual intimacy, and this is recognized by all the major
commentators. All homosexual practice is regarded by OT law as a capital offense (Lev
18:22; 20:13; cf. Rom 1:26 –27), but the attit ude of Israel‘s neighbors is less clear, for it is
not often discussed in their legal collections. It seems likely that they allowed homosexual
acts between consenting adults, but here homosexual gang rape is being proposed,
something completely at odds wi th the norms of all oriental hospitality. (See further G. J.
Wenham, ExpTim 102 [1991] 359 –63.)
6 So far Lot has been portrayed as most hospitable and very solicitous of his visitors‘
welfare. He is now shown to be a man of no m ean courage. True to the cardinal principle of
oriental hospitality that protecting your guests is a sacred duty, he bravely goes out to face
the mob alone. The last clause, ―he shut the door behind him,‖ gives a clue to his thinking.
By shutting the door, he cut off his own escape and hoped to protect those inside.
7 He begins with polite entreaty: the enclitic 
(see Notes ) and the phrase ―my brothers‖ suggest Lot hoped that a soft answer would turn
away wrath (Prov 15:1).
8 That appeal fell on deaf ear s, and presumably in desperation, he offers to sacrifice his
virgin daughters to the lusting mob. His offer no doubt shocked the narrator and first
audience as much as it does us, so there immediately follows an explanation of his motives:
―only do not do anything to these men for they came under the protection of my roof for
this reason.‖ ―For this reason‖ ( 
) is almost redundant semantically (cf. n. 18:5b -b.), but it serves here to underline how
committed Lot is to protecting h is guests. Putting their welfare above his daughters‘ may
have been questionable, but it shows just how committed he was to being a good host.
9 But the unfortunate offer was not accepted. Verbal abuse turns to physical assault.
The unruly scene is vividly described, and the hopelessness of Lot‘s attempts to save his
guests is comprehensively demonstrated. His polite appeal, ―Do not do evil, my brothers,‖
is rebuffed by a jibe at his immigrant status: ―shall a single immigrant … we shall do more
evil to you than to them.‖ Lot is pushed aside, and despite his care to shut the door, ―they
came to batter it down.‖
10 When all seems lost, the visitors reveal their true identity by taking Lot inside and
striking his assailants with blindness. ―The men put out the ir hand and brought Lot into the

house with them‖ sounds just like 8:9, ―he put out his hand … and brought [the dove] into
the ark with him.‖ In view of the other parallels with the flood story, this description of the
angelic action is no doubt meant to e cho Noah‘s. As Noah cared for his dove, so they
rescued Lot. As Noah‘s power and wisdom exceeded the dove‘s, so does angelic protection
exceed human.
11 What is more, the angels ―struck the men with a sudden blindness.‖ The unusual
word for ―blindness‖ ( 
; cf. Akk. sinlurmaµ sinnuµru day- or night -blindness; Stol, JNES 45 [1986] 296 –97)
recurs in 2 Kgs 6:18. It ma y be, as Speiser argues, that the angels emitted a blinding light.
As elsewhere in Scripture (Isa 6:10; John 9), this physical blindness is probably symbolic
of intellectual or spiritual blindness. The men of Sodom cannot see physically or spiritually
wher e they are going. Lot‘s sons -in-law will soon show themselves deaf to his invitation to
save themselves (v 14).
―They grew tired of trying to find their way in‖ ends the scene on a comic note: the men
fumbling around looking for the door is laughable. Yet in another way it surprises us. Why
did they not go home as soon as they were struck with blindness? Is this another hint of
how deeply rooted their sin was? Divine judgment is supposed to induce repentance (cf.
Amos 4:6 –12); here it do es not, so yet greater calamities must be expected. Further, it is
unexpected that no one in the large mob, even if blind, found his way to the door and
summoned others there. Supernatural agency was manifested not simply in the blinding but
also in the co ntinued protection of the house until the mob dispersed.
12–13 The central scene set in Lot‘s house in Sodom is an angelic monologue. The
previous scene revealed both the depravity of his neighbors and the identity of his guests so
that now Lot is prepared for the message they have brought. Like Noah, he is warned of
impending judgment (6:13 –21) and advised to lead his family to a place of safety. In both
situations, the ominous word ―ruin‖ ( 
) appears twice, first in the hiphil then in the piel (6:13, 1 7; 19:13). The same terms
appeared in Abraham‘s intercession, bringing it to an uncertain close (18:28, 31, 32).
Lot is advised to bring out his ―sons -in-law, … sons … daughters.‖ His sons and
unmarried daughters would have been under his patriarchal autho rity, but his ―sons -in-law‖
would not have been. The indefinite singular form, literally ―son -in-law,‖ is odd. But this
observation does not prove it is a gloss; some mention of his ―sons -in-law‖ is necessary to
explain why Lot went next to urge them to es cape. He had no responsibility usually for his
sons-in-law as they did not form part of his extended family. In 18:21, the LORD said he
wanted to investigate the outcry. The angels now confirm his original verdict (18:20) and
pronounce sentence on behalf o f the judge of all the earth. ―Their outcry is great in the
LORD‘s presence, and the LORD has sent us to ruin it.‖ Note too how this comment finally
clarifies the relationship between the LORD and the two angels already implied in 18:22, 33;
19:1.
14 The seventh scene, like the fifth, is set outside Lot‘s house and tells how the men of
Sodom rejected his advice yet again. When offered a way of salvation, they turn it down,
proving once more that they fully deserved judgment. ―Who had married his daugh ters‖ or
―who were to marry his daughters.‖ Both translations are possible. If ―had married‖ is the
preferred translation, then the refusal of his sons -in-law to leave meant Lot was leaving
some of his daughters behind in Sodom. If, on the other hand, ―wer e to marry‖ is the better
interpretation, the attitude of his sons -in-law is more understandable. This talk of judgment

was just a device to call off the marriage after the riot outside his house. The ambiguity of
the participle (married/to marry) makes bo th interpretations viable. But whatever the exact
relationship, ―his sons -in-law thought he was joking.‖ ―Joke‖ is the same stem ( 
) as ―laugh‖ (cf. 17:17; 18:12, 13, 15), the etymology of Isaac, but here the piel stem is
used antici pating 21:9. ―Joking‖ or ―mocking‖ the righteous, like ―disdaining them‖ (12:3),
is a dangerous pursuit in Genesis.
15–16 The eighth scene reverses the action of the fourth. There the angels arrive at
Sodom; here they leave. In the fourth scene, they were forcibly persuaded by Lot to stay ;
now it is their turn to use force to make him go. In the flood story, Noah was warned to
prepare (6:13 –21) and then later was told to embark in the ark he had built (7:1 –4), so the
initial warning to Lot (19:12 –13) is fo llowed up with a command to leave (19:15 –16). But
here the time scale is much shorter, and there is an urgency not found in the flood story.
This urgency comes through in the narrative: ―At crack of dawn,‖ lit. ―as dawn rose.‖

―dawn‖ is the time when the blackness of night starts to lighten before sunrise (cf. v
23; Judg 19:25 –26). ―Come on‖ ( 
), lit. ―arise,‖ is clearly exclamatory in v 14, but it could be literal here: the angels are
waking Lot up. The echo of the previous verse suggests Lot too may be reluctant to go.
―You have,‖ lit. ―are found,‖ is the same verbal form as used by Abraham in his plea for
Sodom (18:29 –32), as is the term ―swept away‖ (18:23, 24). Apart from this verb al link
with Abraham‘s intercession, it is unnecessary grammatically to add ―you have.‖ The
addition probably indicates that Lot had other daughters living elsewhere in Sodom, and
this may partially explain his dallying. But the righteous (cf. Noah) are expected to be
prompt in obeying divine commands. ―Delaying shows indecisiveness and an incapacity to
leave everything behind so that he, together with his wife and two daughters, two with each
angel, must be led away. J depicts Lot‘s character as a contrast to Abraham‘s in masterly
fashion: he is fond of good living (13:10ff), soft (vv 7 –8, 30ff), indecisive, and anxious‖
(Procksch, 129). The angel‘s use of force is an act of mercy; ―h ad compassion‖ ( 
) often has the nuance of ―sparing from death‖ (cf. Exod 2:6; Deut 13:9 [8]; 1 Sam 15:3, 9,
15).
17–22 The ninth scene matches the third scene closely: earlier Abraham had interceded
for Sodom; now Lot pleads for Zoa r. But despite the thematic and verbal parallels, their
approach is quite different. Abraham is altruistic, but Lot is selfish. Whereas Abraham
pleads divine justice, Lot rests his case on his own weakness and convenience. His plea is
sandwiched between th e repeated commands to escape (vv 17, 22) ( 
niphal). The root ―escape‖ occurs five times in this scene and is doubtless a play on the
word Lot (
), as if to say ―Lot was let out of Sodom.‖
17 The urgent tone is maintained. Note ―As soon as they had brought them outside‖
followed by four brisk commands. ―Do not look back‖ in this context simply expresses the
need for haste. But it is expected to be followed literally, as v 26 makes plain. Only one of
the angels issues the commands, and it is to him th at Lot speaks.
18 ―No, Lord.‖ As pointed, 
is the proper way to address God (cf. 18:3), and Lot‘s subsequent intercession is
directed to God. Whether the narrative is suggesting that the LORD has now rejoined the

angels outside the city, or whether Lot is just being very polite, is obscure. Could he really
know who he was talking to in the gloom before sunrise? The mystery is probably
deliberate.
19 Lot‘s plea is somewhat involved syntacticall y, suggesting perhaps his inner
confusion and bewilderment. In his self -description, ―you have been kind‖ ( 
―find grace‖), Lot associates himself with Abraham (18:3) and Noah (6:8). ―To save
life‖ (
hiph) also echoes the flood story (6:19, 20). But these comparisons hardly redound to
Lot‘s credit as he continues, ―Since I cannot escape to the hills, so that the disaster will
catch me, and I die.‖ Instead of obeying without question the injunction ―escape t o the
hills,‖ he says he cannot. Furthermore, he doubts God‘s ability to save him (―the disaster
will catch me‖), as though the coming judgment was not under divine control.
20 He suggests that he escape instead to a small city nearby, which he hopes God w ill
spare because it is small (cf. Amos 7:2, 5) —not because it contains righteous people —so
that he can survive. Out of his own mouth, Lot proves himself to be fearful, selfish, and
faithless.
21 Nevertheless, the LORD shows his mercy by accepting Lot‘s plea. He may accept
the prayers of his people, even when they are not as blameless as Noah or as believing as
Abraham. Divine grace is the ultimate basis of salvation, not human righteousness.
22 But Lot must be quick, for God cannot act till he reaches his chosen city.
―Zoar‖ comes from the root 
―to be small,‖ which was the basis of Lot‘s appeal. According to 14:8, its earlier name
was Bela. It is usually supposed to lie to the southeast of the Dead Sea, but the location of
all thes e cities is problematic (cf. Wenham, Genesis 1 –15, 309 –10).
23–26 The tenth scene describes the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah adumbrated in the
second scene (18:17 –21). Little detail is given: the awfulness of the event speaks for itse lf.
23–24 The syntax suggests that sunrise, Lot‘s arrival in Zoar, and the fire from heaven
coincide. The LORD acts as soon as Lot reaches his place of safety. Lot for his part must
have moved quickly, for in the Middle East there is barely half an hour be tween dawn and
sunrise. ―Brimstone and fire‖ are paired in Ps 11:6 and Ezek 38:22 as agents of divine
retribution. The Dead Sea area still reeks of sulphurous fumes, and asphalt deposits are
found, but what combination of natural or supernatural agents des troyed the towns remains
speculative (see von Rad, 220; Sarna, 138, for some suggestions). The narrator stresses that
―it was from the LORD.‖
25 ―He overthrew‖ ( 
), already used in 19:21 and again in v 29, reappears in the later standard phrase ―like
the overthrow of Sodom‖ (cf. Deut 29:22 [23]; Amos 4:11; Isa 13:19; Jer 49:18). But it is
doubtful whether it implies an earthquake contributed to the destruction. Here the
overthrow of the cities, their inhabitants, and the vegetation i s highlighted. Before this
destruction, ―all the plain … was well -watered like the garden of the LORD and the land of
Egypt‖ (13:10). Genesis implies that the present desolate aspect of the Dead Sea plain goes
back to this act of divine judgment.
26 It is often surmised that a strange rock formation near the Dead Sea gave rise to the
story of Lot‘s wife turning to a pillar of salt. While such a hypothesis cannot be disproved,
the comment here obviously has a different purpose. By looking back, Lot‘s wife
contravened the instruction not to look back in v 17. By disobeying a God -given

instruction, she forfeited her God -offered salvation. In looking back, she identified herself
with the damned town. Her petrification also explains her absence from the closing e pisode
of the Lot cycle, when his daughters intoxicate him to have intercourse with him. It would
be difficult to imagine their ruse succeeding if mother had been around. Finally, it creates
sympathy for Lot, both in the light of his less than perfect righ teousness displayed in his
reluctance to leave Sodom and flee to the mountains and his inebriation about to be related.
It is not so much his bereavement that evokes sympathy but the fact that he was a husband
who did not enjoy whole -hearted support from h is wife. While the narrator does not
condone Lot‘s lapses, he helps the reader appreciate a contributory cause and suggests why
his daughters had few scruples about their behavior. Like their mother, they too had
imbibed a love of Sodom and its attitudes.
27–28 The final scene of the Sodom palistrophe matches the first (18:16), with Abraham
looking down over the Dead Sea plain on the overthrown cities and the pallor of smoke,
like the smoke of a kiln, rising on the morning air. Presenting it through Abraham ‘s eyes,
the narrator makes us more conscious of the human aspect of the destruction. Abraham had
relatives there. What had happened to them? The reader has been told, but Abraham was
still unaware of Lot‘s escape. He had gone back to the place ―where he h ad stood before the
LORD‖ and interceded for the city. What had been the point?
29 This concluding verse, while superficially just a résumé of the story already told in
full, answers Abraham‘s questions and ours. His intercession had been worthwhile, for
―when God ruined the cities … God remembered Abraham and sent Lot out of the
overthrow.‖ As already noted, ―God remembered Abraham‖ echoes 8:1, ―God remembered
Noah.‖ But a more exact parallel to 8:1 would have been ―God remembered Lot,‖ for Noah
and Lot ar e the men saved from disaster. The substitution of Abraham for Lot in this
sentence makes an important theological point. Lot was not saved on his own merits but
through Abraham‘s intercession. And this makes a good parallel to the conclusion of the
flood story, for there the LORD, after smelling Noah‘s sacrifice, promises never to destroy
the earth again with a flood (8:20 –22). There Noah‘s sacrifice makes atonement for the
world; here Abraham‘s prayer leads to the salvation of Lot.
30–38 The final episode in the Lot story has many points of similarity to the final
episode in the Noah story. In both, the heroes drink too much. In both, when their father is
drunk, the children sin against him, and this has consequences for future generations.
Yet the differe nces are just as striking. Lot clearly is much more drunk than Noah, for
he never realized what his daughters did, whereas Noah seems to have been aware
immediately. Further, Lot‘s daughters appear much more culpable than Ham. His offense
appears to have b een accidental; theirs was clearly deliberate. And seeing one‘s father
uncovered is much less grave than incest. Furthermore, here it is daughters, not sons, that
are responsible, and the leading spirit is the older daughter, as opposed to the younger son.
In every respect, then, the sin of Lot‘s daughters is much graver than Ham‘s, and obviously
Lot was more heavily under the influence than was Noah.
It is possible to read the story quite differently. It is often surmised that the tale was
handed down amon g the Moabites and Ammonites, who must therefore have regarded their
ancestral mothers as heroic. Certainly the names the mothers give to the children, Moab,
―from the father,‖ and Ben -Ammi, ―son of my people,‖ does not indicate that they felt
ashamed of t heir deed. And Jacob thinks the narrator shared this positive attitude toward
their behavior. He points out that Tamar was forced to act similarly toward her
father -in-law Judah because he failed to provide her with another husband after she was

widowed. T he law (Deut 25:5 –10) provides for a widow to marry her brother -in-law, which
would in other circumstances be regarded as incest. So he suggests that Lot‘s daughters had
been betrothed and, having lost their future husbands in the destruction of Sodom, wer e
now in a similar position. Their solution to their desperate plight may have been irregular,
but their ingenuity in face of their father‘s inertia is to be applauded.
The absence of clear editorial comment on the behavior of the parties means we must
read the story with particular care to determine which interpretation is preferable.
30 ―Lot left Zoar and dwelt in the hills.‖ At last he fulfills the original angelic order to
escape to the hills (v 17). But though this action may seem laudable, the comment ―because
he was afraid to live in Zoar‖ shows that his motives were not. Having been reluctant to
obey the command in the first place, he now shows that he does not trust the implied divine
guarantee that he would be safe in Zoar (v 21). Lot is portrayed as faint -hearted and
vacillating and reduced to living in a cave. Caves in the OT are used either as graves (25:9)
or by refugees (Josh 10:16; 1 Sam 13:6). Lot, the rich rancher who had so many flocks and
herds that he had to separate from Abraham (13:8 –11), chose to live in the fertile Dead Sea
valley, which has been destroyed and with it all his other relations and property. He and all
he has can be accommodated in a cave. His ruin can hardly be more complete. We may be
inclined to sympat hize with Lot‘s plight, but it is not so clear that Genesis does.
―If one surveys the stages of (Lot‘s) career, his succumbing to the attraction of the
luxuriant Jordan valley, his inability to assert himself with his offer to the Sodomites, and
his inabil ity to make up his mind even before divine judgment or to entrust himself to the
leadership of the messengers and Yahweh‘s protection, and finally his succumbing in
drunkenness to vital forces, it will become clear that the narrator has drawn a very compac t
picture in spite of being bound to ancient traditions. Having been set on the way to a
promise by Yahweh, just as Abraham was (12:4), he turned aside from this way (ch 13),
still supported by God‘s grace, and then finally slipped completely from God‘s ha nd, which
directs history‖ (von Rad, 224).
31 The initiative comes from the older daughter, who should be the more concerned for
her parents‘ welfare. ―Our father is old‖ suggests she is so concerned, but the relevance of
her remark to her proposal is obsc ure. Does she think that because he is old he ought to be
looking for a husband for her (cf. 24:1), or that his age precludes him from having sexual
intercourse (18:12)? The former seems more likely in the light of ―there is no man at a ll in
all the area [world] to come into us as they do in all the world [area].‖ What she is
concerned about is the lack of potential husbands for her father to seek out, not his possible
lack of virility. At any rate, her remark ―there is no man‖ can hardl y be true, whether we
translate 
―area‖ or ―world.‖ Presumably, there were at least eligible husbands no farther away
than Zoar. But this comment does give an insight into the girl‘s state of mind: she is
desperate to marry, so she exaggerates the effe cts of the recent catastrophe. ―To come into
us‖ is a respectable term for marriage (cf. Deut 25:5), but ―as they do in all the world
[area]‖ (lit. ―the way of all the world‖ ) is a suspect phrase, for it stands in contrast to 18:19,
―the LORD‘s way.‖ It would be even more dubious if we translate 
as ―area,‖ for we have seen that the mores of the Dead Sea valley were not in keeping
with ―the LORD‘s way.‖
32 Had she proposed to give her father wine to drink to drown his sorrows, the narrator
might have approved her action. ―Give … wine to those in bitter distress; let them drink

and forget their poverty‖ (Prov 31:6 –7). But the motives expressed here, ―so we may lie
with him a nd produce descendants from our father,‖ seem less likely to have been cited
approvingly. For though ―to lie with‖ sounds like an innocent euphemism for sexual
intercourse, it is rare for it to be used except in the contexts of illicit relationships (e.g.,
34:2, 7) or female desperation (30:15, 16). ―Produce descendants‖ shows what she really
wanted was children, not a husband.
33–35 The execution of the elder sister‘s scheme goes without a hitch. So simple was it the
first night that exactly the same procedure was followed the next evening by the younger
sister. On neither occasion did Lot ―know about her lying or her leaving.‖ This shows how
passive he was and alleviates the blame that attaches to him. It also highlights th e slickness
of his daughters, in contrast with their father‘s befuddled ignorance. But there is a pathetic
irony. The angels have rescued Lot and his virgin daughters from the Sodom mob; now
they sacrifice their virginity and their father‘s honor when ther e is no actual danger.
So although the narrator seems to reserve judgment about this incident, it seems
unlikely that he approves Lot‘s daughters‘ deed. Throughout the ancient Near East, incest
between father and daughter was regarded as wrong, and OT law punishes more remote
orms of incest with death (Lev 20:12). Since these bans apply after the death or divorce of
one spouse, it seems unlikely that Lot‘s circumstances justified them being ignored. The
fact that his daughters had to make h im drunk shows that they were consciously flouting
normal conventions. Because of his readers‘ moral assumptions, the narrator did not feel it
necessary to excoriate Lot‘s daughters‘ behavior. The facts spoke for themselves. We are
just left to pity Lot in his last and most painful loss of honor at the hands of those who
should have loved him most.
36 Despite its impropriety, the scheme worked and Lot‘s daughters became pregnant
and bore children. Genesis is very interested in tracing the origins of Israel‘ s neighbors (cf.
chap. 10; 25:12 –18; 36:1 –43), so the birth of Moab and Ammon is a fitting point to end the
story of Lot. Despite the dubious origin of these near -neighbors, this was not held against
them. Their territories were regarde d as God -given (Deut 2:9, 19). Only Moab‘s and
Ammon‘s lack of hospitality toward the Israelites on their way to Canaan prompted later
animosity (Deut 23:4 [3]).
37–38 The interpretations of the names Moab, ―from the father,‖ and Ammon, ―son of my
kin,‖ ar e, typical of biblical etymologies, plays on the names. But here no obvious historical
explanation of these names has been proposed. But both words are anticipated earlier in the
narrative, before these explanations are given, especially vv 32, 34, ―from o ur father,‖ and
v 36, ―from their father,‖ both of which begin with the same consonants as Moab, while
Ammon is foreshadowed in vv 30, 32, 34, 35, ―with him‖ [
(Zakovitch, HAR 4 [1980] 168 –69).
Explanation
No other twenty -four-hour period in Abraham‘s life is related more fully than that
described in Gen 18 –19: a midday lunch with three angels that ended with the destruction
of Sodom and Gomorrah early next morning. This gives a hint of the importance of thi s
story for the writer of Genesis, a hint that is certainly noted in the rest of Scripture, for the
fate of Sodom and Gomorrah becomes a byword in the prophets and the NT and still lingers
in popular religious consciousness. Like the flood story, the story of Sodom and

Gomorrah‘s destruction by fire and brimstone is viewed by some as characteristic of the
vicious and brutal God of the OT, by others as proof of the heinousness of homosexuality.
But the commentator‘s first du ty is to try to see the significance of the passage in question
for the writer of Genesis, before he reflects on how later biblical writers and commentators
have read the tale. And this means reading this episode in the light of what precedes and
follows i t, and relating it to the theme of Genesis as a whole: the partial fulfillment of the
promises to the patriarchs, promises of land, descendants, covenant relationship, and
blessing to the nations (cf. Gen 12:1 –3). This is what the story does in fact relate.
It opens with ―The LORD appeared to him,‖ a comment that preceded two other
announcements of divine promises (12:7; 17:1). This leads the reader to anticipate some
remarkable revelation, but instead we are regaled with an account of A braham‘s lavish
hospitality toward three visitors, whom he apparently regarded as ordinary men, though, as
the text insinuates, the quality of the food and the service Abraham provided (a fine tender
bull and bread made of the best wheat flour, vv 6 –7) was fit for God. Not until the meal is
over do the visitors begin to disclose their real identity, first showing they know Sarah‘s
name, so recently changed, then promising her a son in a year‘s time, and finally gently
rebuking her despairing unheard laughte r. The repetition of this promise of a child for
Sarah in succeeding chapters, like the doubling of dreams (41:32), underlines the certainty
of the promise‘s prompt fulfillment. It is not redundant, for apparently only Abraham had
been informed about Isaac ‘s impending birth in 17:19, and as yet he had not told Sarah.
Here and in 17:17 the future parents of Isaac unwittingly confirm the truth of the heavenly
delegation‘s message by laughing; indeed, Sarah‘s denial of her laughter, ―I did not laugh,‖
is an an agram of her son‘s name.
The promise of descendants is thus central to chap. 18, but so too are the covenant
relationship and the promise of blessing to the nations. The LORD says, ―Abraham is indeed
to become a great and powerful nation and all the nation s of the earth will find blessing. For
I have chosen him … ‖ (18:18 –19). Then in a prayer that is without parallel in the OT, in
that six times the LORD grants Abraham‘s plea for mercy, the intimacy of Abraham with
God is disclosed. Here, in the manner of a true prophet, he intercedes for the people of
Sodom: other prophets, Moses (Exod 32), Samuel, and Jeremiah, made intercession for
Israel, but Abraham here prays for the Canaanites. The narrative hints that the LORD
instigated the prayer and, when he had made his final concession to Abraham, brought it to
an end.
But this great prayer does not simply show the intimacy of Abraham with God; it also
reflects on the promise that ―in him all the nations will find blessing,‖ a proposition
apparently negated by the disaster that subsequently befalls Sodom. Yet the narrator insists
that Sodom has been given every chance to repent and save itself. Back in chap. 14
Abraham had rescued the king of Sodom from the eastern kings and restored all his
property and people only to be treated with surly ingratitude. Yet Abraham still prays for
them and is assured that if there are just ten righteous persons in Sodom, the whole city will
be spared: God‘s mercy on the few will outweigh his a nger with the many (cf. Exod 34).
But as the story makes clear, there were not even ten righteous in Sodom. Only Lot, an
immigrant, welcomed the visitors to the town, gave them a splendid meal, and pressed them
to stay the night. The fa ilure of other people in Sodom to welcome the strangers fell far
short of the expected standards of oriental hospitality. But this was as nothing when
compared with the whole population of the town, ―young and old,‖ surrounding Lot‘s
house, clamoring to ra pe the visitors. Homosexual acts between consenting adults, though

condemned in the OT as incompatible with the creator‘s plan, were tolerated in most other
societies in the ancient Orient. But homosexual rape was not: in Assyria it attrac ted the
death penalty, and elsewhere it was used as a demeaning punishment for prisoners of war.
But Lot‘s visitors were not prisoners but guests, and all the rules of oriental hospitality
demanded their protection, not abuse. The men of Sodom are thus por trayed as
transgressing not simply Israelite moral standards but the universal rule of behavior
accepted throughout the ancient Orient. Such was the passion of the men of Sodom that
even Lot‘s desperate attempt to buy them off with the offer of his virgin daughters was of
no interest to them: without the miraculous intervention of his angelic visitors, the narrative
implies, Lot, his household, and his guests would probably have been assaulted and
murdered by the mob. Mob violence is one thing, but were the individuals in Sodom really
all so ill -disposed to Lot and what he stood for? Apparently so, for even Lot‘s sons -in-law
refused to leave the city when Lot warned them of its impending doom.
Abraham‘s character is portrayed in a wholly positive fashion, bu t the portrait of Lot
and his family is more nuanced. Abraham, an old man, hurries to prepare a banquet for
unknown visitors at the hottest part of the day and is described as teaching righteousness
and equity and shown to be on the most intimate terms wit h God. Lot, a younger man, is
equally hospitable, prepares a banquet for his guests, and persuades them to stay the night
in his home. Indeed, his hospitality seems to go too far when he does not simply risk his
own life by going out to face the mob alone but offers his daughters to appease their lust.
However, when he is told to leave the city, he dallies, and then having left, he pleads
merely for his own convenience to take refuge in Zoar rather than flee to the hills. His
slowness to obey the divine com mand suggests his righteousness is less than complete, but
his wife and daughters seem even more attached to Sodom than Lot does. Disobeying the
express angelic injunction, his wife looks back and is turned to salt, while his daughters
resort to sex with t heir father, suggesting they shared the warped morality of the city from
which they had all escaped. Though Lot is not overtly censured for this act, his career is
portrayed as a sad one. Leaving Ur with Abraham and sharing his wealth, and by
association a t least the blessings promised to Abraham, Lot separated from Abraham to
enjoy greater affluence in the Jordan valley. But when last seen he has lost his home, his
goods, and his wife and is being shamefully treated by his daughters.
That he survived at al l is ascribed to Abraham. ―When God ruined the cities … God
remembered Abraham,‖ and he sent Lot out of danger. But this is more than a reference to
Abraham‘s intercession on behalf of the righteous in Sodom, of whom only Lot appears
deserving of that acco lade; it is a clear echo of and presumably a deliberate comparison
with Noah and the flood. When ―God remembered Noah,‖ the flood started to abate; when
he remembered Abraham, he rescued Lot. This is just one of many allusions to the flood in
these chapter s. Clearly, Genesis sees the two events as parallel: two cataclysmic acts of
divine judgment on outrageously sinful communities, with the only righteous man and his
family spared. The flood involved the destruction of the whole human race except Noah
and h is family; here the destruction involves a group of cities and the saving of one man
and his family. Noah is seen as a second Adam from whom all humanity descended; the
destruction of Sodom, though not as awesome as the flood, speaks once again of the terr ible
depravity to which human society can descend and of the need for redemption. So if Noah
is seen as a second Adam, Abraham is probably viewed as a third Adam, the new hope of
mankind. It was Noah‘s sacrifice that mollified God‘s anger after the flood a nd spared the
world another annihilation. Now the narrator suggests that it is Abraham‘s prayer that saved

righteous Lot and that in Abraham all the nations of the earth may hope to find blessing.
But societies that flout standards of decent human behavior and spurn God‘s
messengers, says the rest of Scripture, cannot hope to escape divine judgment, whatever
promises were made to Abraham. The Pentateuch suggests that the destruction of Sodom is
a foretaste of the judgment that will befall other inhabitants of Canaan for their sins (Lev
18:3–30; Lev 20:22 –23). Even Israel, the very descendant of Abraham, is likened to Sodom
and Gomorrah in the prophets and in the Book of Deuteronomy (Isa 1:9; 3:9; Jer 23:14;
Amos 4:11; Deut 29:23; 32:32). Indeed, Ezek 16:46 –47 says that Jerusalem‘s sins are
worse than Sodom‘s, and Lam 4:6 declares her ―chastisement … has been greater than the
punishment of Sodom.‖ And the prophets warn that Israel‘s neighbors can expect a
judgment like Sodom‘s because of their sin (Isa 13:9; J er 49:18; Zeph 2:9).
Thus the OT seems to view the overthrow of Sodom as a paradigm of divine judgment: any
nation, Jewish or gentile, can expect such treatment if it flouts God‘s standards and spurns
his call to repentance. Similarly, Jes us warns that towns that rejected him or his messengers
are more to blame than Sodom: ―Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of
judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town‖ (Matt 10:15; 11:23;
Luke 10:12). Indeed, he compares his own coming in judgment to the flood or the
overthrow of Sodom (Luke 17:26 –32). Yet even in a society as corrupt as Sodom, Scripture
affirms, the LORD has his own people, a remnant who attempt, however imperfectly, to live
by divine standards (1 Kgs 19:18). The Abraham or Lot of every age ―who is vexed in his
righteous soul day after day with their lawless deeds‖ is urged to remain faithful to God and
―to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares‖ (2
Pet 2 :8; Heb 13:2).
Sarah and Abimelek (20:1 –18)
Bibliography
See also Bibliography on 12:10 –20.
Alexander, T. D. ―Are the Wife/Sister Incidents of Genesis Literary Compositional Variants?‖ VT
42 (1992) 145 –53. Biddle, M. E. ―The ‗ Endangered Ancestress‘ and Blessing for the Nations.‖ JBL
109 (1990) 599 –611. Dahood, M. ―Abraham‘s Reply in Gen 20:11.‖ Bib 61 (1980) 90 –91.
Firestone, R. ―Difficulties in Keeping a Beautiful Wife: The Legend of Abraham and Sarah in
Jewish and Islamic Tradition.‖ JJS 42 (1991) 196 –214. Hoffmeier, J. K. ―The Wives‘ Tales of Gen
12, 20 and 26 and the Covenants at Beer –Sheba.‖ TynBul 43 (1992) 81 –99. McEvenue, S. E. ―The
Elohist at Work.‖ ZAW 96 (1984) 315 –32. Merwe, C. H. J. van der. ―Hebrew Grammar, Exegesis
and Commentaries.‖ JNSL 11 (1983) 143 –56. Mor an, W. L. ―The Scandal of the ‗Great Sin‘ at
Ugarit.‖ JNES 18 (1959) 280 –81. Pappas, H. S. ―Deception as Patriarchal Self -Defence in a
Foreign Land: A Form -Critical Study of the Wife -Sister Stories in Genesis.‖ Greek Or thodox
Theological Review 29 (1984) 35 –50. Rabinowitz, J. J. ―The ‗Great Sin‘ in Ancient Egyptian
Marriage Contracts.‖ JNES 18 (1959) 73. Ronning, J. ―The Naming of Isaac: The Role of the
Wife/Sister Episodes in the Red action of Genesis.‖ WTJ 53 (1991) 1 –27. Seebass H. ―À titre
d‘exemple: réflexions sur Gen 16//21: 8 –21 et 20:1 –18//26:1 –33.‖ In Le Pentateuque en question,

ed. A. de Pury. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1989. 215 –30. Seidl, T. ―‗Zwei Gesichter‘ oder zwei
Geschichten? Neuversuch einer Literarkritik zu Gen 20.‖ In Die Väter Israels : FS J. Scharbert, ed.
M. Gö rg. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989. 305 –26. Weinfeld, M. ―Sarah and Abimelech
(Gen 20) against the Background of an Assyrian Law and the Genesis Apocryphon.‖ In Mélanges
bibliques et orientaux: FS M. Delcor, ed. A. C aquot, S. Légasse, and M. Tardieu. AOAT 215.
Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker, 1985. 431 –36. Yeivin, S. ―Philological Notes, XV.‖ Lesû 42
(1977/78) 60 –63.
Translation
1Abraham jou rneyeda from there toward the region of the Negeb and dwelt between
Kadesh and Shur and settledb in Gerar. 2Then Abraham said ofa his wife Sarah, ―She is
my sister.‖b Then Abimelek king of Gerar sent and took Sarah.
3Then God came to Abimelek in a dream by night and said to him, a ―You are about
to diea becauseb of the woman you have taken forc she is married.‖d 4Now Abimelek had
not approached her, so he said, ―Lord, will you a kill a nation, a righteous one at that?a
5Dida he not say to me, ‗She is my sister,‘ and did not bshe herself alsob say ‗He is my
brother‘? I did this with total sincerity and innocence.‖ 6God said to him in the dream,
―I know too that you did this with total sincerity, and I it was that kept you from
sinninga against me; therefore I did not allowb you to touch her. 7But now returna the
man‘ s wife, for he is a prophet, thatb he may pray for you so that you may live.c dIf you
are not willing to returnd her, knowe that you and all yours will certainly die.‖
8So early in the morning Abimelek summoned all his servants and told them all
these things while they listened, and athe men were very afraid.
9Then Abimelek summoned Abraham and said to him, a―What have you done to us?a
How have I sinned against you thatb you have broughtc upon me and my kingdom a
great sin? You have treated me in ways that never ought to be done.‖d 10Abimelek said
to Abraham: a ―What did you intenda thatb you did this thing?‖ 11Abraham said,a
―Because I thought surelyb there is no fear of God in this place that they would kill me
because of my wife. 12And she is in facta my sister, my father‘s daug hter though not my
mother‘s, and she became my wife. 13So when God made me wandera from my father‘s
house,b I saidc to her, ‗This is the favor you must do me: whereverd we go, say for me,
―He is my brother.‖‘‖
14So Abimelek tooka sheep, cattle, slaves, and slave -girls and gave them to Abraham
and returned Sar ah his wife to him. 15And Abimelek said, ―Look, my land is before you.
Dwella wherever you like.‖ 16aAt the same time he said to Sarah,a ―Look, I am giving a
thousand silver shekelsb to your brother. That is for you as compensation for all that
has happened to you cand in everything you shall be justified.‖c
17Then Abraham prayed to God, and God heal ed Abimelek, his wife, and his slave -wives,
and they gave birth,a 18for the LORDa had completelyb closed every womb in Abimelek‘s
household because of Sarah, Abraham‘s wife.
Notes
1.a. cf. n. 12:9a.
1.b. Waw consec+ 3 masc. sg impf. 2.a. For this meaning, ―of, concerning, about,‖ for


, cf. Isa 29:22; 37:21, 33.
2.b. G adds ―For he was afraid to say ‗She is my wife,‘ lest the men of the city should
kill him because of her,‖ assimilating to 26:7.
3.a-a. 
+ 2 masc. sg suffix + masc. sg ptcp 
―die.‖ For this construction for an imminent fut, see GKC, 116p.
3.b. SamPent reads  [
, a ra rer alternative to [
. cf. 21:11, 25.
3.c. 
introducing circumstantial clause, here translated ―for, because, although‖ ( SBH, 90;
GKC, 141e).
3.d. 
fem. sg constr pass qal ptcp 
―marry, rule‖ + noun 
―lord, husband.‖ cf. Deut 22:22.
4.a-a. For MT 
, BHS and some commentators propose 
and translate ―will you even kill a righteous (man)?‖ However, this is unnecessary
despite the unparalleled interpolation of 
between a noun and its qualifier; it ―is frequently employed when giving an
exaggerated, aggr avated or extreme case‖ (EWAS, 143).
5.a. Opening 
―did not‖ governs the second question as well ( SBH, 114). cf. 44:5.
5.b-b. SamPent reads 
for  
. On the construction, cf. SBH, 160.

6.a. 
+ inf constr 
; for this form, cf. GKC, 75n, 75qq.
6.b. 1 sg pf 
+ 2 masc. sg suffix. For the sense ―allow,‖ cf. 31:7. On the construction, see GKC,
157b2.
7.a. 2 masc. sg impv hiph 7.b. Simple waw + impf. = ―in order that‖ (Lambdin, 119).
7.c. Waw + 2 masc. sg impv 
. On pointing, see GKC, 63q; on syntax, see SBH, 108.
7.d-d. In conditional clauses, 
+ suffix + ptcp (here masc. sg hiph ptcp 
) may have the nuance of willingness Joüon, 154l; cf. GKC, 159v).
7.e. 2 masc. sg impv [8.a. SamPent, G, Vg add ―all.‖
9.a-a. S reads ―What have I done to you?‖
9.b. 
introduces consecutive clause, especially after questions ( GKC, 166b; Joüon, 169e).
9.c. 2 masc. sg pf hiph 9.d. 3 masc. pl. pf niph [
. On the nuance ―ought/must,‖ cf. GKC, 107gw; Joüon, 113m.
10.a-a. BHS proposed emendation, ―What did you fear,‖ is unnecessary.
10.b. cf. n. 9.b.*
11.a. SamPent adds ―Because I feared‖ (  11.b. On this asseverative use of 
, cf. BDB, 956b; EWAS, 131; 1 Kgs 21:25.
12.a. SamPent reads 
, same meaning as MT, same spelling as MT in Josh 7:20.
13.a. 3 masc. pl. pf hiph 
. SamPent reads sg 
. On the use of pl. with 

, see GKC, 145i and Comment .
13.b. SamPent adds ―and from the land of my family‖; cf. 12:1.
13.c. Waw consec+ 1 sg impf.  13.d.  
. The usual translation with the def art 
is ―to the whole place‖; here ―to every place.‖ This is exceptional according to GKC,
127e.
14.a. SamPent, G add ―a thousand silver shekels,‖ assimilating to v 16.
15.a. 2 masc. sg impv 16.a-a. lit. ―And to Sarah he said‖ links sentence chiastically
with v 15, suggesting simultaneity ( SBH, 129).
16.b. The unit o f measurement, ―shekels,‖ is to be understood ( GKC, 134n).
16.c-c. The Heb. is obscure: 
=waw + fem. sg ptcp niph 
(pausal form) ―be justified.‖ Transferring the waw to the preceding word ( 
)and repointing lead to BHS renderings, ―and with everyone you will be justified‖ or
―and in everything you will be justified.‖
17.a. Waw consec+ 3 masc. pl. impf. 
. 3 masc. pl. impf. is preferred to 3 fem. pl. impf. (GKC, 145pu).
18.a. SamPent reads ―God.‖
18.b. Inf abs intensifies the verbal idea (EWAS, 87).
Form/Structure/Setting
chap. 20 is dominated by two major dialogues between God and Abimelek (vv 3 –7) and
between Abimelek and Abraham (vv 9 –13). Classification of the remaining material has
given rise to a variet y of analyses. But applying Gunkel‘s definition of scenes, ―parts of a
narrative differentiated by change of actors, situation or activity‖ (Gunkel, 36), organizes
the material quite clearly.

1 Abraham settles in Gerar (1) N
2 Abraham‘s instructions to S arah (2a) D
3 Abimelek ―takes‖ Sarah (2b) N
4 God warns Abimelek (3 –7) D
5 Abimelek warns his servants (8) N
6 Abimelek rebukes Abraham (9 –13) D
7 Abimelek returns Sarah (14) N
8 Abimelek speaks to Abraham and Sarah (15 –16)D
9 Abraham prays for Abimelek and his household (17 –18) N

As frequently in Genesis, the scenes are organized palistrophically. Scene 4, the divine
warning to Abimelek (vv 3 –7), balances scene 6, Abimelek‘s rebuke of Abraham (vv
9–13), as do scene 3 and scene 7, the taking and the return of Sarah (vv 2b, 14). Gunkel
noted the special significance of the middle scene (v 8): ―Abimelek‘s fear is the
consequence of all that precedes and the presupposition of all that follows‖ (222). While
scenes 1 and 2 match scene s 8 and 9 rather more loosely, it may be noted how they
maintain the alternation of narrative and dialogue (N and D) as elsewhere in this episode.
Traditional source critics ascribed this chapter to E, except for v 18, which is said to be
a gloss because i t uses the divine name ―the LORD‖ instead of ―God‖ used elsewhere in this
chapter (vv 3, 6, 11, 13, 17). There are four main reasons for ascribing chap. 20 to E: the
use of the term 
for ―God,‖ the term 
for slave -girl (v 17), the use of a dream for revelation (vv 3, 6), and the doublet of this
story in 12:10 –20, which is ascribed to J.
However, more recent writers (notably Westermann; Coats; Alexander, VT 42 [1992]
145–53; Ronning WTJ 53 [1991] 1 –27) have followed Van Seters ( Abraham , 171 –75) in
arguing that chap. 20 is not an independent parallel version of the story in 12:10 –20.
Rather, this account presupposes the earlier account in chap. 12. Van Seters observes that
the remark in v 2, ―She is my sister,‖ is quite obscure unless the reader already knows
Abraham‘s motives as explained in 12:11 –13. In 20:13, Abraham states, ―When God made
me wander from my father‘s house, I said to her.‖ This, Van S eters argues, shows that the
narrator of chap. 20 did not simply know the earlier account but knew it in its present
setting following the call of Abraham in 12:1. Furthermore, he suggests that chap. 20 is
attempting to deal with some of the questions rais ed by 12:10 –20. Why did God punish the
Pharaoh who was unaware of his error in taking Sarah? 20:3 –7 offers an answer. Another
question that this story answers is why Abraham lied about Sarah being his sister. The
explanation offered here is that Abraham‘s story is a half -truth prompted by religious
considerations, namely the godlessness of Gerar (vv 11 –12). For these reasons, Van Seters
argues that chap. 20 is an expansion of the earliest core of Genesis found in passages such
as 12:10 –20, but antedating th e main J redaction of Genesis. Westermann and Coats, while
concurring with Van Seters‘ assessment of the relationship between 12:10 –20 and chap. 20,
seem to regard the latter as a supplement to J rather than part of J‘s sources. However, the
reference to ―the LORD‖ in v 18, which is typical of J‘s redactional technique of beginning
or closing an episode with a reference to the LORD (cf. 13:18; 15:1, 18; 17:1; 18:1), adds
weight to Van Seters‘ position. Biddle ( JBL 109 [1990] 599 –611), too, has noted that the
theology of this story is typical of J.
Certainly the other criteria traditionally adduced in favor of assigning this to an
independent E source carry little weight. Dreams are not confined to E as a means of
revelation (cf. chap. 15 and M. Lichtenstein, JANESCU 1/2 [1968/69] 45 –54). The use of

―slave -concubine‖ as opposed to 
―slave -girl‖ (J‘s supposed equivalent) proves nothing. Not only is the latter term used
in 20:14, but as pointed out in the Comment on 16:1, the two terms may denote women of
different status: they are not exact synonyms. The fairly consistent use of 
―God‖ as opposed to ―the LORD‖ in this story is nevertheless striking. Theology may
partially explain it. ―The LORD‖ is the divine name th at was specially revealed to Israel, so

it may be thought inappropriate to use it when God reveals himself to a non -Israelite (vv 3,
6) or when theology is discussed with them (v 13). There is a similar tendency in the
Joseph story to speak of ―God,‖ not ― the LORD,‖ when talking to the Egyptians (e.g., 41:25,
28). Furthermore, Exod 6:3 implies that the patriarchs did not know the name ―the LORD,‖
so this may explain the reluctance of the narrator to allow the patriarchs to u se the term.
Nevertheless, the greater frequency with which the word ―God‖ instead of ―the LORD‖
appears in chaps. 20 –22 may suggest that at some earlier phase the tradition behind these
chapters had a history different from other parts of the Abraham cycl e.
However, as it stands, the material is well integrated into the Abraham cycle. We have
noted the way this chapter presupposes 12:10 –20, but there are also many verbal
connections with preceding material, especially chaps. 18 –19: in v 4, for ―Lord‖ ( 
), cf. 15:2, 8; 18:3, 27, 30, 31, 32; 19:18; for ―nation‖ ( 
), cf. 12:2; 17:4, 6, 16, 20; 18:18; for ―righteous,‖ see 6:9; 7:1; 18:23, 24, 25, 26, 28. In v 7,
for ―live,‖ see 19:20; for ―you … will certainly die, ‖ see 2:17; 3:3, 4. In v 8, for ―early in
the morning,‖ see 19:27; for ―afraid,‖ see 3:10; 15:1; 18:15; 19:30. In v 9, for ―What have
you done?‖ see 3:13, 14; 4:10; 12:18; for ―sin,‖ see 18:20. In v 11, for ―surely‖ ( 
), see 6:5; 19:8; for ―place‖ ―where ver‖ (
), see 18:24, 26, 33; 19:12, 14, 27. In v 13, for ―favor,‖ see 19:19. In v 15, for ―wherever
you like‖ = ―good in your eyes,‖ see 19:8. The description of Abraham as a prophet in v 7
is unique and striking, but it sums up exactly the role ascrib ed to him in chap. 18. There he
is admitted to the secrets of the divine council (18:17 –18), and he intercedes for Sodom
(18:23 –32) in the way that prophetic intercessors should. Lexically and conceptually, this
chapter is therefore tied quite closely with what precedes. Indeed, the opening ―Abraham
journeyed from there ‖ makes the connection explicit, and an exegesis of this story in the
light of the preceding narratives is therefore called for, if we are to be true to the narrator‘s
intention.
Comment
1 ―Abraham journeyed … settled in Gerar.‖ Note the same pair of verbs in 12:9 –10 ([
and 
―From there‖ in context must be Mamre; cf. 18:1. ―Kadesh‖ (cf. 14:7) is near the
southern border of Canaan, while ―Shur‖ is usually located farther east, in the desert in
northwest Sinai adjacent to Egypt (cf. Comment on 16:7). However, Abraham apparently
turned back from this region to settle, to live as an alien ( 
) in Gerar. Gerar is, according to 10:19, on the southeastern border of Canaan. The
account of Abraham‘s itinerary is very compressed and does not allow his route to be
followed exactly.
2 In 12:11 –16, a much fuller account of Abraham‘s remarks and the roy al actions is
provided. Without the earlier account, this verse would be cryptic, as the narrative hastens
on to its focus of interest, Abimelek‘s dream and subsequent discussion with Abraham.
Abimelek is a Canaanite name. ―My father is Milku‖ (king); a ki ng of Tyre mentioned in
the Amarna letters (EA 146–55) bore this name.
3–7 After the very brief opening scenes, the narrative suddenly becomes more
expansive as Abimelek‘s dream is recounted. This takes the form of a trial in which
Abimelek is arraigned by God.

v 3
God‘s charge

vv 4–5
Abimelek‘s defense

vv 6–7
God‘s sentence

Abimelek replies to the divine accusation, and his plea is in part accepted by God. But
the opening word of the accusation, ―You are abou t to die‖ (v 3), recurs at the end, ―If …
you will certainly die‖ (v 7), underlining the threat hanging over Abimelek if he does not
repent. Westermann suggests that the night dream is regarded in the Pentateuch as God‘s
preferred method of revealing himse lf to non -Israelites (cf. 31:24 [Laban]; Num 22:9, 20
[Balaam]). But since he also spoke to Joseph (37:5 –10) and Solomon this way (1 Kgs
3:5–15), it seems unlikely that this explains the use of a dream here.
3 ―You are about to die.‖ Th e phraseology here ( 
+ participle) is a straightforward prediction (cf. 6:13, 17; 7:4). But the previous two verses
have skated over the background events so quickly that this remark is ambiguous. We do
not know how much time has el apsed since Abimelek took Sarah. Has he fallen ill and been
warned like Hezekiah that his condition is terminal (cf. Isa 38:1), or is he perfectly well?
Not till the end of the episode are these questions answered. However, the cause of his
plight is quite apparent, ―because of the woman you have taken, for she is married.‖
Abimelek is now informed about Sarah‘s marital status, something the reader has known all
along. That adultery merited the death penalty was accepted throughout the a ncient world
and is, of course, reiterated in the OT (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22). The latter passage is the only
other use of the phrase ―she is married‖ ( 
lit. ―owned by an owner‖ ). A wife is seen as much more than the property of her husband:
she is his alter ego and one flesh with him (cf. 2:18–24 and Comment there); she is at least
her husband‘s most precious possession, and to take her is the worst kind of t heft. So
although the threat of death is not surprising here, it is unusual for it to come from God.
Usually it was the aggrieved husband who demanded
4 ―Now Abimelek had not approached her.‖ This observation is significant, for the law
demands proof that a man has lain with someone else‘s wife for death to be exacted (Deut
22:22), and it predisposes the reader to view Abimelek‘s plea with sympathy, a plea that
echoes the great prayer of Abraham in chap. 18. ―Lord [cf. 18:27, 30 –32], wi ll you kill a
nation, a righteous one at that?‖ God had been prepared to spare a whole town for the sake
of just ten righteous (18:31) people in her. Should he now kill one righteous man, who
represents a nation? Given our knowledge of God‘s attitude decla red in chap. 18,
Abimelek‘s prayer seems guaranteed to succeed.
The mention of the ―nation‖ here is unexpected and has led many commentators to
emend the text (see Notes ). But as Gunkel (222) points out, ―Abimelek takes it for granted
that God‘s wrath will fall not just on the king but on the whole people.‖ The same idea is
expressed in vv 7, 8, 9. Similarly, in Lev 4:3, the sin of the high priest brings guilt on the
whole people, and in 2 Sam 24 and frequently in 1 -2 Kings, the sin of the kings brings

judgment on the nation.
5 Abimelek does not deny his action but claims he was misled and acted in total
ignorance of the true situation. Both Abraham and Sarah said they were only brother and
sister. He therefore acted with sincerity and innocence. Kings are e xpected to act in
―sincerity‖: 
―completeness/perfection of heart‖ (1 Kgs 9:4; Pss 78:72; 101:2). Indeed, the
associated adjectives 
and 
are used of some of the outstanding OT saints (e.g., 6:9; 17:1; Job 1:1, 8; 2:3).
6 The divine reply in repeating verbatim part of Abimelek‘s speech confirms his
sincerity, but God insists, ―I it was that kept you from sinning against me … I did not allow
you to touch her.‖ These remarks show that God unders tood more about the situation than
Abimelek had disclosed, so that Westermann‘s assertion that God is not regarded as
omniscient in this story is quite misguided. He is not just omniscient but omnipotent,
restraining Abimelek from sinning against him (note here as in 2 Sam 12:13; Ps 51:6 [4]
adultery is viewed as a sin against God, not just against man). How God prevented
Abimelek approaching Sarah is not stated, though the parallel in 12:17 and the remark that
he should ask Abraham to pray for him that ―yo u may live‖ (v 7) may well suggest that
some sort of disease ―plague‖ has befallen Abimelek and his household. But that the
narrator made this point in v 4 and God repeats it twice here shows the importance attached
to the fact. It does not simply reduce A bimelek‘s guilt; it eliminates the possibility of any of
Sarah‘s offspring being illegitimate. In other words, it anticipates the birth of Isaac in
21:1–7.
7 The real test of Abimelek‘s sincerity is the return of Sarah. Then Abraham, the
―prophet‖ (
) will ―pray‖ ( 
) ―for you.‖ These are the only times these common biblical terms are used in Genesis,
though Gen 18 has already shown Abraham as a forerunner of great prophetic intercessors
such as Moses, Samuel, Jeremiah, and Amos. ―Pray‖ is used pa rticularly of intercessory
prayer (e.g., Num 11:2; 21:7; Deut 9:20; Jer 7:16: 11:14), whereas ―to call (on the name
of)‖ (
) is a less precise term for prayer used quite often in Genesis (4:26; 12:8; 13:4; 21:33;
26:25). On these terms, see Wenham, Genesis 1 –15, 115 –16. Job (42:8) was told to pray
for those who sinned against him. ―And live‖ seems to confirm the supposition that
Abimelek was sick, eventually said explicitly in v 17; this illness probably explains why he
had not approached Sarah.
―You and all yours will certainly die‖ is phraseology similar to 2:17. God‘s final word to
Abimelek is like his opening one in v 3, ―You are about to die.‖ But Abimelek is now
offered a choice between life and death as Israel w as often offered (see Deut 30:15; Josh
24:15).
8 The central scene shows Abimelek‘s prompt response to the divine warning: ―early in
the morning‖ (cf. 19:27). ―The men were very afraid‖ (cf. 3:10; Jonah 1:10). This c omment
shows how unjustified Abraham was to allege that there was no fear of God in this place (v
11).
9–13 This dialogue between Abimelek and Abraham is similar in fashion to the
Pharaoh‘s address to Abraham in 12:18 –19. Both say ―What have you done?‖ ech oing

3:13. But thereafter the speeches and actions diverge markedly. Pharaoh put all the blame
on Abraham; Abimelek admits he is partly to blame. Pharaoh gave Abraham no chance to
reply; Abimelek does. Pharaoh expelled Abraham from Egypt immediately; Abime lek lets
Abraham have the pick of the land. In short, this story paints quite a sympathetic portrait of
Abimelek, to which this dialogue makes a central contribution. Abimelek‘s speeches are
not simply harsh condemnation. Rather, they mix moral indignation with a sense of shock,
and Abraham‘s lame replies tend to increase our sympathy for Abimelek.
9 This verse contains two rhetorical questions and a statement of fundamental moral
principle. With ―What have you done to us?‖ cf. 12:18, ―W hat have you done to me?‖
Whereas Pharaoh was concerned for himself, Abimelek is worried about his kingdom, a
point reinforced by the second question, ―How … you have brought upon me and my
kingdom a great sin?‖ Abimelek is concerned especially for his sub jects‘ welfare, the mark
of a good ruler (cf. LH 1:27–49; 24:1 –78; Ps 72; Isa 11:1 –5). Furthermore, whereas Pharaoh
just asked Abraham why he had lied, Abimelek asks ―How have I sinned against you?‖ The
very phrasing implies his moral earnestness. Abimelek suggests he must have behaved
terribly badly to provoke Abraham to make him fall into a ―great sin,‖ a well -known Near
Eastern description of adultery (Rabinowitz, Moran). Compared with Pharaoh‘s c olorless ―I
took her,‖ Abimelek‘s ―great sin‖ and ―ways that never ought to be done‖ (cf. the same
usage for flagrant sexual misbehavior in 34:7; 2 Sam 13:12) again highlight his moral
concern.
10 ―What did you intend that you did this thing?‖ makes the same point rather more
temperately and invites Abraham to explain his action. ―It is no common sign of a just and
meek disposition in Abimelek, that he allows Abraham a free defence. We know how
sharply, and fiercely, they expostulate, wh o think themselves aggrieved: so much greater
praise, then, was due to the moderation of this king, towards an unknown foreigner‖
(Calvin, 1:528 –29).
11 Abraham, while explaining his motives, actually condemns himself out of his own
mouth. The narrative up to this point has given the impression that Abimelek was a just and
God-fearing king deeply concerned for morality. More than this, his servants too ―were
very afraid‖ when Abimelek recounted his dream. For Abraham to say ―surely there is no
fear of God i n this place‖ shows how badly he had misread the situation. So within the
immediate context of this story, he stands condemned. But in the broader context of the
Abraham cycle, he has even less justification for his fears. Divine blessing and success
have accompanied him ever since Gen 12:1 –3; he has been shown to be capable of
defeating kings (Gen 14) and to be on intimate terms with the Almighty (cf. Gen 17; 18). It
is surprising that he should now take fright, the more so since he had escaped unharmed
from Egypt in quite similar circumstances. Abraham‘s harking back to this occasion here
and in v 13, while it may mollify Abimelek, has the opposite effect on the reader.
12 Similarly, the disclosure that Sarah is his half sister cuts bot h ways. Later biblical
law banned such unions (Lev 18; Deut 27:22; 2 Sam 13:13), so while justifying his remarks
on one level, he condemns himself on another. Witness the attempts of medieval Jewish
commentators and Calvin to make Abraham and Sarah cousins . This, though, is an
impossible interpretation of the text (see Jacob, 472). His marriage is, rather, one of several
examples in Genesis of disregard for the principles of later pentateuchal law that point to
the antiquity of the traditions behind Genesis . The patriarchs are not painted as conforming
entirely to the models prescribed in the Mosaic law. But whether Abimelek was as
surprised as the later reader about the close relationship between Sarah and Abraham is

uncertain. Other ancient Near Eastern la w does not seem to have been so concerned as the
Pentateuch about intermarriage between close relatives. But what is certain is that even if
Abimelek may have regarded Abraham‘s marriage to Sarah as quite legitimate, that did not
justify Abraham‘s failure to mention it.
13 The rest of Abraham‘s excuse is also weak. It is especially remarkable that he claims
that his behavior in Gerar was his general policy: ―wherever we go, say for me ‗He is my
brother,‘‖ for back in 12:12 (presupposed here) this is present ed as a device used once only
in Egypt. Certainly the intervening episodes never give a hint that Abraham used this story
after his expulsion from Egypt. So what are we to make of this discrepancy? Since there is
much evidence that the writer of chap. 20 w as fully conversant with the preceding material
in Genesis (see Form/Structure/Setting ), we cannot simply explain this as E‘s view as
opposed to J‘s. Rather, we conclude that either Abraham was not being quite truthful in
saying this was his usual policy, when he had in fact only once before pretended Sarah was
merely his sister, or that he was telling the truth and that wherever he went he misled
people about Sarah‘s marital status. Neither explanation redounds to Abraham‘s credit. The
first explanation ma kes him lie just to Abimelek; the second suggests he is a man of little
faith who often tried to save himself by misrepresenting the situation. The first view seems
the more likely. But both interpretations make him less of a saint than might be concluded
from other passages.
―When God made me wander from my father‘s house‖ shows that the narrator knows the
story of 12:10 –20 in its present context following 12:1 –3. Abraham here speaks of ―God‖
rather than ―the LORD‖ either because he is addressing a heathen king or because the
patriarchs are reckoned not to know the name ―Yahweh, the LORD‖ (Exod 6:3). It is
unusual that ―God‖ here takes the plural verb suggesting that ―gods‖ might be a better
translation, and this may represent an accommodation to Abimelek‘s polytheistic outlook.
But the majority of commentators see the plural verb as an anomaly.
14 Though readers of Genesis, who know more about Abraham‘s past history than
Abimelek did, may find Abraham‘s attempts at justification unconvincing, Abimelek acts
most positively. He does his best to make amends by giving Abraham a very generous
present as the Pharaoh did (12:16). Abimelek did not give Abraham any asses or camels,
but he did give an additional thousand shekels, which was an enormous sum of money (se e
Comment on v 16). Furthermore, mentioning these gifts here seems to imply that unlike the
Pharaoh‘s gifts that were given at the time of Sarah‘s marriage as convention dictated,
Abimelek gave these presents after the proposed marriage had fallen through by way of
reparation for his behavior. This interpretation seems to be confirmed by his giving back
Sarah at the same time and by his subsequent remarks (v 16). Once again Abimelek appears
to be a penitent and generous man.
15–16 Abimelek‘s generosity come s again to expression here. Chaps. 13 –14 disclosed
that Abraham was a very wealthy sheikh with large flocks and herds, so that he and Lot had
to separate, because there were too many of them to dwell together (13:6). Yet Abimelek,
king of the small city -state of Gerar, allows Abraham the pick of his land. ―Look, my land
is before you. Dwell wherever you like.‖
―A thousand silver shekels‖ (a shekel = 12 grams/0.4 ounces). Fifty shekels was the
maximum ever asked for in bride money (Deut 22:29); the typical o ld Babylonian laborer
received a wage of about half a shekel a month. This gives an indication of the scale of
Abimelek‘s compensation. But note the barbed ―I am giving … to your brother ‖—not ―to
your husband.‖ Despite his prompt obedience to God‘s instruc tions and his display of

magnanimity toward Abraham, Abimelek still resented Abraham‘s behavior.
―That is for you as compensation,‖ lit. ―covering of eyes.‖ The exact meaning of this
unique phrase is unclear. The gift makes one blind to what has happened (cf. 32:21 [20];
Job 9:24). But it is not clear whether it is Sarah‘s eyes or other people‘s eyes that are
covered, in other words, that they no longer look on her as a compromised woman. The last
clause, ―in everything yo u will be justified,‖ seems to favor the latter, though it is
grammatically difficult (see Notes ).
17–18 The final scene in this episode relates to the happy resolution of the whole affair
and clarifies some of the points that the initial exposition had le ft obscure. vv 1 –2 gave no
indication of the span of time involved, but because they are so brief, it is easy to suppose
that settling in Gerar, Sarah‘s abduction, and the dream occurred in quick succession. vv
17–18 show that such an interpretation is wro ng. Abimelek had fallen ill after he had taken
Sarah; that was why he had not approached her (v 4). Furthermore, the LORD had closed the
wombs of his household so that none of his wives gave birth. This last -minute revelation
casts a cloud over Abimelek‘s earlier protestations of innocence. Although he had not
actually committed adultery with Sarah, it was only the grace of God, albeit through illness,
that had prevented him sinning.
―Closed‖ ([
). In 16:3 the term is used of Sarah‘ s inability to conceive, in Isa 66:9 of inability to deliver
a baby. It could be that both meanings are intended here. Assuming that Abimelek‘s illness
was related to his wives‘ problems, it seems likely that failure to conceive was at least part
of the pr oblem. Childlessness is a penalty for some types of incest according to Lev
20:20 –21. For Abimelek to realize that there were problems with his wives‘ conception
suggests that Sarah had been a member of his household for weeks, if not months, before he
had the dream disclosing his sin to him.
The fact that the LORD ―had completely closed every womb in Abimelek‘s household‖
underlines yet again (cf. vv 4, 6) that Isaac was not conceived illegitimately. That
Abraham‘s prayer for Abimelek r estored the health of the royal household shows his
effectiveness as a prophetic intercessor (v 7) and reiterates that through him all the families
of the earth find blessing (12:3; 18:18). But it raises more sharply than ever the question of
why the praye rs for his own wife are unanswered. Sarah used exactly the same word, [
―close, prevent,‖ when she said, ―Since the LORD has prevented me from having
children‖ (16:2) as is used in 20:18, ―the LORD had completely closed every womb.‖ By
this concluding c omment on the Sarah -Abimelek affair, the author alludes to the overriding
concern of the Abraham cycle and raises the expectation that at last the promise of a son
will be fulfilled.
Explanation
This is an astonishing episode. It seems incredible that Abra ham should make the same
dreadful mistake again: visiting a foreign country, he passes his wife off as his sister. If
perhaps in chap. 12 we may excuse him, because at that stage he had little experience of
God‘s providential protecting care, now years old er and richer in experiences of
deliverance from danger, it is amazing to find Abraham fearing for his life in Gerar. The
righteous prophet who boldly pleaded for the salvation of Sodom is now discovered to be
less than perfect in his trust in God‘s safeke eping. Indeed, when challenged by Abimelek,

he resorts to lying, claiming he described Sarah as his sister wherever they went.
Coming straight after the sacking of Sodom and the unfilial behavior of Lot‘ s
daughters, this story disturbs the reader in another way. In the great0 city of Sodom, there
were not ten righteous, but Gerar had a God -fearing king who ruled a righteous nation
(20:4, 8). Not all foreigners were as godless as Sodom. Thus this incident makes us realize
that Abraham is not such a saint as we might have concluded from chap. 18, nor were all
the inhabitants of Canaan so depraved as those who lived in Sodom.
But the author is not attempting merely to modify the characterizations of the previ ous
chapters; he is, as always, tracing the working out of the promises to Abraham. Once again
he is saved from the full effects of his folly by the mercy of God, who sent sickness into
Abimelek‘s household, which prevented him having intercourse with Sara h. Here the
promise of covenantal protection is being fulfilled. But God‘s mercy is not restricted to
Abraham‘s family; it extends also to the king of a righteous God -fearing nation. Though it
emerges that Abimelek may not have been quite so pure in heart as he professed, he was
genuinely mistaken about Sarah‘s status and later made generous amends for his behavior.
And from his point of view, his sickness was heaven -sent to prevent his falling into worse
sin. Abimelek‘s positive attitude toward Abraham mus t guarantee him God‘s blessing, for
―I will bless those who bless you‖ (12:3). His is a nation that will find blessing in Abraham,
and this is shown by Abraham‘s interceding for them so that ―God healed Abimelek, his
wife, and his slave -wives‖ (20:17).
How ever, it is not just the promise of covenantal protection and blessing to the nations
that is partially realized in this episode. Abraham is invited ―to dwell wherever he likes‖ in
Abimelek‘s land. Admittedly, this is not the same as possessing the land th rough purchase
(chap. 23), but it does represent a stage nearer that goal. This chapter is also sandwiched
between the double promise of Isaac‘s birth (17:16; 18:10 –14) and the birth itself (21:1 –7),
yet apparently says nothing about it. Instead Sarah is s eparated from Abraham and lives in a
royal harem. That an elderly woman, long past the menopause (18:11 –12), should have
been thought attractive enough for intercourse with a king is intriguing. Is something
happening to Sarah that will make pregnancy poss ible? Is she undergoing some sort of
rejuvenation? The narrator does not say, but he and God insist that Abimelek never had
intercourse with Sarah (20:4, 6). Despite this episode, there is no doubt that Isaac‘s father is
Abraham, not Abimelek. Then finally the episode closes with the comment ―Then Abraham
prayed to God, and God healed Abimelek, his wife, and his slave -wives, and they gave
birth, for the LORD had completely closed every womb in Abimelek‘s household‖
(20:17 –18). Some years earlier Sarah had o bserved that ―the LORD has prevented [lit.
―closed‖] me from having children‖ (16:2). The echo of Sarah‘s comment in 20:18 surely
raises the question ―Why cannot the LORD open Sarah‘s womb in response to Abraham‘s
prayer if he can cure the i nfertility of Abimelek‘s household?‖
So our chapter closes with a glimmer of hope, a hope that will suddenly be realized in
chap. 21. But though the narrative reassures us about the reliability of God‘s promises, it
again reminds us of the waywardness and moral weakness of his servants. The
sixth -century prayer of Saint Gregory would have been as relevant to Abraham as it is to
us:
Almighty God, who seest that we have no power of ourselves to help ourselves. Keep
us both outwardly in our bodies, and inwardl y in our souls, that we may be defended from
all adversities which may happen to the body, and from all evil thoughts which may assault

and hurt the soul, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
(Collect for Second Sunday in Lent,
Book of Common Prayer)
Isaac Displaces Ishmael (21:1 –21)
Bibliography
See also Bibliography on 16:1 –16.
Cazelles, H. ―Abraham au Negeb.‖ In Die Väter Israels: FS J. Scharbert, ed. M. Görg. Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989. 23 –32. Cogan, M. ―A Technical Term for Exposure.‖ JNES 27
(1968) 133 –35. Fensham, F. C. ―The Son of a Handmaid in Northwest Semitic.‖ VT 19 (1969)
312–21. Neff, R. W. ―The Birth and Election of Isaac in the Priestly Tradition.‖ BR 15 (1970) 5 –18.
Rabinowitz, I. ―Sarah‘s Wish (Gen 21:6 –7).‖ VT 29 (1979) 362 –63.
Translation
1The LORD visited Sarah as he had said, and the LORD did for Sarah as he had
promised. 2 Sarah conceiveda and boreb Abraham a son in his old age at the time which
Godc had promised him. 3 Abraham called the name of his newborna son, that Sarah
had borne him, Isaac. 4 And Abraham circumciseda his son Isaac, when he was eight
days old, as God had commanded him . 5 Now Abraham was a hundred years old, when
Isaaca his son was bornb to him. 6 Then Sarah said,
―God has made me laugh:a
everyone who hearsb it will laugh for me.‖
7She said, ―Who would have announced to Abraham,
‗Sarah has nurseda sons‘‘?b
Yet I have borne him a son in his old age.‖
8The child grew and was weaned.a Then Abraham held a great feast on the day that
Isaac was weaned.b 9 Sarah sawa the son of Hagar the Egyptian, who had borne a child
to Abraham, mocking.b 10 So she said to Abr aham, ―Drivea out this slave -wife and her
son, because the son of this slave -wife shall not inherit with my son, Isaac.‖ 11 And
Abraham was very displeaseda for his son‘s sake by the remark.
12Then God said to Abraham, ―Do not be displeaseda for the lad and your
slave -wife. Obey Sarah in whatever she says to you, because your descendants will be
named through Isaac. 13 But I shall also m akea your slave -wife‘s son into a nation,b for
he is your descendant.‖
14So early in the morning Abraham took bread and a skin of water and gave it to
Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, a and the childa and sentb her off. She went and
wanderedc in the wilderness of Beersheba.
15When the water in the skin ran out,a she dumpedb the child under onec of the
bushes, 16 and she went and sata down by herselfb opposite at about bowshotc range,d

because she thought, ―Let me not see my child‘ s death.‖ So she sat down opposite, e
raisedf her voice, and wept.eg
17Then God h eard thea voice of the lad, and the angel of God called to Hagar from
heaven and said to her, ―What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid,b for God has
heard the voice of the lad c where he is.c 18 Go on,a liftb up the boy and graspc him with
your hand, for I shall make him into a great nation.‖ 19 Then God opened her eyes, and
she saw a well of water. So she went and filled the skin witha water, and she gaveb the
lad a drink.
20So God was with the boy, he grew up, and lived in the wilderness and became an
archer.a21 He lived in the wilderness of Paran, and his mother married h im to an Egyptian.
Notes
2.a. cf. n. 4:1.b.*
2.b. cf. n. 4:1.c.*
2.c. G has ―the LORD.‖
3.a. As pointed, def art + 3 masc. sg pf niph 
, ―to bear.‖ However, it could be masc. sg ptcp niph, especially if repointe d 
(cf. BDB; KB; WOC, 340).
4.a. cf. n. 17:23.a.*
5.a. On 
following niph of 
, cf. n. 4:18.a.; GKC, 121b.
5.b. 
+ inf constr niph 6.a. Either a noun (so BDB) or inf constr 
(so Joüon, 124c).
6.b. Def art + masc. sg ptcp qal [7.a. 3 fem. sg pf hiph 
―to suck,‖ hiph ―to nurse, suckle.‖
7.b. ―Sons,‖ pl. ―to denote an indefinite singular‖ ( GKC, 124o; Joüon, 136j).
8.a. Waw consec+ 3 masc. sg impf. niph 8.b. Inf constr niph 9.a. cf. n. 3:6.a.*
9.b. Masc sg ptcp piel  10.a. 2 masc. sg impv piel 11.a. Waw consec+ 3 masc. sg
impf. qal [[

―be evil.‖
12.a. cf. n. 11.a.*
13.a. 1 sg impf. qal 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
13.b. Sam Pent, G, S, Vg add ―great,‖ probably assimilating to v 18.
14.a-a. An awkwardly placed phrase. If the ―and‖ were omitted or the wh ole phrase
transposed as BHS and Westermann suggest, it would be clear that ―he placed the child on
her shoulder.‖ However, the versions do not supp ort such a transposition. Rather, ―the
child‖ is object of ―he gave.‖ The delay in mentioning the transfer of Ishmael implies
Abraham waited till the last possible minute; cf. the delayed mention of Benjamin in 43:15
(Gispen 2:218).
14.b. Waw consec+ 3 masc. sg impf. piel 
+ 3 fem. sg suffix.
14.c. Waw consec+ 3 fem. sg impf. qal 
(apoc).
15.a. Waw consec+ 3 masc. pl. impf. qal  15.b. Waw consec+ 2 fem. sg impf. hiph
 15.c. On use of 
with pl. nouns, see Joüon, 137v; WOC, 251.
16.a. Waw consec+ 2 fem. sg impf. 16.b. Ethical dative. See GKC, 119s; cf. n. 12:1.a.
(EWAS, 122).
16.c. 
+ masc. pl. constr pilel ptcp  16.d. 
inf abs hiph  16.e-e. BHS and many commentators emend to ― he raised his voice and
he wept‖ on the basis of G, ―they lifted up their voice, and the boy cried,‖ which is
ill-founded, since SamPent, S, Vg support MT, ―she … her, she.‖ It is also grammatically
awkward, since the use of the waw consec would imply Ishmael did not start crying until his
mother sat down. An explicit noun subj, e.g.,“ the child,‖ might also be expected.
16.f. Waw consec+ 3 fem. sg impf. 16.g. Waw consec+ 3 fem. sg impf.  17.a. Some
MSs and SamPent, Tg. Ps. -J. read 
for 17.b. 2 fem. sg impf. 17.c-c. On this phrase, see GKC, 138e. Westermann
wishes to transpose this phrase to v 18 after ―the boy.‖ See Comment .
18.a. 2 fem. sg impv 

, here used as introductory exhortation ( SBH , 57).
18.b. 2 fem. sg impv 18.c. 2 fem. sg impv hiph 19.a. Double acc following
 19.b. Waw consec+ 3 fem. sg impf. hiph 
(apoc).
20.a. lit. ―a shooter, an archer.‖ Two hapaxes, occurring only here in the OT BHS proposes

Form/Structure/Setting
This section covers two main episodes in the birth of Isaac (vv 1 –7) and his weaning
(vv 8 –21): the content clearly defines its beginning and end. The birth is simply chronicled
with very little attempt at scenic presentation apart from recording Sarah‘s amazement in
vv 6 –7: Birth of Isaac (1 –2), Naming (3), Circumcision (4), Abraham‘s age (5), Sarah‘s
comments (6 –7). However, the weaning o f Isaac and the consequent expulsion of Hagar
and Ishmael are depicted much more dramatically.

v 8
Introduction

vv 9–10
Sarah demands Ishmael‘s expulsion

v 11
Abraham‘s anger

vv 12 –13
God tells Abraham to agree

v 14
Expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael

vv 15 –16
Hagar and Ishmael‘s desperation

vv 17 –18
Angel of God speaks

v 19
Water found

vv 20 –21
Concl
As they stand, both episodes are an integral part of the Abraham cycle. The birth of
Isaac is the long -delayed fulfillment of the repeated promises of a son to Abraham and

Sarah (cf. 13:16; 15:4 –5; 18:10 –15; and especially chap. 17). Si milarly, the expulsion of
Hagar and her son presupposes the birth of Isaac (vv 8 –10). Abraham‘s reluctance to obey
his wife‘s demand reflects both chap. 16 and 17:18. The divine reassurance (vv 12 –13, 18)
that this is right echoes 17:19 –20. ―God has heard the voice of the boy‖ (21:17) clearly
presupposes the name Ishmael, given in 16:11 but not used at all in this chapter. Finally, the
remarks about his life in the wilderness appear to fulfill the prophecy of his future destiny
in 16:11.
Traditional source critics are divided about the analysis of vv 1 –2 and 6 –7. For
example, v 1a is J according to Skinner, but E according to Procksch; v 1b is P according to
Skinner, Coats, and Speis er, but J according to Procksch. A majority tend to regard vv 1 –2a
as J, v 2b as P, and vv 6 –7 as J or E. vv 3 –5, with their strong connections with chap. 17,
have usually been assigned to P, while vv 8 –21, which have been construed as a doublet to
chap. 16, have often been assigned to E. Apart from the divine -names Yahweh in v 1 and
Elohim elsewhere, the only clues to guide the source critic are simi larities in phraseology
with other sources. Since even the divine -names criterion is not regarded as infallible in v
1, this leads to a diversity of views among older commentators. More recent critics, who
see E as one of the sources used by J (Van Seters, Abraham ) or as an expansion of J
(Westermann), argue that this is the case with vv 8 –21. Coats sees the whole section (vv
1–21) as J or JE (save for 1b –5 P). Westermann regards vv 1 –7 as the work of the final
redactor, who incorporated J and P (vv 3 –5) into his work. ―The middle part, vv 3 –5, is an
untouched piece of P which is really the genealogical conclusion of ch 17; this is set
between two J passages, vv 1 –2 and 6 –7, in such a way as to form a self -contained string of
events. vv 1 –2 are common to both J and P‖ (2:331).
Westermann‘s analysis does justice to the interconnections between the diverse materia ls
here but is probably too complicated. As elsewhere in Genesis, I prefer to suppose that the
main editor J has introduced and arranged earlier materials, conventionally denoted P and E,
to fit in with the overall theme of the narrative. J‘s hand is most clear in the introductory v 1
(note the double mention of the LORD; cf. 17:1) and possibly in the wording of the p romises
(vv 13, 17 –18).
Comment
1 ―The LORD visited Sarah as he had said, and the LORD did for her as he had
promised.‖ At long last the promise of a child for Sarah is fulfilled. The birth of Isaac is
predicted twice (17:16 –21; 18:10 –15), and here the ful fillment of the promises is
mentioned twice. However, as Westermann rightly observes, the duplication hardly
demonstrates the presence of two sources; rather, it gives the announcement of Sarah‘s
conception a festive poetic flavor because of its use of syn onymous parallelism. This lifts
the statement here above a merely matter -of-fact genealogical report. For the birth of Isaac
is not merely a great event for Sarah; it is indispensable for any further fulfillment of the
promises to Abraham. Without an heir, he can never become a great nation, let alone inherit
the land.
The term ―visit‖ ( 
) also marks the special significance of this birth. When God ―visits,‖ it indicates his
special interest in a person, whether for judgment on sin (e.g., Exod 20:5; 32:34) or to
describe ―the LORD‘s salvific attention to an individual or his people Israel‖ (W. Schottroff,

THWAT 2:476; G. André, Determining the Destiny: PQD in the OT [Lund: CWK Gleerup,
1980]). Thus it describes God‘s intervention to save Israel from Egyptian slavery (Gen
50:24 –25; Exod 4:31), to end a famine (Ruth 1:6), and to bring the exiles home (Jer 29:10).
But the closest parallel to this usage is 1 Sam 2:21, ―The LORD visited Hannah, and she
conceived.‖
Note here the emphasis on the fulfillment of the promise: ―as he had said … as he had
promised.‖ This repetition makes the reader ―pause in the cons ideration of so great a
miracle. Meanwhile Moses commends the faithfulness of God; as if he had said, he never
feeds men with empty promises, nor is he less true in granting what he had promised, than
he is liberal and willing in making that promise‖ (Calv in, 1:538).
2 ―In his old age.‖ This phrase (cf. 21:7; 37:3; 44:20), of course, reflects remarks made
earlier about the difficulty of Abraham and Sarah‘s producing children because of their age
(17:17; 18:10 –12). Yet despite their doubt s, the promise was fulfilled precisely as forecast;
―at the (appointed) time,‖ the phrase used in 17:21; 18:14, here appears for the last time in
Genesis to emphasize the literal fulfillment ―which God had promised him.‖
3–4 God‘s precise fulfillment of hi s promise is matched by Abraham‘s exact obedience.
He names his son Isaac as directed in 17:19 and circumcises him on the eighth day as
prescribed in 17:12. Note the redundancy, ―which was born to him, that Sarah had borne to
him.‖ Comparison with 16:15 sh ows that ―which was borne to him‖ is unnecessary. But the
repetition again serves to drive home the miraculous nature of the birth of a son to Sarah.
5 Similarly, the reference to Abraham being a hundred years old at the birth of Isaac
emphasizes that what seemed humanly impossible (17:17) has indeed occurred. The
frequent reference in genealogies to the age at which a man fathered his first child suggests
this was regarded as a most important milestone in his life (cf. 5:3, 6; 11:12, 14 , etc.).
6–7 Sarah breaks out into poetry to express her joy and wonder at what God has done
for her. Through her words the narrator brings out the emotional impact of the events so
dryly recorded in vv 1 –5, and through her rhetorical question, ―Who would have announced
to Abraham?‖ invites all who hear the story to contemplate God‘s grace and power.
―God made me laugh:
everyone who hears it will laugh for me.‖
Twice here Sarah uses the root 
―laugh‖ found in Isaac‘s name. In deed, the second line involves the exact form of his
name: ―everyone who hears it will Isaac for me.‖ Thus the play on his name is most
obvious here, even though it is not drawn attention to in the narrative. Earlier, the name
Isaac had been associated wit h the laughter of incredulity (17:17 –19; 18:12 –15); here,
though, it is the laughter of joy (cf. Pss 113:9; 126:2).
―Everyone who hears it will laugh for me.‖ Westermann‘s suggestion (following
Budde, Gunkel, Skinner) to transpose this line to the end of v 7 breaks up the poetic couplet
and is unnecessary. Some commentators (e.g., Gunkel, Gispen) translate the second line
―everyone … will laugh at me.‖ In other words, those who hear the story will laugh a t such
an old woman bearing a child or laugh that she doubted the divine promise. Though
possible, such an interpretation jars; the context is suffused with an atmosphere of joy and
wonder at God‘s mighty acts. With most commentators, I prefer to see Sarah drawing
attention to the universal pleasure her belated motherhood brings.
―Who would have announced to Abraham

‗Sarah has nursed sons‘?‖
The question expects the answer ―No one.‖ Abraham never expected anyone to come
from the delivery to tell him that Sarah had safely brought forth a boy and was feeding him
(cf. Jer 20:15). Through this question, Sarah puts into words the incredulity every hearer of
the story e xperiences. Like Abraham and Sarah beforehand, we tend to regard the birth of
Isaac as impossible. Yet, says Sarah, it has happened: ―I have borne him a son in his old
age.‖ No one would have announced such a thing to Abraham, unless he were God. And, of
course, he had announced it beforehand twice (17:16; 18:12 –15). Here we see the final
transfiguration of Sarah‘s hopeless despair (cf. Comment on 18:12) into joyous praise.
8–21 But Sarah‘s joy is short -lived, at least in the narrator‘ s perspective. The old
animosity between her and Hagar breaks out again, leading to a final parting of the ways;
Hagar and her son (never called Ishmael in this section) are driven out into the wilderness
to fend for themselves. And this technique of deali ng with sidelines to the main story line
before resuming the main track is characteristic throughout Genesis. The sons of Cain are
dealt with in 4:17 –24 before the main line through Seth resumes in 4:25; similarly, the
descendants of Japhet and Ham are lis ted in 10:1 –20 before the Shemite line resumes in
10:21 –31; 11:10 –26. In the Abraham narrative, the histories of Terah (11:27 –32) and Lot
(chaps. 13, 14, 19) are brought to a conclusion long before strict chronology warrants it.
Here the story of Ishmael i s tidied up, so that the narrative can concentrate on the main line
of Isaac. But though Hagar is mother of the non -elect Ishmael, it is notable how
sympathetically she is portrayed here, just as in chap. 16.
8 Breast -feeding in traditional societies often continues much longer than in the West,
so that a child may not be weaned until he is three (2 Macc 7:27). The importance of this
occasion was marked by a great feast to celebrate it (cf. 1 Sam 1:22 –25; see further TDOT
1:26–27). In a society where infant mortality was high, to reach the a ge of two or three
would be regarded as a significant achievement, so this in part explains the magnitude of
the celebrations. From now on Isaac looks relatively certain to be Abraham‘s heir.
9–10 But Isaac‘s status as heir apparent is always at risk while ―the son of Hagar … who
had borne a child to Abraham‖ is around, so Sarah demands their expulsion.
9 ―Sarah saw the son of Hagar … mocking.‖ The opening ―Sarah saw‖ indicates that
the reader is going to see things from Sarah‘s point of view. ―Mocking‖ (pi el of 
) is another play on the name Isaac and may give a clue to what ―mocking‖ involved.
The translation ―mock‖ implies a negative verdict on Ishmael‘s behavior, but the qal of

means ―laugh‖ and can have very posi tive overtones as in v 6, as can the piel of 
(e.g., Zech 8:5). Consequently, some commentators (e.g., Skinner, Speiser,
Westermann) take the passage in a quite neutral sense: they follo w the LXX and Vg by
adding an object and translating ―Sarah saw the son of Hagar … playing with Isaac her
son.‖ ―It is the spectacle of the two young children playing together, innocent of social
distinctions , that excites Sarah‘s maternal jealousy and prompts her cruel demands‖
(Skinner, 322). Such an understanding, of course, puts Sarah in a dreadful light and, indeed,
reflects badly on the LORD and Abraham for acceding to her demand, if this is the context.
But it is dubious whether the piel of 
will bear such an innocent interpretation. It is used absolutely as here only in 19:21,
Exod 32:6, and Judg 16:25, each time with nasty overtones, usually of someone being

mocked. If, with the LXX and Vg, the phrase ―with her son Isaac‖ is allowed to be authentic,
the situation is not greatly altered. The three passages where it is used with an adverbial
phrase imply disapproval of the play by its observer (26:8; 39: 14, 17). So something like
―mock,‖ ―jest,‖ ―make fun of‖ would seem an apt English translation.
But what did Ishmael‘s mocking consist of? The text leaves it open, so speculation has
been rampant. The midrash suggested it might involve idolatry (cf. Exod 32:6), sexual
immorality (cf. Gen 39:14, 17), or even murder (cf. 2 Sam 2:14 [ 
]). But this seems unlikely, for elsewhere Ishmael appears in a quite positive light. More
likely is the view th at Ishmael was making fun of Isaac‘s status or the circumstances of his
birth, which were a source of joyous laughter to Sarah (v 6). ―The threat of Ishmael
throughout the narrative is that he would replace Sarah‘s son … as the heir of Abraham.
Now the wor dplay so crucial for the whole story sets out the weight of the conflict. It does
not imply that Ishmael has done something amiss with Isaac. It suggests on the contrary,
that Sarah saw Ishmael meásaheµ , playing the role of Isaac. Indeed, the act implies s ome
disdain on Ishmael‘s part, perhaps equivalent to the curse of Hagar in 16:4‖ (Coats, 153; cf.
Calvin, Jacob).
10 ―Drive out this slave -wife and her son, because the son of this slave -wife shall not
inherit with my son Isaac.‖ As Wes termann observes, Sarah was not motivated by jealousy
or pride so much as by a ruthless maternal concern for her son‘s future (cf. Rebekah and
Jacob). But her language does suggest a mean belittling of Hagar and Ishmael. Note how
she av oids using their proper names; instead she speaks of ―this slave -wife‖ (twice) and
―her son‖ in contrast to ―my son, Isaac.‖ The term ―drive out‖ ( 
piel) also evokes harshness (cf. 3:24; 4:14; Exod 6:1). The qal participle is often used of
divorcees (e.g., Lev 21:7, 14; 22:13), and clearly that is implied here too.
Nevertheless, for all her ruthless competitiveness, she is right on one point: Ishmae l
―shall not inherit with my son.‖ By evoking the language of the divine promise, ―This one
[i.e., Eliezer] will not inherit from you, but one who comes out of your loins, he shall inherit
from you‖ (15:4, the only other passage where 
is used in this sense in Genesis), Sarah gives some religious justification for her
apparently harsh demand. And this parallel mitigates to some extent the reader‘s sense of
shock that God should endorse her request. It is based on principles enunciat ed much
earlier in the narrative.
That children born to slave -wives could inherit with the children of the primary wife is
mentioned in LH 170–71 and LI 25 (cf. Fensham, VT 19 [1969] 317 –21; Thompson,
Historicity , 263 –67). ―The key to Sarah‘s demand lies in a clause in the laws of Lipit -Ishtar
where it is stipulated that the father may grant freedom to the slave woman and the children
she has borne him, in which case they for feit their share of the paternal property‖ (Sarna,
147).
11 And Abraham was very displeased for his son‘s sake by the remark. In a sentence of
just eight words, the narrator sums up Abraham‘s explosive reaction to Sarah‘ s suggestion.
Elsewhere, men explode in anger when they are merely ―displeased‖ (e.g., Num 11:10; 1
Sam 18:8). When God is ―displeased‖ with someone, death often follows (e.g., Gen 38:10; 2
Sam 11:7). Only here is anyone said to be ― very displeased.‖ Quite what Abraham said and
did to express his displeasure is left to the imagination. The narrator is content to give the
reason ―for his son‘s sake.‖ Sarah called Ishmael ―the son of this slave -wife,‖ distancing
herself as far as she could from him. But for Abraham, Ishmael is ―his son.‖ This brief

sentence gives a glimpse of Abraham‘s strong paternal affection and particularly his deep
love for Ishmael. If he cannot contemplate sending Ishmael away, how much harder will he
find the command in 22:2?
12–13 God endorses Sarah‘s demand. The length of time elapsed between Sarah‘s
demand and the divine endorsement is not stated. But the narrative seems to presuppose
(―early in the morning‖ [v 14]) tha t God spoke to Abraham in a night vision soon
afterwards, though this may just refer to the coolest time of day to set out on a journey.
12 ―Do not be displeased for the lad and your slave -wife.‖ Note God‘s description of
Ishmael: he is a ―lad.‖ 
―lad‖ covers any boy from an infant to a grown man. But in Genesis it usually refers to
young men capable of taking care of themselves, such as the seventeen -year-old Joseph
(37:2), servants (18:7), and those old enough to be morally responsible (19:4). So usin g the
term here is surely designed to reassure Abraham that his beloved Ishmael will cope with
the situation. Note, too, ―and your slave -wife‖; though Abraham was more worried about
Ishmael (v 11), this additional comment shows he was also concerned for Ha gar.
―Obey Sarah in whatever she says to you.‖ The last time Abraham obeyed Sarah (16:2)
was a great mistake (cf. 3:17), so this command answers yet another objection that
Abraham raised to expelling Hagar and Ishmael. It was his right to decide family policy,
not Sarah‘s. Now he must submit to her, for her demands fit in with God‘s plans, ―because
your descendants will b e named through Isaac‖ (cf. 48:16). The precise sense of this clause
is obscure, but the general sense is clear. The elect line of Abraham‘s descendants will run
through Isaac; none of his other children count, a point already made in 1 7:19 and here
reaffirmed.
13 ―I shall also make your slave -wife‘s son into a nation‖ reiterates the promise made to
Abraham about Ishmael in 17:20, ―I shall make him into a great nation.‖ If Abraham was
worried about the survival and future greatness of Is hmael, he should be reassured by these
remarks.
14 ―Early in the morning‖ (cf. 19:27; 20:8; 22:3), ―Abraham took bread and a skin of
water and gave it to Hagar.‖ He supplies Hagar with the basic provisions for survival: a
skin of water, often made of an old goatskin, could hold about fifteen liters (three gallons,
thirty pounds in weight). This sounds rather minimal in the light of the injunction in Deut
15:12 –18 to give the departing slave a royal send –off. Why? Was it Abraham‘s secret
intention to make sure Hagar could not go too far (Calvin) ? As Gispen observes, this
conflicts with his prompt obedience to God‘s command intimated by ―early in the
morning.‖ And his use of the name Hagar here rather than ―slave -wife‖ suggests he is
treating her with consideration, as does the apposition clause ―putting it on her shoulder.‖
―The inclusion of such details brings to attention the compassionate concern of the
distressed Abraham‖ (Jacob, 482).
Many modern commentators argue that the object of ―putting on her shoulder‖ is ―the
child‖ and suggest rearrangements of the word order to make this a more probable
rendering of the Hebrew (see Notes ). However, this is unlikely. First, it would be difficult
to carry a large water -skin, bread, and a child, however young, on one‘s back
simultaneously. Second, the angel later explicitly tells Hagar to take Ishmael by the hand (v
18). He was evidently old enough to walk. It seems likely then that Abraham put the bread
and water -skin on Hagar‘s back so that she could have her hands free to take Ishmael by the
hand (so Jerome, Jacob). Third, 17:25; 21:12 (note the term ―lad‖) imply that Ishmael was

well into his teens by this time, in which case it would be most improbable that he rode on
his mother‘s back! This last point is usually countered by assigning chaps. 17 and 21 to
different sources (P and E) and using it as an argument for source analysis. But a theory
that demands textual emendation and a superficial reading of the story is suspect.
Rather, as Dillman n, Skinner, Weinfeld, and Gispen correctly observe, ―and the child‖
depends on ―and he gave.‖ The word order delaying the mention of ―the child‖ (note the
term ―child‖ chosen to stress his relationship to Abraham) until the last possible moment
conveys Abr aham‘s great reluctance to part with Ishmael, a point already made explicit in v
11. It was a costly decision to part with his firstborn son. In this light, one may interpret the
sparse provisioning as evoking Abraham‘s numbness at sending his son away rat her than
lack of concern or forethought.
―Send her off‖ (piel 
) is a softer term than ―drive out‖ (cf. 18:16; 19:29; 3:23). It is used of divorce (e.g.,
Deut 22:19; 24:1, 3) and the release of slaves with a generous provision (Exod 11:1 –2;
Deut 15:13). It may be that Abraham blessed his wife and son before they left or gave them
other gifts (cf. Jacob, Westermann). But what matters for the rest of the story is the supply
of bread a nd water, so only these items are mentioned explicitly.
―She wandered‖ shows she was lost (cf. 37:15, Joseph; Exod 23:4, ox; Isa 53:6, sheep)
and did not know where to go, and helps us to sympathize with her situation.
―In the wildernes s of Beersheba‖ means ―the fairly flat southern part of the Negeb‖
(Simons, GTOT). Assuming Abraham is still living somewhere near Gerar (cf. 20:1), it
would appear th at Hagar is moving southeastward toward northern Arabia, later inhabited
by some of the Ishmaelites (cf. 25:12 –18).
15–16 A graphic and poignant scene requiring little comment. Note how Ishmael is here
twice called ―the child,‖ emphasiz ing the bond between him and his mother, rather than his
potential independence that the word ―lad‖ evokes.
―Dumped‖ does not imply either that Hagar had been carrying him or that he was a
young child. Seventeen -year-old Joseph was ―dumped‖ in a pit by his brothers (37:20, 22,
24). BDB (1021a) notes that the term is especially used of casting dead bodies (e.g., Josh
8:29). M. Cogan ( JNES 27 [1968] 133) compares Jer 38:6, 9 and suggests it means
―abandon to die.‖ The term suggests Ha gar was in despair anticipating her son‘s imminent
death.
―Sat down by herself opposite.‖ The use of the pronoun ―by herself‖ (cf. 12:1) draws
attention to her inward feelings. ―Notions of isolation, loneliness, parting, seclusion or
withdrawal are often recognizable‖ (EWAS, 122).
―At about bowshot range, because she thought ‗Let me not see my child‘s death.‘‖ As
Jacob observes, there is a contradiction between her action and her comment, for one can
see much farther than bowshot range. ―That is the touching illogicality of a mother‘s heart.
In reality she sits at a distance, so that she cannot hear the crying of her child which tears
her heart, and to allow herself to weep freely‖ (Jacob, 483).
17–18 ―God heard the voice of the boy‖ is said both by the narrator and by the angel,
though hitherto the story has said nothing about him, merely leaving the reader to surmise
that he was crying. That such emphasis should be placed by the narrative on the fact that
God heard Ishmael rather than Hagar invites reflection. Why? Calvin suggests that
Ishmael‘s prayers may have been more vital than his mother‘s, because he was more to
blame for their plight, and therefore his presumed penitence was the more significant.

However, he prefers to explain God‘s response in terms of his promise to Abraham about
Ishmael. Both explanations are possible. Certainly, that ―God heard the l ad‖ highlights
Ishmael‘s central role in the narrative. His behavior led to their expulsion and his prayer to
their salvation. His mother was a victim of circumstance on this occasion, not the chief
culprit as in chap. 16. And as we have already observed, ―and God heard‖ (  
, wayyisûma> eáloµhéÆm ) includes the name of Ishmael, though this story never uses
his name on its own. He is always described as ―son,‖ ―lad,‖ or ―child.‖
Doubtless this cryptic reference to Ishmael‘s name is meant to recall i ts origin, ―You shall
name him Ishmael, for the LORD has noticed your oppression‖ (16:11). On that occasion,
there was no mention of Hagar praying before the LORD answered. Similarly, here we are
not told that Ishmael prayed until God answered. On both occ asions, the one who provokes
the situation initially has prayer answered. On both occasions, God shows himself willing
to rescue the afflicted even though their own behavior has provoked their persecution. Then
Hagar commented, ―I have seen him who looks a fter me.‖ Now the truth of her observation
is confirmed again in the nick of time. The phrase the angel calls ―from heaven‖ only
occurs again in 22:11, 15, whence Jacob concludes that it shows the urgency of the divine
intervention: the angel did not have time to descend to earth as usual. But 22:15, where
speed is not crucial, suggests that ―from heaven‖ means the message has immediate divine
authority.
At any rate, as often in Scripture, the divine messenger introduces himself with a
question that need no t be asked by one with supernatural knowledge. In 16:8, he asked,
―Hagar where have you come from?‖ In 18:9, he inquired, ―Where is Sarah your wife?‖
and here, ―What is the matter, Hagar?‖ In each case, the angel discloses his supernatural
identity by ment ioning a name that a human stranger would not know. Having thus
disclosed indirectly who he is, the angel then gives the apposite message. ―God has heard
the voice of the lad where he is‖ shows further that the angel knows Ishmael‘s (―God
hears‖) name, whi le the clause ―where he is‖ seems to hark back to Hagar‘s previous
experience when she called the god who appeared to her ―the God who sees.‖ Then she had
learned that the LORD knows what is going on in the world wherever it happens. Here the
angel states that God can see a child lying under a bush and respond to his prayers.
The rest of the message builds on this foundation. Renewed faith must lead to renewed
action. ―Go on, lift up the boy, grasp him with your hand, for I shall make him into a great
natio n.‖ For Hagar, this last promise may have been a fresh revelation, for although such an
assurance has twice been given to Abraham, this is the first time it is given to Hagar (cf.
17:20; 21:13).
19 Not only does God make promises; he ma kes provision. ―God opened her eyes, and
she saw a well of water.‖ A well that had been there all the time Hagar now notices for the
first time. For similar miraculous eye -openings, see 2 Kgs 6:17, 20, though the closest
parallel is in Gen 22:13, where Abr aham raises his eyes and sees a ram caught in a thicket.
20–21 After a vivid scenic narrative, the story teller reverts to summarizing the rest of
Ishmael‘s career. This explains what happened next and resolves issues raised by the
obvious dependence of 21 :8–21 on chap. 16. As noted, this story knows Ishmael‘s name,
the experiences that gave rise to it, and the promises associated with it, all set out in chap.
16. However, nothing has been said about 16:12, ―He shall be a wild ass of a man … he
shall dwell over against his kinsman.‖ This we suggested was a prediction of his future
nomadic lifestyle. 21:20 –21 records the fulfillment of this prediction: ―He lived in the

wilderness and became an archer.‖ His skill as an archer could refer to his hunting ability
(cf. 27:3) or to a fondness for fighting. The ―wilderness of Paran‖ (see Comment on 14:6)
was the name of some of Ishmael‘s descendants mentioned in 25:18.
―His mother married him to an Egyptian.‖ Normally, of course, it was the father ‘s
responsibility to arrange marriage for his son. This last glimpse of Hagar shows her
manfully shouldering full responsibility for her son‘s future welfare. Her love for her son
and her faith in the promise enunciated in 21:18 prompted her to assume this task, the
parent‘s final obligation toward a child. This remark, of course, prepares the way for the list
of the sons of Ishmael in 25:13 –16. It also gives a clue about how Abraham will handle the
problem of Isaac‘s marriage. Hagar looked to her homeland Egypt for Ishmael‘s wife. Later
Abraham will send to his homeland in Mesopotamia for a wife for Isaac. Thus although
separated from her husband, Abraham, we find Hagar acting in the best tradition of his faith
and practice.
Explanation
At long last Sarah g ives birth to a son as God promised. This is the most visible
fulfillment of any of the promises so far and also the most central, for without a son
Abraham could never have a multitude of descendants, inherit the land, or be a blessing to
all the nations. And the threefold repetition, ―as he had said,‖ ―as he had promised,‖ ―which
God promised,‖ which seems unnecessarily repetitive, draws attention to the theological
significance of the event of Isaac‘s birth.
But the stress on the fulfillment of the divin e promise is just as vital for another reason.
For ancient and modern readers find it incredible that a man aged one hundred should
father a child, especially when his wife was only a few years his junior. And those most
involved, Abraham and Sarah, though t similarly, according to the repeated witness of
Genesis. They both laughed at the idea of Sarah conceiving. And even if she conceived,
who would have believed she could have safely delivered?
―Who would have announced to Abraham,
‗Sarah has nursed sons‘? ‖
The question expects the answer no. No one but God could have dared to make such a
prediction. The birth of Isaac was a divine miracle, not a natural event that might
reasonably have been anticipated, least of all by Sarah and Abraham, who knew only too
well their age and biological con dition.
Yet though they had laughed in disbelief, now Sarah laughs for joy at the birth of their
son Isaac, whose name means ―he laughs.‖ And Sarah anticipates that her joy will be
universally shared.
―Everyone who hears it will laugh for me.‖
But as often in human experience, the source of one person‘s joy can prove the cause of
another‘s jealousy. The occasion was the weaning of Isaac, which probably took place
when he was about three. When Isaac had safely survived the dangers of infancy, Abraham
held a great feast to celebrate his weaning. Until this point, Ishmael could reasonably have
entertained the expectation of being Abraham‘s sole heir. The conception of Isaac seemed
impossible, his birth exceedingly dangerous, and his infancy hazardous. Yet contr ary to all
expectation he had come through them all, and now Ishmael‘s right of succession was at

risk. So he started to make fun of Isaac‘s status. The very term ―mocking‖ could be
paraphrased ―Isaacking.‖ What Ishmael did is left obscure, but his behavio r in the light of
12:3, ―he who disdains you I shall curse,‖ placed his own position in jeopardy, for Isaac
may now be presumed to share in all the promises made to his father Abraham. Admittedly,
Abraham had been assured that Ishmael would become a great nation (17:20) and Hagar
that he would grow into ―a wild ass of a man and dwell opposite all his brothers‖ (16:12).
And in one sense this story shows the fulfillment of these apparently divergent promises; it
shows how Ishmael and his mother left the Abrah amic home and came to be an
independent nomadic people, how the history of Ishmael fulfilled the promises made to his
mother at birth. But it does much more: it gives an insight into the deep affection of
Abraham for Ishmael and Hagar. He explodes with ang er at the suggestion that he should
drive them out; only divine reassurance makes him consent (vv 11 –13), while the touching
description of their departure shows him holding on to Ishmael until the very last minute.
Similarly, the story highlights Hagar‘s deep love for her son. Suffering the trauma of
divorce, she wanders dazed in the wilderness until their water runs out, and then she dumps
her son under a bush sufficiently distant so that she can see him but not so close as to hear
his agonized cries as h e dies of thirst. Thus the emotional heart of the family, especially the
love of Abraham and Hagar for Ishmael, is laid bare in this distressing episode.
If Abraham and Hagar are portrayed most sympathetically, Ishmael, the cause of the
conflict, is depict ed rather more equivocally. Though his behavior, quite unwise in terms of
the social mores of the age and very dangerous in the light of Gen 12:3, fueled Sarah‘s fiery
jealousy, he did pray with penitence when dying of thirst, and as the narrative points o ut
twice, it was his prayer that God answered (vv 17 –18). His name Ishmael means ―God will
hear,‖ and he proved it on this occasion.
Of all the characters, Sarah evokes least sympathy. Her expressions of joy and faith
with which the story opens, ―‗God has made me laugh. / … Who would have announced to
Abraham, / ―Sarah has nursed sons?‖‘‖ lead us to expect her to show more tolerance and
patience with Hagar and Ishmael. Yet she who ―blesses the Lord‖ one day, ―curses men‖
(cf. Jas 3:9) so me time later with words that are cruel and demeaning, ―Drive out this
slave -wife and her son‖ (v 10). Nevertheless, her hurtful demand is sanctioned by God, for
ultimately it is his will that triumphs in this all -too-human tragedy. Through the pride of
Ishmael and the jealousy of Sarah, Ishmael is cut out of the family of Abraham so that his
―descendants will be named through Isaac‖ (v 12), and Ishmael becomes the forefather of
desert tribes as first predicted before his birth (16:12; 17:20). But though se parated from the
family of Abraham, neither Hagar nor Ishmael are beyond the mercy of God. As she
discovered on the first occasion, ―the LORD‖ is the one ―who sees me,‖ and this time, too,
God answers prayer, providing her with reassurance about the future , ―I shall make him
into a great nation,‖ and water to quench their thirst. And our last glimpse of Hagar shows
her loyalty to the customs of the patriarchs: like them she provides a wife for her son from
among her own people. So though Ishmael excluded hi mself and his mother from the
blessings associated with Abraham‘s immediate family, they still experienced God‘s care
and protection and even to some extent maintained the godly marriage custom of that
household.
Within the overall plan of Genesis, this ac count of Isaac‘s birth and Ishmael‘s expulsion is
of decisive importance in the unfolding of the patriarchal promises. It is to this aspect of the
story that Paul refers in Rom 9:7 and in his more extended reference to the role of Hagar
and Ishmael in Gal 4:21–31. For Paul, the all -important point is that Isaac was born

following God‘s promise and in that respect anticipates the gentile believers in God‘s plan,
while Ishmael, born through human contrivance, is a forerunner of the Jews who sought
salvation t hrough works of the law.
As a story on its own, this narrative, like many other parts of Genesis, illuminates the
mixture of faith and doubt, joy and jealousy, love and hatred that characterizes the human
predicament. But above all, in it ―God proves himse lf dependable and gracious. He is
‗faithful‘ in performing his promises to each person. Not only does he give Isaac to
Abraham and Sarah as their own child, but he hears Hagar and saves Ishmael also, making
him—for Abraham‘s sake (21:13) —into a great natio n, headed by his sons as twelve
princes (16:10; 17:20; 21:13, 18; 25:16)‖ (L. Hicks, IDB 2:748).
Covenant with Abimelek (21:22 –34)
Bibliography
Matthews, V. H. ―The Wells of Gerar.‖ BA 49 (1986) 118 –26. McCarthy, D. J. ―Three Covenants
in Genesis.‖ CBQ 26 (1964) 179 –89. Ray, J. D. ―Two Etymologies: Ziklag and Phicol.‖ VT 36
(1986) 355 –61. Sarna, N. M. ―Genesis 21:33: A Study in the Development of a Biblical Text and
Its Rabbinic Transformation.‖ In From Ancient Israel to Modern Judaism: FS Marvin Fox, ed. J.
Neusner, E. S. Frerichs, and N. M. Sarna. Atlan ta: Scholars, 1989. 1:69 –75.
Translation
22At that time Abimeleka and his army commander, Phicol, said to Abraham, ―God
is with you in all that you are doing. 23Now sweara to me in God‘s name here thatb you
will not deal falsely with me, my cdescendants, or my successors,c that as I have been
kind to you, so you will be kind to me and the land where you have settled.‖d
24So Abraham said, ―Ia shall swear.‖b
25Now Abraham berateda Abimelek about the wellb of water which Abimelek‘s
servants had seized.
26And Abimelek had said, ―I do not know who did this thing. You did not tell me. I
did not even hear about it till today.‖
27So Abraham took sheep and oxen and gave them to Abimelek, and they both made
a trea ty.
28Then Abraham puta seven ewe -lambsb on their own.c 29So Abimelek said to
Abraham, ―What are thesea seven ewe -lambs which you have put aside on their own?‖b
30And he said, ―You must take the a seven ewe -lambs from me so that it may be
evidence for me that I dug this well.‖
31Therefore that place was called Beer -Sheba because there both of them swore an oath.
32So they made a covena nt in Beersheba. Then Abimeleka and his army commander, Phicol,
aroseb and returned to the country of the Philistines. 33And hea plantedb a tamarisk in
Beersheba and called there on the name of the LORD, El-Olam. 34Then Abraham dwelta in
the land of the Philistines many days.

Notes
22.a. G inserts here and in v 32 ―and his adviser Ohozath, ‖ assimilating to 26:26.
23.a. 2 masc. sg impv niph [
+ 
(GKC, 51o.)
23.b. On 
to introduce oaths, see GKC, 149a –c.
23.c-c. 
―successors‖ is always paired with 
―posterity‖; cf. Is 14:22; Job 18:19.
23.d. 2 masc. sg pf 
. On spelling, see GKC, 44g.
24.a. Pronoun common in promises ( GKC, 135a; Joüon, 146a). Used when ― the speaker‘s
self-consciousness is especially deepened‖ (EWAS, 54).
24.b. 1 sg impf. niph [
. On pointing, see GKC, 51p.
25.a. SamPent has 
instead of MT 
waw consec + 3 masc. sg pf hiph 
. GKC, 112rr, suggests MT is frequentative.
25.b. G reads pl., ―wells.‖
28.a. Waw consec+ 3 masc. sg impf. hiph 28.b. On use of def art here, see GKC, 127e.
28.c. 
+ 
+ 3 fem. pl. suffix; cf. 2:18.
29.a. On def art only on 
, see GKC, 126x, 134l; WOC, 260.

29.b. Cf. n. 28.c.*, an alternative 3 fem. pl. suffix; see GKC, 91f. SamPent assimilates
form to v 28.
30.a. On use of 
before numerals, see Joüon, 125h; WOC, 180.
32.a. Cf. n. 21:22.a.*
32.b. Sg verb with pl. subj (GKC, 146f).
33.a. SamPent, G, S, Vg, Tg. Neof. insert ―Abraham.‖
33.b. Cf. n. 2:8.a.*
34.a. Cf. n. 20:1.b.*
Form/Structure/Setting
This short tale poses a number of awkward problems. Its chronological and thematic
relationship to the surrounding material is obscure and its internal coherence suspect. The
opening phrase, ―At that time,‖ relates this story to the preceding material in s ome way, but
it is not clear whether the reference is to the birth and weaning of Isaac or to the story in
chap. 20, in which Abimelek is the chief character. Nor is it clear how the story relates to
the promises of land, descendants, and blessing to the n ations. Is it just a filler to separate
the climax of the birth from the sacrifice of Isaac, as perhaps the final remark, ―Abraham
dwelt … many days‖ (v 34), suggests?
The tale itself consists of one scene (vv 22 –33) made up of three speeches by Abimelek,
Abraham‘s responses, and some short concluding comments.

v 22a
Introduction

vv 22b –23
Abimelek‘s first speech: ―Let us make an oath‖

v 24
Abraham agrees

v 25
Comment about well dispute

v 26
Abimelek‘s second speech: ―I do not know‖

v 27
Abraham and Abimelek make a covenant

v 28

Abraham sets aside ewe -lambs

v 29
Abimelek‘s third speech: ―What are these ewe -lambs?‖

v 30
Abraham‘s reply

vv 31 –33
Origin of name Beersheba

v 34
Abraham stays in land of Philistines

It is the transition between v 24 and v 25 that is hardest to follow. Do vv 25 –27 recount an
incident prior to the oath proposed in v 24 or subsequent to that? Or do vv 25 –27 or 25 –30
expound the content of the oath proposed in v 24? The possibilities are not mutually
exclusive, but it is not clear which is correct. Suspicion that more than one source is present
is fueled by the apparently diverse explanations of the name Beersheba —vv 28 –29 seem to
associate it with the ―seven‖ ( [
sûeba> ) ewe -lambs, whil e v 30 links it explicitly with ―swearing‖ ( 
This has led to a variety of source analyses. Some (e.g., Dillmann, Speiser, Coats) see
the story as essentially a unity from one source (usually E) with possibly a J addendum in v
33 or vv 32 –34. Others hold that two sources, possibly E and J, have been combined. For
example, Gunkel (followed by Skinner and Procksch) holds that vv 22 –24, 27, 31 (the
oath-covenant account) are from E, whil e 25–26, 28 –30, 32 –34 (the well dispute, the seven
ewe-lambs, and the name Beersheba) come from J. Van Seters argues that vv 25 –26,
28–31a (the dispute followed by an oath) are the earliest version of the story and form a
sequel to chap. 20, but that vv 22 –24, 27, 31b –34 are a later expansion of the story by J. On
the basis of the parallel in 26:26 –31, Westermann argues as follows. Chap. 26 seems an
older explanation of the name Beersheba. 26:32 –33 are an expansion of 26:26 –31.
Similarly, 21:33 –34 expand 21 :22–32. 21:31b, the explanation of the name Beersheba, is
secondary, being derived from 26:32 –33. Since 21:25 –26, 28 –31 a have no parallel in chap.
26, they can be viewed as a secondary expansion. Hence the earliest material in chap. 21
consists of vv 22 –24, 27, while vv 25 –26, 28 –31a are an expansion and vv 33 –34 are
independent and lead into an itinerary.
The diversity of these source -critical analyses reflects the uncertainty of the criteria for
analysis that are being employed. Sarna by -passes this deba te and suggests that this section
is artfully composed and fits well at this point in Genesis. He notes that the names of
Abraham and Abimelek both occur seven times each in this story, that Abraham takes
seven ewe -lambs, and that one meaning of Beersheba is ―well of seven.‖ 21:22 –34
―presupposes a knowledge of the previous encounter between Abraham and Abimelech
(chap. 20). It assumes that the reader knows who Abimelech is and that he has treated
Abraham decently (20:15ff.; 21:33). The account of the stole n well, Abimelech‘s plea of
blamelessness, and the restoration of the property to the patriarch parallels the monarch‘s
kidnapping of Sarah, his protestation of innocence, and her return to Abraham (20;

21:25ff.). Abimelech made Abraham a gift of sheep and oxen, and Abraham reciprocates
(20:14; 21:27); the identical formula, ‗took and gave,‘ is used in both cases‖ (Sarna, 145).
Whichever source -critical approach is correct, we must still attempt to understand how the
final author understood the present form of the material. To this we now turn.
Comment
22 ―At that time‖ (cf. 38:1). According to Coats, the period in question is that of chap. 20,
on the grounds that this story is related to the earlier one. Jacob believes ―that time‖ means
the occasion of Isaac‘s weaning, since this explains why there is no mention of Abimelek
and Phicol coming: they were already present for the weaning feast. Sarna (cf. Calvin)
suggests the eve nts occurred soon after Abraham sent Hagar away. The use of the same
phrase in 38:1 suggests that it introduces something outside the main sequence of events, so
Sarna‘s view is less likely than Coats‘ or Jacob‘s.
―His army commander, Phicol.‖ Various atte mpts have been made to explain the name
Phicol. The most plausible to date suggests that it is of Anatolian origin. Names beginning
with Pik are common in classical inscriptions, while names ending in wlo" are well known.
Unfortunately, no name such as Pigwllo" has yet been discovered. If the name is of
Anatolian origin, this would fit in with the later identification of Abimelek and his people
as Philistines, since they may well have come from the Aegean or Anatolia via Crete (see
Ray, VT 36 [1986] 358 –61). That Abimelek is accompanied by his army commander
implies that Abraham himself has a considerable retinue and is a force to be reckoned with
(cf. chap. 14), and puts Abimelek‘s statement in context.
―God is with you in all that you are doing.‖ God (the LORD) was with the other
patriarchs ([
, 26:3; 28:15; 31:3; 46:4; or 
, 39:3), Moses (Exod 3:12), Joshua (Josh 1:5, 17; 3:7), and David (2 Sam 7:3). The
presence of God is manifest in a person‘ s success on God -approved missions. What success
is being referred to here is obscure: it could be Abraham‘s intercession (20:17) or the
successful birth and weaning of Isaac (21:2, 8). The use of the participle ―doing‖ may
suggest continued success, so th at neither of these specific achievements is referred to but,
rather, the whole tenor of Abraham‘s life expresses the blessing of God. Hence it appears
that in effect Abimelek is blessing Abraham (cf. Comment on 12:2) and may be presume d
to be quite sincere.
23 ―Swear to me.‖ With this verb sûb> ([
), the first allusion to the name Beersheba appears, as often in the narratives of Genesis,
long before the name itself does. Abimelek is going to propose a covenant sealed by an
oath. Negat ively, this involves a promise not to ―deal falsely‖ (cf. Abraham‘s behavior in
chap. 20) and, positively, a promise to be ―kind.‖ In the OT, it is anticipated that kindness
will be repaid with kindness. Indeed, it often leads to conclu sion of treaties or covenants
(cf. TDOT 5:44–64). ―As I have been kind to you‖ presupposes some kindly actions by
Abimelek, presumably those recorded in 20:14 –16.
More striking are Abimelek‘s remarks about the future. He is concerned not just for
himself but for his descendants and for the land in which Abraham dwells. He seems to
take for granted the continuing success and strength of Abraham‘s family. His attitude
expresses an implicit faith in the promises addressed to Abraham, however thin a thread,

one child, seems to uphold the m at the moment. It recalls his assumption that all men will
accept certain moral principles, which underlie his rebuke of Abraham in 20:9.
24 Abraham‘s reply is terse: ―I shall swear.‖ It is, of course, another play on the term
Beersheba, but why is it so terse when Abimelek‘s offer was so lengthy and polite? Does
not Abraham share Abimelek‘s confidence in the future? Is he annoyed with Abimelek?
The succinctness of Abraham‘s response raises questions that the unfolding narrative will
resolve.
25 ―Then Abr aham berated.‖ If the MT is to be followed here, its syntax is odd. The
word order ―And‖ + ―reproved‖ (perfect) + ―Abraham‖ is unusual in the context of past
time.
The literal rendering ―Th en Abraham used to reprove‖ could suggest that after tersely
accepting Abimelek‘s request to make an oath, Abraham brought up several times this
violation of his expected rights, so I have translated ―berated‖: Abimelek‘s servants had
―seized‖ a well of wa ter (on 
―seize,‖ ―steal with force,‖ ―the forceful tearing away of an object from its owner‖ by a
stronger person usually illegally, cf. 31:31; Lev 19:13; Job 20:19; Mic 2:2; TDOT
2:456 –58). Note here the first mention of the ―well‖ whose name is later explained.
26 If Abraham did prot est at some length about the seized well, as the frequentative
suggests, it becomes easier to appreciate Abimelek‘s heated response. He claims that he is
innocent, ―I do not know who did this thing,‖ that Abraham ought to have complained
earlier, ―you did not tell me,‖ and that he knew nothing about it ―till today.‖ Just as in chap.
20, Abimelek is portrayed as a man with good intentions but one not as aware of the
situation as a responsible ruler ought to be. Then he was unaware that Sarah was married;
now he is unaware of his servants‘ actions. What he proposed to do about remedying
Abraham‘s grievance is left unsaid.
27 Nevertheless, his assurances were evidently enough to persuade Abraham of his
good faith, for Abraham now takes the initiative: ―So Abrah am took sheep and oxen and
gave them to Abimelek, and they both made a treaty.‖ Exchange of gifts was customary
when treaties or covenants were made (cf. 1 Kgs 15:19; Isa 30:6; Hos 12:2 [1]). That only
Abraham gave gifts suggests he is the lesser party and principal beneficiary of the treaty.
(On the phraseology 
lit. ―cut a covenant,‖ cf. Comment on 15:18; 17:2.) Later laws (e.g., Exod 23:33; Deut
7:2) forbade treaty -making with the inhabitants of Canaan and insisted on strict separation
(Lev 20:26). That Abraham acts in ignorance of later legal norms, in this regard as well as
in religion and sexual morality, indicates the antiquity of the tradition h ere.
28–29 The contents of the treaty are not specified. Presumably it provided for
continuing mutual cooperation between Abraham and his successors and Abimelek and his
successors (21:23) and perhaps confirmed Abraham‘s right to be an immigrant in the lan d
(20:15). However, it cannot have explicitly covered the question of the disputed well, for
Abraham specifically raises the issue by setting aside for Abimelek seven ewe -lambs.
But this gesture is problematic. It is not clear how these seven lambs relate to the sheep
and oxen already mentioned. Are they included in the original gift? If so, Abraham is
apparently taking back part of his offering. Or are they an extra present for Abimelek? And
is there any significance in their number and type: why not two b ulls instead?
Unfortunately the Hebrew does not permit a clear answer. Though some argue that the use
of the definite article with ―seven ewe -lambs‖ means ―the seven ewe -lambs‖ already

mentioned, the article may be used prospectively, i.e., ―the seven ewe -lambs‖ about to be
mentioned (cf. Notes ). So grammar does not decide whether extra lambs are being added or
some originally given are being set aside. Generally, female animals were regarded as more
valuable (they c an breed and produce milk, and young females should do this longer than
old ones). So it may be that seven, a sacred number, ewe -lambs would appear as a valuable
group. But we cannot be sure. Certainly Abimelek could not see what Abraham was saying
by this gesture. His question ―What … on their own?‖ by its repetition of v 28 draws
attention to Abraham‘s action and his own perplexity. It also repeats the word ―seven,‖ a
component of the word ―Beersheba.‖
30 Abraham clarifies what he is doing. ―You must take ‖ shows that he is giving additional
lambs, not just holding back some that he has already presented to Abimelek. He is giving
extra animals because he wants more than a general treaty; he wants a specific concession,
namely, the guaranteed use of the well that he had dug. For without the right to water, a
promise to be allowed to live in the land is valueless —hence Abraham‘s determination to
secure the use of the well.
31 After the repeated references to ―swearing‖ and ―seven‖ ( [
sûb> , vv 23, 24, 28, 29 , 30) and to the ―well‖ ( 
b<r, vv 25, 30), it comes as little surprise to discover that the name of the place where
it was situated was Beersheba. There an oath, an integral part of a treaty, was sworn. Now
at last Abraham had a claim to at least one w ell in the land of Canaan. The location of this
well remains uncertain. The town of Beersheba was an important royal city in the first
millennium and is to be identified with Tel es -Saba, east of the modern city of Beersheba.
Y. Aharoni (―Tel Beersheba,‖ EAEHL 1:168) holds that the patriarchal well may be situated
at Bir es -Saba within the modern city.
32 The return of Abimelek and Phicol t o the land of the Philistines implies not only that
Abraham had a legal claim to a well but that he had de facto possession of the region near it
(cf. 12:6).
―Land of the Philistines‖ is anachronistic, since the Philistines did not arri ve in Canaan
till about 1200 B.C. It could be viewed as proleptic, anticipating the later name of the area
and its people (cf. Dan in Gen 14:14; Ur of the Chaldeans in Gen 15:7). But K. A. Kitchen
(POTT, 56) has suggested that the Philistines of Genesis may, like the later real Philistines,
have come from the Aegean area, a suggestion that gains added weight if Phicol is
identified as an Anatolian name (cf. Comment on 21:22).
33 On other occasions, Abraham stayed near oaks (12:6; 13:18; 18:1); here he plants a
tamarisk, Tamarix aphylla , a stately tree that can reach thirty feet (ten meters) in height.
They are common throughout the Negeb, ―where they were planted by the desert Bedouin
for their shade and their soft branches, which the flocks eat‖ (Zohary, Plants of the Bible ,
115). The precise significance of this act is unclear; the OT sees trees, especially
evergreens, as symbolic of the life and bl essing of God (Ps 1:3; Jer 17:7 –8). On other
occasions Abraham built an altar, and presumably offered sacrifice, to express his devotion
to God (12:7, 8; 13:18). Sarna (―Genesis 21:33‖) argues that tree -planting is analogous to
altar-building and marked th e foundation of the great shrine of Beersheba. Such acts (cf.
26:25), like this one, followed God‘s promising the land, and Abraham usually responded
by calling on the name of the LORD. Here he calls the LORD ―El-Olam,‖ El of Eternity, an
appropriate epithet for the Canaanite high god. The planting of a tree and prayer imply that
something of great moment has occurred in this episode. The use of this divine epithet

El-Olam suggests that God‘s long -term faithfulness to Abraham has been re vealed through
Abimelek‘s words and actions. In his opening speech he had looked confidently into the
future, with his descendants and Abraham‘s living peaceably together. By granting
Abraham rights to a well, Abimelek had made it possible for Abraham to l ive there
permanently and had acknowledged his legal right at least to water. In other words, after so
many delays the promises of land and descendants at last seem on their way to fulfillment.
Explanation
The life of the patriarchs was not made up only of excitement and crisis. As in most
people‘s lives, there were long periods of fairly humdrum activity of quiet pastoral and
family life. This short story gives a glimpse of the more mundane side of patriarchal
existence.
It begins with Abimelek, king of Ge rar, already known to us from chap. 20, and his
army commander, Phicol, coming to Abraham with the proposal that they should make a
long-term non -aggression treaty. For, says the ever -loquacious Abimelek, ―God is with you
in all that you are doing‖; in oth er words, ―your success is so evident that I want to ensure
that my successors continue to live in peace and harmony with your descendants.‖ This is a
remarkable confirmation by an outsider of Abraham‘s standing. Abraham has almost
―become a blessing‖ (12: 2), a phrase that means that men will say ―God make me as
blessed as Abraham.‖ More noteworthy to Abraham than his progress toward becoming a
blessing as promised is Abimelek‘s confidence in the future existence of Abraham‘s family.
That all depended on hi s only son Isaac, if we may assume that Ishmael was already or
soon to be expelled from the family. Through the human voice of Abimelek, the divine
promises to Abraham are in effect confirmed.
Yet Abraham is grudging in his acceptance of Abimelek‘s offer o f a treaty. He
consents, but not with the grace and enthusiasm that Abimelek‘s generous offer might have
led one to expect. He has a grievance, but not until Abimelek has shown his friendliness
does he air it. ―He berated Abimelek about the well Abimelek‘s servants had seized.‖
Caught off his guard, Abimelek plunges into a long defense of himself, assuring Abraham
that he had nothing to do with his servants‘ action. He had not even heard of it till Abraham
raised it. Why did he not raise it earlier? Reassur ed at least about Abimelek‘s sincerity,
even if he retains doubts about his competence, Abraham makes a gift of sheep and oxen to
Abimelek, and they both make a covenant, presumably along the lines of Abimelek‘s
original proposal. After this general agreem ent to live in harmony, Abraham seizes the
opportunity to deal with the particular issue of the well. By setting aside an extra seven
valuable young ewes, Abraham intimates that he wishes to make another request to
Abimelek. Puzzled by the gesture, Abimele k asks about the sheep, and Abraham explains
that he wants a specific guarantee about the use of the well. Abimelek agrees, and they
swear an oath at Beersheba. Its name, ―Well of the oath,‖ is a permanent reminder of the
agreement they made there.
Both pa rties are more than satisfied. Abimelek and Phicol return home with the
covenant they had sought, and Abraham is granted permanent use of the well he had dug.
The fulfillment of the promises to him is becoming ever more evident; he now has at least a
well he can call his own in the land of Canaan. Out of gratitude to the LORD for his
continuing faithfulness, he plants a tamarisk and worships there. For it was not just through
direct revelation but through his interaction with his neighbors, even in a disput e over the

most basic natural resource, water, that Abraham was reassured about his future and God‘s
continuing provision for his needs.
So ―Abraham dwelt in the land of the Philistines many days.‖ Peace and stability at last!
Tranquil old age is a sign of God‘s blessing (Lev 26:6 –12; Zech 8:4). But it is a lull before
the storm.
The Testing of Abraham (22:1 –19)
Bibliography
BASIC HISTORICAL , EXEGETICAL , AND LITERARY STUDIES
Alexander, T. D. ―Gen 22 and the Covenant of Circumcision.‖ JSOT 25 (1983) 17 –22. Auerbach,
E. Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. Tr. W. R. Trask. Princeton:
Princeton UP, 1953. Baltzer, K. ―Jerusalem in den Erzväter -Geschichten d er Genesis?
Traditionsgeschichtliche Erwägungen zu Gen 14 und 22.‖ In Die hebräische Bibel und ihre
zweifache Nachgeschichte : FS R. Rendtorff, ed. E. Blum, C. Macholz, and E. W. Stegemann.
Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1990. 3 –12.Bovon, R., and Rouiller, G. Problèmes de méthode et
exercises de lecture (Gen 22 et Luc 15). Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1975. Childs, B. S.
―Anticipatory Titles in Hebrew Narrative.‖ In Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World III: I. L.
Seeligman Volume, ed. A. Rofé and Y. Zakovitch. Jerusalem: Rubenstein‘s, 1983. 57 –65. Coats, G.
W. ―Abraham‘s Sacrifice of Faith: A Form -Critical Study of Gen 22.‖ Int 27 (1973) 389 –400.
Crenshaw, J. ―Journey into Oblivion: A Structural Analysis of Gen 22:1 –19.‖ Soundings 58 (1975)
243–56. Davila, J. R. ―The Name of God at Moriah: An Unpublished Fragment from
4QGenExoda.‖ JBL 110 (1991) 577 –82.Duhaime, J. L. ―Le sacrifice d‘Isaac (Gen 22:1 –19):
l‘héritage de Gunkel.‖ ScEs 33 (1981) 139 –56.Fokkelman, J. P. ―‗On the Mount of the Lord There
Is Vision‘: A Response to Francis Landy concerning the Akedah.‖ In Signs and Wonders: Biblical
Texts in Literary Focus, ed. J. C. Exum. SBL, 1989. 41 –57. Galy, A. ―Une lecture de Gen 22. ‖ Le
point théologique 24 (1977) 117 –33. Golka, F. W. ―Die theologische Erzählungen im
Abraham -Kreis .‖ ZAW 90 (1978) 186 –95. Golling, R. ―Zeugnisse von Menschenopfern im AT.‖ TLZ
102 (1977) 147 –50. Green, A. R. W. The Role of Human Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East.
ASORDS 1. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975. Gross, H. ―Zur theologischen Bedeutung von haµlak
(gehen) in den Abraham -Geschichten (Gen 12 –25).‖ In Die Väter Israels: FS J. Scharbert, ed. M.
Görg. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989. 73 –82. Hopkins, D. C. ―Between Promise and
Fulfillment: Von Rad and the Sacrifice of Abraham.‖ BZ 24 (1980) 180 –93. Kalimi, I. ―The Land of
Moriah, Mount Moriah, and the Site of Solomon‘s Temple in Biblical Historiography.‖ HTR 83
(1990) 345 –62. Kilian, R. Isaaks Opferung: Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte von Gen 22. SBS 44.
Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1970. Lack, R. ―Le sacrifice d‘Isaac: Analyse structurale de la
couche élohiste dans Gen 22 .‖ Bib 56 (1975) 1 –12. Landy, F. ―Narrative Techniques and Symbolic
Transactions in the Akedah.‖ In Signs and Wonders: Biblical Texts in Literary Focus, ed. J. C.
Exum. SBL, 1989. 1 –40. Lawlor, J. I. ―The Test of Abraham: Gen 22:1 –19.‖ GTJ 1 (1980) 19 –35.
Magonet, J. ―Abraham and God.‖ Judaism 33 (1984) 160 –70. ——— .―Die Söhne Abrahams.‖
BibLeb 14 (1973) 204 –10. Mazor, Y. ―Genesis 22: The Ideological Rhetoric and the Psychological
Composition.‖ Bib 67 (1986) 81 –88. Moberly, R. W. L. ―The Earliest Commentary on the
Akedah.‖ VT 38 (1988) 302 –23. Pope, M. H. ―The Timing of the Snagging of the Ram.‖ BA 49

(1986) 114 –17. Qoler, Y. ―The Story of the Binding of Isaac.‖ (Heb.) BMik 29 (1983/84) 117 –27.
Reventlow, H. G. Opfere deinen Sohn: Eine Auslegung von Gen 22. BibS 53. Neukirchen:
Neukirchener, 1968. Safren, J. D. ―Balaam and Abraham.‖ VT 38 (1968) 105 –13. Sarda, O. ―Le
sacrifice d‘Abraham (Gen 22): le déplacement des lectures attestées. ‖ Le point théologique 24
(1977) 135 –46. Saviv, A. ―yhwh yireh = The Place Which He Will Choose.‖ (Heb.) BMik 26 (1981)
279–81. Ska, J. L. ―Gen 22:1 –19: essai sur les niveaux de lecture.‖ Bib 69 (1988) 324 –39. Steck,
O. H. ―Ist Gott grausam? Über Isaaks Opferung aus der Sicht des ATs.‖ Theologie der Gegenwart
21 (1978) 65–75. Swindell, A. C. ―Abraham and Isaac: An Essay in Biblical Appropriation.‖
ExpTim 87 (1975/76) 50 –53. Trible, P. ―Gen 22: The Sacrifice of Sarah.‖ In Not in Heaven, ed. J. P.
Rosenblatt and J. C. Sitterson. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1991. 170 –91. Tsmudi, Y. ―The Internal
Struggle in the Story of the Binding of Isaac.‖ (Heb.) BMik 30 (1984/85) 382 –87. Veijola, T. ―Das
Opfer d es Abraham: Paradigma des Glaubens aus dem nachexilischen Zeitalter .‖ ZTK 85 (1988)
129–64. Vogels, W. ―Dieu éprouva Abraham (Gen 22:1 –19).‖ Sémiotique et Bible 26 (1982) 25 –36.
Walters, S. D. ―Wood, Sand and Stars: Structure and Theology in Gen 22:1 –19.‖ Toronto Journal
of Theology 3 (1987) 301 –30. White, H. C. ―The Initiation Legend of Isaac.‖ ZAW 91 (1979) 1 –30.
THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS
Brock, S. P. ―Gen 22: Where Was Sarah?‖ ExpTim 96 (1984) 14 –17. Chilton, B. D. ―Isaac and the
Second Night: A Consideration.‖ Bib 61 (1980) 78 –88. Dahl, N. A. ―The Atonement —an Adequate
Reward for the Akedah?‖ In The Crucified Mes siah and Other Essays. Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1974. 146 –89. Daly, R. J. ―The Soteriological Significance of the Sacrifice of Isaac.‖ CBQ 39
(1977) 45 –75. Davies, P. R. ―The Sacrifice of Isaac and Passover.‖ In Studia Biblica 1978, ed. E.
A. Livingstone. JSOTSup 11. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1979. 127 –32. ——— . ―Passover and the
Dating of the Aqedah.‖ JJS 30 (1979) 59 –67. ——— and Chilton, B. D. ―The Aqedah: A Revised
Tradition History.‖ CBQ 40 (1978) 514 –46.Elbaum, Y. ―From Sermon to Story: The
Transformation of the Akedah.‖ Prooftexts 6 (1986) 97 –116. Feldman, L. H. ―Josephus‘ Version
of the Binding of Isaac.‖ SBLSP 21 (1982) 113 –28. Hayward, C. T. R. ―The Present State of
Research into the Targ umic Account of the Sacrifice of Isaac.‖ JJS 32 (1981) 127 –50. ——— . ―The
Sacrifice of Isaac and Jewish Polemic against Christianity.‖ CBQ 52 (1990) 292 –306. Leaney, A. R.
C. ―The Akedah, Paul an d the Atonement.‖ SE 7 [= TU 126] (1982) 307 –15.Moberly, R. W. L.
―Christ as the Key to Scripture: Genesis 22 Re considered.‖ In He Swore an Oath, ed. R. S. Hess, P.
E. Satterthwaite, and G. J. Wenham. Cambridge: Tyndale House, 1993. 143 –73. Schmitz, R. -P.
Aqedat Jishaq: Die mittelalterliche jüdische Auslegung von Gen 22 in ihren H auptlinien.
Hildesheim: Olms, 1979. Starobinski -Safran, R. ―Sur le sens de l‘épreuve (Interprétations juives
de Gen 22).‖ RTP 114 (1982) 23 –35. Swetnam, J. Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the
Hebrews in t he Light of the Aqedah. AnBib 94. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981. Yassif, E., ed.
The Sacrifice of Isaac: Studies in the Development of a Literary Tradition. Jerusalem: Makor, 1979.
Translation
1aAfter these thingsa God tested Abraham and said to him, ―Abraham.‖b He said,
―Here I am.‖c
2He said, ―Please take your son, your only child, whom you love,a Isaac. Go by
yourselfb to the district of Moriah,c and offerd him there as a burnt offering on onee of
the mountains which I shall tell you.‖
3So early in the morning Abraham saddled his donkey, took two of his ladsa with
him, and his son Isaac, and cutb wood for the burnt offering. He set out and went to the
place which God had told him about.

4aOn the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. 5So Abraham said
to the lads, a―You stayb by yourselvesac here with the donkey, dwhile I and the lad will god
on there, so thate we can worshipf and returng to you.‖ 6Then Abraham took the firewood
and puta it on Isaac his son, and in his hand he took the fire and the knife.
So the two of them went tog ether.b 7Then Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and
said, ―My father.‖ He said, ―Hereab I am, my son.‖ He said, ―Herea is the fire and the
wood, butc where is the sheep for the burnt offering?‖ 8Abraham said, ―Goda will
provide himself a sheep for the burnt offering, my son.‖ So the two of them went
together.
9Then they came to the place which God had told him about. There Abraham built
an altar , arranged the wood, bounda Isaac his son, and placed him on the altar on top
of the wood. 10 Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his
son.
11Then thea angel of the LORDb called to him from heaven and said, ―Abraham,
Abraham!‖ He said, ―Here I am.‖
12He said, ―Do not lay your hand ona the lad, and do not dob anythingc to him,
because now I know that you do feard God, fore you have not withheld your son, your
only child from me.‖
13Abraham then looked up and saw a ram justa caughtb in a bush by its horns, so
Abraham went, took the ram, and offeredc it up as a burnt offering instead of his son.
14So Abraham called that place ―The LORD will provide,‖ asa it is saidb today, ―I n
the mountain of the LORD he may be seen.‖c
15Then the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven. 16He
said, ―By myself I swear,a (declares the LORD) that bit is becauseb you have done this
thing and have not withheld your son, your only child,c 17that I shall r eally bless you. I
shall reallya multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and like the sand which is
on the seashore, so that you may possess the gate of your ene mies. 18And all the nations
of the world will find blessinga in your descendants becauseb you have obeyed me.‖
19Then Abraham returneda to the lads. They got up and went together to Beersheba.
Abraham then lived in Beersheba.
Notes
1.a-a. 
+ temporal phrase often marks new section in narrative ( GKC, 111g).
1.b. G‘s repetition of Abraham to match v 11 is inept. Here it is merely address; there it
is a summons.
1.c. 
+ 1 sg suffix.
2.a. Pf of stative verbs often has a present meaning Joüon, 112a).
2.b. Cf. n. 12:1.a.*; cf. 21:16.

2.c. The versions seem to interpret the name Moriah rather than simply transliterating it,
e.g., G ―the high land‖; "´, Vg ―land of the vision.‖ For other readings, see BHS.
2.d. Waw + 2 masc. sg impv hiph [
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
2.e. On use of 
+ pl. noun for indeterminate sg, see Joüon, 137v; WOC, 251.
3.a. On this translation, as opposed to ―his two lads,‖ see Joüon, 140a; Brockelmann, 73a.
3.b. Waw + 3 masc. sg impf. piel [4.a. It is rare for a new paragraph to begin without
a conj as here, but cf. 8:5 (SBH, 37).
5.a-a. Note the chiasmus between clauses a -a and d -d, ―stay … yourselves‖ : ―I and the
lad go,‖ appropriate for simultaneous action ( SBH, 134).
5.b. 2 masc. pl. impv 5.c. On the use of the pron + verb, cf. n. 12:1.a.; also 21:16;
22:2.
5.d-d. Cf. n. 5.a -a.*
5.e. The sequence impv + impf./coh indicates purpose (Lambdin, 119).
5.f. Waw + 1 pl. impf. hishtaphel 
5.g. Waw + 1 pl. coh 6.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. 
. Obj understood; cf. 9:23.
6.b. J. C. de Moor suggests it has the overtones of ―without company, protection,
assistance‖ ( VT 7 [1957] 355).
7.a. On the use of 7.b. This pointing only here and in 27:18 (Joüon, 102k).
7.c. Adversative waw (SBH, 185).
8.a. Subj ―God‖ before the verb ―provide‖ to emphasize the subj (Brockelmann, 48).
9.a. Waw consec+ 3 masc. sg impf. [
―bind.‖ Used only here in th e OT, especially of binding the feet (cf. G).
11.a. Or ―an angel‖ (so Joüon, 139c; Brockelmann, 73a).
11.b. S ―God.‖
12.a. SamPent reads [12.b. 2 masc. sg impf. (apoc) [12.c. Note unusual pointing.
Usually no dagesh in 

; see BHS.
12.d. Masc sg constr ptcp 
, lit. ―fearer of‖ God; cf. GKC, 116g; Joüon, 121c.
12.e. Waw to be translated ―for‖ (Joüon, 170c); ―for‖ or ―so that.‖ ―It is likely … that
the choice of coordination as a neutral linkage amounts to double talk that leaves it open to
the listener to take it any way he likes‖ ( SBH, 118).
13.a. 
is usually translated ―After,‖ which is awkward here, so SamPent reading 
is widely adopted, e.g., G, S, and many commentators. But 
sometimes occurs in the OT with the meaning ―with‖ or ―immediately after‖ (e.g., Jer
25:26; Ruth 1:16; Ecc 12:21; cf. Gen 18:5) and also in Ugaritic (Pope, BA 49 [1986]
115–17). Hence our rendering.
13.b. 3 masc. sg pf niph 
, here with middle sense (cf. Lambdin, 176). Some MSs (see BHS) point 
as if ptcp.
13.c. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. hiph [
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
14.a. On this meaning of 
, see Joüon, 169f, or for ―so that,‖ see WOC, 639.
14.b. Cf. n. 10:9.a.*
14.c. 3 masc. sg impf. niph  16.a. Pf with present meaning , for utterances felt to be
past as soon as spoken Joüon, 112f).
16.b-b. [
an emphatic causal conj. Causal clause as her e usually precedes main clause Joüon,
170f, n).
16.c. SamPent, G, S add ―from/because of me,‖ assimilating to v 12.
17.a. Inf abs usually pointed 
(hiph 
) for affirming promises (EWAS, 86).

18.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. pl. pf hithp 
; cf. discussion on 12:3.
18.b. [
has the sense ― in recompense for‖ Joüon, 170g).
19.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. qal 

Form/Structure/Setting
The account of the sacrifice of Isaac constitutes the aesthetic and theological summit of
the whole story of Abraham. It has long been admired for the brilliance of its narrative
technique a nd for the profundity of its theology, which has inspired so much reflection by
Jews and Christians.
From a literary standpoint, it is thoroughly integrated with the preceding narratives
about Abraham, which are clearly presupposed at every turn. Most obvi ously, the
reaffirmation of the promises (vv 17 –18) of blessing, numerous descendants, inheritance,
and blessing to the nations combines the refrains of the earlier chapters (12:2, 3; 17:16, 20;
18:18; 16:10; 17:2, 20; 15:4 –5) while introducing another sup erlative, ―like the sand on the
seashore,‖ into the promises. The phrases ―your son, your only child‖ (vv 2, 12, 16)
presuppose particularly chap. 21 with its account of Isaac‘s birth and Ishmael‘s expulsion.
In content and outline, the stories in chaps. 2 1 and 22 run parallel, with Abraham in a role
like Hagar‘s, and Isaac like Ishmael.
God orders Ishmael‘s expulsion (21:12 –13)
//
God orders Isaac‘s sacrifice (22:2)
Food and water taken (21:14)
//
Sacrificial material taken (22:3)
Journey (21:14)
//
Journey (22:4 –8)
Ishmael about to die (21:16)
//
Isaac about to die (22:10)
Angel of God calls from heaven (21:17)
//
Angel of the LORD calls from heaven (22:11)
―Do not fear‖ (21:17)
//
―fear God‖ (22:12)
―God has heard‖
//
―You have obeyed (heard) my voi ce‖ (22:18)

―I shall make into a great nation‖ (21:18)
//
―Your descendants will be like stars, sand,‖ etc. (22:17)
God opens her eyes and she sees well (21:19)
//
Abraham raises his eyes and sees ram (22:13)
She gives the lad a drink (21:19)
//
He sacrifi ces ram instead of son (22:14)

This outline highlights many of the verbal parallels between the stories, but note too
―the lad‖ (22:5, 12; 21:12, 17 –19), ―early in the morning Abraham took‖ (22:3; 21:14; cf.
18:27), and ―shall inherit ‖ (22:17; 21:10; 15:3 –4). In certain respects, chap. 22 has close
verbal affinities with the other Hagar and Ishmael story in chap. 16. There the angel of the
LORD appears too (22:11, 15; 16:7, 9 –11); the promise includes the remark ―I shall really
multipl y your descendants‖ (22:17; 16:10), and in both 
―see, provide‖ is a key word explaining the name of the well in the first story and ―the
place‖ in this (22:8, 14; 16:13 –14). The reference to ―the place which God had told him‖
evokes those other ―place s‖ where Abraham had built altars or met with God (22:3, 4, 9,
14; 12:6; 13:3, 4; 19:27). Finally, the allusion to the very first command given to Abraham,
―Go by yourself … to a land which I shall show you,‖ is unmistakable in ―Go by yourself
to the land of Moriah … which I shall tell you‖ (12:1; 22:2). Thus the whole of 22:1 –19
reverberates with the echoes of earlier parts of the Abraham cycle, and these need to be
borne in mind in discussing its structure, in source analysis, and in exegesis.
The story d ivides scenically as follows (cf. Ska, Bib 69 [1988] 324 –29):
Introduction (1a) N
1. God‘s command ―Sacrifice your son‖ (1b –2) M
2. Departure next morning (3) N
3. The third day at foot of the mountain (4 –6b) D
4. Journey up the mountain (6c –8) D
5. Preparation for sacrifice (9 –10) N
6. Angel speaks to stop sacrifice (11 –18) M
Epilogue: Return to Beersheb
As often in Genesis, the scenes are ordered palistrophically. Scenes 1 and 6 match each
other in style and content. Both are essentially divine monologues, beginning with a
summons of Abraham by name (vv 1, 11), followed by Abraham responding ―Here I am‖
and ending with God or his angel speaking. These two speeches represent the last recorded
words of God to Abraham, and it is noticeable how they echo very closely his first
self-disclosure in 12:1 –3 (cf. ―Go by yourself … ‖ [12:1; 22:2]; ―I shall really bless you …
nations find blessing [22:17 –18; cf. 12:2–3]; see Comment for closer analysis). Scenes 2
and 5 match each other in being pure narrative without any dialogue and focus on
Abraham‘s preparation for the sacrifi ce; note the common vocabulary: ―wood,‖ ―his son
Isaac,‖ and ―the place which God had told him about.‖ Then scenes 3 and 4 correspond to
each other: both are located between Beersheba and the mountaintop and consist of
discussion about the forthcoming sacr ifice. In scene 3, Abraham speaks to his servants, and

in scene 4, with Isaac; note again the vocabulary common to both scenes. Finally, the
introduction (v 1a) and epilogue (v 19) match in being pure narrative.
The narrative climaxes in the long sacrifice scene at the mountain top when at the last
minute the angel calls off the sacrifice, a ram is substituted, and the great promises are
confirmed and elaborated. The short scenes before the sacrifice spin out the preparations
and contribute to the build -up of suspense.
Another device used to highlight the final scene is the way the narrative is built up of
three main dialogues with a long angelic monologue that rounds off the story with a great
coda. In each, there is a sequence of similar words and phrases, producing four parallel
panels:
He said
He said
The angel called
The angel called

from heaven and
to Abraham (v 15)
―Abraham‖ (v 1)
―My father‖ (v 7)
said ―Abraham,

He said
He said
Abraham!‖ He said

―Here I am‖
―Here I am‖
―Here I am‖ (v 11)

―Do not do anything‖
―You have done

this thing‖

―You have not
―have not withheld‖

withheld‖

―your son, your
―my son‖
―your son, your
―your son, your
only child‖ (v 2)

only child‖ (v 12)
only child‖ (v 16)
―for a burnt
―for a burnt
―for a burnt

offering‖
offering‖
offering‖ (v 13)

(2x, vv 7, 8)

―he went‖
―the two of them
―he went‖
―they went

went together‖ (v 8)

together‖ (v 19)
―the place which
―the place which
―the place … as

God had told him‖
God had told him‖
it is said‖ (v 14)

(v 3)
(v 9)

―he took … the
―he took the

knife‖ (v 6)
knife‖ (v 10)

Certain key words recur in this story: most obviously ―Abraham‖ (18x), ―Isaac‖ (5x),
and ―son‖ (10x). As elsewhere, the use of the words ―to bless‖ ( 
) and ―to multiply‖ ( 
) (vv 17 –18) seems to be a play on Abraham‘s name, while the words ―and he took‖
(
wayyiqah ), usually with ―Abraham‖ as subject, and ―wood‖ ( [
>eµs \éÆm ) may be plays on the name of Isaac ( 
, yis\h\aµq).
But as in all great art, these literary devices and structures are used with such finesse that
the ordinary listener is quite unaware of their presence. Though they do enhance the
dynamic of the storytelling, the substance of the tale is such that even if it were less finely
crafted the listener wo
Source critics have usually assigned at least vv 1 –14, 19 to E, on the grounds of its use
of 
―God‖ for the deity, the parallels with 21:8 –21 (also E), and the nocturnal revelation in
vv 1–2. Vv 15 –18, which speak of the LORD (vv 15 –16), are generally assigned to J or to a
later redactor. However, more recent writers have questioned this analysis, particularly the
attribution of vv 1 –14 to E, because it too does not consistently speak of ―God‖ but also of
―the LORD‖ (vv 11, 14) and on general stylistic grounds. Speiser (166) noted that ―the style
of the narrative is far more appropriate to J than to E‖ and suggested that the references to
―God‖ rather than ―the LORD‖ may be blamed on scribal error. Argu ing that the divine
names are an inadequate guide to source analysis, more recent writers (e.g., Van Seters,
Abraham ; Coats, Int 27 [1973] 389 –400; and Alexander JSOT 25 [1983] 17 –22) have
tended to suppose that J is the principal author responsible for drafting the story. But in the
light of the numerous allusions to other parts of the Abraham saga, Westermann (cf.
Moberl y, VT 38 [1988] 302 –23; Veijola, ZTK 85 [1988] 129 –64) prefers to ascribe this
chapter to a late stage in the composition of Genesis, though he recognizes that the original
story may go back to the patriarchal age.
The secondary nature of vv 15 –18 has also been challenged by Coats, Van Seters, and
Alexander. They point out that without these verses the test of Abraham is apparently
purposeless. ―It is only with the inclusion, in the second speech , of the divine confirmation
of the patriarchal promises, vv 15 –18, that the ultimate aim of the testing becomes clear.
Because of Abraham‘s obedience his children will be blessed‖ (Van Seters, Abraham , 239).
Westermann simply dismisses this argument on th e grounds that vv 15 –18 are clearly
different in style from what precedes. Moberley is more cautious. He notes that whereas vv
1–14 have a ―taut and economic style of telling,‖ ―[b]y contrast, the style of vv 15 –18 is
repetitive and cumulative, with use of synonyms and similes‖ ( VT 38 [1988] 307 –8). He
also argues that what really proves the secondary nature of vv 15 –18 is their position:
―from the point of view of reading vv 1 –19 as an integral unity, it would even improve the
flow and coherence of the text to read it in the order vv 1 –13, 15 –18, 14, 19, for the
obviously concluding v 14 would then … lead naturally into the final narrative note in v
19‖ ( VT 38 [1988] 310).
These observations have some value, but whe ther they show that vv 15 –18 have been

simply inserted into an earlier version in vv 1 –14, 19 is doubtful. The argument of Van
Seters and Coats that the testing of Abraham is purposeless unless it leads to something
extra that he would not have had otherwi se is telling. Had Abraham not undergone the test,
there would have been no risk of losing Isaac‘s life. For God to spare Isaac‘s life, which
would not have been at risk without Abraham‘s obedient submission to the test, and then
merely to say ―now I know you fear God‖ is somewhat of an anticlimax. Surely God should
say more to Abraham after putting him through such a traumatic experience. The stylistic
argument, that the narrative is terse while the promises are full, proves little. It is partly a
question of genre: promises are often expansive in style (cf. chap. 17), whereas narrative is
usually brief. It is also a question of highlighting the importance of something: the
repetition in vv 15 –18, like the full style of chap. 17, draws a ttention to the significance of
the promises made.
That vv 15 –18 cannot simply be identified as a late addition to the original story is
shown by the parallels between 22:1 –19 as a whole and preceding parts of Genesis. For
example, the close parallel with 21:8–21 includes a reaffirmation of the promise that
Ishmael would become ―a great nation‖ (21:18). It would be extraordinary if this much
more traumatic test of Abraham did not contain something comparable, if not much fuller.
Vv 15 –18 provide just this n ecessary element. That the angel should speak more than once
from heaven is no proof that these verses are secondary: 16:8 –12 has four distinct angelic
speeches and chap. 17 five divine speeches.
Then there is also the striking parallel between chap. 22 an d chap. 12, the last and first
divine speeches to Abraham. Both begin with a command to Abraham: ―Go by yourself to
the country/district [ 
] … that I shall show you‖ (12:1; 22:2). We are therefore led to expect a reference to the
promises that attended that command (12:2 –3), and this is precisely what we find in scene 6
(vv 15 –18), which, as already pointed out, corresponds closely to scene 1. The echoes of
12:2–3 are as clear in 22:15 –18 as those of 12:1 are in 22:2. Now this is not to say that at
one s tage there may not have been a simpler, shorter account of the sacrifice of Isaac, but to
identify the original account with vv 1 –14 is too simple, for the author responsible for vv
15–18 has also left his mark on vv 1 –14, so that identifying the limits an d content of earlier
versions of the story is elusive.
Comment
1 The introduction, ―After these things God tested Abraham,‖ is of great moment, both
from a dramatic and a theological perspective. It serv es to cushion the listener from the full
impact of the horrific command to Abraham, and it diverts attention from the question
whether Isaac will be sacrificed to whether Abraham will stand up to the test. ―After these
things‖ suggests that some time has e lapsed between this trial of Abraham and the events
recorded in chap. 21 (cf. 21:34, ―Abraham dwelt … many days‖). It may well be that Isaac
is now to be envisaged as at least a teenager, just as Ishmael was when expelled from
Abraham‘s household; in both narratives they are called ―lads‖ ( 
; cf. 22:12; 21:12).
―God‖ (here and in vv 3, 8 with the definite article). It is unusual that this story begins with
this generic form rather than with his personal name, ―the LORD.‖ Frequently in Genesis
where the body of a story speaks of ―God,‖ the narrator prefaces it by a comment, using his

proper name (e.g., 17:1; 21:1). Here the term ―God‖ is used in vv 1, 3, 8, 9, and ―the LORD‖
first app ears in v 11 when ―the angel of the LORD‖ calls from heaven. If we assume that this
variation is more than a literary whim, it may be that ―God‖ is used to avoid the
anachronistic implication that Abraham knew him by the name ―the LORD‖ (v 8; cf. Exod
6:3). But since, contrary to his usual practice, the narrator also avoids using ―the LORD‖ to
introduce the narrative, Delitzsch may be correct to see a theological motive behind the
variation. ― He who requires from Abraham the surrender of Isaac is God the creator … but
it is Jahveh in his angel who forbids the extreme act, for the son of promise cannot perish‖
(Delitzsch, 2:91). In Gen 2 –3, the covenant creator is consistently termed ―the LORD God,‖
but in the temptation scene, where alienation between deity and humanity becomes evident,
the word ―God‖ appears by itself (3:1 –5). Similarly, here in the first half of the story where
God is acting in a strange, remote, and inexplicable way, he is ca lled 
, but when he is revealed as savior and renews the covenant promises, his personal name,
―the LORD,‖ is appropriate and is reintroduced.
―Tested‖ (
). ―Testing‖ shows what someone is really like, and it generally involves difficulty or
hardsh ip. The queen of Sheba tested Solomon with riddles (1 Kgs 10:1); Daniel and his
companions were tested by being put on a simple diet (Dan 1:12, 14). God is often said to
test Israel through hunger and thirst in the wilderness (Exod 15:25; 16:4; 20:20; Deut 8:2,
16), through false prophets (Deut 13:4 [3]), or through foreign oppression (Judg 2:22; 3:1,
14). The purpose of such trials is to discover ―what was in your heart, whether you would
keep his commandments or not‖ (Deut 8:2; cf. Exod 16:4), ―to humble you … to do you
good in the end‖ (Deut 8:16; cf. Heb 12:5 –11). The use of the term here hints that Abraham
will face some great difficulty but that he will ultimately benefit from it. This is the only
time God is sai d to have tested an individual, but pace Westermann, this is no proof of the
lateness of this text. Early non -religious usage (e.g., 1 Kgs 10:1) certainly covers
individuals.
1b–2 Scene 1: A divine monologue matching scene 6, with clear echoes of Gen 12:1.
―Abraham … Here I am.‖ It is not really necessary to preface the command with the two
brief speeches found here; the narrative could simply begin ―Abraham, please take … ‖ (cf.
12:1; 15:1; 16:8; 17:2). Yet this prolongation is suggestive. Is God hesitating before giving
his awful order? The text does not say so, but the break in the address raises such questions.
And it certainly allows Abraham‘s attentiveness and potential obedience to come through in
his reply, ―Here I am.‖ Three times in this story we have the refrain ―Abraham (my father)‖
with its response ―Here I am‖ (vv 1, 7, 11); each signals a tense new development in the
narrative.
2 The reader has been alerted by the verb ―test‖ that something difficult is about to be
asked of Abraham, while he, of course, is quite in the dark. The way the command is put
here tries to soften the blow for Abraham while maximizing our realization of its enormity.
―Please take.‖ The use of the encli tic 
―please‖ is rare in a divine command and makes it more like an entreaty, another hint
that the LORD appreciates the costliness of what he is asking. Then ―your son, your only
child, whom you love.‖ With this fourfold characterization of Isaac, the whole poignant tale
of Isaac so far, the promise, the delay, and the miraculous fulfillment, is summed up. On
him all Abraham‘s hopes are riding. Note particularly the remark ―whom you love,‖ the
only explicit clue to Abraham‘s attachment to his son, precl uding any reading of the story

that would see Abraham as callous and hard -hearted. Far from it —obedience to God and
love for his son will tear him in diametrically opposed directions. But thus far, nothing has
been said to disturb his peace of mind.
But ―g o by yourself‖ sounds ominous. With the very same words the LORD had told Abram
to leave all that he had hitherto held most dear —―his country, his clan, and his father‘s
house‖ (12:1). Already at his wife‘s behest, confirmed by God, he has expelled his son
Ishmael (21:10, 12), of whom he was very fond. Can anything harder be demanded of a
loving father than sending his son away? Questions are raised but not directly answered.
Based on 2 Chr 3:15, ―the district of Moriah‖ has been identified with the temple site in
Jerusalem; Kalimi argues that this tradition antedates Chronicles ( HTR 83 [1990] 350). But
since Moriah is mentioned only in these two passages, it has been doubted whether it can
really be the original reading here. However, the word ―Moriah‖ is integral to the present
narrative. As some of the versions (see Notes ) recognize with their paraphrases ―land of
vision,‖ the name anticipates Abraham‘s experience that ―the LORD will provide‖ (v 14; cf.
v 8). 
raµ<aµh ―provide, see‖ is a key word of the narrative, and here in the name of the
place to which Abraham must take his son, there is the first hint of salvation. A similar
phenomenon was noted in 6:6, where the first intimation of the universal f lood, ―he
repented‖ (
wayyinnaµhiem ) has the letters 
nh ―Noah‖ in the middle. Salvation is thus promised in the very decree that sounds like
annihilation (A. Strus, Nomen -Omen , 158 –59, 183).
―Offer him there as a burnt offering.‖ God explains wha t he wants. A burnt offering
involves cutting up and burning the whole animal on the altar and was the commonest type
of sacrifice. It seems to have expressed at least two ideas: that the offerer is giving himself
entirely to God (for the animal represents the offerer) and that the animal‘s death atones for
the worshiper‘s sin. The usual victims of burnt offerings were birds, sheep, or if the
worshiper was very wealthy, a bull. But to offer one‘s child was quite out of the question
for devout orthodox worsh ipers. ―Shall I give my first -born for my transgression, the fruit
of my body for the sin of my soul?‖ asks Micah (6:7), expecting his hearers to reply with an
emphatic no (cf. Lev 18:21; 20:2 –5). But it was done occasionally in the biblical world,
especially in times of dire crisis (Judg 11:31 –40; 2 Kgs 3:27; 17:17). In fact, biblical law
expects every firstborn son to be dedicated to God but insists that he be redeemed and an
animal offered in stead (Exod 22:29 [30]; 34:20). Later, the Levites by their service were
seen as consecrated to God instead of the firstborn in each family (Num 4:45 –49). And it is
this background of thought that, as Westermann points out, makes the test comprehensible.
―Following Ex. 22:29, it is seen as possible that God can demand such a sacrifice. In
reality, however, human sacrifice is not possible (Ex. 34:20). It is precisely because of this
ambivalence that the command to Abraham is a particularly suitable test‖ (2: 358).
It has often been suggested that this story was originally an etiology explaining why human
sacrifice was no longer permissible in Israel. By eliminating certain parts of the existing
story, such a reinterpretation is doubtless possible. But it must remain speculative in the
absence of any firm criteria for distinguishing a more primitive version of the story.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that human sacrifice was ever common in Israel, or that it
ever completely died out, at least before the exil e, and even then it continued in some
neighboring cultures. So it is not possible to identify a marked change in attitude and

correlate different layers in Gen 22 with different periods. It is better simply to accept that
at all periods an Israelite reader would regard God‘s demand as extraordinary, not simply
morally but theologically, for Isaac was the son on whose survival the fulfillment of all the
promises depended. (On burnt offerings, see IDBSup, 769; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel ,
415–17; G. J. Wenham, Leviticus [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979] 48 –66; R. Rendtorff,
Leviticus [Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1985] 15 –80. On human sacrifice, see Ancient Isr ael,
441–44.)
―On one of the mountains.‖ The narrative does seem to draw attention to this mountain
and stress its height. Abraham looks up and sees it in the distance (v 4), and later he is
pictured climbing it alone with his son, having left the donkey b ehind, as it is too difficult
for the ass to ascend. The physical difficulty of the ascent surely increases our feeling of the
emotional effort involved. But is there more to the reference to the mountain than this?
Why should a mountain be specified? Noah sacrificed burnt offerings on the mountain
where the ark landed, but generally Abraham built altars at sites that, though situated in the
hill country of Canaan, are not exactly mountains.
In ancient mythology, the gods were often thought to dwell on moun taintops, and the
Canaanites are said to have worshiped ―on the high mountains‖ (Deut 12:2). But more
pertinent for our study, the Jerusalem temple was built on Mount Zion (Ps 48:2 –3 [1–2]),
and Mount Sinai is preeminently the place of revelation, where Go d comes down to speak
with his people (Exod 19). So clearly, in biblical thought also, a mountain was a suitable
place to meet God, a point later established in v 14: ―In the mountain of the LORD he may
be seen.‖ It is noteworthy that the text speaks of ―o ne of the mountains which I shall tell
you,‖ when it could have said more easily ―on the mountain which I shall tell you.‖ It may
be noted that ―the mountains‖ ( 
) is an anagram of Moriah ( 
), but whether this is sufficient warrant for the use of the plural ―mountains‖ is unsure.
―Which I shall tell you‖ clearly echoes ―which I shall show you‖ (12:1) and makes the
parallel between God‘s last command to Abraham and his first the more obvious.
3 Scene 2: Departure. Nothing is said about Abraham‘ s inner feelings at this point. The
narrator‘s silence allows the reader‘s imagination a free rein. He rather concentrates on
Abraham‘s acts, which show him promptly, ―early in the morning,‖ obeying, as he did
when commanded to expel Ishmael (21:14; cf. 19:27; 20:8).
―Saddled … took … cut.‖ This sequence of waw -consecutives implies Abraham did
one thing after another, so it is surprising that he cut the wood after saddling his ass and
gathering together his servants and Isaac. It would h ave been more sensible to cut the wood
first. This illogical order hints at Abraham‘s state of mind. Is he so bemused that he cannot
think straight, is he quite collectedly trying to keep everybody in the dark about the purpose
of the journey till the last possible moment, or is he trying to postpone the most painful part
of the preparation till last (cf. his withholding Ishmael in 21:14)? All these interpretations
are possible, indeed are not mutually exclusive, and need to be borne in mind as the
narrative unfolds.
But whatever his state of mind, Abraham did what he was told. ―He set out and went to
the place which God had told him about.‖ The last clause indicates that God had spoken
again to Abraham, for the location of the mountain w as not revealed at first. Another divine
instruction is also implied by Abraham‘s action in saddling an ass and taking two servant
boys with him. How did he know he needed to take them? By omitting the necessary

intermediate dialogue that is presupposed, t he narrator enhances the impression of
Abraham‘s prompt obedience while nicely adverting to his state of mind by listing his
actions prior to departure.
―Place‖ is here a holy place or sanctuary (cf. 12:6; 13:4; 28:16; Exod 3:5; 20:24).
4–6b Scene 3: Dialogue at the foot of the mountain.
4 ―On the third day.‖ Three days is a typical period of preparation for something
important (cf. 31:22; 40:20; 42:18). Westermann no tes that the mountain of God to which
the Israelites sought to travel was three days‘ journey (Exod 3:18; 5:3). Indeed, the phrase
―on the third day‖ occurs twice in the Sinai pericope (Exod 19:11 [2x], 16). Calvin
observes that the delay made Abraham‘s or deal the more painful. ―God does not require
him to put his son immediately to death, but compels him to revolve this execution in his
mind during three whole days, that in preparing to sacrifice his son, he may still more
severely torture all his own sens es‖ (1:565).
―He looked up and saw.‖ To ―look up‖ before seeing usually intimates that what is to be
seen is of great significance (cf. 18:2; 24:63; 33:1, 5; 43:29), in this case ―the place.‖ ―From
afar‖; cf. 37:18 a nd especially Exod 20:18, 21; 24:1, where Israelites stand or worship
―from afar‖ before Mount Sinai. ―We are left to imagine the pang that shot through the
father‘s heart when he caught sight of it‖ (Skinner, 329).
5 Abraham‘s first words since setting ou t are perplexing. Why does he not want his
servants to accompany him? Is the way too rough for the donkey? Did he not want the lads
to see the sacrifice? Did he fear they might interfere? Was a donkey too unclean to take to a
sanctuary? Had God simply told him to leave them? All these possibilities are open and
remain unresolved. The parallel with the Mount Sinai experience may again be noted: at
Sinai only Moses was allowed to come to the top of the mountain; the people had to stay at
the bottom (Exod 19:2 0, 24; 24:1 –2).
But the final remarks to his servants are even more enigmatic. Note in passing that
Abraham simply calls Isaac ―the lad‖ rather than ―my son,‖ which may suggest that
Abraham is trying to be detached. He has already mentally given Isaac to G od, so that in a
sense he is no longer his son. But then he continues: ―so that we can worship and return to
you.‖ It is notable that Abraham only says ―worship‖ rather than ―offer a burnt offering.‖
―Worship‖ (
) is a vaguer term than ―offer‖; it ma y simply mean ―bow down‖ (cf. 18:2; 19:1). Does
this indicate a weakening of resolve or a desire to hide what was to happen from his
servants, or is the term chosen simply for brevity? Confusion about Abraham‘s real
meaning is worsened by his final enigmatic ―We may return to you,‖ for he might have
been expected to say ―so that I may return to you.‖
There are at least three ways of taking ―we may return to you.‖ First, it could be a white lie
to disguise the true nature of the sacrifice . It is clear from Isaac‘s question in v 7 that
Abraham has not been very explicit about the nature of the sacrifice he is undertaking.
Evidently he must have said he was going to offer a burnt offering at God‘s special request
but never said who the victi m would be. So one could suppose that here he is simply
continuing to allow his entourage to continue under the illusion that he intended to make a
normal animal sacrifice, albeit at a special site. Second, it could be read as implying that he
does not int end to sacrifice Isaac after all, that he cannot see himself going through with it,
and that he will disobey God‘s command. Third, it may be read as an affirmation of faith,
that although he has been told to sacrifice Isaac, yet somehow the promises made t o him

that ―your descendants will be named through Isaac‖ would be fulfilled.
Many commentators do not comment on the problem. Of those who do note it, some
prefer to take it as a lie: ―The servants are put off with a pretext whose hollowness the
reader kn ows‖ (Skinner, 329). Jacob tries to exonerate Abraham by pointing out that
unwittingly Abraham did speak the truth, while Dillmann sees it as an expression of ―quiet
hope‖ (Dillmann, 292; so also Gross, ― Zur theologischen Bedeutung ‖). Calvin (1:567)
sugges ts ―Abraham spoke confusedly.‖ It seems likely that none of these rival
interpretations need be ruled out. White lie, prophecy, hope, even disobedience, can surely
coexist in the believer, especially in times of acute crisis. The enigmatic ambiguity of ―we
shall return‖ perhaps gives an insight into the quite contrary ideas agitating Abraham‘s
mind at this time (―I believe; help my unbelief,‖ Mark 9:24; cf. Matt 14:27 –31).
6 But, however he felt, Abraham continued on the path prescribed for him. We see in
the deliberate emphasizing of the details of loading the wood off the donkey and onto Isaac
and in the first mention of the fire and the knife Abraham‘s determination to press on. It
also implies that the next part of the journey will be the hardest physically and emotionally
for both of them. The wood on Isaac‘s back looks forward to the moment when Isaac will
be lying on his back on the wood (v 9), with his father, knife in hand, ready to slay him (v
10). Thus the wording here anticipat es the moment of sacrifice itself. Genesis Rabbah , the
Jewish midrash, comments that Isaac with the wood on his back is like a condemned man,
carrying his own cross.
6c–8 Scene 4: Dialogue between Isaac and Abraham climbing the mountain. This most
touching scene reveals a little of the feelings of Abraham and Isaac on their way. ―The
pathos of the dialogue is inimitable: the artless curiosity of the child, the irrepressible
affection of the father, and the stern ambiguity of his reply can hardly be read wit hout
tears‖ (Skinner, 329 –30). But it is also a gem of OT literary art. Note how the scene is
framed by ―So they went both of them together‖ (vv 6, 8), suggesting both their isolation
and their companionship as they climb alone up the mountainside.
Further more, this remark ―lets one suspect that the boy may have broken the oppressive
silence only after a while. And after the conversation the statement is repeated. One sees
that the final part of the way was traversed in silence‖ (von Rad, 236), ―the most po ignant
and eloquent silence in all literature‖ (Speiser, 165).
But, as so often in this story, it is not merely what is said but what is left unsaid that gives it
such depth and richness. In the dialogue, the repeated ―my father,‖ ―my son‖ draws
attention to the deep affection binding father and son. Yet the dialogue itself is ambiguous
and open to more than one interpretation. On the face of it, Isaac‘s question, ―Where is the
sheep?‖ suggests a naiveté that makes his future death the more heart -rending. T his
impression is reinforced by his docile acceptance of Abraham‘s reply, which shows Isaac
trusting entirely his father‘s good intentions. Or was he sharp enough to see through his
father‘s enigmatic answer and realize that he was the intended sacrificial lamb? If so, his
silence is again impressive, for it implies his total obedience to his father. Either way, Isaac
is shown to have those qualities of perfection always looked for in sacrificial victims (cf.
Lev 1:3). And either way, ou r appreciation of the trustful love that existed between father
and son is enhanced.
However Isaac understood it, we must inquire what Abraham meant by saying ―God
will provide himself a sheep for the burnt offering.‖ Is this like ―we shall return‖ in v 5,
another case of evasiveness, an expression of faith, a prophecy, or a prayer, ―May God
provide a sheep,‖ for the imperfect could be understood as a jussive here? It is also possible

to read Abraham‘s response as an explicit reply: ―God will provide a shee p for the burnt
offering, namely my son.‖ The last suggestion is unlikely in that ―my son‖ is not preceded
by the mark of the definite object and because it demands ―provide‖ ( 
) being followed by a double accusative. But the other readings are all possible and
contribute to the richness of the narrative. The organization of the story, which makes ―God
will provide‖ the turning point of the story (see Form/Structure/Setting ), doe s favor a
positive reading, i.e., as an expression of hope, a prophecy, or a prayer, though to Isaac it
may well have sounded like evasion. Unlike in v 5, there is now no suggestion that
Abraham will disobey. Though we might construe ― we shall return‖ that way, ―God will
provide‖ does not suggest that Abraham is looking for an escape route.
Calvin comments: ―This example is proposed for our imitation. Whenever the Lord
gives a command, many things are perpetually occurring to enfeeble o ur purpose: means
fail, we are destitute of counsel, all avenues seem closed. In such straits, the only remedy
against despondency is to leave the event to God, in order that he may open a way for us
when there is none. For as we act unjustly towards God, when we hope for nothing from
him but what our senses can perceive, so we pay Him the highest honour, when, in affairs
of perplexity, we nevertheless entirely acquiesce in his providence‖ (1:568).
9–10 Scene 5: After four short preparatory scenes, the narr ative pace suddenly slows for
the climactic scenes on the mountaintop.
9 The opening ―They came to the place which God had told him about‖ reminds us that
Abraham is obeying God, not acting out his own will. It raises the tension as we await the
slaughter of Isaac. Indeed, we are kept in suspense by an unwonted amount of technical
detail describing the construction of the altar and other preparations for the sacrifice (cf.
12:7). This postponement of the critical moment may also hint at Abraham‘s reluctance to
come to the point. But at last Isaac is ―bound,‖ probably by his hands and feet ( [
; the verb occurs only here in the OT and gives rise to the Jewish term for this story,
The Aqedah, i.e., the binding of Isaac ), and placed on the altar.
In two respects the procedure Abraham adopts here differs from that prescribed in Lev 1 for
the burnt offering of oxen and sheep. Lev 1 does not mention any binding of the animal
prior to slaughter, and the slaughtering takes pl ace before the dismembered animal is placed
on the altar. It is not easy to explain these differences. Jacob suggests that binding the
animal is simply presupposed in Lev 1, as it was done throughout the ancient Orient (see R.
Rendtorff, Leviticus [Neukirc hen: Neukirchener, 1985] 50). So why bother to mention that
Abraham bound Isaac? Perhaps it was because Abraham might relatively easily have slit
Isaac‘s throat when he was off guard; that an elderly man was able to bind the hands and
feet of a lively teen ager strongly suggests Isaac‘s consent. So this remark confirms that
impression given by vv 7 –8 that Isaac was an unblemished subject for sacrifice who was
ready to obey his father, whatever the cost, just as his father had showed his willingess to
obey Go d to the uttermost.
10 ―Reached out his hand.‖ Reaching out the hand often indicates that the next act is of
great moment (cf. 3:22; Exod 3:20; 9:15; Deut 25:11). For the second time ―the knife‖ is
mentioned to emphasize the horror of t he action. ―Slaughter‖ ( 
) is a sacrificial term (Lev 1:5, 11) usually indicating cutting the throat. ―His son.‖ By
drawing attention to the relationship of Abraham and Isaac, the full awfulness of the deed is
once again underlined. The unthinkable is a bout to happen.
11–18 Scene 6 matches scene 1 in being largely a divine monologue with strong echoes

of Gen 12:2 –3.
11 ―The angel of the LORD called from heaven.‖ Calling from heaven emphasizes the
urgency and importance of what follows (cf. 21:17). Note that here he is called the angel of
―the LORD‖ (cf. 16:9–11), God‘s covenant name last used in Genesis when the promised
Isaac was born (21:1). The strange God who tested Abraham once again shows himself to
be the gra cious LORD who keeps his promise (Exod 34:6 –7).
―Abraham, Abraham.‖ Compare the single ―Abraham‖ of v 1. The urgent double call
(cf. 46:2; Exod 3:4) shows ―the angel‘s anxiety that he could be too late‖ (Jacob, 499).
―Here I am‖ (cf. 22:1). With the summons to Abraham and his response, we are into the
third panel of dialogue (cf. vv 1–2, 7–8).
12 But though the words of the third panel so often echo the first, how different is their
thrust! The ori ginal order is now explicitly countermanded.
The parallelism, ―Do not lay … Do not do anything,‖ gives the prohibition a
quasi -poetic flavor and emphasizes both its pressing nature and its joy.
―Now I know‖; cf. 18:21, where likewise th e mention of God knowing is used more in
the sense of confirming his knowledge.
To ―fear God‖ or ―the LORD‖ is a very common expression in the OT and means to
honor God in worship and in an upright life. Thus Abraham was worried about the behavior
of the p eople of Gerar because he thought they had no fear of God (20:11), while Joseph
tries to reassure his brothers that he will treat them fairly because he fears God (42:18).
Perhaps the best parallel to this passage is Job 1:1, 8; 2:3, in which Job is descri bed as
―blameless and upright, one who feared God, and turned away from evil.‖ Like Abraham,
he also underwent a mysterious test of his loyalty to God.
―Withheld‖; cf. v 16 and 39:9.
13 Note how the narrative says nothing about Abraham‘ s reply or Isaac‘s release.
Abraham‘s obedience proved, the story moves straight on to the substitute offering.
This time, as Abraham looks up, he sees not the fateful mountain (cf. v 4) but ―a ram just
caught in a thicket.‖ The narrati ve emphasizes what Abraham saw; no sooner had the angel
spoken than he looked and noticed the ram being caught. His subsequent action invites
comparison with Noah. As soon as Noah left the ark, he offered sacrifice. Similarly, as
soon as Abraham had unboun d his son, he offered a sacrifice instead of his son. In both
instances, the motives of the sacrifice are implied rather than explained. In both, they
express devotion and gratitude and assure God‘s benevolence toward future generations
(8:18 –9:17). In sac rifice, the animal symbolically represented the offerer whose place it
took. Here the ram replaces Isaac, so a full -grown ram, as opposed to a younger lamb,
fittingly takes his place.
14 Abraham‘s surprise at the remarkably convenient timing of the ram‘s b eing trapped
in the thicket has already been mentioned in v 13; now he speaks for himself. Whether his
―God will provide‖ (v 8) should be taken as hope, prayer, or prophecy makes no difference.
Like Hagar (16:13 –14), he has proved that the LORD does provid e: she named a well as a
perpetual reminder of the LORD‘s saving concern; Abraham named the mountain. As
already noted, the name Moriyyah (v 2) is here alluded to in the name of the mountain
(
Yahweh yireh ). ―In the mount of the LORD he may be seen.‖ Here the same root, 
―see, provide,‖ is used in the niphal, which is regularly used of the LORD appearing to
men (cf. 12:7; 17:1; 18:1), thus making a link backward with Abraham‘s past experience

and forward to Isr ael‘s future experiences on the mountain of God (Exod 3:1 –2, 16; Lev
9:4, 6, etc.).
15–18 As already observed under Form/Structure/Setting , these verses are vital to the
narrative. Without them, Abraham‘s ordeal, unlike Hagar‘s or Job‘s, would have done hi m
no good. It would have been purposeless suffering with nothing to show for his willingness
to sacrifice his son. Had Abraham flatly refused to obey, Isaac would have remained alive.
Are we to envisage him returning home with nothing to show for it? Noah received great
assurances about his descendants‘ future after his sacrifice, and Job‘s property was doubled
after his trial, while Hagar was promised that her unborn son would father descendants
without number. To excise vv 15 –18 as a late addition makes t he supposed original of Gen
22 fall quite flat when compared with these other biblical accounts. But as I have tried to
show above, vv 15 –18 cohere well with the literary structures that undergird the narrative.
They complete the palistrophe and constitute the fourth and final panel of dialogues. What
is more, they are the last and most emphatic statement of the promises given to Abraham.
Without these verses, the last time in the Abraham cycle that God affirms his promise is to
Hagar in 21:18 and that conc erns Ishmael rather than Isaac. For all these reasons, vv 15 –18
should be regarded as integral and indeed central to this narrative in particular and to the
Abraham cycle in general.
15 A second angelic summons ―from heaven‖ (cf. Hagar‘ s single call, 21:17) underlines
the importance of what is about to be said.
16 ―By myself I swear.‖ This is the first and only divine oath in the patriarchal stories,
though it is frequently harked back to (24:7; 26:3; 50:24; Exod 13:5; often in
Deuterono my). Note the preceding ―by myself,‖ which gives the oath a special solemnity
and weight (Jer 22:5; 49:13; Amos 4:2; 6:8; Heb 6:13 –18).
―Declares the LORD‖ (
). This phrase occurs 364 times in the OT, mostly in the prophets but only in one other
place in the Pentateuch (Num 14:28). This ―formula points above all to God‘s
dependability, as the addition in Ezek 37:14 ‗I have spoken and I shall carry it out.‘ The
same is shown by the twenty -one passages where it underlines an oath of God‖ (H. Eising,
TWAT 5:122).
―It is because‖ ( 
, only here in Genesis) draws special attention to the cause of God‘s renewed promise,
―you have … your only child,‖ here repeating v 12 (cf. v 2). The meritoriousness of
Abraham is reaffirmed by the fi nal clause, ―because you have obeyed me.‖
17 ―I shall really bless you.‖ The name Abraham is regularly associated with blessing
(12:2 –3; 14:19; 17:16, 20; 24:1, 35), but this is the only time in Genesis that the infinitive
absolute of 
―really‖ is used to reinforce the verb, so making the contents of this promise surpass all
others.
―I shall really multiply your descendants.‖ That Abraham‘s descendants would be
extremely numerous (17:2; cf. 16:10), indeed, as countless as the stars ( 15:5), has been said
before, but never has their number been compared to ―the sand which is on the seashore.‖
―Possess the gate of your enemies,‖ i.e., conquer your enemies‘ cities (cf. 24:60). This
again is a novel ty, a more realistic formulation of the promise of the land than earlier
promises (cf. 12:1, 7; 13:15 –17; 15:7 –8; 17:8), doubtless implying that its fulfillment is
now closer than when it was first enunciated.

18 ―All the nations will find blessing.‖ Here the hithpael of 
is used instead of the niphal as in 12:3; 18:18. There may be no difference in meaning
(see Comment on 12:3), or it may be combining the remark in 12:2, ―you shall be a
blessing,‖ i.e., people will say ―May God bless me like he has blessed Abraham,‖ with 12:3,
―All the families … will find blessing in him.‖ Here there is another change to the earlier
formulation: ―in your descendants‖ instead of ―in you.‖ This implies that t he world has
already been blessed through Abraham, yet more blessing is to come through his
descendants. And all ―because you have obeyed me.‖
Moberly rightly remarks that though the promises here have for the most part been
spoken before, ―the phrases tha t are familiar elsewhere are used in a uniquely emphatic
way‖ ( VT 38 [1988] 318). In particular, they focus on the fulfillment of the promises in
Abraham‘s descendants and on the significance of his obedience. ―A promise which was
previously grounded solely in the will and purposes of Yahweh is transformed so that it is
now grounded both in the will of Yahweh and in the obedience of Abraham‖ ( VT 38 [1988]
320). This is analogous to the assumptions underlying interce ssory prayer. Here, too,
faithful human response to God is taken up and incorporated within the purposes and
activity of God. Moberly notes an analogy with Moses‘ intercession for Israel in Exod 32.
After the golden calf incident, ―their life as a people d epends not only on the mercy of God
but also upon the intercession of God‘s chosen mediator‖ (R. W. L. Moberly, At the
Mountain of God [Sheffield: JSOT, 1983] 106). The flood story provides a nother paradigm
of this intermeshing of divine mercy and human obedience. There God delivers righteous
Noah, but it is Noah‘s sacrifice after the flood that prompts God to promise that never again
will the earth be destroyed in a flood (8:21 –9:17). Here Ab raham‘s willingness to sacrifice
Isaac prompts God to reassure Abraham about the future of his descendants. This parallel
between the sacrifices of Noah and Abraham and the subsequent divine promises
strengthens the case for seeing vv 5 –18 as integral to t he narrative (cf. Alexander, JSOT 25
[1983] 17 –22).
19 Conclusion: A typical close to an episode (cf. 12:9; 13:18; 18:33; 21:34). But it leaves so
much unsaid; even Isaac is not mentioned though he has been the subject of the promises,
and no mention is made about what Sarah felt. Commentators and preachers have often
been tempted to fill in the gaps, but in so doing they draw attention away from the central
thrust of the story, Abraham‘s whole -hearted obedience and the great blessings that have
flowed from it.
Explanation
No other story in Genesis, indeed in the whole OT, can match the sacrifice of Isaac for
its haunting beauty or its theological depth. So much is packed into so few words that our
lengthy comments have not done it justice. Here we cannot explore again all the intricacies
of this narrative. Rather, I shall simply keep to the main track and indicate how it has
continued to inspire reflection by Christians and Jews down to the present day.
The opening ―after these things‖ puts the story into context. It harks back to the
momentous developments in chap. 21, when at long last against all human o dds the
promised Isaac was born. This joyful event was soon followed by one of the most bitter
experiences in Abraham‘s life. Bowing to his wife‘s will endorsed by God, Abraham had to
expel his firstborn son Ishmael. Wandering in the wilderness, Ishmael an d his mother had

nearly died, but in the nick of time the angel pointed them to a well that saved them from
dying of thirst. Meanwhile, Abraham and Isaac had prospered, so much so that earlier
inhabitants of the land made a treaty with Abraham guaranteeing him and his descendants
water rights in perpetuity.
Against this background of success, the opening comment ―God tested Abraham‖ warns
the reader that the coming narrative will strain Abraham‘s faith and obedience to the
uttermost in order to reveal his d eepest emotional attachment. Is he willing to love God
with all his heart, mind, and soul? Does he trust and obey simply because it pays him to do
so: in the words of the Satan of Job, ―Does Job fear God for nought? Hast thou not put a
hedge about him … ? Thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have
increased in the land‖ (Job 1:9 –10).
But like Job, Abraham was unaware that his trial was a test; for him it was totally real.
Though the comment ―God tested Abraham‖ alters the reader‘s vie w of what follows, it
must not obscure the awful situation Abraham found himself confronted with —torn
between his faith in the divine promises and the command that promised to nullify them,
between his affection for his only surviving son and heir and his love for God.
God‘s command is introduced with unusual gentleness, ―Please take,‖ and fully
acknowledges Abraham‘s paternal devotion to his son, ―your son, your only child, whom
you love,‖ and the hopes he had placed in him, for his very name Isaac was a r eminder that
he was the child in whom and through whom the oft -repeated promises of land, nationhood,
and blessing would be fulfilled. By beginning in this vein, God endorses the propriety of
Abraham‘s love for Isaac and his faith in the promises; at the s ame time it reminds us of the
costliness of the command about to be given.
―Go by yourself … which I shall tell you.‖ The gentle tone with which God began is
suddenly replaced by an uncompromisingly stern command couched in terms that closely
echo 12:1: ―G o by yourself from your country … your father‘s house to the country that I
shall show you.‖ But hard as that command was, it was easy to carry out compared with
―offer him there as a burnt offering.‖ On that occasion, the order to break with the past was
at least sweetened by promises of a glowing future, of a new land, numerous descendants,
and blessing to all nations. Here the command has no such incentives attached to it; indeed,
to carry it out would seem to vitiate any chance of these oft -repeated pro mises ever being
fulfilled. The only glimmer of hope in the command is the name of the mountain, Moriah,
which Abraham will later discover means ―the LORD will provide, or appear,‖ but when he
is told to go there, this is completely obscure to him.
But wit hout delay, ―early in the morning,‖ Abraham straightway saddles his donkey
and calls two of his servant lads and Isaac to leave. Then when they are ready to go, he
suddenly goes to cut the wood for the sacrifice —not the most sensible order of proceeding.
Can he not think clearly, or was he trying to hide the nature of his journey until the last
possible moment to avoid awkward questions from those left behind, such as Sarah? Or is
cutting wood the most painful part of the preparations, which he must leave u ntil the last
possible moment? His motives are left unexplained; the narrator gives just a hint about how
Abraham felt and then reminds us of the main point, his obedience: ―He set out and went to
the place which God had told him about.‖
This last comment shows that God has told Abraham more than is recorded here. This
is confirmed by what follows: ―On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in
the distance.‖ Evidently he knew what to look out for and what to do when he reached its
foot, even thou gh the divine instructions are not recorded. The narrator‘s terse economy of

style, cutting out all unnecessary repetition, matches the single -mindedness of Abraham,
whose overriding objective is to do the will of God. But the narrator again hints at his
feelings: Abraham did not just see the mountain; he ―looked up and saw the place in the
distance.‖ Looking up prior to seeing indicates that the thing seen is of special importance.
Abraham sees the place ―in the distance,‖ reminding us that his agony was l ong and drawn
out.
The last stage of the journey is also to be the hardest and the loneliest. For the final
climb to the mountaintop, Abraham and Isaac must go on alone, Isaac now carrying the
wood on his back which hitherto the donkey had carried. As Abra ham had tried to avoid
telling the rest of his household back in Beersheba, he now avoids giving a full explanation
to the two most trusted servants who had accompanied him thus far. He simply but
enigmatically states, ―Stay by yourselves … so that we can worship and return.‖
In the light of the command to sacrifice Isaac, it is odd that he says ― We shall return.‖ Is
this economy with the truth a smokescreen hiding the true plan from the servants and Isaac?
Is Abraham perhaps having second thoughts about sacrificing his son? Or does he hope that
somehow Isaac will return as a result of divine intervention? His rema rk leaves us to
speculate, and the narrator does nothing to stop us, for in times of crisis wildly
incompatible thoughts are liable to succeed each other in quick succession.
But whatever his innermost feelings, Abraham presses on up the mountain alone wit h
his son Isaac in silence. He may have succeeded in concealing the real purpose of the
journey from his household and from his servants up to this point, but now Isaac breaks the
silence with a question that pierces to the heart of the situation, ―My fath er … where is the
sheep for the burnt offering?‖ Its innocent naiveté makes it the more poignant. How can
Abraham avoid saying the unspeakable truth? His reply may be construed as a masterpiece
of pious evasion, ―God will provide himself a sheep for the bu rnt offering, my son,‖ as an
affirmation of faith, as a prophecy, or as a prayer, ―May God provide . … ‖ It cannot be
construed that he is planning to back out, as ―we shall return‖ might have suggested. If
Abraham was tempted to disobey, he has now put su ch thoughts behind him. This remark,
―God will provide,‖ is a turning point in the narrative (see Form/Structure/Setting ), so it
seems meant to be understood as a statement of faith, as prophecy, or as prayer.
To Isaac it must have sounded like evasion, bu t he said nothing and went on up the
mountain. ―The two of them went together.‖ We are forced to conclude that he was naive
and totally trusted his father, or that he now realized what was planned, yet he continued on
up the mountain with his father. Eithe r way he was a perfect, blameless sacrificial victim.
Finally they reach the top, ―the place which God had told them about.‖ Lest in the
horror of the final scene we forget why Abraham is doing this, the narrator reminds us: he
was obeying God. There an al tar has to be built, and the wood must be laid on the altar.
This was a real sacrifice according to proper ritual procedures, and there was plenty of time
for Isaac to realize, if he had not before, what was going to happen and to run away. But he
did not. In fact, he allowed himself to be bound before Abraham cut his throat. This action
above anything else indicates his consent. The OT nowhere speaks of sacrificial animals
having their legs bound before slaughter, and if Isaac had been reluctant to be sacr ificed, it
would have been easier for Abraham to have cut his throat or stabbed him rather than tie
him up first and then place him on the altar. But he was tied, indicating his own willing
submission to God‘s command revealed to his father.
Then at the ve ry last minute with Abraham‘s hand poised to cut Isaac‘s throat, the angel
of the LORD yells from heaven, ―Abraham, Abraham … do not lay your hand on the lad.‖

He has passed the test —―Now I know that you fear God‖ —he has put obeying God above
every other c onsideration, and that, as Proverbs says, is the beginning of wisdom (Prov
1:7). Like Job, he has shown himself to be a man who was ―blameless and upright, one who
feared God, and turned away from evil‖ (Job 1:1; cf. Gen 17:1).
But divi ne endorsement of Abraham‘s piety is by no means the end of the story. Before
the ordeal, the reader has been told that it was but a test, which led us to anticipate
Abraham‘s success in facing it. And Abraham makes no comment himself. Was he just
relieved , or had he believed all along that God would somehow rescue Isaac? Or had he no
time to say anything?
As often, we are left to speculate. But if the angelic command did not surprise
Abraham, the sudden snagging of a ram in the thicket did. He looks on its capture as God‘s
perfectly timed provision. His ambiguous ―God will provide a sheep‖ (v 8) has been
fulfilled more completely and exactly than he had anticipated. Now he knows why the
mountain is called Moriah: it means ―the LORD will provide,‖ or as othe rs have said, ―In the
mountain of the LORD he may be seen.‖ He has discovered that God draws near those in
deepest distress.
But the angel calls again. God‘s opening injunction quoted his very first command: ―Go by
yourself to the country … that I shall sh ow you‖ (12:1). Then the LORD had first made the
promises of descendants, covenant, and blessing to the nations. But up to this point in
Abraham‘s trial, nothing has been said on these topics. So the angel now, for the last time
in Abraham‘s career, reiter ates them with more force than ever before.
For the first and last time in Genesis, the LORD swears an oath in his own name
guaranteeing what he is about to say, a guarantee reinforced by the formula ―declares the
LORD.‖ From now on, the LORD promises that he will not simply bless Abraham but really
bless him. His descendants will be so numerous that they will be compared not just to the
stars but to the sand on the seashore. And they will not merely inherit the land; they will
conquer it, ―possessing the g ate of your enemies.‖ But more than that, Abraham‘s
descendants, as well as Abraham himself, will be a source of blessing to ―all the nations of
the world.‖ And all this will happen, ―because you have done this thing and have not
withheld your son, your on ly child.‖ ―Because you have obeyed me,‖ all the promises first
made to Abraham decades earlier are now augmented and guaranteed by the LORD
unreservedly. In this way, Abraham‘s long pilgrimage of faith, which has not been without
its lapses from true piet y, is brought to a triumphant conclusion. God‘s test had put
Abraham on the rack. Yet torn between his love for his son and his devotion to God, he had
emerged victorious with his son intact and his faithful obedience rewarded beyond all
expectation.
It is this categoric affirmation of the promises that gives this chapter such an important
place, not just in Genesis but in the whole Pentateuch. The oath sworn to Abraham is often
referred to subsequently, for it guarantees the success and protection of his d escendants and
their hope of eventually settling in Canaan (26:3; 50:24; Exod 33:1; Deut 1:8). God‘s
opening words to Abraham in 12:1 –3 were a free and unmerited promise of land,
descendants, and universal blessing. Abraham‘s erratic response, sometimes sh owing faith,
sometimes not, had meant that the promises were fulfilled more slowly than might have
been anticipated. He had reached old age with only one son to his name and the right to use
just one well in Canaan. But this last display of obedient faith was rewarded by an
extension and endorsement of the original promises that not only exceeds every previous
formulation but every subsequent statement of the promises. From now on, it is merely

necessary to refer back to this occasion to say all that can be said about the promise.
These promises look far into the future as they predict Abraham‘s offspring becoming
numerous as the sand, both conquering the land and yet being blessed by and a source of
blessing to all nations, thus implying themselves or their fame spreading throughout the
world. This story gives other hints, too, that its horizon is not bounded by the career of
Abraham.
As elsewhere in Genesis, his actions foreshadow the later history of Israel. They too were
called to go a three -day journey t o worship God upon a mountain. There the LORD
appeared to them and gave them the law and promised blessing to those who kept it. Every
father in Israel was expected to dedicate his firstborn son to the LORD and to redeem him by
offering a sacrifice. In Exo dus, this redemption of the firstborn recalls the passover in
which the firstborn sons of Israel were spared judgment. It may be that Genesis itself is
implicitly comparing Isaac‘s rescue to that sparing of Israel‘s firstborn sons in the Exodus
and the ram Abraham offered to the passover lamb. In later Jewish tradition (e.g., the book
of Jubilees, 100 B.C.) a connection is made between passover and the sacrifice of Isaac. The
verb ―tested‖ also invites compari son with the Exodus experience, for it most frequently
occurs in connection with Israel‘s wilderness wanderings, either referring to God ―testing‖
Israel (e.g., Exod 16:4) or to Israel ―testing‖ God (Deut 6:16).
Furthermore , this is the first detailed account of a patriarch offering sacrifice and, like
Jacob‘s promise to tithe (28:22), doubtless foreshadows later national practice, so it seems
likely that Abraham‘s sacrifice of the ram anticipates the burnt offering of a lam b every
morning and evening in the temple. In this connection, identification of Moriah with the
temple mount in 2 Chr 3:1 is particularly significant. In post -biblical Judaism, it was
sometimes affirmed that the temple sacrifices were accepted because of the merits of Isaac.
His obedience was recalled each time an animal was sacrificed, so that the atoning value of
sacrifice really depended on Isaac‘s willingness to suffer, not the death of the animal.
However, it is dubious whether such ideas circulated b efore the Christian era. The emphasis
in the biblical account is certainly on Abraham‘s obedience.
In other ways, the role of Abraham here anticipates the role of later national religious
leaders. In chap. 18, 20, he appeared as a prophetic intercessor. He re he acts more like a
priest, especially like Moses, who ascended the mountain to worship God. In another way,
he appears as the archetypal wise man of the Psalms and Proverbs who ―fears God.‖ More
exactly, he is an example of the righteous suffering like Job, ―who feared God and turned
away from evil.‖ The story of Job is the story of Gen 22 writ large. Job actually loses his
children and is pushed to the limits of human endurance by sickness and his friends‘
unsympathetic advice, but eventually he meets God face to face, is reassured, and has his
children replaced and his herds doubled. Finally, the suffering servant of Isa 53 seems to
combine in his person images drawn from Gen 22 with those of Job. Like Job, the servant‘s
physical disfigurement makes hi s contemporaries conclude he is a sinner. Like Abraham
the servant makes an offering and sees his offspring (Isa 53:10). But like Isaac, who silently
consented to being sacrificed, he was ―like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, … [yet] he
opened not his mouth‖ (Isa 53:7). And like Isaac he offered himself, rather than anyone
else. But unlike Abraham, Isaac, or Job, the servant actually died (Isa 53:8).
The NT writers develop this imagery in a very striking way. For them Abraham and Isaac
are types of God the Father and Jesus. But whereas Abraham did not quite sacrifice Isaac,
Jesus did actually die. So his death is a perfect and fully effective atoning sacrifice, whereas
Isaac‘s near sacrifice merely prefigured our Lord‘s and could not re deem mankind. This

typology is very widespread in the NT and therefore must be extremely early and probably
reflects Jesus‘ own self -interpretation of his mission. When Paul says, ―If God is for us,
who is against us? He who did not spare his own Son but g ave him up for us‖ (Rom
8:31–32), the echoes of Gen 22:12, 16, ―you have not withheld your son, your only child,‖
are obvious. John 3:16, ―For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son,‖ makes the
same comparison. John the Baptist‘s cry, ―Behold, th e Lamb of God, who takes away the
sin of the world!‖ may well be making a similar connection, for whether the primary
reference is to the lambs for the daily burnt offering or to the passover lamb, Gen 22 seems
to associate both with the sacrifice of Isaac . The heavenly voice at Jesus‘ baptism and
transfiguration says, ―This is my beloved son.‖ Though this terminology could be linked
with Isa 42:1; Ps 2:7, it is even closer to Gen 22:2, 12, 16 in wording, for the LXX translates
―only‖ by ajgaphtov" ―beloved.‖ Peter‘s reference to Christ as ―a lamb without blemish,‖
―destined before the foundation of the world‖ may be another example of using the imagery
of Genesis to explain the crucifixion (1 Pet 1:19 –20).
James cites Abraham‘s faithful obedience to show that this is integral to true
discipleship. ―Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son
Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was
comple ted by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says ‗Abraham believed God,
and it was reckoned to him as righteousness‘‖ (Jas 2:21 –23). Heb 11:17 –19 offers Abraham
as an example of someone who believed in God‘s promises even when the death of Isaac
looked certain. ―By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had
received the promises was ready to offer up his only son, of whom it was said, ‗Through
Isaac shall your descendants be named.‘ He considered that God was able to raise m en even
from the dead; hence, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back‖ (Heb 11:17 –19).
James and Hebrews thus use the account of Isaac‘s sacrifice not just to shed light on the
atonement but on the kind of behavior the pious should imitate. Crises t hat test faith and
obedience to the uttermost are still part of the disciple‘s lot. The disciple too must be ready
to take up the cross and follow. And those who endure to the end may hope to hear the
Lord‘s commendation: ―Well done, good and faithful serv ant; enter into the joy of your
Lord.‖
The Genealogy of Rebekah (22:20 –24)
Bibliography
Sternberg, M. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1985. 132 –33.
Translation
20After these things, Abraham was tolda b Milcah tooc has borne sons for your brother
Nahor: 21Uz his firstborn, and Buz his brother, and Qemuel, athe father of Aram,a 22Kesed,
Hazo, Pildash, Yidlaf, and Bethuel. 23 a(Now Bethuel was the fatherb of Rebekah.)a c These d
were the d eight that Milcah bore to Nahor, Abraham‘ s brotherc 24His concubine,a b named

Reumah, b c also bore him children,c Tebah, Gaham, Tahash, and Maacah.
Notes
20.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. hoph 20.b. 
here expresses surprise and the fact that Abraham has just heard (cf. SBH, 94–95;
Lambdin, 169).
20.c. 
links Milcah‘s childbearing with presumably Sarah‘s. Cf. 4:4, 22, 26; 19:38; SBH, 157.
21.a-a. BHS suggests this is a gloss.
23.a-a. SBH, 88, take s this as a pseudo -circumstantial clause, ―then Bethuel fathered
Rebekah,‖ common in genealogies; cf. 4:18; 10:8, 13.
23.b. SamPent typically substitutes hiph 
for MT qal.
23.c-c. Apposition clause concluding paragraph ( SBH, 54).
23.d. Demonstrative pronouns with numerals do not require def art (GKC, 134k;
Brockelmann, 85b); cf. 9:19.
24.a. There is no need to emend MT 
―his concubine‖ to 
―he had a co ncubine‖ with BHS. MT ―his concubine‖ may be understood as subject of
the adjunct ive clause c -c; so SBH, 93.
24.b-b. On this construction in naming clauses, see SBH, 31.
24.c-c. Cf. n. 22:24.a.*
Form/Structure/Setting
This short genealogy listing the twelve sons of Nahor and one of his granddaughters
falls into two parts:

vv 20b –23
Milcah‘s sons

v 24
Reumah‘s sons

The list of Milcah‘s sons is expressed as news given to Abraham; cf. v 20a, ―Abra ham

was told … ,‖ whereas v 23b is clearly editorial comment, ―These … Abraham‘s brother.‖
The comment about Rebekah may or may not be part of the report he received, and v 24 is
apparently not.
On the face of it, this genealogical snippet is unexpected, s itting uneasily between the
account of Isaac‘s sacrifice and his mother‘s burial (chap. 23). However, the opening,
―After these things,‖ does connect it chronologically with the preceding material, while
―Milcah too has borne sons‖ makes an explicit connec tion with 21:1 –7, the account of
Isaac‘s birth. On the other hand, the mention of Rebekah in v 23 clearly anticipates her
fuller presentation in chap. 24. For this reason and because of its style, most obviously the
use of the qal 
for fathering in v 23, this passage has usually been assigned to J. It is seen as the vital
stepping stone between the accounts of Isaac‘s birth and his betrothal.
Westermann is not so sure that this genealogy is J, but he does think that it i s one of the
earlier parts of the Abraham cycle that originally concluded with 21:1 –7; 22:20 –24; 25:1 –8.
The rest of 21:8 –25:18 is, according to Westermann, later expansion.
However, this fails to do justice to the careful arrangement of material in Genesi s.
Abraham had two sons whose careers ran in parallel with each other. After their birth late
in Abraham‘s life, Ishmael‘s career is summarized first. As a lad, he faced death and was
rescued by an angel, who promised to make him a great nation. Subsequent ly, he married
one of his mother‘s people, an Egyptian (21:9 –21). In 22:1 –19, Isaac‘s career has passed
through a similar series of stages, climaxing with a tremendous assurance about his
descendants, but the last stage, Isaac‘s marriage, is missing. The r eader expects something
at this point, but the editor tantalizes him with a mere genealogy. But buried within it is the
mention of one grandchild, who is also a girl. This surely raises expectations.
From a formal point of view, Westermann has noted that t his genealogy matches the
genealogy of 11:27 –32. I observed that 22:1 –19 echoes in substance and style 12:1 –3.
Thus, putting in this genealogy of Nahor enhances the overall palistrophic arrangement of
Gen 11:27 to 22:24. (See Wenham, Genesis 1 –15, 263
Finally, it may be noted that the stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all conclude with
a similar sequence: promise (22:15 –18; 35:9 –14; 48:4), journey (22:19; 35:16; 48:7), birth
of children (22:20 –24; 35:17 –18; 48:5 –6), and death and burial of patriarch‘s wi fe (chap.
23; 35:18 –20; 48:7). For further discussion of parallels, see Form/Structure/Setting on
chap. 35, chaps. 48 –50. These parallels show that the author of this material worked
according to a coherent scheme.
Comment
20 ―After these things‖ (cf. 22:1; 15:1). It is not clear how long after the sacrifice of
Isaac news about his brother‘s family reached him, but in the time span of Genesis, it is
likely to have been years rather than weeks. ―Abraham was told,‖ as Procksch surmises, by
some passing caravan.
―Milcah too has borne sons for your brother.‖ The introductory 
, left untranslated here, indicates that this is Abraham‘s perspective (note ―your
brother‖ ) and suggests how the news just reached him and maybe his surprise. Presumably
Nahor‘s children were born before Isaac. The comparison ―Milcah too‖ is with Sarah
(21:2), who had but one son, as opposed to Milcah‘s eight. On Milcah, see 11:29.

21 ―Uz‖; cf. 10:23, where Uz is a descendant of Aram, and 36:28, a descendant of
Edom. Clearly Genesis regards these places named Uz as distinctly different, but how they
were related in prebiblical tradition is obscure. Job lived in Uz, apparently somewhere east
of Canaan.
―Buz,‖ mentioned only here (1 Chr 5:14, a son of Gad) and in Jer 25:23, associated with
Dedan and Tema, suggests Buz may also be a place in Arabia. Elihu came from Buz (Job
32:2). The land of Bâzu was conquered by Esarhaddon in 6 76 B.C. and was described by
the Assyrians as dry and thirsty, swarming with snakes and scorpions. Some place it in
Nejd in Arabia, others in Persia. A land of B \‘89zu is also mentioned in the Mari letters ( EM
2:40).
―Qemuel‖ is a p ersonal name later borne by an Ephraimite (Num 34:24) and a Levite (1
Chr 27:17).
22 ―Kesed‖ occurs only here in the OT and has been linked to 
―the Chaldaeans.‖ It may be that Kesed is regarded as their forefather. Personal names
phonetically similar to Kesed are found in southwest Semitic ( EM 4:365).
―Hazo,‖ ―Pildash,‖ and ―Yidlaf‖ occur only here in the OT.
―Bethuel,‖ like ―Qemuel,‖ appears to be a theophoric name of ―El,‖ but the meaning of
the first element is obscure. Though mentioned again in 24:15, 50, he takes little part in the
negotiations for Rebekah‘s marriage there, suggesting he is already in retirement.
23 ―Now Bethuel was the f ather of Rebekah.‖ It is not clear whether this continues the
report given to Abraham about his brother‘s children beginning in v 21, or whether it is part
of the editor‘s summary in v 23b. In other words, it is uncertain whether Abraham knew
about Rebekah before he sent his servant to find a wife for Isaac.
The mention of Rebekah in this short genealogy sticks out. She is the only female
descendant of Nahor listed here among twelve males. Her future as the most dominating of
the patriarchal wives is alread y hinted at in this first mention of her existence.
The traditional interpretation of Rebekah is that it means ―heifer.‖ But this is doubtful.
It may be related to a common Semitic root meaning ―to tie a sheep or cow with a cord.‖
Even more attractive is t o relate it to Akkadian rabaµku ―to be soft or springy.‖ In other
words, ―Rebekah‖ means ―soft,‖ ―supple‖; cf. EM 7:321 –23. No etymology of her name is
given in the OT, but in Gen 24:60 –66; 27:1 –17 her name is associated with ―blessing‖
(
beðreµkaµh ). Since she is portrayed as the female counterpart of Abraham, who
embodies blessing in his name and in his person, this play on her name is very apt.
―These were the eight … ‖ Adding the four son s by his concubine Reumah, Nahor had
twelve sons, like Jacob (29:32 –30:24), Ishmael (25:13 –16), and Esau.
24 ―Concubine‖ ( 
) is a word of Indo -European origin perhaps borrowed by Hebrew from the Philistines.
Terms from the same root are found in Greek and Latin. A concubine was a second -class
wife, probably acquired without payment of bride -money (
), who had fewer legal rights than did an ordinary wife. Bilhah is called both concubine
and slave -wife (
), so Exod 21:7 may set out some of the righ ts of concubines (see EM 6:456 –67).
Three of Reumah‘s sons, Tebah, Tahash, and Maacah, appear to be connected to
kingdoms or towns in the area today called Lebanon or Syria. So it has been surmised that
Reumah may have been the name of a league or alliance to which they all belonged. Tebah

(possibly ―slaughter,‖ ―bright light‖) is mentioned in second -millennium Egyptian texts.
According to N. Naaman ( EM 8:521), Tebah may be located in the southern Beqa of
Lebanon, Tahash lay near the upper Orontes, and Maacah is situated in the Litani Valley. It
is mentioned also in Josh 13:11; 2 Sam 10:6, 8 as well as in the Mari texts (cf. also EM
3:363; 5:192 –93; 7:295). But whatever the relationship between these names and Aramean
tribes or political groups, in the present context they are simply the names of Nahor‘s sons.
Reumah is mentioned only here. According to Coote ( JBL 90 [1971] 207), it means
―beloved.‖ EM 7:129 relates it to 
―wild ox‖ (Num 23:22; 24:8).
Explanation
A genealogy of Nahor seems rather an anticlimax after the high tension of the sacrifice
of Isaac. But it is not as irrelevant to the story line as it appears on first sight. The angelic
promise of vv 16 –18 assured Abraham that his descendants would be as numerous as the
sand of the seashore. This inevitably implies that Isaac must marry, a concl usion reinforced
by the analogous developments in the Ishmael story. He too was at death‘s door, was
rescued by an angel, was promised numerous descendants, and eventually married
(21:15 –21). Isaac should surely marry too. But that development is delayed t o chap. 24.
Instead we have here a list of the twelve sons of Nahor, which makes Abraham‘s fathering
of just Ishmael and Isaac look modest. But the genealogy also mentions one of his
granddaughters. Surely Rebekah must have been quite a character to be the only girl listed
alongside her father and uncles. Then the genealogy closes, leaving the reader to wonder
what the point of it is and whether Abraham had learned of Rebekah‘s birth or only of her
uncles. Here are seeds from which the story will grow furth er.
Purchase of Burial Ground (23:1 –20)
Bibliography
Brink, H. van den. ―Gen 23: Abraham‘s Koop.‖ Tijdschrift voor Rechtgeschiedenis . 37 (1969)
469–88. Emerton, J. A. ―The Priestly Writer in Genesis.‖ JTS 39 (1988) 381 –400. Gottstein, M.
H. ― 
(Gen 23:6).‖ VT 3 (1953) 298 –99. Lehmann, M. R. ―Abraham‘s Purchase of Machpelah and
Hittite Law.‖ BASOR 129 (1953) 15 –18. Licht, J. Storytelling in the Bible. Jerusalem: Magnes,
1978. 20 –23, 55 –69. Perrin, B. ―Trois textes bibliques sur les techniques d‘acquisition immobilière
(Gen 23; Ruth 4; Jer 32:8 –15).‖ Revue historique de droit francais et étranger 41 (1963) 5 –19,
177–95, 387 –417. Petschow, H. ―Die neubabylonische Zwiegesprächsurkunde und Genesis 23.‖
JCS 19 (1965) 103 –20. Rabin, C. ―L- with Imperative (Gen 23).‖ JSS 13 (1968) 113 –24. Reviv, H.
―Early Elements and Late Terminology in the Descriptions of Non -Israelite Cities in the Bible.‖ IEJ
27 (1977) 189 –96. ——— . The Elders in Ancient Israel. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989. 147 –52. Shilar,
E. The Cave of Macpelah. (Heb.) Jerusal em: Ariel, 1976. Speiser, E. A. ―‗Coming‘ and ‗Going‘ at
the ‗City‘ Gate.‖ BASOR 144 (1956) 20 –23 (also in Oriental and Biblical Studies [1967] 83 –88).

Sternberg, M . ―Double Cave, Double Talk: The Indirections of Biblical Dialogue.‖ In Not in
Heaven, ed. J. P. Rosenblatt and J. C. Sitterson. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania/Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1991. 28 –57. Tucker, G. M. ―The Legal Bac kground of
Genesis 23.‖ JBL 85 (1966) 77 –84. Westbrook, R. ―The Purchase of the Cave of Machpelah.‖ ILR 6
(1971) 29 –38.
Translation
1Now Sarah‘s lifea lasted one hundred and twenty -seven years. 2 Then Sarah dieda
in Kiryat Arbab (that is Hebron), in the land of Canaan. Then Abraham came to mourn
for Sarah and to weepc for her.
3Then he rose up from before his dead wifea and spoke to the Hittites as follows: 4
―As I am just a resident immigrant with you, givea me a burial plot with you so that I
may buryb my dead wife properly.‖c 5The Hittites replied to Abraham as f ollows: ―Doa 6
listena to us, sir. As you are a mighty prince among us, bury your dead in the pick of our
graves. None of us would withholdb his grave from you to preventc you burying your
dead.‖
7Abraham stood up and bowed to the people of the land to the Hittites. 8 He spoke
with them as follows: ―If it is your will that I should bury my dead properly, listen to me
and persuade Ephron the son of Sohar,a for me, 9that he may give me the cave of
Macpelaha which he owns and is at the edge of his property. b For c the full price let him
gived it to me for a burial plot among you.b
10bNow Ephron was sitting with the Hittites,a so Ephron the Hittite answered
Abraham out loud before the Hittites beforeb all those entering the gateway of his city,
as follows: 11 ―Do,a sir, listen to me. I hereby giveb you the land, and the cave which is
in it I giveb you. Before all my people I giveb it to you. Bury your dead.‖
12Then Abraham bowed before the people of the land. 13 He spoke to Ephron out loud
before the people of the land, a ―But if you … , do listen to me,a I shall giveb money for the
field. Accept it from me so thatc I may bury my dead there.‖ 14 Then Ephron replied to
Abraham as follows: ―Do,a 15 sir, listen to me. The land is worth four hun dred shekels.
What is that between me and you? Bury your dead.‖
16So Abraham agreed with Ephron, and Abraham weighed out for Ephron the
money he had publicly stated before the Hittites, four hundred shekels of silver at the
merchants‘ rate. 17 So the land of Ephron in Macpelah easta of Mamre, that is, the land,
the cave in it, and all the trees that fall within its boundary, was transferred 18 to
Abraham by purchase witnessed by the Hittites and all those who entered the gate of his
city.
19Afterwards Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the land of Macpelah
east of Mamre, that is, Hebron in the land of Canaan.
20a So the field and the cave which is in it were transferreda from the Hit tites to Abraham as
a burial plot.
Notes
1.a. Note the similar construction in 47:28 with its double ―days of Jacob … years of
life.‖ Here ―life of Sarah … years of Sarah‘s life.‖ G, Vg omit the last phrase here.

2.a. Waw consec + 3 fem. sg impf. 2.b. SamPent inserts 
―to (the) valley‖; cf. G.
2.c. Waw + 
+ inf constr qal 
+ 3 fem. sg suffix.
3.a. Masc sg ptcp qal 
(+ 3 masc. sg suffix) may be used for female corpses ( GKC, 122f); cf. vv 4, 6, 8, etc.
4.a. 2 masc. pl. impv 4.b. Waw + 1 sg coh 
. For the sequence impv + coh with sense of purpose, ―so that,‖ see WOC, 577–78; SBH,
112.
4.c. Lit. ―from before me.‖
5.a. The concluding /
is problematic following 
―saying, as follows‖; cf. vv 11, 13, 14. SamPent has 
―not‖; so too does G, Mhv . BHS, with many commentators, prefers to repoint 
and make this the opening remark of the Hittites as in vv 11, 14. This could convey the
great politeness of both sides. This usage of the emphatic lamed is well -attested in other
Semitic languages but poorly attested elsewhere in the OT (cf. EWAS, 115–16). Rabin
suggests that the three different vocalizations ( /
/
/
) in vv 5, 11, 13, 14 represent attempts to render a non -vowel in the language of the
Hittites (possi bly Hurrian), which used an infix el/ ol to mark the imperative. Thus the use
of /
or 
before the imperative ―listen to me‖ suggests the Hittites spoke Canaanite with a
foreign accent (H. Rabin, JSS 13 [1968] 113 –24).
6.a. 2 masc. sg impv [
+ 1 pl. suffix.

6.b. 3 masc. sg impf. 
; note assimilation of III 
to III 
form ( GKC, 75qq).
6.c. On this use of 
following verbs of restraining, see GKC, 119x.
8.a. SamPent adds ―the Hittite.‖
9.a. If Macpelah is derived from 
―to fold double,‖ this w ould explain G, Vg rendering ―the double cave,‖ but v 17
seems to count against this explanation.
9.b-b. Clause in apposition to v 9.a and clarifying it ( SBH, 46–47).
9.c. 
of price ( GKC, 119p).
9.d. 3 masc. sg impf. 
+ 3 fem. sg suffix referring to ―cave‖ (fem).
10.a-a. Circumstantial clause introducing new actor ( SBH, 79).
10.b. On this use of 
, cf. GKC, 143e; Joüon, 125l.
11.a. With Rabin (cf. n. 5.a.), understanding 
as a ―Hittite‖ (?Hurrian) displaced infix to mark the impv.
11.b. Here the pf is used for an action that, though fut, is understood to be complete
when the word i s uttered, a performative pf (Joüon, 112g; GKC, 106m; WOC, 489).
13.a-a. Rabin ( JSS 13 [1968] 115 –16) sees this as a kind of anakolouthon. Abraham,
with a protasis ―But if you … ‖ (cf. v 8), then switches to ―Hittite‖ idiom: ―do listen to me.‖
13.b. Cf. n. 11.b.*
13.c. Cf. n. 4.b.*
14.a. Cf. n. 5.a.*
17.a. SamPent reads [

instead of 
, probably assimilating to v 19 and 25:9.
20.a-a. Here the waw consec 
sums up the preceding narrative ( GKC, 111k; Joüon, 118i; WOC, 550).
Form/Structure/Setting
Chap. 23 combines a report of Sarah‘s death and burial (vv 1 –2, 19) with a much fuller
scenic account of Abraham‘s purchase of land for her burial (vv 3 –18, 20).
Sarah‘s age (1)
Sarah‘s death and Abraham‘s mourning (2)
Negotiations for grave plot (3 –15)
1. Abraham ‘s initial request (3 –4)
Hittites‘ reply (5 –6)
2. Abraham requests Ephron‘s cave (7 –9)
Ephron agrees (10 –11)
3. Abraham offers to pay (12 –13)
Ephron names price (14 –15)
Abraham pays; land transferred (16 –18)
Sarah buried (19)
Summary (20)
The negotiations for the purchase of the cave and the surrounding land dominate this
episode to such an extent that the mourning for and burial of Sarah occupy a very minor
place in the telling, although it is her death that prompts the land purchase. It may be noted
that the negotiations consist of three pairs of speeches, a triadic arrangement often used in
Hebrew storytelling. Though the purchase of the cave of Macpelah is mentioned later in
Genesis (25:9 –10; 49:29 –32; 50:13), this episode appears somewhat isolated in th e
Abraham cycle. It is apparently a quite secular story (it makes no reference to God save as a
superlative in v 6: ―great prince‖ = ―prince of God‖), and it does not obviously relate to the
promises or their fulfillment. Simple biographical interest seems to dictate its inclusion.
It is generally held to derive from the P source, though it is almost as widely admitted
to be unlike other parts of P in its style and content. Rendtorff ( Problem , 128 –30; cf. T. D.
Alexander, ―A Literary Ana lysis of the Abraham Narrative in Genesis,‖ Diss., University of
Belfast, 1982) has trenchantly exposed the self -contradictory arguments of many writers.
Here it is alleged that the chronological notice (v 1) shows that the whole story belongs to
P, wherea s usually such introductory notices are separated from the succeeding story, as
from a different source. Anyway, the word ―hundred‖ here is in the construct ( 
), whereas elsewhere in P it is in the absolute form ( 
). There are some words, e.g., ―Hittites,‖ ―prince,‖ ―holding‖ ( 
), that are occasionally found in other P passages, but that might be because of common
subject matter rather than common authorship. In other respects, this chapter‘s style is qu ite
unlike other P passages. Skinner noted ―its markedly secular tone‖ (335). S. E. McEvenue
(Narrative Style , 22) noted that ―the chatty, colloquial, style of Gen 23 seems untypical of
P.‖ Speiser argued that v 1 was ―unmistakably from P. As a whole, howe ver, the story
betrays a different hand. With a few deft strokes, the author makes us aware not only of the

solemnity of the occasion and the high stakes involved, but also of the humorous aspects of
the situation. All of this points strongly to J … ‖ (173 ). Similarly, von Rad suggests that
here P ―incorporated an older narrative pretty well unmodified into his narrative‖ (249). So
Rendtorff concludes, ―I see no sufficient reasons for the assumption that Gen 23 constitutes
part of a P -narrative, but many re asons against it‖ ( Problem , 130).
In an attempt to date the material within the chapter, various extrabiblical parallels have
been cited to prove its antiquity or its modernity. Lehmann ( BASOR 129 [1953] 15 –18)
suggested that certain features of Gen 23, in particular the Hittites‘ desire to sell the land as
well as the cave and the mention of the trees on the land, were explicable in terms of Hittite
Law. This reads too much into the negotiations. Tucker ( JBL 85 [1966] 77 –84) and
Petschow ( JCS 19 [1965] 103 –20) argued that certain features of the text closely paralleled
neo-Babylonian dialogue documents of sale. But Thompson ( Histor icity) correctly insists
that these parallels also give no unambiguous clues to the date of Gen 23. They reflect
customs practiced over a wide area and a long time span whose evolution we cannot
precisely chart. Subsequently, Westbrook pointed out that thr ee parties, Abraham, Ephron,
and the Hittites, appear to be involved in the transactions here, which parallels
arrangements in mid -second -millennium Ugarit, Boghazköi, Mesopotamia, and Elam. He
concluded that ―the ‗double transfer‘ fiction discussed above points to an authorship of
considerably greater antiquity‖ ( ILR 6 [1971] 38) rather than to an exilic P. Similarly, on the
grounds of the unique linguistic features of this chapter (cf. Notes on vv 5, 11, 15), Rabi n
argues for ―an early dating of the chapter as written‖ and ―against its inclusion in source P‖
(JSS 13 [1968] 115). Similarly, Reviv ( IEJ 27 [1977] 189 –96) pointed to the term used for
the cit y elders, ―those who go in at the gate,‖ as premonarchic.
Given our still limited knowledge of changes in Near Eastern legal practice and the
development of Hebrew, it would be unwise to be dogmatic about the dating of this
chapter. However, there is nothi ng in it that demands a late date or associates it
unequivocally with P. I prefer to see it as based on early tradition utilized by the final editor
of Genesis. It is difficult to be more precise about the history of its transmission prior to its
incorpora tion by J.
Comment
1 ―Now Sarah‘s life lasted one hundred and twenty -seven years.‖ Sarah was last mentioned
in 21:12, when she ordered Ishmael‘s expulsion, but her part in and reaction to the
momentous events in 21:22 –22:24 are passed over in silence, acco rding to the narrative a
period of nearly thirty -five years. Suddenly, however, her total lifespan (cf. 5:5, 11) and her
death are mentioned. The phraseology of this verse is unique (cf. 5:5; 47:28) and has
prompted some conjectural emendations, but Sarah is the only patriarch‘s wife whose age
at death is recorded. Whether her age is supposed to be taken literally is unclear. The
midrash saw symbolism in it: 100 stands for great age, 20 beauty, and 7 blamelessness. Th e
number 127 also lends itself to easy arithmetic analysis like the patriarchal ages: 127 = 2 x
60 + 7 (see Introduction ).
2 ―In Kiryat -Arba (that is Hebron).‖ Kiryat -Arba is nearly always glossed as Hebron.
Hebron (confederation?) seems to be the Israelit e name of the city earlier (Judg 1:10) called
Kiryat Arba, either ―city of Arba‖ (so Josh 14:15) or ―city of four,‖ and lies about twenty
miles (thirty -five kilometers) south of Jerusalem on the way to Beersheba (22:19). It is also
very close to Mamre (13: 18; 14:13, 24; 18:1; 23:17, 19), where Abraham received the great

bulk of the promises recorded in Genesis. The association of Hebron with the promises
probably explains the otherwise unnecessary ―in the land of Canaan.‖
―He came in to mourn for Sarah and weep for her.‖ The first term ( 
) is used almost exclusively for ―bewailing‖ the dead, while the second ( 
) may cover weeping for joy (33:4; 45:14) as well as in sorrow. But when, as here, 
is followed by the accusative, it refers always to sorro w prompted by death. The use of
both terms together suggests that Abraham did not just weep aloud but carried out other
traditional mourning customs, such as rending his garments, disheveling his hair, cutting
his beard, scattering dust on his head, and fa sting (Lev 21:5, 10; 2 Sam 1:11, 12; 13:31; Job
1:20; 2:12; cf. ―Burial and Mourning,‖ NBD, 170 –72). These rites were carried out in front
of the corpse, hence the o pening ―he came in,‖ i.e., to the tent or part of the tent where
Sarah lay; cf. v 3, ―he rose up from before his dead wife.‖
3–15 The negotiations between Abraham and the Hittites proceed in three stages. Each
time, Abraham makes a proposal that the Hittites then accept. First, he asks if he may have
somewhere to bury Sarah. Then, he asks if he may buy the cave of Macpelah. Finally, he
insists that its owner Ephron name the price. This three -stage development is typical of
narrative style (cf. Licht, Storytelling in the Bible , 55–69).
The outstanding characteristic of this account is the courtesy and deference eac h side
shows in the negotiations. Abraham rises and bows to the Hittites before making a request
(vv 3, 7, 12). For their part, the Hittites are very polite, calling Abraham ―a mighty prince‖
(v 6), repeatedly protesting their sincerity, ―Do listen to us, sir‖ (vv 6, 11, 13), and offering
Abraham exactly what he wants for nothing. This last point may well be typical oriental
exaggeration, but it does show the Hittites‘ goodwill. Finally, the repeated emphasis on the
public nature of the negotiations is evid ent (cf. vv 10, 11, 13, 16, 18). This was clearly of
great importance to make Abraham‘s claim to the land clear beyond dispute.
3 ―The Hittites,‖ lit. ―sons of Heth.‖ Heth was a descendant of Canaan, according to 10:15.
Their Canaanite affiliation is corroborated in that all Hittites named in the OT have good
Semitic names, e.g., Ephron, Sohar, Uriah. ―Apart from the expression ‗the land of the
Hittites,‘ which sometimes denotes Syria, all other references to ‗Hittites‘ in the OT are to a
small group living in the hills during the era of the Patriarchs and descendants of that
group‖ (H. A. Hoffner, POTT, 213 –14). The bibli cal Hittites have no obvious connections
with the better -known Hittites of Asia Minor.
4 ―I am just a resident immigrant with you.‖ Abraham introduces himself with a simple
factual statement about his legal situation, which at the same time exposes his vul nerability
and need. He is just an ―immigrant.‖ Here the Hebrew has two terms, 
―sojourner‖ and 
―resident.‖ The former term is much more common. It denotes foreigners living in an
alien land potentially permanently, such as the Israelites in Egypt (cf. 12:10). Such
immigrants, being separated from their own people, were particularly prone to exploitation,
and Israel is frequently urged to protect them (Deut 14:29). ―Resident‖ is a rarer term than
―sojourner‖ and is often used alongside it, so that they appear virtually synonymous (cf.
Lev 25:23; Ps 39:13 [12]). However, while circumcised ―sojourners‖ could participate in
the passover, ―residents‖ could not (Exod 12:19, 45 –49), so they were even more on the
fringe of society than sojourners. Here the distinction is not important; what the two have in
common is stressed by coupling them, ―just a resident sojourner,‖ particularly their lack of
land (cf. TDOT 2:439 –49).

So Abraham asks, ―Give me a burial plot with you‖ ( 
―burial plot,‖ lit. ―holding of a grave―). Abraham‘s use of the term ―holding‖ ( 
) is probably significant here. It is used in 17:8; 48:4 of Israel‘s eternal possession of
Canaan, so it seems that Abraham is asking for ownership of a p iece of land for his
permanent use as a burial ground (cf. G. Gerleman, ZAW 89 [1977] 313 –25).
―So that I may bury my dead wife properly.‖ His demeanor and garb no doubt showed
that he was in mourning, but now Abraham gives the reason for his request, which no
humane person could refuse.
5–6 The Hittites reply with a warmth that shows their sympathy with the bereaved
Abraham. They begin with an assertion of their sincerity, ―Do liste n to us, sir,‖ in their own
local dialect (see n. 5.a.). They continue: ―(You are no mere immigrant) you are a mighty
prince among us.‖ It should be noted that they speak of Abraham as a ―prince,‖ while he
described himself as an immigrant, and they change Abraham‘s ―with you‖ into ―among
us.‖ Their preposition suggests Abraham is almost one of them. The term ―prince‖ ( 
) is most often used for a tribal chief (e.g., 17:20; 25:16; Num 7:2). Here he is called
―mighty,‖ lit. ―of God‖; this may be a mere superlative (cf. D. W. Thomas, VT 3 [1953]
215–16), but it could be an acknowledgment that God has evidently blessed Abraham and
made him successful (cf. 21:22).
So they continue: ―Since you are like one of our chiefs, of course we grant your
request.‖ They echo his own terminology exactly in their double reply: positively they say,
―Bury your dead [A] in the pick of our graves [B]‖; negatively in chia stic apposition they
add, ―None of us would withhold his grave [B] from you to prevent you burying your dead
[A].‖ Their warm and generous reply apparently gave Abraham all he wanted, but
permission to bury Sarah was only part of what he had requested. He had asked for a burial
plot, not simply for the use of one of their graves. Despite the warmth of their reply, the
Hittites, by omitting any mention of this point, probably indicate their reluctance to transfer
land to Abraham, for then he would no longer be a landless sojourner.
7 Encouraged by their positive attitude, Abraham ―stood up and bowed.‖ Negotiations
were conducted sitting down (cf. v 10; Ruth 4:1 –4), so Abraham‘s elaborate gestures
intimate that he is about to make an import ant request (cf. his standing before the LORD to
intercede for Sodom, 18:22). ―The people of the land‖ may be a group of leading citizens
within the population, possibly roughly akin to the elders, though more probably it means
the free citizens of the country, in contrast to foreign immigrants like Abraham (cf. de
Vaux, Ancient Israel , 70–72). Perhaps the term is introduced here to emphasize that the
Hittites own the land and that Ab raham is concerned to buy some land from them.
8–9 Abraham‘s second request begins with making specific what the Hittites have already
in principle conceded. They had said, ―none of us would withhold his grave,‖ so Abraham
asks for Ephron‘s cave.
8 ―If it is your will‖; cf. the similar construction in 2 Kgs 9:15. ―Listen to me‖ seems to
be Abraham‘s attempt to reproduce the Hittites‘ unusual phrase ―Do listen to us‖ (v 6). In v
13, Abraham uses it again, but still not quite in the form t hey use. Rabin sees this as
Abraham trying to speak the local idiom ( JSS 13 [1968] 116). ―Persuade‖ ( [
) is used for someone pleading on someone else‘s behalf (Jer 7:16; 27:18). ―Ephron‖
and ―Sohar‖ are good Semitic names ( cf. Josh 15:9; Gen 46:10).
9 ―Macpelah‖ seems to be the name of the area in which the cave was located (cf. v 17),

but from the LXX to KB many hold that it describes the cave, as a double cave from the root

to ―fold‖ or ―double.‖ Long tradition, going back to Josephus in the first century,
identifies the site of Mac pelah with the area now covered by the large mosque Haram
El-Khalil in the town of Hebron. As remains of Herodian masonry are visible in the
mosque, this corroborates Josephus‘ comments that the tomb of the patriarchs was located
there in his time.
―Which is at the edge of his property.‖ Abraham points out that only a small piece of
Ephron‘s property need be transferred to him.
―For the full price‖ (cf. 1 Chr 21:22, 24 and the Akk. kasap gamirtu ). ―For a burial
plot.‖ By using this phras e (cf. v 4) and mentioning payment, Abraham insists that he is not
merely interested in the right to bury his dead, a point already conceded by the Hittites, but
in owning the land, something they had conspicuously omitted to consent to when they
replied to his opening remarks.
10–11 Ephron‘s response is almost as warm as the remarks made earlier by his
colleagues, the Hittites (v 6). Three times he offers to ―give‖ to Abraham the cave and the
land. At least he makes no mention of paymen t. This may simply be a matter of oriental
courtesy —offering to give when really he is proposing a sale. Or he may simply be
reiterating the former offer that Abraham can use his grave but implying that he does not
intend to sell the land in perpetuity. La nd merely ―given‖ is land on loan. A gift, as opposed
to a sale, places the recipient under obligation to the donor. So if Abraham accepted the
cave and land as a free gift from Ephron, he could find himself indebted to him in other
ways. Ephron‘s remarks are ambiguous: it is not clear whether he is ready to sell or merely
to ―give‖ the land to Abraham. However, the narrative does emphasize the public nature of
his response: ―Ephron … answered Abraham out loud before the Hittites before all those
entering t he gateway of the city.‖ According to Reviv ( IEJ 27 [1977] 190 –91), ―those
entering the gateway of the city‖ is a technical term (Akk. amiluÆ sûa baµbi ) for the elders
of the city, who conducted legal affairs in the city gate. And Ephron himself draws
attention to the public character of his offer, ―Before all my people I give it to you.‖
12–13 Again expressing his gratitude and politeness, Abraham bows to ―the people of
the land‖ (cf. v 7). He too is aware of the importance of any agreement being public and
attested by witnesses, so he too ―spoke to Ephron out loud before the people of the land.‖
Whether or not Ephron‘s offer to give the land was an offer to sell, this is how Abraham
takes it. In a rather confused sentence, ―But if you … , do listen to me,‖ apparently
combining his usual opening formula with the Hittite formula (see n. 13.a -a.), Abraham
insists on paying for the field, which Ephron had offered to give with the cave.
14–15 At last forced to commit himself, Ephron names a price for the field: ―four
hundred shekels.‖ But as if ashamed to stoop so low as to mention a price, he minimizes its
significance: ―What is that betwe en me and you? Bury your dead.‖ This is as if to say ―We
are both so rich that we need not worry about the price; you just go ahead and bury Sarah.‖
Probably this is another example of oriental courtesy, rather than seriously meant. ―The
bargain which is h ere made between Ephron and Abraham, is to this very day repeated in
that country. In Damascus, when a purchaser makes a lower offer than can be accepted, he
is answered: What, is it a matter of money between us? Take it for nothing, friend, as a
present f rom me; don‘t feel under any kind of constraint! Dieterici had a similar experience
in Hebron: ‗In our excursions we had noticed a fine grey horse belonging to the Quarantine

inspector. Mr Blaine, my fellow -traveller, had appeared to wish to buy the animal . It now
made its appearance at our tents. We inquired the price, and our astonishment may be
conceived, when the dirty Turk offered us the animal as a present. Mr Blaine declared that
he by no means intended to take it as a present, when the Turk replied: What then are five
purses (£325 sterling) to thee?‘ Similar experiences take place every day in Egypt‖
(Delitzsch, 2:99 –100).
16 Certainly Abraham takes it as Ephron‘s price and without quibble or demurral pays
the full asking price of ―four hundred sheke ls.‖ We know too little about the price of land in
Israel to make a guess about the amount of land involved. (For other land purchases, cf. 2
Sam 24:24; Jer 32:9; 1 Kgs 16:24.) So it seems likely that Ephron‘s field was substantial,
unless he greatly overcharged Abraham. However, his opening ―Sir, listen to me‖ may well
protest his sincerity, that he was asking a reasonable price.
Fair or not, Abraham agreed to the price asked. ―He makes no attempt to beat down the
price. The reporter is aware that it is so important for Abraham to gain unimpeachable
possession of the burial place that he will pay any amount for it‖ (Westermann, 2:375).
Again the repeated insistence about the public nature of the transaction is to be noted: the
price was ―publicly stated before the Hittites,‖ and the whole transaction was ―witnessed by
the Hittites and all those who entered the gate of his city‖ (v 18).
17–20 In precise detail, the deal between Abraham and the Hittites is recorded. Note
how the exact locat ion of the land ―east of Mamre,‖ the property associated with it, ―the
cave … and all the trees,‖ the names of the seller, ―Ephron,‖ and the purchaser, ―Abraham,‖
and the witnesses are all mentioned.
With the purchase completed, ―Abraham buried his wife … in the land of Canaan.‖ She
died and was buried in the land of promise in ―a burial plot‖ that was to be the resting place
also of her husband, son, and grandson and their wives.
Explanation
After Eve, Sarah is the first woman of importance to tread the st age of Genesis. From
Cain to Babel, the primeval history preserves an almost exclusively male orientation;
women are rarely mentioned except as adjuncts to their husbands. But with Sarah we meet
a woman of heroic proportions, worthy grandmother of the nati on of Israel. Her life was far
from easy. She suffered the shame of childlessness till she was ninety. Twice she was
trapped in a foreign king‘s harem by her husband‘s unbelieving folly. Twice she was
provoked beyond the breaking point by her slave -girl Ha gar or her son Ishmael. Once she
had seen her own son leave to be sacrificed by his father. From the way her husband treated
her sometimes, one might wonder whether he really cared about his wife at all. Was he not
most interested in preserving his own ski n, and sometimes in serving God? The stories of
the expulsion of Ishmael and the sacrifice of Isaac highlighted Abraham‘s deep affection
for his sons. So this story makes plain Abraham‘s sincere love for Sarah and the honor he
bestowed on her.
Abraham mour ned for his wife in the conventional way, but he went much further. With
great skill and determination, he purchased a large and expensive piece of land in which to
bury Sarah. The business negotiations with the Hittites dominate this chapter to such an
extent that it is easy to lose sight of Abraham‘s motives, his determination that his wife
must be buried in an inalienable family grave where she may enjoy undisturbed peace.
The negotiations proceed in three stages. First, he asks the native inhabitants of Hebron,

the Hittites, whether they as a body will allow him, a mere foreigner, to have a burial plot
for his wife. With a great show of sympathy and open -heartedness, they invite him to use
whichever of their graves he fancies to bury his wife. However, t hey did not actually offer
to sell him land for a grave plot.
But deliberately overlooking this small point, Abraham takes up their willingness to
allow him the use of their graves and asks if Ephron would sell him the cave of Macpelah,
so he can use it fo r a burial ground. Ephron responds with apparent warmth to this
suggestion, offering to give Abraham not just the cave but the surrounding land. Maybe this
was more than Abraham wanted, but in one sense it was less. For land merely given, as
opposed to bou ght, might be taken back or impose on the recipient other unwanted
obligations.
So Abraham astutely takes the offer to give as an offer to sell, which may well have
been Ephron‘s intention anyway, and he insists that he name his price. At last Ephron does,
and the heavy price of four hundred shekels is paid. Even if Ephron did overcharge
Abraham, the price paid suggests Sarah‘s burial ground was quite extensive. As befits the
mother of the nation, her grave was impressive, a worthy memorial to a great woman .
Furthermore, it was in a place associated with some of her happiest memories. It was at
Mamre that the LORD had promised her that she would give birth to a child within the year
(18:1 –15). Indeed, most of the great promises of land, descendants, and cove nant blessing
seem to be associated with their years in Mamre, according to 13:14 –18:15. And in a sense
the purchase of the plot of land at Macpelah was a first step toward Abraham and his
descendants‘ acquisition of the whole land of Canaan. For this reas on, Genesis draws
attention twice to the rather obvious point that Hebron is in the land of Canaan (23:2, 19)
and repeatedly insists that the negotiations and payment for the land were conducted
publicly before the elders of the city (vv 10, 13, 16, 18). T here was no doubt that this part
of Canaan justly belonged to Abraham and his heirs.
This story of the purchase of the cave of Macpelah well illustrates Clines‘ contention
that the theme of the Pentateuch is the partial fulfillment of the promises to the p atriarchs
(The Theme of the Pentateuch ). Here Abraham acquires a very small part of Canaan, but
that reminds us how much was still to become his. And most probably it was faith in the
eventual fulfillment of this promise as well as a sense of family solida rity that led to
Abraham himself and his son Isaac and his daughter -in-law, as well as his grandson Jacob
and his first wife Leah, being buried in the same grave (49:29 –32).
Their attitude, declares Heb 11:13 –16, is an example to all believers who should l ook
forward to the eventual fulfillment of God‘s promises. ―These all died in faith, not having
received what was promised, but having seen it and greeted it from afar, and having
acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth [cf. Gen 23:4]. For people
who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland . … They desire a better
country, that is, a heavenly one.‖
The Betrothal of Rebekah (24:1 –67)

Bibliography
Aitken, K. T. ―The Wooing of Rebekah: A Study in the Development of the Tradition.‖ JSOT 30
(1984) 3 –23. Allen, C. G. ―‗On Me Be the Curse, My Son.‘‖ In Encounter with the Text: Form and
History in the Hebrew Bible, ed. M. J. Buss. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. 159 –72. Anbar, M. ―Les
bijoux compris dans la dot du fiancé à Mari et dans les cadeaux de mariage dans Gen 24.‖ UF 6
(1974) 442 –44. Ben–Reuven, S. ―>elem and >alma in the Bible.‖ (Heb.) BMik 28 (1982/83)
320–21. Diebner, B., and Schult, H. ―Alter und geschichtlicher Hintergrund von Gen 24.‖ DBAT 10
(1975) 10 –17.Driver, G. R. ―Problems of Interpretation in th e Heptateuch: 1. Isaac‘s Meditation
(Gen 24:63).‖ In Mélanges bibliques rédigés: FS A. Robert. Paris: Bloud and Gay, 1957. 66 –76.
Freedman, D. ―A New Approach to the Nuzi Sistership Contract.‖ JANESCU 2 (1970) 77 –85.
Freedman, R. D. ―‗Put Your Hand under My Thigh‘: The Patriarchal Oath.‖ BAR 2.2 (1976) 3 –4.
Gordis, R. ―A N ote on Gen 24:21.‖ In The Word and the Book. New York: Ktav, 1976. 335 –36.
López, F. G. ―Del ‗Yahwista‘ al ‗Deuteronomista‘: Estudio critico de Gen 24.‖ RB 87 (1980)
242–73, 350 –93, 514 –59. Malul, M. ―More on pahad yisihiaq (Gen 31: 42, 5 3) and the Oath by the
Thigh.‖ VT 35 (1985) 192 –200. Meier, S. A. The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World . HSM 45.
Atlanta: Scholars, 1988. Rabinowitz, L. I. ―The Study of a Midrash.‖ JQR 58 (1967) 143 –61. Rofé,
A. ―The Betrothal of Rebekah (Gen 24).‖ (Heb.) Eshel Beer -Sheva 1 (1976) 42 –67. ——— . ―La
composizione de Gen 24.‖ BeO 23 (1981) 161 –65. ——— . ―An Enquiry into the Betrothal of
Rebekah.‖ In Die hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: FS R. Rendtorff, ed. E.
Blum, C. Macholz, and E. W. Stegemann. Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1990. 27 –39. Roth, W. M.
W. ―The W ooing of Rebekah: A Tradition –Critical Study of Gen 24.‖ CBQ 34 (1972) 177 –87.
Savran, G. ―The Character as Narrator in Biblical Narrative.‖ Prooftexts 5 (1985) 1 –17.
Wernberg -Möller, P. ―A Note on  
in Gen 24:63.‖ VT 7 (1957) 414 –16.
Translation
1aAbraham was old and a good age, and the LORD hadb blessed him in every way.a 2
Abraham said to his slave, the most seniora in his hou sehold, who was in charge of all
his affairs, ―Pleaseb putc your hand under my thigh, 3a so that I can make you take an
oatha by the LORD, the Godb of heaven and earth, that you will not marry my son to one
of the Canaanite girls among whom I live. 4 Buta you must go to my country, to my clan,
and take a wife for my son Isaac.‖
5The servant replied: ―Suppose the woman is not willing to go with me to this land,
a shall I really takea your son back to the land which you came from?‖ 6Abraham
replied, ―Take carea thatb you do not take my son back there. 7The LORD, the God of
heavena who took me from my father‘s house and from the land of my clan, and
promised me with an oath, ‗To your descendants I shall give this land,‘ it is heb who
will send his angel before you, and you shall take a wife for my son from there. 8 But if
the woman is not willing to go with you, then you shall be freea from thisb oath of mine:
onlyc do not taked my son back there.‖ 9 So the servant put his hand under the thigh of
his master Abraham, and he tooka an oath with him about this matter.
10 Then the servant took ten of his master‘s camels and wenta with allb sorts of his
master‘s wealth. He set off and went to Aram -Naharaim to the city of Nahor. 11 He
made the camels kneela outside the city byb a well of water at evening time when women
go out to drawc water.
12 Then he said, ―O LORD, God of Abraham my master, please guidea me today and

keep faith with my master Abraham. 13 I am nowa standingb by a well, and daughters of
the townsmen are coming out to draw water. 14 Let the girla to whom I say ‗please letb
down your jar forc me to drink‘ who replies, ‗Drink and let me also give your camels
water,‘ let herd be the one you have appointede for your servant Isaac. By thisf I shall
know that you have kept faith with my master.‖
15 Beforea he had finished speaking,b he noticedc Rebekah comingd out—the
daughter of Bethuel, who was the son of Milcah, the wife of Abraham‘s brother
Nahor —with her water pot on her shoulder. 16a The girl was very good looking, of
marriageable age, and a virgin.a She came downb to the well, filled her water pot, and
she camec up. 17The servant rana to greetb her and said, ―Please givec me a sip of water
from your jar.‖ 18 She said, ―Drink, sir,‖ and she quicklya letb down her jar into her
hand and let him drink.c 19 When she had finisheda letting him drink,b she said, ―Let me
also draw water for your camels untilc they have had enough to drink.‖ 20So she quickly
emptieda her jar into the drinking trough and ran back to the well, and she drew water
for all his camels. 21a The man staredb at her silently wonderingc ifd the LORD had made
his journey successful ord not.a
22 When the camels had finished drinking, the man puta a gold nose ring of half a
shekel in weightb and two go ld bracelets each weighing ten shekels on her wrists. 23a He
said, ―Please tellb me, whose daughter are you? Is there room inc your father‘s house
for us to stay?‖d 24 She replied, ―I am Bethuel‘s daughter: he is the son of Milcah and
Nahor.‖ 25 She continued, ―There is botha straw anda plenty of fodder with us, and there
is alsoa room to stay with us.‖ 26 The man boweda down and prostratedb himself before
the LORD. 27 He said, ― Blessed is the LORD, the God of my master Abraham, who has
not forsaken his faithful loving -kindness toward my master. It was Ia that the LORD ledb
on the way toc the house of my master‘s brothers.‖d 28 The girl ran and tolda her
mother‘sb household about these things.
29 Now Rebekah had a brother called Laban, a so he ran out to the man by the well.a
30 As soona as he b saw the ring and the bracelets on his sister‘s wrists and heard his
sister‘s report, ―The man said this to me,‖ he came to the man, and therec hed was
standing by the camels at the well. 31 He said,a ―Come in, blessedb by the LORD. Why do
you stay standingc outside, when I have tidiedd the house, and there is room for your
camels.‖ 32So a the man camea into the house. Theyb unharnessed the camels, gave them
straw and fodder, and water to wash his feet and those of the men with him.
33Food was puta before him, but he said, ― I shall not eat until I have saidb my
piece.‖ So hec said, ―Speak on.‖ 34He said, ―I am Abraham‘ s servant. 35The LORD has
blessed my master tremendously, and he has become a great man. He has given him
flocks and herds, silver and gold, slaves and slave -girls, camels and donkeys. 36And
Sarah, my master‘s wife, bore a son for my master aafter she had become old,a and he
has given him all he has . 37My master madea me take an oath, ‗Do not marry my son to
any of the Canaanite girls in whose land I live. 38But ayou must go to my father‘s house,
to my clan, and take a wife for my son.‘ 39And I said to my master, ‗Suppose the woman
will not come with me.‘ 40He said to me, ‗The LORD before whom I have walked will
send his angel with you and will make your journey successful, and you must take a
wife for my son from my clan and my father‘s house. 41Then you will be dischargeda
from my oath. Ifb you go to my clan, and ifb they will not give herc to you, you will be
clear from my oath.‘ 42So I came here today to the well and I said, ‗ LORD, God of my

master Abraham, if you are reallya making a success of my journey which I a m
undertaking, 43I am now standing by a well, let the maiden who comes out to draw
water to whom I say, ―Please give me a little water to drinka from your pot‖ 44who
replies, ―Youa drink and let me draw for your camels as well,‖ let her be the woman
whom the LORD has appointed for my master‘s son.‘ 45Beforea I had evenb finished
praying,c I noticed Rebekah coming out with her water pot on her shoulder, and she
went down to the spring and drew water. So I said to her, ‗Please give me a drink.‘d
46Then she quickly put down the water pot she was carrying and said, ‗Drink and let me
also give your camels a drink.‘ So I drank,a and she also watered the camels. 47Then I
asked her and said, ‗Whose daughter are you?‘ She replied, ‗The daughter of Bethuel,
the son of Nahor and Milcah.‘ Then I puta a ring in her nose and bracelets on her
wrists. 48I bowed downa and worshiped the LORD and blessed the LORD, the God of my
master Abraham, who had guidedb me reliably on the way to take the daughter of my
master‘s relative for his son. 49Nowa then if you are goingb to treat my master with
kindness and loyalty, tell me; and if you are not, tell me, so that I may look elsewhere.‖c
50Then Laban and Bethuela replied,b ―This thing comes from the LORD. cWe cannot
contradict anything you say.c 51Here is Rebekah; take hera and go thatb she may marry
your master‘s son, as the LORD has promised.‖ 52When Abraham‘s servant heard their
words, he fell downa and worshiped the LORD. 53Then the servant brought outa objects
of silver and gold and garments and gave them to Rebekah. bAt the same time he gave
beautiful presentsb to her brother and mother.
54Then he and the men with him ate and drank and stayed the night. In the morning
they rose, and he said, ―Senda meb to my master.‖ 55But her brother and mother said,a
―Let the g irlb stay with us a yearc or so.d Afterwards she may go.‖ 56But he replied to
them, ―Do not delaya me, b since the LORD has made my journey successful.b Let me go
so thatc I may return to my ma ster.‖ 57So they said, ―Let us calla the girlb toc ask her
opinion.‖ 58They called Rebekah and said to her, ―Willa you go with this man?‖ and
she replied, ―I willab go.‖
59 So they sent off Rebekah their sister and her nurse and Abraham‘s servant and
his men. 60They blessed Rebekaha and said to her,
―May you, our sist er, becomeb thousands of ten thousands;
May your descendants possess the gate of their enemies.‖
61Rebekah and her girls rosea and mounted the camels and followed the man. The
servant took Rebekah and went.b
62Isaac a returned from visitinga Beer -Laha -roi, for b he was living in the Negeb.b 63
Towarda evening he went into the country to meditate,b looked up and noticedc camels
coming. 64Rebekah looked up and saw Isaac, so she jumped down from hera camel.
65She said to the servant, ―Who is thata man there walking in the country toward us?‖
The servant said, ―That is my master‖; so she took herb veil and coveredc herself.
66The servant relateda to Isaac all the things that he had done. 67So Isaac broughta her into
the tent of b Sarah his mother,b took and married her, and he lovedc her. So Isaac was
consoledd after e his mother‘s death.e
Notes
1.a-a. Episode -initial circumstantial clauses ( SBH, 80, 101).

1.b. On the pluperfect ―had blessed,‖ see GKC, 142b.
2.a. Constr sg of 
―old.‖ Here, as often, the ordinary form of the adjective, e.g., ―old,‖ is used for the
superlative ―oldest.‖
2.b. The enclitic 
makes a request more courteous ( GKC, 110d).
2.c. 2 masc. sg impv 3.a-a. Simple waw (―so that‖; cf. Lambdin, 119) + 1 sg impf. hiph
[
+ 2 masc. sg suffix.
3.b. Note the repetition of the noun in the constr ―God of‖ ( GKC, 128a; Joüon, 129b).
4.a. SamPent has 
, but 
may be adversative ( SBH, 184).
5.a-a.  
. Interrogative 
+ inf abs hiph 
+ 1 sg impf. hiph 
. Inf abs here strengthens the question ( GKC, 113q).
6.a. 2 masc. sg impv niph 
. On the shortening of final vowel e ÷>e, see GKC, 51n; Lambdin, 208.
6.b. On use of 
, see GKC, 152w.
7.a. G adds ―and the God of earth.‖
7.b. 
, the resumptive pronoun, probably gives a slight emphasis or contrast (EWAS, 99; GKC,
135c).
8.a. Waw consec + 2 masc. sg pf niph 
. On pointing , see GKC, 75x.

8.b. 
without def art is normal after suffixed noun, ―my oath‖ ( GKC, 126y; WOC, 310).
8.c. On this use of 
, cf. EWAS, 131; SBH, 171, 177.
8.d. 2 masc. sg juss hiph 
. SamPent has impf. 
. The impf. would be more usual. The MT (juss) may be defective spelling of impf. (so
Joüon, 114l) or for rhythm ( GKC, 109d).
9.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. niph [10.a. Omitted by G.
10.b. 
may mean ―all kinds of‖ ( GKC, 127b); cf. 2:9; 4:22.
11.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. hiph  11.b. SamPent has [
for MT 11.c. Def art + fem. pl. act qal ptcp  12.a. 2 masc. sg impv hiph  13.a.
The function of 
is problematic. SBH, 115, sees it governing both clauses, ―I am standing … daughters
… are coming‖; EWAS, 139, as emphasizing the subj of the sentence. Most probably it
reports the events through the eyes of the servant and draws attention to the vivid present
reality of them (cf. Lambdin, 169).
13.b. Masc sg ptcp niph 14.a. 
―girl‖ is usually spelled without the final 
in the MT Pentateuch. This is one of the perpetual qeres, perhaps reflecting older
orthographic practice ( GKC, 17c). Regularized by SamPent (Waltke, 214).
14.b. 2 fem. sg impv hiph 14.c. ―so that I may drink‖; simple waw + impf. expresses
purpose (Lambdin, 119).
14.d. The preverbal position of 
makes it emphatic (EWAS, 152).
14.e. 2 masc. sg pf hiph 14.f. 
; 3 fem. sg suffix ―it‖ refers to the verbal idea in preceding clause ( GKC, 135p; WOC, 110,
305).
15.a. 

is usually followed by impf. (cf. v 45, not pf as here; hence BHS proposed emendation
 15.b. SamPent, G, Vg assimilate to v 45 by adding ―to his heart.‖
15.c. 
gives servant‘s perspective ( SBH, 95).
15.d. Fem sg ptcp 16.a-a. Circumstantial cl auses, a parenthesis within the main
action (Joüon, 159f; Lambdin, 164; cf. SBH, 117).
16.b. Waw consec + 3 fem. sg impf. 16.c. Waw consec + 3 fem. sg impf. qal (in pause)
[
. Alternatively it could be hiph, ―she brought (it) up.‖
17.a. Cf. n. 18:2.b.*
17.b. Cf. n. 18:2.c.*
17.c. 2 fem. sg impv hiph 
+ 1 sg suffix.
18.a. Lit. ―she hurried and.‖ Heb. often uses two verbs where English prefers a verb +
adverb ( GKC, 120d; Lambdin, 238–39).
18.b. Waw consec + 3 fem. sg impf. hiph 18.c. Waw consec + 3 fem. sg impf. hiph

+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
19.a. Waw consec + 3 fem. sg impf. piel (apoc) 
; on construction, see GKC, 164b.
19.b. 
+ inf constr hiph 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
19.c. On construction, see GKC, 106o; Joüon, 112i.
20.a. Waw consec + 3 fem. sg impf. (apoc) piel [
. SamPent reads 
―she let down‖ as in v 18.
21.a-a. Episode -circumstantial clause ( SBH, 81).

21.b. Masc sg constr hithp ptcp 
probably alternative to 
. On use of hithp here, see WOC, 428. On use of constr before 
, see GKC, 130a.
21.c. Mas c sg hiph ptcp  21.d. Interrogative 
in disjunctive question may be followed by 
(GKC, 150i; SBH, 148).
22.a. Lit. ―took.‖
22.b. SamPent adds ―and put (it) on her nose‖; cf. v 47.
23.a. G adds ―And he asked her‖; cf. v 47.
23.b. 2 fem. sg impv hiph 23.c. 
―in‖ is often omitted before 
(GKC, 118g).
23.d. Inf constr is usually 
. Joüon (81b) suggests this form is chosen here to avoid the sequence of vowels a-u
twice.
25.a. On the repeated intensive use of 
, see GKC, 154a1; Joüon, 177q; SBH, 155.
26.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. qal  26.b. Cf. n. 18:2.d.*
27.a. The pleonastic pronoun ―I‖ is emphatic ( GKC, 135e; EWAS, 97).
27.b. 3 masc. sg pf 
+ 1 sg suffix.
27.c. Acc of direction ( GKC, 118f).
27.d. BHS prefers the sg }
―brother of ‖ to MT ―brothers of.‖ So G, S, Vg.
28.a. Waw consec + 3 fem. sg impf. hiph 28.b. S reads ―father‘s.‖
29.a-a. BHS, with many commentators, transposes this to after 30a.But this has no
support in SamPent or versions.

30.a. 
+ inf constr 
indicates simultaneity (Joüon, 166m).
30.b. SamPent adds 3 masc. sg suffix 30.c. 
shows the scene through Laban‘s eyes ( SBH, 94–95).
30.d. The subj often omitted after 
(GKC, 116s; Joüon, 146h, 154c).
31.a. G, S, Vg add ―to him.‖
31.b. Constr pass ptcp qal 
(cf. GKC, 116l; Joüon, 121p).
31.c. Impf. here for continuing action in the present ( GKC, 107f; Joüon, 113d).
31.d. 1 sg pf piel 32.a-a. Vg ― he brought him in‖ seems to take 
as hiph.
32.b. Lit. ―he unharnessed,‖ indefinite 3 masc. sg cf. WOC, 71.
33.a. Probably read with Qere, SamPent 
: waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. hoph (or qal passive; cf. GKC, 73f; WOC, 1375, n. 32)
33.b. Here pf has future pf meaning, ―I shall have said‖ (Joüon, 112i).
33.c. SamPent, G, S have pl. ―they said.‖ Probab ly another indef 3 sg cf. n. 32.b.
36.a-a. Lit. ―After her old age‖ 
+ 3 fem. sg suffix, ―her.‖ SamPent, G read ―his‖; cf. 21:7.
37.a. Cf. n. 3.a -a.*
38.a. 
a strong antithesis ( SBH, 184; P. A. H. de Boer, VT 16 [1966] 289) or introduces the
contents of an oath ( GKC, 149c). SamPent 
and G ajllj support the former view.
41.a. 2 masc. sg impf. niph 41.b. 
introduces major condition; 
subclause ( GKC, 159bb).

41.c. Pronominal object, e.g., ―her,‖ often omitted after 
(GKC, 117f).
42.a. 
+ suffix + ptcp is rare in OT. They ―indicate that a state of affairs or behaviour … is
actually as one wants or expects it to be . … used when one wants to ascertain and confirm
what one is half sure about‖ (EWAS, 77–78, 81; cf. v 49). The addition of enclitic 
makes the prayer ―more humble‖ ( GKC, 159v).
43.a. 2 fem. sg impv hiph 
+ 1 sg suffix.
44.a. On use of 
to link clauses, see SBH, 159, 160; GKC, 154a1, 162b.
45.a. 
is normally followed by impf..
45.b. The pronoun ―I‖ 
before 
conveys the servant‘s excitement at h is experience, according to EWAS, 50.
45.c. Lit. ―speaking to my heart.‖
45.d. SamPent, S add ―a little water from your pot.‖ Typical assimilation to the parallel
v 17 ( Waltke, 222).
46.a. Waw consec + 1 sg impf. (apoc)  47.a. Waw consec + 1 sg impf. 48.a. Cf. n.
26.a.*
48.b. 3 masc. sg pf hiph 
+ 1 sg suffix.
49.a. 
introduces the request to which previous remarks are a preamble (H. A. Brongers, VT
15 [1965] 293 –94).
49.b. Cf. n. 24:42.a.*
49.c. Lit. ―on [[
] right or on left.‖ SamPent has 

for [
, but the MT represents the usual idiom.
50.a. Because Bethuel is inactive elsewhere in the story, some commentators and BHS
suggest it is a mistake for 
―and his household‖; others that it is an interpolation. However, there is no textual
support for supposing the mention of him here to be an error. See Comment .
50.b. Sg verb, ―he replied,‖ with mult iple subj, ―Laban and Bethuel,‖ quite frequent
(GKC, 146f).
50.c-c. The sentence in apposition to the preceding is linked by a n unspoken ―therefore‖
(SBH, 58).
51.a. Note ―her‖ omitted, as in v 41; cf. n. 41.c.
51.b. Sequence impv + impf. (juss) may have final s ense (cf. GKC, 109f; Joüon, 116d).
52.a. Lit. ―to the ground.‖
53.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. hiph 53.b-b. Note chiasmus with previous
clauses, ―he brought out [A] objects of silver [B] etc., beautiful presents [B] he gave [A],‖
suggesting unity of actions described ( SBH, 128).
54.a. 2 masc. pl. impv piel 
+ 1 sg suffix.
54.b. G, Vg add ―that I may go,‖ assimilating to v 56.
55.a. Sg verb, ―he said,‖ with composite subj, ―her brother and her mother‖; cf. n. 50.b.
SamPent has pl. verb, typical correction ( Waltke, 218).
55.b. Cf. n. 14.a.*
55.c. 
may mean ―a few days‖ ( GKC, 139h).
55.d. Lit. ―ten days.‖ SamPent has 
―a month‖ and presumably understands 
to be ―a year‖; cf. WOC, 654.
56.a. 2 masc. pl. impf. piel  56.b-b. Circumstantial clause explaining his reason for
not staying ( GKC, 142d; Joüon, 159e, 170e; SBH, 85, 90; WOC, 651).
56.c. Simple waw in sequence impv + coh = ―so that, in order that‖ ( GKC, 108d; Joüon,
116b).

57.a. 
is syntactically coh though formally 1 pl. impf. (SBH, 111; Joüon, 114b, n.).
57.b. Cf. n. 14.a.*
57.c. 
is simple waw + coh (SamPent has impf. 
). The sequence coh + coh may not always have final sense, so we could translate ―let us
call … and let us ask‖ Joüon, 143d; SBH, 111; Lambdin, 119).
58.a. The impf. may have nuance of volition as here, ―Do you want to go … I want to
go‖ (Joüon, 113n; WOC, 509).
58.b. Affirmative replies are made by repeating key phrase of question ( GKC, 150n).
60.a. G, S add ―their sister.‖
60.b. 2 fem. sg impv 61.a. On sg verb with composite subject, see GKC, 146g,h.
61.b. Pausal form of  62.a-a. lit. ―came from coming.‖ SamPent 
―in the wilderness‖; cf. G. The oddity of the expression has prompted various attempts
at conjectural emendation (see Skinner, 347), but none seems obviously corr ect.
62.b-b. Episode -initial circumstantial clause marking change of scene ( SBH, 79).
63.a. 
+ inf constr 
―to him.‖ For this idiom, see Deut 23:12(11); cf. Exod 14:27; Judg 19:26; WOC, 607–8.
63.b. 
+ inf constr 63.c. 
indicates Isaac‘s perspective ( SBH, 95).
64.a. Def art for possessive pronoun (Joüon, 137f; WOC, 243).
65.a. 
a secondary form of 
―this‖ with strengthened demonstrative force ( GKC, 34f).
65.b. cf. n. 64.a.*
65.c. Waw consec + 3 fem. sg impf. hithp (apoc)  66.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf.

piel  67.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. hiph 
+ 3 fem. sg suffix.
67.b-b. BHS and many commentators suppose this is a gloss because it is unusual to
have a phrase in the gen after a noun with def art and the locale ending. With Ibn Ezra and
Jacob, it seems better to regard the phrase as elliptical, ―into the tent, the tent of Sarah his
mother‖; cf. 18:6. For other examples of def art used before gen, cf. Num 34:2; Josh 3:14.
67.c. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. 
+ 3 fe m. sg suffix.
67.d. cf. n. 6:6.a.*
67.e-e. lit. ―after his mother.‖ For an analogous use of arki = ―after the death of‖ in Akk.,
see CAD, A.2.279; AHW, 1469. BHS, Gunkel, Skinner, Westermann emend to ―after his
father‘s death.‖
Form/Structure/Setting
The exceptional fullness of this account, the longest of any in Genesis, has prompted some
commentators to see it as rather isolated (e.g., Coats). However, it contains so many links
with both the Abraham narratives that pr ecede it and the Jacob and Joseph stories that
follow it that it should not be dismissed as an erratic boulder within Genesis. The main
retrospective references are: v 1, cf. 18:11; 12:2; 22:17; vv 3, 37, cf. 12:6; 1 3:7; v 4, cf.
12:1; v 5, cf. 15:7; v 7, cf. 22:16; 12:7; 13:15; 15:18; 17:8; v 10, cf. 11:27 –29; 22:20; v 35,
cf. 12:2, 16; 13:2; v 36, cf. 21:1–7; 25:5; v 40, cf. 17:1; 13:17; v 60, cf. 22:17; v 62, cf.
16:14; v 67, cf. chap. 23. But it also looks forward. Rebekah and Laban are two of the most
prominent characters in the Jacob stories (chaps. 25 –32), and this scene at the well (vv
11–48) has close parallels with Jacob‘s encounter with Rachel, also at a well (29:2 –14).
Other lesser sim ilarities include v 1, 33, cf. 26:29; v 12, cf. 27:20. This episode also has
affinities with the story of Joseph, particularly its stress on God‘s providential overruling of
human affairs, but there are specific verb al links as well (v 2, cf. 41:38; 50:7; 47:29; v 9, cf.
47:31; v 28, cf. 39:17, 19; v 36, cf. 39:7–8; vv 42, 56, cf. 43:4; 39:2, 3, 23; v 49, cf. 47:29; v
65, cf. 38:14).
The servant‘s speeches serve as a prospective obituary for Abraham. His reflections on
Abraham‘s career underline that he has indeed been blessed by the LORD as he was
promised. But this episode also s hows that the promises will not die with Abraham: the
LORD has made full and perfect provision to ensure that Abraham‘s son will marry and
continue to live in the promised land of Canaan. Indeed, Rebekah‘s willingness to leave her
land and kindred shows th at she is, as it were, a female Abraham, who like him will be
blessed. Her name, like his, contains the consonants b and r, which begin the verb ―bless‖
(
brk), a key word of this chapter (vv 1, 27, 31, 35, 48, 60).
As already mentioned, this episode serves to introduce us to two of the most dominating
characters, Rebekah and Laban, in the whole book of Genesis. Reading the subsequent
accounts of their activity, it would be easy to conclude that what happened was larg ely the
result of human scheming, but this story shows that such an interpretation would be

misguided. It was God who led Abraham‘s servant to Rebekah and answered his prayers so
clearly that no one can doubt that her future career is also under divine con trol. The very
fullness with which this episode is related indicates just how important it was to the author
of Genesis.
The narrative falls into four scenes (so López, RB 87 [1980] 242 –73, 350 –93, 514 –59;
Aitken, JSOT 30 [1984] 3 –23):
1. Abraham and his servant in Canaan (1 –9)
2. Rebekah and the servant by the well (10 –28)
3. Negotiations at Rebekah‘s house (29 –61)
a. Servant‘s entry (29 –32)
b. Servant explains his missio n (33 –49)
c. Proposals accepted (50 –53)
d. Rebekah and servant leave (54 –61)
4. Isaac, Rebekah, and servant in Canaan (62 –67)
Coats makes the departure of Rebekah (vv 54 –61) a separate scene. But though a night
separates v 53 from 55, there is no change o f place or actors that justifies scenic division.
The absence of an explicit nominal subject in v 54b also suggests the narrator did not
regard this as the opening of a new scene.
Abraham‘s key command, ―Go and take (a wife for my son),‖ is eventually answ ered
by Laban and Bethuel‘s response to the servant, ―(Here is Rebekah) take her and go,‖ and
fulfilled in v 61, ―The servant took her and went,‖ and in v 67, ―Isaac … took and married
her.‖ As often in biblical narrative, there is roughly palistrophic org anization of the
material. Scenes 1 and 4 correspond in that both are set in Abraham‘s household in Canaan,
whereas 2 and 3 are both set in Aram -Naharaim with Rebekah‘s family. Indeed, the
servant‘s account of his meeting Rebekah by the well (vv 42 –48) mat ches the second scene
most closely. Furthermore, López has noted a certain palistrophic organization within some
of the scenes (see Comment below).
Opinion about the unity of this chapter has fluctuated. Early critical commentators
confidently assumed its unity and assigned it to J. However, on the basis of various
repetitions within the account (e.g., Laban twice goes out to the well, vv 29 –30) or
contradictions (in v 51 Rebekah‘s relatives agree to her going, but in vv 57 –58 she is asked
to decide), Gunkel, Skinner, and Procksch argued that two sources had been combined.
Gunkel supposed two different J sources had been amalgamated, whereas Procksch and
Skinner thought the sources were J and E.
However, subsequent commentato rs have once again tended to reaffirm the integrity of
the chapter and its assignment to J, at least in substance if not in its final shape. Because the
present account makes so many connections with other parts of Genesis (see above), Van
Seters and, more cautiously, Westermann have argued that it must come from a relatively
late stage in the composition of Genesis. Since Van Seters believes J was composed in the
sixth century, he can square the J features of the narrative with its other literary
relations hips without great difficulty. Rofé ( BeO 23 [1981] 161 –65) has argued on grounds
of style and content that it cannot have been composed before 500 B.C. He notes linguistic
features that are also found in post -exilic Hebrew, e.g., ―God of heaven and earth‖ (vv 3 –7),
―kneel‖ (v 11), ―empty‖ (v 20), religious beliefs about the efficacy of prayer and angels,
and the insistence on not marrying Canaanites (cf. Ezra and Nehemiah). Though t hese

points of similarity are undeniable, they hardly constitute proof that chap. 24 dates from so
late a date. It is just as easy to suppose that later Hebrew writers or reformers are using
ancient terminology and recalling old customs as to suppose that all these ideas were
invented in post -exilic times.
A very much more refined approach has been adopted by López ( RB 67 [1980] 242 –73,
350–93, 514 –59). He argues on the basis of vocabulary that Gen 24 is substantially an early
text. Its li nguistic affinities are closest to J or L (Eissfeldt‘s lay -source), so he would date it
between the ninth and seventh century. This basic text was then expanded in terminology
reminiscent of E or D, probably in the seventh century. Further, a few additions come from
the sixth -century deuteronomistic school, and finally, just a handful of additions come from
the post -exilic era. Like Rofé, López relies heavily on vocabulary items to determine
changes of authorship, and this is in principle questionable. A te xt‘s vocabulary is largely
determined by its genre and content, not by its authorship.
The approach of Aitken is the most sober. He points out that Gen 24 has an earlier
parallel in the Ugaritic tale of Keret, where Keret goes on a military expedition to a foreign
land to obtain a wife. And there are still closer analogies in Gen 29 (Jacob and Rachel) and
in Exod 2:16 –21 (Moses) of OT men meeting their future wives by a foreign well. As far as
the OT is concerned, this appe ars to be a classic situation, what Alter has called a type scene
(cf. the patriarchal wife in a foreign harem, Gen 12, 20, 26). Through the unique features of
each account, the character of the leading actors comes through clearly. Ait ken points out
that nearly every feature within the present narrative is required if the plot is to proceed
from the initial problem, Isaac‘s lack of a wife, to his eventual marriage. Very few points
appear to be redundant within the story. However, he det ects occasional references to wider
concerns in Genesis that do not seem germane to the present story, and he suggests that
these may reflect the work of the author or redactor bringing out the theological
significance of the story. ―vv 62 and 67b are part icularly inconsequential within the
narrative context. Aside from 1b, the remaining links occur together in a cluster in vv
33–36 in the context of retrospection‖ ( JSOT 30 [1984] 17). He sugg ests that an earlier
version of the story may have lacked these remarks and that they have been introduced to
link this story more closely with the surrounding narratives. He also suggests that we may
suspect the editor‘s hand has been at work in vv 34 –49, 50–51. These sections are
obviously integral to the narrative, but the way they are presented may indicate that the
author has slanted the presentation of certain points (e.g., the stress on God‘s blessing of
Abraham, or h is leaving his homeland) to make his perspective come across more clearly.
Aitken suggests that the story in its original form was a paradigm: it told of the willing
bride who left her parents‘ home to enjoy the blessings of marriage.
In its present form, some also describe it as an example story, but now exemplifying the
behavior of an ideal servant who faithfully carries out his master‘s instructions (Roth, CBQ
34 [1972] 177 –87; Coats). Others (Van Seters, Westermann) pref er to describe it as a
guidance narrative: it demonstrates how divine providence leads men to do his will. All
these understandings are valid up to a point, but in the present context of Genesis the
overarching purpose of including this story is theologica l. It reflects on how the divine
promises of blessing to Abraham have already been fulfilled and shows that even though he
is about to die, they will be yet further fulfilled in the future. A bride is secured for
Abraham‘s son, thus ensuring that his line of descendants will continue. And Rebekah‘s
willingness to leave land and family suggests that she too will enjoy the blessings that her

father -in-law experienced.
Comment
1–9 The first scene after an editorial introduction (v 1) consists almost entirely o f
dialogue between Abraham and his servant. First, Abraham asks his servant to swear that
he will find a suitable wife for Isaac from his homeland (vv 2 –4). The servant raises a
possible difficulty (v 5), and this prompts Abraham to insist once more that o nly a girl from
his own clan must marry Isaac; the LORD who led him out of Ur and promised him the land
will surely make this possible (vv 6 –8). So the servant swears (v 9).
This first scene contains the last recorded words of Abraham. So although 25:1 –11 may
indicate that Abraham lived a good few years after this, this scene is analogous to the
deathbed scenes of Jacob and Joseph (47:29 –31; 50:25). But there are interesting
differences. In the latter cases, the patriarch makes his sons swear; here, Abraham makes
his will known to his servant. The absence of Isaac is notable and suggests his passivity.
And whereas Jacob and Joseph‘s last words concern their burial in the land of promise,
Abraham is most worried about a wife for his son, for without offspring none of the
promises will be fulfilled. Abraham enters history through the divine promises (12:1 –3, 7);
he passes out of history with this promise on his lips.
1 ―Abraham was old and a good age.‖ This phrase typically prefaces the last deeds or
words of s ome great man (cf. Josh 13:1; 23:1; 1 Kgs 1:1), though it has already been said of
Abraham and Sarah in 18:11. ―The LORD had blessed him in every way.‖ Though Abraham
was often promised that he would be blessed, and Melchizedek greeted Abram as ―blessed‖
(14:19), and the narrative shows the blessing gradually being realized, this is the first time
that the narrator explicitly comments that he has been blessed. It anticipates the servant‘s
observation in v 35.
2 This servant, unlike Eliez er (15:2), is not named, for it is his relationship to Abraham
that is all important. Abraham‘s total confidence in him is underlined by the comment that
―he was in charge of all his affairs.‖ Compare Joseph‘s relationship to Potiphar (39:4, 6)
and the pha raoh (41:41; 42:6). Now he entrusts him with the most important and delicate
task in his career as Abraham‘s servant. The sacredness of this duty is underlined by the
oath he is invited to swear. Note the ―please‖ ( 
) that precedes the imperative ―swear. ‖ It is no ordinary request that Abraham is
making, so he couches it with some delicacy. By putting his hand under Abraham‘s thigh,
the servant was touching his genitals and thus giving the oath a special solemnity. In the
ancient Orient, solemn oaths coul d be taken holding some sacred object in one‘s hand, as it
is still customary to take an oath on the Bible before giving evidence in court. Since the OT
particularly associates God with life (see the symbolism of the sacrificial law) and
Abraham had been circumcised as a mark of the covenant, placing his hand under
Abraham‘s thigh made an intimate association with some fundamental religious ideas. An
oath by the seat of procreation is particularly apt in this instance, when it concerns the
finding of a wife for Isaac. Malul, while pointing to the appropriateness of an oath by the
genitals to ensure perpetuity of the family, more problematically suggests th at the ancestral
spirits were also being invoked to guarantee the oath is carried out ( VT 35 [1985] 192 –200).
3 The servant is asked to swear by ―the LORD, the God of heaven and earth,‖ i.e., by the
God of the cove nant and the creator. The terminology echoes the opening chapters of

Genesis, but the whole phrase is unique to this chapter. The closest parallel is 14:22, where
Abraham says, ―I solemnly swear to the LORD, to El -Elyon, creator of heaven and earth.‖
To ar gue, with Gunkel, Westermann, Rofé, and López, that the whole phrase ―God of
heaven and earth‖ must be late, because ―God of heaven‖ or ―God of earth‖ appears more
often in post -exilic literature, is unjustified. As already noted, this particular combined
phrase is unique but has its closest parallel in 14:22, an undoubtedly old text. It may also,
as Jacob suggests, reflect the custom of calling heaven and earth to witness legal acts such
as covenant -making (Deut 30:19; Isa 1:2), a tradition that long anted ates the OT (D. R.
Hillers, Treaty Curses and the OT Prophets [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964] 4).
The insistence on not marrying Canaanites is echoed repeatedly in the law (Exod 34:16;
Num 25; Deut 7:3). Here A braham enunciates the principle for the first time, and later Isaac
sends Jacob back to his father‘s house to find a wife (28:1 –2).
4 But Abraham is somewhat vaguer in his instruction. He simply sends the servant to
―my country, my clan.‖ This could, as St ernberg ( Poetics , 134) notes, be hendiadys for ―my
clan‘s country,‖ as in v 7. The clan is intermediate in size between ―the father‘s house‖ (the
extended family) and the tribe (see Comment on 12:1). Whereas Abraham was just looking
for a girl from the rig ht clan or homeland, in fact the servant did much better than asked in
finding a close relative, Isaac‘s cousin, as his wife.
5 However, the servant was not at all sure that he could achieve even Abraham‘s minimum
requirement. So he raises the most obvious difficulty: what if the girl refuses to leave her
homeland? Is it more important for Isaac to marry, or must she also be prepared to live in
this land?
6 ―Take care‖ ( 
) often refutes a shocking or unworthy idea (cf. 31:24, 29; Exod 34:12; Deut 4:9).
―Shocked Abraham rejects and forbids it. In no circumstances. God cannot be so
inconsistent. He would thereby endanger and be false to his whole plan of salvation to date‖
(Jacob, 515).
7 So he recalls his own experience in terms tha t echo 12:1. ―Go from your country, your
clan, and your father‘s house to the country that I shall show you,‖ and he quotes exactly
the first promise of the land in 12:7: ―To your descendants I shall give this land.‖ What is
more, the LORD had not simply p romised the land to Abraham and his descendants; he had
confirmed it with ―an oath‖ (22:16). This oath is partially quoted by Rebekah‘s family in
24:60.
As the LORD proved his care of Abraham and his family in the past by sending an angel
(16:7 –13; 19:1; 2 1:17; 22:11, 15), so Abraham is confident that the same will be proved
true again. ―He will send his angel before you‖ (cf. Exod 23:20; 32:34; 33:2). With these
emphatic declarations, Abraham declares his faith that the LORD will provid e.
8 However, he recognizes that his servant may not share his faith, and so he allows him
an escape clause if things do not work out as he hopes. ―If the woman is not willing to go
[note the key word  9 With this clarification of how he will be absolved from
responsibility if the chosen girl refuses to go, the servant swears the oath.
10–28 The second scene is set beside a well in Aram -Naharaim and involves just three
actors, Abraham‘s servant, Rebekah, and the LORD. Here God is not actually on stage, bu t
the servant prays to him at the beginning and the end of his meeting with Rebekah, and the
whole action and dialogue in vv 15 –25 are such a palpable answer to the servant‘s prayer
that we feel God is just behind the curtain pushing Rebekah on stage right on cue. The

scene may be analyzed as follows:

vv 10 –11
Servant journeys to well

vv 12 –14
Servant prays

vv 15 –25
Prayer answered

vv 15 –16
Rebekah appears: description of her and her actions

v 17
Servant asks for a drink

v 18
Rebekah agrees and gives drink

vv 19 –20
Rebekah offers to water camels and does

vv 21 –22
Servant‘s reaction: thoughts and deeds

v 23
Servant asks Rebekah about family and house

v 24
Rebekah identifies herself

v 25
Rebekah describes her house

vv 26 –27
Servant worships

v 28
Rebekah goes home

The scene is nicely balanced. Both remarks by the servant elicit a double reply from
Rebekah (vv 17 –19, 23 –25). The description of Rebekah‘s character and action
corresponds to the servant‘s thoughts and deeds (vv 15 –16, 21 –22), and the whole is
framed by the servant‘s prayers (vv 12 –1
10 This verse describes the servant‘s departure with various details whose relevance
only appears later in the story. In this era ―camels‖ wer e relatively rare, and to take ―ten‖
suggests Abraham‘s great wealth (cf. Comment on 12:16). It also makes us appreciate
Rebekah‘s magnanimity and energy in watering them (vv 19 –20). ―All sorts of his master‘s
wealth.‖ Betrothal was mar ked by presenting large gifts to the bride‘s family, so the servant
went prepared, as vv 22, 53 show.
―The servant took … and went‖ echoes the key command to ―go … and take‖ (v 4).
Abraham had instructed him to ―go to my country, my clan.‖ When last heard of, they were
living in Harran (11:31), which was within the region called ―Aram -Naharaim,‖ i.e., Aram
of the two rivers, roughly the area bounded by the Euphrates on the west and river Habur
on the east. The term ―Aram -Naharaim‖ is al so found in Deut 23:5(4); Ps 60:2(0); 1 Chr
19:6 and is apparently identical with NahËrima of the El -Amarna letters and Nhrn of
sixteenth – to twelfth -century Egyptian texts.
―The city of Nahor.‖ Though this could be circumlocution for Harran (Westermann,
Gispen), there was also the city called Nahor ( NahËur ) (first mentioned in the
twentieth -century Kanish texts and later in the Mari letters and neo -Assyrian texts) that was
near Harran ( EM 5:805 –9). Usage elsewhere in the OT (cf. Comment on 33:18) tends to favor
the former view.
11 The long journey from Canaan to the city of Nahor is barely described. The fatigue
of the riders and camels is merely alluded to: ―he made the camels kneel down‖ to give
them rest, but he does not bother to water the camels. It was customary for women,
particularly unmarried girls, to be responsible for drawing the water and herding the flocks
(cf. 29:10; Exod 2:16; 1 Sam 9:11) but, as the actions of J acob and Moses show in a similar
situation, quite in order for men to water the animals. But Abraham‘s servant is weary and
needs refreshment himself before he can water his beasts.
12 The servant‘s prayer is an appeal for God to ―keep faith with my master Abraham‖;
the closing clause thus makes an inclusion with the opening. Within the parameters of OT
theology, it is hard to imagine a more powerful basis for prayer, for 
―loving -kindness, faithfulness, mercy‖ is one of the most frequently cited attributes of
God (cf. Ps 136). The LORD keeps faith (shows steadfast love) to thousands of those who
love him (Exod 20:6; Deut 5:10). (On 
, see TDOT 5:44–64; THWAT 2:600 –621.) But most especially the LORD has
demonstrated his love for Abraham and made unconditional promises to benefit him
(18:18 –19; 22:16 –18). The servant asks that the LORD will ―guide‖ him, lit. ―make it
happe n in front of me.‖ The root 
―happen‖ occurs several times in the qal in the Joseph story (42:29; 44:29; cf. 42:4, 38)
but only here and 27:20 (Jacob‘s explanation of how he was able to prepare the m eal so
quickly) in the hiphil. The hiphil expresses God‘s providential overruling of all events.
13–14 Wanting the best for Isaac, the servant devises ―a shrewd character test. What

touchstone could be more appropriate than the reception of a wayfarer to d etermine a
woman‘s fitness to marry into the family of the paragon of hospitality? And it is a stiff test,
too, since it would require far more than common civility to volunteer to water ‗ten‘ thirsty
camels‖ (Sternberg, Poetics , 137).
The girl who passes this test is the one ―appointed‖ ( 
hiphil is used with this meaning only here and in v 44) for Isaac. And by this means God‘s
will is made known to the servant.
15 ―Before he had finished speaking.‖ cf. ―Before they call I will answer, while they are
yet speaking I will hear‖ (Isa 65:24) and the ancient prayer, which begins ―Almighty and
everlasting God, who art always more ready to hear than we to pray, and art wont to give
more than either we desire or d eserve.‖ ―He noticed Rebekah coming out, the daughter of
Bethuel.‖ Although the phraseology ―he noticed‖ ( 
) gives us the impression that we are seeing Rebekah through the servant‘s eyes, the
narrator lets us know much more about the girl than was appa rent to the servant: her name,
her family, and her marital status. Having already met her name in the genealogy in 22:23,
we suspect at once that Rebekah is the appointed bride. If she passes the test, that will
clinch the issue, but as yet the servant is totally in the dark.
16 The description of Rebekah‘s credentials as a potential bride becomes ever more
attractive. She is a ―girl‖ ( 
); almost any female under about forty would fit this category; ―very good -looking‖ (an
important consideration, espec ially for someone who would marry Sarah‘s son); of
―marriageable age‖ (the term 
denotes a girl‘s age range, approximately a teenager, rather than her virginity; see G. J.
Wenham, ―Betulah,‖ VT 22 [1972] 326 –48; ISBE 4:989 –90). Her virgin status is affirmed by
the next remark, lit. ―whom no man had known.‖ It may well be that her virgin status was
obvious from her dress, but it could be that the reader is again being vouchsafed
information that was not so immediately obvious to the servant (cf. v 15). ―She came down
to the well … and she came up‖ seems to imply there were quite a few steps down to the
spring and underlines the magnitude of the task of watering the camels.
17–20 The differences between the servant‘s prayer and Rebekah‘s actions need close
observation.
17 Note the eagerness of the servant running to ask Rebekah for a dr ink: he hopes she is
the answer to his prayer. Yet in asking, he is most polite: ―Please give me a sip of water
from your jar‖ is less demanding than ―Please let down your jar that I may drink‖ (v 14).
18 However, Rebekah is more forthcoming than he had pr ayed for —―She quickly [lit.
‗she hurried‘ (  19 But will she do any more? ―When she had finished letting him
drink‖ delays the action and adds suspense. Then unprompted she makes just the offer the
servant had prayed for. But whereas he had prayed that she would say, ―Let me give your
camels water,‖ she offered, ―Let me also draw water for your camels until they have had
enough to drink .‖
20 And she fulfills her offer with unexpected alacrity. ―She quickly emptied her jar …
and ran back to the well.‖ Her enthusiastic hospitality reminds us of Abraham scurrying
hither and thither when preparing food for his visitors: the same verbs ( 
―hurry‖ ―quickly‖ and 
―run‖) are used here and in 18:2 –7.

When seen as a whole, all the variations between the servant‘s prayer and Rebekah‘s
actions ―dramatize a single point: that the young woman‘s performance surpasses even the
most optimistic expectations‖ (Sternberg, Poetics , 138).
21 This aside, by delaying the action, helps the rea der to appreciate just what a lengthy
job it was to water ten camels and the energy of the girl who did it. It also reminds us of the
servant‘s viewpoint as, unlike us, he is not sure whether Rebekah is the bride he is seeking.
He wonders if ―the LORD had made his journey successful or not.‖ 
―make successful‖ is a key term in this story (vv 40, 42, 56; cf. 39:3, 23 of Joseph).
Though we know that his journey is a success, the servant is still uncertain.
22 These gifts were a hands ome reward for a task freely undertaken. A shekel is about
twelve grams (0.4 ounces). They confirm that the servant has a wealthy and generous
patron, an important consideration in the subsequent negotiations.
23 Having put himself in the girl‘s debt by hi s lavish bounty, the servant now asks an
even greater favor, the name of her father and whether he would be able to stay the night.
24–25 Rebekah answers the servant precisely; she does not volunteer her own name.
She simply says she is the daughter of Bet huel, who was one of the sons of Nahor and
Milcah. Nahor was Abraham‘s brother, and Milcah was the daughter of his other brother,
Haran. It is surprising that she mentions the name of her grandmother, Milcah, but not her
mother‘s name. Jacob suggests the m arriage of Nahor and Milcah was especially famous in
that area, a marriage between ―an uncle and orphaned niece, whereby Nahor had fulfilled
his loving duty towards his dead brother Haran‖ (521). Whether this marriage (cf. 11:29)
was pa rticularly celebrated is unclear, but it certainly shows that Rebekah is closely related
to Abraham. Her father is descended from both of Abraham‘s brothers. Once again the
story shows how things are working out much better than anticipated. Abraham had se nt
the servant to find a wife from his clan (v 4); the servant had actually met a close cousin of
Isaac‘s!
Rebekah then goes on to answer the servant‘s question about lodging. He had not
mentioned feeding the camels, but she mentions that they have plenty of supplies, indirectly
indicating her family‘s wealth, and that there is room for visitors. However, very properly
she does not offer that, for that is not hers to offer. But she does run home (v 28), which
shows her enthusiastic goodwill.
26–27 The serva nt‘s first act at the well was prayer, and so also was his last. ―The man
bowed down and prostrated himself.‖ The use of this pair of words (cf. v 48; 43:28; Exod
4:31; 34:8) seems to indicate how overwhelmed he felt at the way his firs t prayer had been
so quickly and completely answered. Certainly his prayer makes this point. He had asked
the LORD to keep faith with his master (v 12); now he acknowledges that ―the LORD has not
forsaken his faithful loving -kindness toward my master.‖ Moreover, he has led him
specially (the pronoun ―me‖ here is emphatic; see Notes ), not just to his master‘s clan but
―to the house of my master‘s brothers.‖ As Rebekah had indicated, Bethuel was son of
Nahor and grandson of Haran, Abraham‘s brothers. A mo re perfect answer to his prayer
could not have been envisaged.
28 Meanwhile, Rebekah dashes home, indicating more than mere goodwill, closing one
scene and heralding the next. The reader is sure and the servant is sure that she is Isaac‘s
appointed bride, but will the family see it the same way? Already we sense complications
when we hear she goes to her ―mother‘s household.‖ Will the unnamed mother be as
well-disposed toward Abraham as Bethuel would be?

29–32 The entry of the servant to Rebekah‘s house is described in more detail than is
customary and, as Sternberg observes, allows a glimpse of the characters of those involved
in the forthcoming negotiations, particularly Laban.
29 ―A brother called Laban.‖ Laban is a name known in many texts and periods ( 
means ―white‖). It may have something to do with the moon god Sin worshiped in
Harran (
means ―full moon‖ in Hebrew; cf. KB, 492; EM 4:421).
―He ran out to the man‖ suggests Laban is as enthusiastic and welcoming as his sister
Rebekah and his great -uncle Abraham (cf. 18:2–8).
30 This verse dispels such ideas. Laban‘s actions are motiva ted by greed, not pure
hospitality. His sister‘s virtue in this regard stands out the more clearly in contrast with
Laban‘s grasping materialism. The warmth of his welcome is prompted, the narrator
implies, by the prospect of further enrichment by the as -yet-unidentified stranger. Laban‘s
motives are underlined by the final comment, showing what Laban noticed about the
servant: ―there he was standing by the camels .‖ Camels were in this period a rare and
luxurious type of transport. There may also be a hint of Laban‘s relief that this wealthy
visitor had not already left.
31 ―Come in, blessed of the LORD.‖ Laban does not yet know the identity of the
servant, so the phrase ―blessed of the LORD‖ is just a polite greeting to a rich man, riches
being a sign of divine blessing. But as often in Scripture, the words are truer than the
speaker realizes. That the LORD has blessed Abraham and his household is the starting
point of the story (vv 1, 35), a nd on his very first encounter with the servant Laban
acknowledges this fact.
32 So at last the servant comes to Rebekah‘s house, where all the customary
hospitalities are provided for his considerable retinue.
33 The climax of such entertainment was, of course, a meal, and then serious discussion
would begin (cf. 18:1–15). The servant, who had been too tired to drink or water his camels
(v 14), now insists that his mission is so important that he must speak before he eats. We
again admire his devotion to duty, that after a long journey he would put fulfilling his duty
to Abraham before satisfying his hunger.
34–49 The servant‘s long speech goes over the events already related in vv 1 –27. But
this is not mere repetition for the sake of repetition; Hebrew storytellers are usually very
sparing with their words, so the fullness of the servant‘s recapitulation of events shows it
has a most important function. The first account shows how the servant di scovered
Rebekah and became convinced that she was Isaac‘s chosen bride. But now he has to
persuade her family that it is right for her to marry Isaac. His whole approach is pitched
with this end in view, and it is important to read the second account in t he light of the first
to see how the servant appeals to the interests of Laban, in particular to convince him that
Isaac is a worthy match for Rebekah. The whole account builds toward his final appeal,
―Now then if you are going to treat my master with kin dness and loyalty, tell me‖ (v 49).
And in convincing Laban of the rightness of the marriage, the narrator at the same time
confirms in our minds that God is indeed in control, answers prayer, and fulfills his
promises.
34 He begins by introducing himself, for as yet Rebekah‘s family do not know who he is.
But he does not give his own name; he just describes himself as ―Abraham‘s servant,‖
thereby implying that his wealth is not his own but Abraham‘s. Indeed, his self -introduction

must have prompted Laban t o wonder, ―If a mere servant has so much money to throw
around, what must Abraham be like?‖
35 The servant‘s next remark supports such an inference: ―The LORD has blessed my
master tremendously.‖ 
―tremendously, very, exceedingly,‖ though a common word , is used only here to
modify ―bless.‖ The reader knows that Abraham has been blessed, and the list of
Abraham‘s assets recalls similar lists in 12:16; 13:2; 20:14, but this is more comprehensive
than others. Sternberg ( Poetics , 146) notes how ―the items i n full view (‗gold,‘
‗manservants,‘ ‗camels‘) are so interspersed as to command belief in their unseen mates‖ (v
12, silver, slave -girls, and donkeys).
36 Having established his relationship to Abraham and Abraham‘s great wealth, the
servant now gives some interesting family news. But even this is cannily presented with a
view to interesting greedy Laban in a potential marriage alliance with a very eligible
bachelor. The birth of a son to Abraham confirms God‘s blessing on Abraham, as does the
remark ―after she had become old.‖ But the last comment also serves to suggest that
perhaps Abraham‘s son may still be young enough to marry Rebekah, who genealogically
was a generation younger than Isaac (v 24).
And most important, ―he has given him all he has.‖ Here the servant anticipates
Abraham‘s intention actualized in 25:5. ―But since the present company cannot know, the
intention may pass for the deed.
―The man‘s art lies not so much in the slight stretching of the facts as in their thorough
insinuation. And to mask his drift, the persuader varies his technique from the first step to
the second. Abraham‘s riches can be safely painted in the most glowing colors, under the
cover story of ‗You will be happy to learn that . … ‘ But when it comes to his deficiency of
children, that pretext would hardly serve. Therefore the speaker so wraps up the topic as to
invite the deduction that the parent‘s misfortune is the son‘s good fortune: to let the thought
‗What a catch!‘ steal into the audience‘s mind before they find him actually offered to them
on a hard condition‖ (Sternberg, Poetics , 146).
37–41 Up to this point, the servant has been a little more long -winded than the narrator (cf.
vv 34 –36 with v 1), because Laban must be put in the picture. Now, h owever, the servant
abbreviates Abraham‘s original commands (vv 2 –8) a little, with a view to putting the most
attractive slant on them. Note how the servant underlines Abraham‘s positive motives in
looking for a wife for Isaac from his relations, rather t han his aversion to acquiring a
Canaanite daughter -in-law. Abraham sent the servant to ―my country, my clan.‖ Having
actually found an eligible bride much more closely related than anticipated, the servant
reports Abraham as saying, ―Go to my father‘s hous e … take a wife for my son from my
clan and my father‘s house‖ (vv 38, 40). The servant puts into words Abraham‘s deepest
hopes, that his son would marry within the extended family, though Abraham himself had
not dared to be so specific.
By playing up the kinship aspect between Isaac and Rebekah, the servant minimizes the
pain of her separation from her family. He also plays down the possible resistance that the
bride might feel about leaving home. Whereas he had asked Abraham what he should do if
―the woma n is not willing to go with me to this land‖ (vv 5, 8), in the retelling the potential
reluctance of the would -be bride is played down; he simply asks, ―Suppose the woman will
not come with me‖ (v 39), and later the onus is shifted to her family, ―if they will not give
her to you‖ (v 41). And the possibility that Isaac might leave home, which is raised by the

servant and twice rejected by Abraham (vv 5 –6, 8), is now carefully omitted. Just to
mention it might put ideas into the family‘s head!
The servant al so adopts a slightly different theological tack from Abraham. Whereas his
confidence in the success of the servant‘s mission rested primarily on the divine promises
made to him and secondarily on the prevenient angel (v 7), only the latter is mentioned to
Rebekah‘s relatives (v 40). Clearly the servant judges that the partial fulfillment of the
promises so far is less likely to persuade his hearers than the remarkable way in which his
prayer for guidance was answered. That surely proves the angel of the LORD was with him,
making his journey successful.
42–48 So having set out the basic desirability of a marriage between Isaac and
Rebekah, he now relates what happened at the well. Here the servant‘s retelling runs much
closer to the narrator‘s original versio n. The facts, as it were, speak for themselves. The
servant has no need to embellish them or downplay any of them in his efforts to win the
family‘s assent. A simple account should suffice to persuade the open -minded that God has
indeed guided him to Rebek ah in a remarkable way. Such abbreviation as here (e.g., no
description of Rebekah, v 16) is mainly dictated by his audience, for whom that would be
superfluous. But he also fails to mention his moments of doubt (v 21 ), which are no longer
relevant. He also alters his original very polite ―Please give me a sip of water‖ (v 17) to
―Please give me a little water to drink.‖ This change not only takes the focus off his civility
but also it emphasizes the correspondence bet ween his prayer and its answer.
The one substantial difference between the two accounts occurs at the end. The servant
gave the nose ring and bracelets to Rebekah before asking her father‘s name and whether
there was room in her house to stay. In retelling , he omits the inquiry about
accommodation, no doubt for reasons of tact, but he says he asked her father‘s name before
giving the jewelry. The servant‘s motives here are not clear. Maybe having insisted that
Abraham had sent him to find a bride from his f ather‘s house, he felt he should not have
presented Rebekah with anything unless she came from the right family. Perhaps he felt
that Laban would have misinterpreted such a gesture of generosity to a girl whose identity
he did not yet know. Whatever his mo tive in rearranging the account, it serves to underline
the correspondence between Abraham‘s wishes and the meeting with Rebekah. It was clear
to the servant at any rate that the LORD had guided him reliably to the daughter of his
master‘s relative, lit. ―brother‖ (here used in the broader sense of ―relative,‖ for Bethuel was
Abraham‘s nephew).
48 ―Reliably‖ (
) is one of the key terms in this narrative. Three of its six occurrences in Genesis are found
in this chapter (v 27, ―his faithful loving kindness‖; v 49, ―reliability‖). ―It denotes the
nature of the man who is said to be faithful to his neighbor, true in his speech, and reliable
and constant in his actions . … [T]he meaning of the OT assertion that God is <emeth is that
Yahweh is the God in whose word and work one can place complete confidence‖ ( TDOT
1:313).
49 This story illustrates God‘s ―kindness‖ ( 
; see v 12) and ―reliability‖ ( 
) to such a degree that the servant appeals to Rebekah‘s family to show similar qualities
in dealing with Abraham. ―Now then if you are going to treat my master with kindness
[

] and loyalty [ ]
], tell me.‖ The servant could have put it more simply, ―now if you agree, tell me,‖ but
as Sternberg observes, ― the phrasing is so loaded and slanted as to deter non -compliance.
On the one hand the allusion to the recent divine guidance ‗by the true way‘ (= reliably)
insinuates the meaning ‗If you will do as God has done‘ or even the more threatening
rhetorical ques tion ‗Will you go against God?‘‖ And last of all the servant‘s closing
comment is ―calculated to brand refusal as an offense against morality … if they do refuse,
‗I will turn to the right or the left (= I may look elsehere): I will take my suit elsewhere, to
relatives more mindful of God and humanity, kinship and wealth‘‖ (Sternberg, Poetics ,
151).
50–53 ―Small wonder, then, that Laban and Bethuel declare in response that ‗the thing
issues from the Lord; we cannot speak to thee bad or good.‘ Where God has ‗spoken‘
through the design of events, there remains little room for human speech. Nor is it
surprising that, though the material and familial considerations must have had some effect,
the narrator makes the kinsmen single out the act of providence. Their world picture falls
short of the monotheism common to all the Hebrew observers; their morality leaves
something to be desired; their knowledge, thanks to the servant‘s inventiveness, is certainly
deficient; and the consent wrung from them, as their subsequ ent dilatoriness shows, not
quite wholehearted even after the event . … Yet … like all the other limited
participants —the reader included —the Mesopotamians undergo a process of discovery that
brings home to them God‘s management of the world‖ (Sternberg, Poetics , 151 –52).
50 The mention of ―Bethuel‖ in this verse is surprising, since up to this point Laban has
been the dominant male in the family and all the subsequent negotiations are conducted by
Laban and his mother (vv 53, 55). It is therefore often con jectured that ―and Bethuel‖ is
either a gloss or a corruption of ―and his household.‖ However, there is no other evidence
of textual corruption and no reason to suppose Bethuel must have died. His inactivity
elsewhere in the story suggests he is either too old to take part in tough bargaining or that
he is under his wife‘s thumb just as Rebekah was later to ―organize‖ Isaac. But he was
sufficiently alert to indicate his assent to the proposal of marriage.
―We cannot contradict anything you say,‖ lit. ―We cannot say to you evil or good.‖ For
this idiom, cf. 31:24, 29; 2 Sam 13:22.
51 ―Take her and go that she may marry your master‘s son.‖ Their vital words of
consent echo Abraham‘s original command, ―you must go and take a w ife for my son.‖
They have conceded the principal point, that Rebekah should leave home to marry Isaac.
Now follow the detailed negotiations about bride -money, hinted at in v 53, and the timing
of the wedding (vv 54 –58).
52 Note again the emphasis on the s ervant‘s piety (cf. vv 12 –14, 26 –27, 42 –44, 48). While
we may admire his skillful and successful presentation of Abraham‘s case, the servant
thanks God for its acceptance.
53 Betrothal was customarily effected in the ancient Near East b y large capital transfers
from the bridegroom‘s family to the bride‘s family. Deut 22:29 places a limit of fifty
shekels on such bride money ( 
), which would be equivalent to several years‘ wages for an ordinary paid laborer (cf.
Gen 29:18 –20). It appears that the ―beautiful presents‖ given to Laban and his mother
probably were equivalent to the bride -money. Usually this bride -money was later passed on
to the bride by her family when she married as part of her dowry. (For summaries of

wedding customs, see IDBSup, 575.) However, here Abraham‘s servant gave Rebekah
herself ―silver and gold and garments,‖ items that figure frequently in dowry lists. Whether
this was a mark of sheer goodwill or he feared that Rebekah‘s grasping brother would not
give her an adequate dowry is not said.
54 Only after all this presumably lengthy discussion did the servant rela x and enjoy his
meal and a well -earned rest.
54b–61 But the servant did not relax for long. Without even so much as another explicit
noun subject to indicate a break between his rest one night and his rising the next morning,
the narrator records his first waking words as ―Send me to my master.‖ The man who
showed himself such a charming diplomat when he first met Rebekah, ―Please give me a
sip of water,‖ is here quite blunt. He demands —note the absence of 55 ―A year or so,‖ lit.
―days or t en.‖ The plural ―days‖ may mean ―a year‖ —certainly it does in Lev 25:29 and
maybe in 4:3 (cf. Comment ). So Tg. Onq. , Rashi, and Jacob understand the phrase, ―a year
or ten (months)‖; SamPent replaces ―ten‖ by ―month,‖ evidently understanding the whole
phrase to mean ―a year or a month.‖ Gunkel would repoint ―days‖ as a dual 
―two days.‖ In that t he SamPent evidently thinks in terms of a long delay, this
possibility must be taken seriously, though it does seem har d to envisage Abraham‘s
servant ever contemplating staying so long, hence the more modern suggestions.
56 Whatever the timespan suggested by Laban and his mother, it was too long for
Abraham‘s servant. His reason for insisting on a prompt return, ―since th e LORD has made
my journey successful,‖ is hardly convincing. Did he fear that if he did not take Rebekah at
once, she might never be allowed to go? Or was he worried that Abraham might not live to
see his daughter -in-law if she did not go soon? In either case, it would have hardly been
diplomatic to make these points to Rebekah‘s family.
57 At any rate, the servant failed to convince Laban and his mother of the need for a
speedy leavetaking. As a way out, Rebekah is invited to say whether she is prepared t o go
immediately. Presumably, Laban calculated that attachment to home and respect for her
mother‘s opinion would surely make her ask for a delay.
58 So the story reaches its final climax, and the reader waits with baited breath to hear
how Rebekah will re ply to the fateful question, ―Will you go with this man?‖ Her simple ―I
will go‖ is, next to Laban‘s ―Take her and go,‖ the most decisive remark in the narrative.
Like Laban, she echoes Abraham‘s initial opening command, ―You must go‖ (v 4). Indeed,
it aligns her with Abraham, who was told to ―Go … from your father‘s house‖ and ―went‖
(12:1, 4).
59 ―They sent off Rebekah their sister.‖ Though the use of the term ―sister‖ would suggest
that only her brothers and sisters joined in saying farewell and that her parents absented
themselves (cf. the maternal opposition in v 55), it seems more likely that ―sister‖ here
simply means ―female relative‖ just as ―brother‖ often means ―male relative.‖ ―Her nurse,‖
the nanny who has looked after her from childhood, joins the party; she was called
Deborah, according to 35:8.
60 ―They blessed Rebekah.‖ Rebekah‘s name sounds even more like a play on the root
―to bless‖ (
) than does Abraham‘ s, and this connection is here made explicit. The blessing itself,
―May you become thousands of ten thousands ,‖ contains another play on her name,
according to Gunkel and Strus ( Nomen -Omen , 165) for ten thousand is 
rðb÷b÷h, again quite similar to Reb ekah‘s own name. It also links up with the frequent

command and promise about multiplying ( 
; cf. 1:28; 9:1, 7; 17:2; 22:17). It is through Rebekah that the promise of a multitude of
descendants for Abraham will begin to be realized.
―May your descendants possess the gate of their enemies‖ repeats almost word for word
the promise made to Abraham in 22:17. It is widely surmised that this farewell blessing
reflects a common blessing bestowed on brides (cf. Ruth 4:11 –12).
61 Eventually they leave; no doubt it did not happen quite as quickly as the servant
hoped. Note that the chronological framework allows three years between Sarah‘s death
and Isaac‘s marriage, though they immediately follow each other in the narrative (23:1;
25:20). The party includes Rebekah‘s ―girls‖; evidently her family presented her, like
Rachel and Leah later, with slave -girls as part of her dowry (29:24, 29). To take this party
back to Canaan, the servant needed his ten camels. ―The servant took Rebekah and went‖ is
on the face of it redundant, but it reminds us that the servant has done exactly what
Abraham asked him to do: he went and took a wife for Isaac (v 4).
62–67 The fourth and final scene describes the meeting of Isaac and Rebekah. It sh ows
Isaac accepting the bride chosen for him and Rebekah taking Sarah‘s position as leading
woman in the clan. The main thrust of this scene is therefore clear. It does, though, raise,
and leave unanswered, a number of questions. Why should Isaac be coming from
Beer -Laha -roi and living in the Negeb? Where is Abraham? Nothing is said about the
servant reporting back to him, only to Isaac (v 66). Indeed, he describes Isaac as ―my
master‖ in v 65. Since Abraham‘s instructions to his servant in vv 2 –8 sound lik e his last
will and testament, the most natural reading of the closing scene would suggest that while
the servant has been away, Abraham has died. However, a literal reading of the
chronological notices in Genesis would preclude such a conclusion. For if I saac was forty
years old when he married Rebekah (25:20), his father was then 140 and did not die until he
was 175 (25:7). So one might conclude that Abraham lived another thirty -five years after
the events described in this chapter. The resolution of thes e problems depends partly on the
way the chronological data of Genesis are understood. Are they to be understood as exact
timespans or have they a more symbolic function? See further discussion in the
Introduction , ―The Chronology of the Patriarchs,‖ and Comments on chap. 25.
Provisionally, we assume that Abraham died while his servant was away on his mission.
62 When last heard of, Abraham was at Hebron (23:2), so we must either posit a change of
residence or surmise that Isaac is now living apart from Abr aham, for Beer -Laha -roi must
be placed some way southwest of Hebron (see Comment on 16:14). Clearly, the servant
knew where to find Isaac.
63 
―to meditate‖ is o f uncertain meaning, and here we simply follow the consensus of the
early versions. More modern suggestions do not seem obviously superior. ―Looked up and
noticed.‖ To look up and see always indicates that what is about to be seen is of great
significance (see Comment on 22:4). Here the phrase describes Isaac‘s first glimpse of his
future wife; in v 64, it describes Rebekah‘s first sight of Isaac.
64 ―She jumped down from the camel.‖ As in vv 29 –30, the immediate reaction is
related before the reason for it is explained. Presumably, Rebekah asked the servant who
the man was before she dismounted, but by mentioning that she ―jumped down,‖ lit. ―fell,‖
from the camel first, the narrator stresses how promptly she dismounted and her deference
towa rd Isaac (cf. 1 Sam 25:23; Josh 15:18). She did not linger staring at him.

65 That the servant now calls Isaac ―my master‖ seems to imply that he has learned on
his journey home that Abraham has indeed died.
―She took her veil and cover ed herself.‖ At her wedding, a bride was presented to her
husband veiled (29:23 –25). This verse may imply that Rebekah kept her veil on until her
wedding.
66 That the servant reports back to Isaac rather than to Abraham seems to confirm that
Abraham has di ed.
67 With the marriage of Isaac, the story has reached its goal. Abraham‘s wishes have
been carried out, the servant has done his duty, and the divine promises can be further
fulfilled. Just as Isaac is now head of Abraham‘s family, so Rebekah steps into Sarah‘s
shoes and becomes the leading woman in the patriarchal household. So she is ―brought into
Sarah‘s tent.‖ Clearly, it would have been improper for her to have entered Isaac‘s tent
before he was married, but giving her Sarah‘s tent straightaway indi cated her position in the
community.
―Married her and he loved her.‖ In arranged marriages, love follows the union rather
than prompts it.
―So Isaac was consoled after his mother‘s death.‖ If Abraham had recently died, why is no
mention made of that? To th at end, some would emend this to ―after his father‘s death.‖
But, as Jacob observes, it would have been psychologically impossible for a wife to have
replaced his father in Isaac‘s affections. Rather, it underlines that Rebekah is the new
Sarah, just as Is aac is the new Abraham.
Explanation
Chap. 23 recorded Abraham‘s concern that his wife Sarah should be worthily buried and
how in fulfilling his duty in this respect he purchased part of the promised land. This
chapter similarly shows him worried about his family and about the fulfillment of the
promise.
Apparently on his deathbed, Abraham invites his servant to take a solemn oath that he
will go back to his homeland in Mesopotamia and find a wife for his son Isaac. On no
account must Isaac marry one of the local Canaanite girls. When the servant asks what he
should do if he cannot find a biddable Mesopotamian girl who is prepared to leave home,
Abraham declares, ―The LORD … who took me from my father‘s house … and promised
me with an oath, ‗To your descendan ts I shall give this land,‘ it is he who will send his
angel before you, and you shall take a wife for my son from there‖ (v 7). Dying, Abraham
declares his faith in the promises made to him and in God‘s continuing care for his
descendants. The story goes on to tell how, although Abraham did not live to see the
outcome of his servant‘s mission, it was more successful than either of them had dared to
hope. Divine providence led the servant straight to Rebekah, a cousin of Isaac, whose
attitudes and deeds sho w her to be cast very much in the mold of Abraham and a worthy
wife for his son.
Arriving at the city of Nahor in northern Mesopotamia, the servant prays that the LORD
will make it clear to him which of the girls who come to draw water at the well is the
appointed bride. The test the servant suggests might elsewhere in Scripture be described as
a sign. It is at the same time a test that is calculated to reveal the characteristics required in
a patriarch‘s wife, who must be energetic and hospitable. So he pr ays that the girl from
whom he asks a drink of water will not just give it to him but volunteer to give his ten

camels a drink too. He has not finished praying when the beautiful virgin Rebekah appears.
He asks for a sip of water, and then she enthusiastic ally waters his camels as well. Amazed,
he then inquires who her father is and whether he might stay the night. Even more
astonishingly, she replies that she is the daughter of Bethuel, who is in turn descended from
both of Abraham‘s brothers. Abraham‘s ho pes and the servant‘s prayers have been
answered abundantly, above all that they asked or thought (Eph 3:20).
But to persuade Rebekah‘s family of the appropriateness of the match could prove more
tricky, and the second part of the story shows Abraham‘ s servant deploying all his
persuasiveness to convince the family that he should take Rebekah to marry Isaac. While
Bethuel, Rebekah‘s father, might have been expected to be the most important person to
win over, it is quickly apparent to the servant that it is her mother and her brother Laban
who will have the final say. And from his first appearance on stage Laban is shown to be
more interested in material advantage than other considerations. So the servant begins by
informing Laban of Abraham‘s great wea lth and that Isaac is his only heir. Then he
mentions that Abraham has insisted that Isaac marry within the family, not a
Canaanite —hence the servant‘s journey to Mesopotamia. After appealing to Laban‘s
pocket and his sense of family solidarity, the servan t finally addresses his piety, retelling
how he prayed at the well, how Rebekah appeared, and how, though she did not know she
was doing so, she fully answered his prayer. Laban and Bethuel acknowledge the
irresistible force of the servant‘s arguments, and they say piously, ―This thing comes from
the LORD. We cannot contradict anything you say. Here is Rebekah; take her and go‖ (vv
50–51). They have thereby consented in principle to the marriage. But it is one thing to
agree and another to act. And next day , egged on by his mother, Laban attempts to stall.
―Let the girl stay with us a few days or so. Afterwards she may go‖ (v 55). The servant‘s
insistence on immediate departure is stymied by the family‘s insistence that things should
be delayed. Eventually R ebekah is invited to break the deadlock; she is asked, ―Will you go
with this man?‖ and despite fraternal and maternal opposition, she says, yes, ―I will go.‖ In
so doing, she behaves like Abraham, who also left home and family for the promised land.
By th e time the caravan reaches Canaan, Abraham has died, for Isaac is now head of the
clan. So the servant reports back to him, not to Abraham. Rebekah is given Sarah‘s tent to
live in, a sign that she is now the chief woman in the community, and in due time s he
marries Isaac. The stage is now set for the next act in the drama of the patriarchs
The length and detail of this narrative surpass any in Genesis, and this indicates both its
importance and popularity within the book. And like many of the stories, it w as no doubt
read and understood on many levels in OT times. Most obviously, it tells how marriages
were arranged in Bible times. Isaac is unusually passive in the process, but the bride‘s lack
of involvement during her parents‘ negotiation of the match was entirely typical. Yet, this
story insists that such methods of matchmaking, when undertaken carefully and prayerfull,
are under God‘s control and that the couple can accept the outcome as willingly as Rebekah
and Isaac did. Today in South India, v 50, ―This thing comes from the LORD,‖ is used on
wedding invitations where the parents have arranged the marriage.
The story also makes the point that Abraham‘s offspring should not marry Canaanites;
they should marry within the family. So later Jacob goes back to Mesopotamia to find a
wife (28:1 –2), and the law (Exod 34:16; Deut 7:3), the historical books, and the prophets
are very insistent that the people of Israel should not marry foreigners (Judg 3:6; 14:3; 1
Kgs 11:1 –2; Ezra 10; Neh 13:23 –27; Mal 2:11). In similar vein, Paul insists that Christians
must not marry non -Christians (1 Cor 7:39; 2 Cor 6:14 –18).

Also on a moral level this story illustrates how servants should behave, putting their
master‘s interests first and carrying them out loya lly to the best of their ability. Many asides
in the wisdom literature may be cited that show the exemplary character of this servant
(e.g., Prov 10:32; 13:17; 15:29), but here we meet a flesh -and-blood example of the ideal
servant, an ideal that informs Jesus‘ and Paul‘s picture of the service God looks for in his
servants (e.g., Matt 21:34 –36; Luke 12:37 –48; 16:10 –13; 17:10; Eph 6:6; 1 Cor 4:1 –3).
However, this story teaches spirituality as well as morality, a spirituality that pervades
the OT, though it is rarely made so explicit as in this story. Abraham‘s servant is a man who
prays before he acts, praises when his prayers are answered, and lives ever conscious that
the af fairs of men are controlled by the hand of God. He describes Abraham as walking
before the LORD (v 40), but he does the same himself and indeed remarks that the God of
Abraham had guided him reliably in the way. Though this story is unusual for the way it
brings out a man‘s awareness of God‘s unseen providence, the stories of Joseph, Job, and
Nehemiah have a similar flavor. That man should be in constant communion with God
through prayer is frequently reiterated in Scripture (e.g., Luke 18:1; 1 Thess 5:17), and that
the prayers of the faithful will be certainly and effectively answered is insisted on times
without number (e.g., Ps 65:3 [2]; Prov 15:8, 29; Matt 21:22; Luke 18:7).
Finally, as al ways in Genesis, this incident is recorded for the light it sheds on the theme of
the Pentateuch —the fulfillment of the divine promises. The LORD promised to bless
Abraham (12:2). Here the narrative records that ―the LORD had blessed him in every way‖
(v 1), while the servant states that ―the LORD has blessed my master tremendously‖ (v 35)
and points to his great wealth and the child of his old age as proof of that blessing. And
Abraham himself refers to his call and to the oath by which he was promised lan d and
descendants (v 7; cf. 12:7; 22:16). It is because of this promise that he is so anxious that
Isaac should marry one of the family but not return to Mesopotamia (vv 3 –4, 7–8).
Abraham‘s last recorded words are thus a confession of faith: ―These all died in faith,
not having received what was promised, but having seen it and greeted it from afar‖ (Heb
11:13). The reader is more fortunate, for he learns how very shortly after Abraham‘s
servant had been commissioned to find a wife for his son from Mesopotamia, the servant
met Rebekah, who fitted Abraham‘s specifications more perfectly than he dared hope. In
fact, she was descended from both Abraham‘s brothers, she was beautiful and of the right
age, and even her name Rebekah evoked the word for blessing ( beðraµkaµh ). And by her
generous hospitality and willingness to leave home in response to the LORD‘s call, she
showed herself to be both in faith and deed another Abraham. Her character inspires
confidence that the next stage in the fulf illment of the divine purpose is in good hands.
Even if Isaac should prove to be somewhat ineffectual, Rebekah, his new wife, will be
equal to the call.
Concluding the Life of Abraham (25:1 –11)
Bibliography
Knauf, E. A. Midian: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinas und Nordarabiens am Ende des

2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1988. Montgomery, J. A. Arabia and the Bible.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1934.
Translation
1Abraham married again,a and his wife was called Keturah. 2 She borea him
Zimran,b Yoqshan, Medan, Midian, Yishbaq, and Shuach. 3a Yoqshan fathered Shebab
and Dedan.a c Dedan‘s descendants wered the Ashurim, the Letushim, and the
Leummim.c 4 Midian‘s descendants were Ephah, Epher, Enoch, Abida, and Eldaah. All
these were descended from Ket urah.
5a Abraham gave b all that he hadb to Isaac.ac 6a But to the sons of Abraham‘s
concubines A braham gavea presents and, while he was stillb alive, sentc them away from
his son Isaac eastward to the land of Qedem.
7These are the days of the years of Abraham‘s life which he lived,a one hundred and
seventy -five years.
8Abraham breatheda his last and diedb in good old age, old and full of days,c and he
was gatheredd to his relatives. 9 His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of
Macpelah in the field of Ephron, the son of Zophar the Hittite, opposite Mamre. 10 The
field was the one Abraham bought from the Hittites; there Abraham and his wife Sarah
were buried.a
11After the death of Abraham, God blessed his son Isaac, and Isaac lived near
Beer -Laha -roi.
Notes
1.a. cf. n. 8:10.b.*; 18:29.a.*
2.a. cf. n. 4:1.c.*
2.b. SamPent 
.
3.a-a. Pseudocircumstantial sequential clause; cf. 10:8, 13, 15, 24, 26 ( SBH, 88).
3.b. G adds ―and Taiman.‖
3.c-c. Missing in 1 Chr 1:32.
3.d. G adds ―Ragouel and Nabdeel and.‖
5.a-a. Note chiasmus between vv 5 and 6a: ―Abraham gave … to Isaac. But to the sons
… Abraham gave.‖
5.b-b. Note four words linked by maqqeph (hyphen); GKC, 16a.
5.c. SamPent, G, S add ―his son.‖
6.a-a. Note chiasmus with v 5; cf. n. 5.a-a.

6.b. 
+ [
+ 3 masc. sg suffix; cf. 18:22; BDB, 728b.
6.c. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. piel 
+ 3 masc. pl.
7.a. cf. n. 5:5.a.*
8.a. On the clause structure in vv 8 –11, cf. SBH, 42–43.
8.b. cf. n. 5:5.b.*
8.c. With SamPent (cf. G, S), which adds 
―days‖ after MT [
as in 35:28. MT could be translated ―satisfied.‖
8.d. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. niph  10.a. 3 masc. sg pf pual 
. On sg verb with pl. subj, cf. GKC, 145a; WOC, 421.
Form/Structure/Setting
This section brings together several traditions dealing with:

vv 1–4
Abraham‘s marriage to Keturah

vv 5–6
The distribution of his estate

vv 7–11
His death

The final comment about God‘s blessing on Isaac and his dwelling near Beer -Laha -roi
anticipates the theme of the next major section, ― the family history of Isaac‖ (25:19 –35:29).
It is typical of the editor‘s method to include a trailer for the next section toward the end of
the previous one. (For other examples, see 4:25 –26; 6:5 –8; 9:18 –29; see Wenham, Genesis
1–15, 97, 156.) Indeed, the mention of an additional birth (vv 1 –2) right at the end of a
major section closely parallels 4:25 –26. At these points, the hand of the editor may be
discerned.
Although this section looks like a ragbag of traditions about Abraham that have been
appended here because they do not really fit anywhere else, it should be noted that the three
major cycles of patriarchal stories, about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, all end similarly:

Death and burial of wife
23:1–20
35:18 –20
48:7
Son‘s marriage
24:1–67
35:21 –22
49:3–4
List of descendants
25:1–6
35:22 –26
49:5–28
Death and burial of patriarch
25:7–10
35:27 –29
49:29 –50:14
List of descendants
25:12 –17
36:1–42

―This is the family history of … ‖
25:19
37
These parallels suggest purposeful editorial activity. Furthermore, the material here
appears to be old and reflects a situation in which Israel enjoyed good relations with her
neighbors in Arabia and the desert lands to the east. But, significantly, the p assage never
calls them Arabs, a term that did not come into use until the ninth century B.C. . From the
time of the wilderness wanderings through the period of the judges, the Midianites troubled
Israel, but earlier Moses had fled to Midian and married th e daughter of a Midianite priest.
No trace of the later animosity between Midian and Israel is detectable in this genealogy;
this suggests it is old.
It is much more difficult to know what literary sources are being drawn on. Widely
divergent critical anal yses are offered, especially as regards vv 1 –6. According to some
(Delitzsch, von Rad, König, Speiser, Van Seters [ Abraham in History ], Vawter, Coats),
they come from J. This, it is argued, is proved by v 5 repeating 24:36, by the use of 
for fathering (v 3), and because v 3 has Sheba and Dedan descend from Yoqshan, not
Raamah, as in 10:7. If 10:7 is P, 25:3 must be from a different source. But according to
Gunkel, vv 1 –6 come from a later J hand, since their perspective differs from chap. 24
where Abra ham‘s death is near and is presumed. Skinner and Westermann argue that these
verses presuppose the account of Abraham‘s death and burial in vv 7 –10 and therefore must
be even later than P. According to Skinner, ―the adjustments were effected during the fin al
redaction of the Pentateuch‖ (349).
It is widely agreed that vv 7 –10 must be associated with P, since these verses contain
chronological details (v 7) and an account of a burial in the cave of Macpelah. If chap. 23 is
P (see Form/Structure/Setting on ch ap. 23), then it would seem likely that vv 8 –10 are
either P or editorial.

v 11 is again the subject of disagreement. Most commonly 11a is ascribed to P, since it
links back to v 10, whereas 11b, because of its links with 24:62, is J. However, König and
Coats ascribe all of v 11 to P, whereas Van Seters (Abraham in History) and Westermann
believe all of v 11 originally belonged with chap. 24 (late J).
None of the arguments seem very conclusive, but the stance of Skinner, Van Seters, and
Westermann, who rega rd the J -like material (vv 1 –6, 11) as later than the P verses (7 –10),
is most compatible with our view of the composition of Genesis. Elsewhere we have found
much evidence that material traditionally associated with P is earlier than J, and the same is
true here. The fact that the overall arrangement of material in chap. 25 matches that found
in chaps. 35 –36, 48 –50 confirms that the final editor of Genesis was responsible for
organizing it; it is not an ill -considered insert or appendix.
Comment
1–4 These verses give the family tree of Abraham and Keturah:

This family tree is of an unusual shape in that only the second and fourth of Keturah‘s
sons have descendants and only the second of Yoqshan‘s sons, Dedan, has sons of his own.
It is natural to assume that Abraham‘s marriage to Keturah, coming soon after the
account of Sarah‘s death (chap. 23), mentioned again in 24:67, occurred in the period
between Sarah‘s death and his, which, according to 23:1 and 25:7, spanned nearly forty
years. Consequently, Sternberg ( Poetics , 349) believes that vv 1 –4 illustrate the extreme
blessedness of Abraham‘s old age. He who had such difficulty fathering one son earlier in
his life now enjoys new procreativity in his latter years.
The majority of co mmentators, however, believe the text is not to be read sequentially.
Speiser points out that if everything in Genesis were arranged in chronological order, the
notice of Abraham‘s death (25:5 –6) ought to be placed after the birth of Jacob and Esau
(25:19 –26), for on a literal reading of 21:5; 25:7, 26, Abraham lived fifteen years after his
grandsons‘ birth. Furthermore, chap. 24 implies that Abraham died while his servant was
away in Mesopotamia. ―It is thus evident that the various details of this chapter have been
grouped in such a manner as to interfere as little as possible with the progress of the
narrative‖ (Speiser, 189). ―Abraham married again‖ (v 1) is ―to be understood in a literary
not in a biographical sense; its purpose is to associate the name s that follow with Abraham;
this is done by introducing another wife‖ (Westermann, 2:395 –96).
But at which stage in Abraham‘s life he married Keturah is not stated, and indeed seems
impossible to determine. Calvin (2:35 –36) suggested it occurred after Sara h had forced him
to divorce Hagar (21:8 –21). Jacob puts it even earlier, before chap. 17 or even chap. 14.
But such conjecture contributes but little to the understanding of the account. The tradition
that Abraham married Keturah had to be mentioned somewh ere, and by including it here
rather than elsewhere in the narrative, the editor of Genesis was able to keep the focus
undistractedly on the promise of Isaac and its fulfillment. Now it is slipped in here to
complete the picture and to show how Abraham did indeed become father of a multitude of
nations (17:4 –6).
1 
―Keturah‖ looks like the feminine singular passive participle of 
―to burn as incense,‖ hence KB‘s suggested interpretation, ―veiled in incense smoke.‖

An association with incense seems probable in that several of her sons seem to be involved
in the international spice trade. Although this trade is associated with Arabia in the OT (e.g.,
1 Kgs 10:2, 10; Isa 60:6), not all the sons can be located there (see below; cf. EM 7:110 –11).
2 Zimran is mentioned only here and in 1 Chr 1:32, though there may be a connection
with Zimri (Jer 25:25). Pliny mentions an Arabian tribe called the Zamareni ( Natural
History 6.32.158), while Ptolemaeus (6, 7, 5) mentions a town near Mecca called Zambran.
South Arabian inscriptions mention an Arab tribe called d_mrn . All these possibilities point
to Arabia.
―Yoqshan‖ (father of Sheba and Dedan, v 3) is mentioned also in 1 Chr 1:32. In 10:28,
Sheba is said to be descended from Yoqtan, so some have suggested ―Yoqshan‖ is a variant
of ―Yoqtan.‖ But the exchange of 
for 
―Medan‖ occurs only here and in 1 Chr 1:32. It m ay occur in a South -Arabic
inscription, according to J. A. Montgomery ( Arabia , 43–44). It occurs as a personal name
in Ugarit ( UT, 1431). Simons ( GTOT §377) links it to the Arab settlement of Badana,
mentioned in the annals of Tiglath -Pileser III.
―Midian‖ is frequently mentioned in texts dealing with the premonarchy period. Midian
or the Midianites are a grou p of tribes inhabiting the deserts surrounding Israel. They were
traders (37:28, 36). Moses married a Midianite and later was advised by his Midianite
father -in-law somewhere in Sinai (Exod 3:1; 18:1 –24). Later, Midianites associated with
the Moabites harr ied Israel in Transjordan (Num 25; 31:1 –12). And Gideon drove them
back into Transjordan (Judg 7 –8).
―Yishbaq‖ is mentioned in an inscription of Shalmaneser III ( maµt Iasûbuqi ―land of
Yishbaq‖) and is located in northern Syria ( EM 3:892 –93; cf. ANET, 278).
―Shuach.‖ Bildad, one of Job‘s comforters, ―came from Shuach.‖ It is not, as often
asserted, in the desert east of Edom. Shuach (Akk. SuµhÉu ) lies on the middle Euphrates
between Babylon and Mari. It is first mentioned in the Mari texts (c. 1800 B.C.) and often
subsequently. In the first millennium, its inhabitants were mostly Arameans ( EM 7:532 –33;
ANET, 275, 304, 481).
3 On Sheba and Dedan, cf. 10:7.
―Ashurim‖ are not the well -known Assyrians but a desert tribe, possibly identical with
the Ashur mentioned in Num 24:22, 24 and Ps 83:9(8). Montgomery ( Arabia , 44) says the
name is probably found in a South -Arabic text, where it refers to a district in northwest
Arabia.
―Letushim.‖ Various conjectures have been made about them (see EM 4:497), but only
this passage gives any firm clue that they were part of the league of Dedanite tribes who
lived in the west Syrian desert.
―Leummim.‖ No more i s known about them than about the Letushim. Their position in
this list evidently indicates they had something to do with each other.
4 ―Epher‖ is a personal name meaning ―young gazelle‖ according to Noth
(Personennamen , 230). cf. 1 Chr 4:17; 5:24. A town Appani mentioned in Ashurbanipal‘s
record of his campaign against the Arabs may be related (cf. ANET, 299).
―Ephah‖ is linked in Isa 60:6 with Midian and Sheba as bringing gold and frankincense
to Israel. It seems likely that Ephah is the name of a nomadic tribe found in northern
Arabia, probably the same as the Haippaµ of the Assyrian inscriptions ( EM 6:214; ANET,
283, 286). It is also a personal name in 1 Chr 2:46.

―Enoch.‖ cf. Comment on 4:17.
―Abida.‖ The name might mean ―the father has known (me)‖ (KB, 4). Many names are
formed like this in biblical Hebrew, e.g., Elyada, Jehoiada, Shemida. Van Seters ( Abraham ,
61) suggests Abida may be related to Ibadidi, an Arab tribe mentioned in Assyrian records
(ANET, 286).
―Eldaah.‖ KB, 49, suggests the meaning ―God has called.‖ Montgomery notes ( Arabia ,
43) that two South -Arabian kings were called Abiyada an d Yadail.
5–6 In the ancient world, a man divided his estate among his sons before he died (Luke
15:12). Sons of full wives could expect a definite share (Deut 21:15 –17; cf. Num 27:1 –11).
Sons of concubines were completely dependent on their father‘s goodwill; hence Abraham
gives them simply ―presents,‖ whereas Isaac received all the rest (v 5; cf. 24:36; cf. Luke
15:31, ―All that I have is thine,‖ AV).
6 ―Concubines.‖ Though Hagar is described as a ―maid‖ ( 
) or ―slave -wife‖ (
) in Gen 16, 21, she probably could also be described as a ―concubine‖ ( 
) as Bilhah is in 35:22 (cf. 30:3, ―slave -wife‖). 21:8 –14, while making clear Abraham‘ s
great affection for Ishmael, never mentioned that he gave Ishmael and Hagar anything apart
from bread and water, though it is probably implied (see Comment on 21:14). This passage
shows that he did give Ishmael and his other sons something.
―Qedem.‖ Thou gh 
may simply be translated ―east,‖ here and possibly in 29:1; Num 23:7, it appears to be
used more precisely to describe a geographical area. In Egyptian texts from the first half of
the second millennium (e.g., the travels of Sinuhe [twelfth dynasty] and one of the pyramid
texts [eighteenth dynasty]), it appears to refer to part of the Syrian desert. Later the term is
used more loosely to cover those desert areas on the eastern fringes of the land of Israel ( EM
7:27–28) inhabited by the ―people of the east‖ (e.g., Judg 6:3, 33; 7:12; 8:10; 1 Kgs 5:10
[4:30]; Isa 11:14; Job 1:3).
7–8 The more typical concluding genealogical formula would be ― All the days of
Abraham were 175 years and he died‖ (cf. 5:8; 9:29). Here the traditional phraseology is
greatly expanded to underline the significance of Abraham‘s career. The death notices of
Adam (5:5) and Isaac (35:28 –29) offer para llels, but Abraham‘s is longer still, showing the
overwhelming importance of his life.
7 His age at death means he lived one hundred years in Canaan (cf. 12:4).
8 ―Breathed his last and died.‖ cf. Comment on 6:17; 7: 21. ―Was gathered to his
relatives.‖ This could just mean that his body now rested with his relatives in the family
tomb. But since this is said explicitly in v 9, it would seem more likely that the reference is
to the soul of Abraham being reunited with h is dead relatives in the afterlife. ―It can only
denote the union of the soul, the transfigured personality, with the souls of the forefathers‖
(Jacob, 536).
9–10 On the cave of Macpelah, see chap. 23. The estranged half brothers, Isaac and
Ishmael, reunit e to bury their father, just as later Jacob and Esau come together to bury their
father, Isaac (35:29).
11 ―God blessed … Isaac‖ anticipates the theme of the next major section of Genesis, i.e.,
25:19 –35:29, especially 26:12. Westerman n suggests it once formed the conclusion to chap.
24. It is certainly congruent with the techniques of the editor of Genesis (cf. above
Form/Structure/Setting ) to conclude one section of the book with a hint of what will come

in the nex t.
Explanation
It is easy to conclude from the opening remark, ―Abraham married again‖ (v 1), that this
section describes the widower Abraham remarrying after the death of his first wife, Sarah.
However, the description of Keturah as a concubine (v 6) and a closer examination of the
context of this account make this improbable. Were the order of stories in Genesis strictly
chronological, the account of Abraham‘s death should not be mentioned till 25:26 at the
earliest. And chap. 24 implies that Abraham died while his servant was away in
Mesopotamia. The stories are arranged to describe the careers of the main actors as clearly
as possible and to illuminate the fulfillment of the promises. For these reasons, it seems
most likely that the editor understood Abraham‘s marriage to Keturah to have occurred
much earlier in his life, but the description of it has been delayed until thi s point so as not
to detract from the main line of the story.
The mention of Abraham dividing his estate among his various sons (vv 5 –6) shows he
did what was expected when he realized death was imminent. A man assigned his property
before he died; it was not left to the executors to carry out the terms of his will. Here
Abraham‘s acts are recorded as an example to future generations. Similarly, Isaac and
Ishmael show proper filial piety, despite earlier disagreements, in joining together to bury
their fath er.
The genealogical details of Abraham‘s sons through Keturah, like the table of nations in
chap. 10, define Israel‘s relationships with some of the neighboring nomadic peoples who
inhabited the desert areas on the fringes of Canaan and traded with them. That the descent
of these peoples is traced back to Abraham expresses the close affinity Israel felt with these
peoples.
Finally, as always in Genesis, the material draws attention to the divine promises. Abram‘s
name was changed to Abraham to assure him t hat he would be father of a multitude of
nations (17:4 –6). 25:2 –4 lists some of the nations descended from Abraham; implicitly this
list reminds us of the fulfillment of the promises. The point is made explicitly in v 11. Now
we hear ―After the death of Ab raham, God blessed his son Isaac.‖ It shows the LORD‘s
―steadfast love to thousands of those who love [him] and keep [his] commandments‖ (Deut
5:10) and how ―his steadfast love endures for ever‖ (Ps 136:3).
The Family History of Ishmael (25:12 –18)
Bibliography
Harel, M. ―‗They dwelt from Havilah to Shur which is opposite Egypt.‘‖ (Heb.) BMik 17 (1972)
501–2. Irvine, A. K. ―The Arabs and Ethiopians.‖ POTT 287–311. Knauf, E. A. Ismael.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1985. ——— . ―Supplementa Ismaelitica .‖ BN 20 (1983) 34 –36; 38/39
(1987) 44 –49; 45 (1988) 62 –79. Lahav, M. ―Who is the ‗Ashurite‘ (2 Sam 2:9) and ‗Ashur‘ (Ps
83:9)?‖ (Heb.) BMik 28 (1982/83) 111 –12. Malamat, A. ―Ummatum in Old Babylonian Texts and
Its Ugaritic and Biblical Counterparts.‖ UF 11 (1979) 527 –36. Steinberg, n. ―The Genealogical

Framework of the F amily Stories in Genesis.‖ Semeia 46 (1989) 41 –50.
Translation
12And this is the family history of Ishmael, the son of Abraham, the son whom
Hagar, the Egyptian,a Sarah‘s maid, bore to Abraham.
13These are the names of Ishmael‘ s sons by their names and their clans. Ishmael‘s
firstborn son was Nebaiot.a Then there were Qedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, 14 Mishma,
Dumah, Massa, 15 Hadad,a Tema, Yetur, Naphish, and Qedemah. 16 These area the sons
of Ishmael, and these are their names by their settlements and encampments: twelve
leaders ofb their tribes.
17These are the years of Ishmael‘s life, one hundred and thirty -seven years. He
breathed his last, died, and was gathereda to his relatives.
18Theya dwelt f rom Havilah to Shur, which is opposite Egypt approachingb Ashur.c
dOpposite all his br others he settled.d
Notes
12.a. Omitted by G.
13.a. SamPent spells it  15.a. Some MSs read 
, S  16.a. On the enclitic use of 
―they, these,‖ after 
―these,‖ cf. GKC, 136d.
16.b. Or ―by.‖ On translating 
, cf. BDB, 512b, 516a.
17.a. cf. n. 25:8.d.*
18.a. G, Vg read sg, ―he encam ped.‖
18.b. cf. n. 10:19.b.*
18.c. BHS would unnecessarily emend to 
. See Comment .
18.d-d. ―The apposition clause … marks the end of the life of Ishmael‖ ( SBH, 42).
Form/Structure/Setting
The Family History of Ishmael (25:12 –18) is one of the ten ―family histories‖ into which
the book of Genesis is arranged. From Gen 11 onwards, short genealogies of Shem, of
Ishmael, and of Esau (11:10 –26; 25:12 –18; 36:1 –43) alternate with the much fuller family
histories of Terah, Isaac, and Jacob (11:27 –25:11; 25:19 –35:29; 37:1 –50:26). As is
customary in Genesis, the story of the non -elect line, here Ishmael, is dealt with before the

history of the chosen line, here Isaac, is described (cf. Esau before Jacob [chap. 36] and
Cain before Seth [chap. 4]).
This histo ry of Ishmael also shows the fulfillment of the promises made to his parents
about him. Hagar had been assured that her descendants would ―be too many to count‖
(16:10) and that Ishmael would ―dwell opposite his brothers‖ (16:12). To Abraham, the
promise w as that Ishmael would ―father twelve princes and I shall make him a great nation‖
(17:20). 25:18 thus looks back to 16:12, and 25:13 –16 to 17:20.
The family history of Ishmael falls into four distinct paragraphs:

12
Title

13–16
Ishmael‘s twelve sons

17
Summary of Ishmael‘s life and notice of his death

18
The territory of the Ishmaelites

According to the usual source –critical theory, vv 12 –17 come from P: v 12 because it
contains the editorial heading ―This is the family history of … ―; vv 13 –16 be cause they are
genealogy and because of their back reference to 17:20 (also P); v 17 because it is a
chronological notice, again usually attributed to P. As to the origin of v 18, opinion is more
divided. Older commentators (e.g., Dillmann, Gunkel, Skinner, Procksch, Speiser) argued
that it came from J because it recounts the fulfillment of 16:12. Indeed, Gunkel suggested
that it once formed the conclusion of chap. 16. Westermann (cf. Coats), howe ver, argues
that v 18 is a continuation of v 16, denies that there is sufficient evidence to attribute it to J,
but says it was an independent tradition adopted by P. Because of the similarity of v 18b to
16:12b, he regards it as a later addition to v 18.
Westermann‘s attempt to split v 18 seems contrived in that the verb used in 16:12b, 
―dwelt,‖ is used in v 18a, while the phrase ―opposite all his brothers‖ is found in v 18b.
So his attempt to dissociate v 18 from the J material of chap. 16 is weak. I t may also be
noted that v 12b, ―the son of Abraham, the son whom Hagar, the Egyptian, Sarah‘s maid,
bore to Abraham,‖ has the closest verbal affinities with chap. 16 and 21:9, both most
probably J. So as in the immediately preceding passage 25:1 –11, it ap pears that P -style
material is encased in J -style editorial comment. This is consonant with seeing J as using
earlier P material.
Sarna argues that this material must come from an old source because there is no mention
of a confederation of Ishmaelite tribes, which this list presupposes, after the time of David.
Nor are Ishmaelites mentioned in Assyrian inscriptions dealing with Arab tribes. In later
texts, e.g., Isa 60:7 and Assyrian texts, Qedar is the leading north Arabian tribe, but here it
is mentioned second to Nebaiot, which may reflect an earlier situat

Comment
12 ―This is … Ishmael.‖ For this formula, cf. 2:4; 5:1; 6:9 ; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:19; 36:1;
37:2. ―The son whom Hagar, the Egyptian, Sarah‘s maid, bore to Abraham‖ recalls all the
drama described in chap. 16 and 21:9 –21. The introductory formula and the reference to the
earlier stories suggest this verse was compos ed by the editor of Genesis.
13–16 This list is framed by ―These are the names of Ishmael‘s sons‖ and ―These are
the sons of Ishmael and these are the names . … ‖ This inclusion appears to mark these
verses off as a discrete fragment utilized by the editor . The list names twelve sons of
Ishmael. The parallel with Jacob‘s twelve sons and the fact that many of these sons can be
identified with Arab tribes make it likely that the Ishmaelites were once a confederation of
tribes like early Israel.
13 ―And their clans,‖ lit. ―by their descendants.‖ 
is translated ―family history of,‖ e.g., 25:12. NAB, von Rad, Speiser, and Gispen, noting
the etymology (from ―Nebaiot‖ is also mentioned in 28:9 and 36:3, where it is recorded
that Esau married his sister. He may also be regarded as the ancestor of the Nabayaµti , an
Arab tribe conquered by Ashurbanipal in the seventh century and mentioned in Isa 60:7.
Whether these Nabayaµti are to be ident ified with the well -known Nabateans (fourth
century B.C. to fourth century A.D.) is less certain (cf. IBD 1043 –48; EM 5:744 –46; POTT,
306, n. 19).
―Qedar‖ is also mentioned alongside Nebaiot in 1 Chr 1:29 and Isa 60:7. Other
references to Qedar show that it too was the name of an Arab tribe, or group of tribes (Isa
21:16 –17; 42:11; Jer 2:10; 49:28; Ezek 27:21; Ps 120:5). Qedar is also mentioned in
Assyrian inscriptions from the eighth and seventh centuries B.C. The Qedarites lived in the
desert between Babylon and Transjordan. Qedar‘s power was greatest from the time of
Sennacherib to the fourth century B.C. (EM 7:31–33; W. J. Dumbrell, BASOR 203 [1971]
33–44).
―Adbeel‖ (cf. 1 Chr 1:29, the only other biblical mention). Tiglath -Pileser 3 (745 –727
B.C.) mentions a tribe Idibail living in the northern Sinai peninsula ( EM 1:90; RLA 5:31).
―Mibsam‖ (cf. 1 Chr 1:29). According to 1 Chr 4:25, a Simeonite had the same name.
According to Noth ( Personennamen , 223), it means ―balsam.‖
14 ―Mishma‖ (cf. 1 Chr 1:30 ). He is also a descendant of Simeon according to 1 Chr
4:25–26. Jebel Misma, 160 miles east of Tema, may again indicate the Arabian links of this
group.
―Dumah‖ (cf. 1 Chr 1:30). The oracle against Dumah in Isa 21:11 –12 seems to make i t
part of Edom. Sennacherib is said to have conquered a fortress in the desert called
Adummat (cf. RLA 1:39–40). There is also an oasis east of Petra called Dumat al Ghandal.
That is not to say that Duma , Dumah, Adummat, and Dumat should be identified, but these
names do confirm the Ishmaelite association with the desert.
―Massa‖ (cf. 1 Chr 1:30). A king of Massa is mentioned in Prov 31:1. A town Mas<a is
mentioned in Tiglath -Pileser‘s annals, where it is associated with Tema and various
Arabian tribes.
15 ―Hadad‖ (cf. 1 Chr 1:30). Simons ( GTOT §121) notes a wadi el -Hadad north of
Tebuk.
―Tema‖ is a ssociated with Sheba in Job 6:19, with Dedan in Jer 25:23, and with Dumah,
Dedan, and Qedar in Isa 21:14. It is an oasis about 250 miles southeast of Eilat, an
important staging post on the trade routes from Arabia to the Mediterranean and to

Babylon. In A ssyrian times, Tema paid heavy tribute to Tiglath -Pileser 3, and later
Nabonidus (556 –39), king of Babylon, lived there while his son Belshazzar ruled in
Babylon ( EM 8:522 –24).
―Yetur‖ is also mentioned in 1 Chr 1:31 and 5:19, among those Transjordanians
conquered by the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh. They may also be the ancestors of
the Itureans (cf. Luke 3:1) who lived in the Antilebanon ( EM 3:673 –74; NBD, 590).
―Naphish‖ (cf. 1 Chr 1:31; 5:19).
―Qedemah‖ (cf. 1 Chr 1:31, otherwise unknown). The name suggests an association
with the east, but whether Qedemah should be ident ified with the Kadmonites (Gen 15:19;
so Simons, GTOT §121) or the people of the east (29:1; so Montgomery, Arabia , 49) is
more doubtful.
16 The terminology used in this verse expresses t he wandering lifestyle of the
Ishmaelites. They lived in ―settlements‖ ( 
; cf. hÉaµsaµrum of the nomadic settlements at Mari; CAD H, 130; also Van Seters,
Abraham in History , 18) and ―encampments‖ ( 
, i.e., ―enclosures,‖ often protected by stone walls; cf. Num 31:10; Ezek 25:4). The word
for ―tribe‖ (
), used elsewhere only in Num 25:15; Ps 117:1, is a term (Akk. ummatum ) also found in
the texts from Mari and Tell al -Rimah (see Malamat, UF 11 [1979] 527 –36).
―Twelve leaders‖ echoes 17:20. Later, Israel also had twelve tribes, each headed by a
leader ( 17 This verse is a typical concluding summary of a patriarch‘s life (cf. 25:7–8;
35:28 –29; 49:33).
18 This verse describes the general area in which the Ishmaelites lived, in the
wilderness t o the south and east of the land of Israel. ―Havilah‖ (cf. 2:11; 10:7) could well
be in Arabia and ―Shur‖ in northern Sinai (16:7; 20:1). ―Ashur‖ was a tribe inhabiting the
Sinai peninsula (cf. 10:22; 25:3).
―Opposite all his brothers he settled,‖ a direct quote from 16:12, probably hints at the later
antagonism between the Dedouin -like Ishmaelites and the more settled Israelites.
Explanation
This short, matter -of-fact family history of Ishmael tidies up the re cord of Abraham‘s first
son. The reader‘s curiosity is satisfied by learning what became of Ishmael and his
descendants. It also explains how Israel viewed her bedouin -like Ishmaelite neighbors who
plied the trade routes in times of peace (cf. 37:25) and pounced on the settlements of Israel
in times of war (Judg 8:24). Through all the stories about Ishmael, there runs a
schizophrenic streak. On the one hand, these tribesmen are viewed as intimately related to
Israel; on the other hand, t hese tales relate that tension between Israelites and Ishmaelites
can be traced right back to the squabbles of Isaac and Ishmael in Abraham‘s household.
But as elsewhere, Genesis is not interested in sociological observation or historical
anecdote for its own sake but in theology, in the fulfillment of the promises made to
Abraham. At first blush, this family history of Ishmael has nothing to do with this
fulfillment theme; Ishmael is, like Cain, Ham, or Esau, one of the cul -de-sacs in divine
history, a man who is by -passed in the unfolding of God‘s promises recorded in Genesis.
Yet he, too, was the subject of divine promises. His mother, Hagar, was assured that he
would ―dwell opposite all his brothers‖ (16:12), while his father, Abraham, was assured

that h e would father twelve princes and become a great nation (17:20). This short family
history of Ishmael records the fulfillment of both these promises (25:16, 18). If the LORD
fulfilled these rather minor promises, he will surely fulfill his much greater pro mises
through the chosen line of Isaac. This section therefore encourages the reader to follow
with eager anticipation the family history of Isaac that is about to begin. If God did not
overlook his promises to Ishmael, how much more certainly will he fulf ill those guaranteed
by oath to Abraham about Isaac and his descendants.
The Story of Isaac (25:19 –35:29)
Bibliography
Blenkinsopp, J. ―Biographical Patterns in Biblical Narrative.‖ JSOT 20 (1981) 27 –46. Blum, E. Die
Komposition der Vätergeschichte . WMANT 57. Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1984. Brodie, L. T.
―Jacob‘s Travail (Jer 30:1 –13) and Jacob‘ s Struggle (Gen 32:22 –32).‖ JSOT 19 (1981) 31 –60.
Fishbane, M. ―Composition and Structure in the Jacob Cycle (Gen 25:19 –25:22).‖ JTS 26 (1975)
15–38; reprinted in Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts. New York:
Schocken Books, 1979. 40 –62. Fokkelman, J. P. Narrative Art in Genesis. Amsterdam: van
Gorcum, 1975. Fretheim, T. E. ―The Jacob Traditions: Theology and Hermeneutic.‖ Int 26 (1972)
419–36. Furman, n. ―His Story Versus Her Story: Male Genealogy and Female Strategy in the
Jacob Cycle.‖ Semeia 46 (1989) 141 –49. Gammie, J. G. ―Theological Interpretation by way of
Literary and Tradition Analysis: Ge n 25–36.‖ In Encounter with the Text: Form and History in the
Hebrew Bible, ed. M. J. Buss. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. 117 –34. Hendel, R. S. The Epic of the
Patriarch: The Jacob Cycle and the Narrative Traditions of Canaan and Israel. HSM 42. Atlanta:
Scholars, 1987. Heuschen, J. M. ―Jacob de genadevolle uitverkiezing.‖ ETL 45 (1969) 335 –58.
Kirkpatrick, P. G. The OT and Folklore Study. JSOTSup 62. Sheffield: Academic, 1988.
Kuehlewein, J. ―Gotteserfahrung und Reifungsgeschichte in der Jakob -Esau -Erzählung: Ein
Beitrag zum Gesprä ch zwischen Theologie und Tiefenpsychologie.‖ In Werden und Wirken des
ATs: FS C. Westermann, ed. R. Albertz, H -P. Müller, H. W. Wolff, and W. Zimmerli. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980. 116 –30. Lemaire, A. ―La haute M ésopotamie et l‘origine des
benê Jacob .‖ VT 34 (1984) 95 –101. Miscall, P. D. ―The Jacob and Joseph Stories as Analogies.‖
JSOT 6 (1978) 28 –40. Moye, R. H. ―In the Beginning: Myth and History in Genesis and Exodus.‖
JBL 109 (1990) 577 –98. Oden, R. A. ―Jacob as Father, Husband, and Nephew: Kinship Studies and
the Patriarchal Narratives.‖ JBL 102 (1983) 189 –205. Otto, E. ―Jakob in Bethel: Ein Beitrag zur
Geschichte der Jakobusüberlieferung.‖ ZAW 88 (1976) 165 –90. ——— . Jakob in Sichem:
Überlieferungsgeschichtliche archäologische und territor ialgeschichtliche Studien zur
Entstehungsgeschichte Israels . BWANT 110. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1979. Pury, A. de. ―Le cycle
de Jacob comme légende autonome des origines d‘I srael.‖ VTSup 43 (1991) 78 –96. ——— . ―La
tradition patriarcale en Gen 12 –35.‖ In Le Pentateuque en question, ed. A. de Pury. Geneva: Labor
et Fides, 1989. 259 –70. Roth, W. M. W. ―The Text is the Medium: An Interpretation of the Jacob
Stories in Genesis.‖ In Encounter with the Text: Form and History in the Hebrew Bible, ed. M. J.
Buss. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. 103 –15. Schiltknecht, H. R. ―Konflikt und Versöhnung in der
Erzählung von Jakob und Esau.‖ Reformatio 22 (1973) 522 –31. Scullion, J. ―‗Die Genesis ist eine
Sammlung von Sagen‘ (Hermann Gunkel): Independent Stories and Redactional Unity in Gen

12–36.‖ In ―Wünschet Jerusalem Fri eden‖: Collected Communications to the XIIth Congress of
IOSOT, Jerusalem, 1986, ed. M. Augustin and K. D. Schunck. Frankfurt: Lang, 1986. 243 –47.
Smith, S. H. ―‗Heel‘ and ‗Thigh‘: the Concept of Sexuality in the Jacob -Esau N arratives.‖ VT 40
(1990) 464 –73. Syrén, R. The Forsaken First -Born: A Study of a Recurrent Motif in the
Patriarchal Narratives. JSOTSup 133. Sheffield: Academi c, 1993. Terino, J. ―A Text -Linguistic
Study of the Jacob Narrative.‖ VE 18 (1988) 45 –62. Thompson, T. L. ―Conflict Themes in the
Jacob Narratives.‖ Semeia 15 (1979) 5 –26. Weimar, P. ―Aufbau und Struktur der
prieste rshriftlichen Jakobsgeschichte.‖ ZAW 86 (1974) 174 –203. Weisman, Z. From Jacob to
Israel . (Heb.) Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986. Whitt, W. D. ―The Jacob Traditions in Hosea and Their
Relation to G enesis.‖ ZAW 103 (1991) 18 –43. Yaniv, I. ―Guide Words in the Jacob Cycle.‖ (Heb.)
BMik 34 (1988/89) 68 –75. Zucker, D. J. ―Jacob in Darkness (and Light): A Study in Contrasts .‖
Judaism 35 (1986) 402 –13.
Form/Structure/Setting
The editorial headings 25:19; 36:1, ―This is the family history of Isaac (Edom),‖ define
the limits of this unit within Genesis. As in 11:27 and 37:2 , it is the father who gives his
name to the section, for he is alive and notionally head of the family throughout the period
covered. Isaac‘s death is not recorded until 35:29.
The Jacob story is one of the three major sections of Genesis dealing with the careers of
the patriarchs, the others being the stories of Abraham (11:27 –25:11) and of Joseph
(37:2 –50:26). In Genesis 1 –15, 257 –58, I noted some of the parallels between these stories
and suggested that the author deliberately highlights some of the par allels in order to
encourage comparison between the careers and characters of the patriarchs.
It is often suggested that the Abraham and Jacob stories have more in common with
each other than with the Joseph story, which has a distinct character of its own . But it is
truer to say that the Joseph story is the sequel of the Jacob story, indeed, that the
Jacob -Joseph story has two parts, 25:19 –35:29 being part 1 and 37:2 –50:26 being part 2.
Part 1 begins with the conception of Jacob and his struggles with Esau in the womb of his
mother (25:19 –22), and part 2 ends with the last words and death of Jacob (47:29 –50:17).
Thus, over half of the book of Genesis is devoted to describing the life of Jacob. This
emphasis on his life is fitting, of course, because Jacob, or Israel, was the forefather of the
nation and his sons were the ancestors of the twelve tribes. The unity of the Jacob and
Joseph stories is also apparent in the portrayal of the characters in both stories. For
example, in both stories the tension betwee n Leah and her sons on the one hand and Rachel
and her sons on the other is of crucial importance. There are parallel motifs in both stories
too; just as Jacob deceived his father with a kid (27:9 –17), so in turn his sons deceive him
with a kid (37:31). Th e Jacob story ends with father Jacob at loggerheads with most of his
sons; it is only the Joseph story that describes the healing of the breach within the family.
When compared with the preceding chapters of Genesis, the Jacob and Joseph stories excel
at characterization and depth of psychological insight. The unity of the stories is indirectly
attested by recent source critics, who tend to view both the Jacob and Joseph stories as from
mainly one source, usually J.
Nevertheless, the author of Genesis has d eliberately split the Jacob -Joseph story into
two parts by putting the family history of Esau 36:1 –37:1 in the middle. This allows him to
alternate the genealogies of the non -elect lines of Ishmael (25:12 –18) and Esau (36:1 –37:1)
with the fuller family his tories of the chosen lines of Terah (Abraham) (11:27 –25:11), Isaac

(Jacob) (25:19 –35:29), and Jacob (Joseph) (37:2 –50:26) to produce a total of five
patriarchal family histories. This matches the five family histories of pre -patriarchal times
(see Genesis 1–15, xxii).
The way in which the author of Genesis has created three major cycles of patriarchal
history by setting the careers of Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph in three great ―family
histories‖ suggests that he wants to draw parallels between them and their significance for
the history of salvation. These parallels are enhanced by the arrangement of the ―family
histories.‖ Each begins with ―This is the family history of (Terah, Isaac, Jacob)‖ (11:27;
25:19; 37:2), and each ends with a reference to the death and burial of the major patriarch
(25:7 –10; 35:29; 50:1 –26). But there are other correspondences too.
The theme of the whole Pentateuch, the partial fulfillment of the promises to Abraham
of land, descendants, covenant, and blessing to the nations, is set out first in 12:1 –3. And all
the subsequent stories in Genesis explain the fulfillment of these promises. This statement
of the divine promises thus sets the agenda for the whole of Genesis 12 –50. But the family
histories of Isaac and Jacob do not just dev elop the main theme of the Pentateuch; they
have subthemes of their own.
Like the main theme in 12:1 –3, these subthemes take the form of a divine revelation
and occur right at the beginning of each ―family history.‖ In 25:22 –23, Rebekah consults
the LORD about her pregnancy and is told, ―‗Two nations are in your womb . … / The older
will be a slave of the younger.‘‖ And it is the struggle between Jacob and Esau that
dominates the next ten chapters of Genesis. They wrestle in the womb; then Jacob emerges
clutching Esau‘s heel. Later he persuades Esau to part with his birthright and later yet tricks
him out of his blessing. Esau‘s murderous rage forces Jacob to flee to Paddan -Aram, where
he has to remain for twenty years before returning to Canaan and a reunio n with his
brother.
Similarly, the Joseph story begins with a revelation of Joseph‘s future greatness. This
time, God‘s purposes are made known through a pair of dreams in which Joseph‘s parents
and brothers bow down to him. Eventually, this prophecy is fu lfilled in chap. 46, when all
the family goes down to Egypt and meets Joseph, the vizier of all Egypt.
This prefacing of each ―family history‖ with a word from God thus serves to highlight
that every stage of the patriarchal history was guided by God. Desp ite the appalling
mistakes of these fallible men, God‘s purposes were ultimately fulfilled.
The Jacob story falls into the following main sections:
25:19 –34
First encounters of Jacob and Esau
A
26:1–33
Isaac and the Philistines
B
26:34 –28:9
Jacob cheats Es au of his blessing
C
28:10 –22
Jacob meets God at Bethel
D
29:1–14

Jacob arrives at Laban‘s house
E
29:15 –30
Jacob marries Leah and Rachel
F
29:31 –30:24
Birth of Jacob‘s sons
G
30:25 –31:1
Jacob outwits Laban
F1
31:2–32:1 (31:55)
Jacob leaves Laban
E1
32:2–3(1–2)
Jacob meets angels of God at Mahanaim
D1
32:4(3) –33:20
Jacob returns Esau‘s blessing
C1
34:1–31
Dinah and the Hivites
B1
35:1–29
Journey‘s end for Jacob and I
In Genesis 1 –15, 262 –63, I discussed the pro posals of scholars who suggest the
Abraham stories are arranged palistrophically, i.e., in a mirror -image structure. Such an
arrangement is much clearer here, as Fishbane ( JTS 26 [1975] 15 –38), Fokkel man
(Narrative Art) , Coats, and Rendsburg (Redaction) have observed. The mirror image is
particularly obvious in sections C, D, E, E1, D1, C1. In C1, Jacob bows down to his brother
(33:3), acting out the words of the blessing in 27:29, and he says he is gi ving the blessing to
Esau in 33:11. In both D and D1, Jacob encounters angels of God: on the first occasion he is
leaving Canaan, on the second returning there. The parallels between Jacob‘s arrival at
Laban‘s house (E) and his departure (E1) are clear. F (Jacob marries Leah and Rachel) and
F1 (Jacob outwits Laban) are less obviously reflections of each other, but both in fact deal
with trickery, how Laban tricked Jacob into marrying Leah and how Jacob tricked Laban
into paying him wages. B a nd B1 both deal with relationships between Israelites and the
Canaanites and make a sharp contrast between the peaceful situation in Isaac‘s day and the
bitter conflict in Jacob‘s time. A and A1 have least in common, though they do bring
together Jacob and Esau for the first and last time (35:29).
The central scene (G), the birth of Jacob‘s sons —more precisely, the birth of a son to
Rachel (30:22 –24)—is the turning point of the story. As soon as this happens Jacob asks
Laban for permission to return home (3 0:25). Though, of course, he prevaricates and uses
various excuses to detain Jacob, it is clear that in Jacob‘s eyes it is the birth of Joseph to the
only woman he regarded as his wife that signals it is time for him to go home. The flood
story is another prime example of a palistrophe in Genesis (cf. Wenham, Genesis 1 –15,
156–58). It is noteworthy that both palistrophes have a similar comment at the turning point

(God remembered Rachel/Noah, 30:22; 8:1) to emphasize that it is God who c ontrols
events and saves his people.
Classical source criticism found the three main documentary sources in these chapters:
according to Driver, J is the major source (60%), E is half the length of J (28%), and P is
just an eighth of the total (12%). Recen t critics have tended to see J or someone like him as
even more important and eliminate E entirely (e.g., Westermann), though as in the Abraham
story, P elements are usually still assigned to a different source or writer. D iscussion of the
different proposals as they affect particular chapters will be found scattered through the
commentary.
First Encounters of Jacob and Esau (25:19 –34)
Bibliography
Ahroni, R. ―Why Did Esau Spurn the Birthright? A Study in Biblical Interpreta tion (Gen
25:29 –34).‖ Judaism 29 (1980) 323 –31. Kraft, R. A. ―A Note on the Oracle of Rebecca (Gen
25:23).‖ JTS 13 (1962) 318 –20. Kreuter, J. A. ―Warum liebte Isaak Esau? \‘86berlegungen zu
bepéµw in Gen 25:28.‖ BN 48 (1989) 17 –18. Kuntzmann, R. Le symbolisme des jumeaux au
Proche -Orient ancien. Paris: Beauchesne, 1983. Luke, K. Two Birth Narratives in Genesis (Gen
25:19 –26; 38:27 –30).‖ IndTS 17 (1980) 155 –80. Maher , M. ―The Transfer of a Birthright:
Justifying the Ancestors.‖ PIBA 8 (1984) 1 –24. Matthews, V. H. ―Jacob the Trickster and Heir of
the Covenant: A Literary Interpretation.‖ Perspectives in Religious Studies 12 (1985) 185 –95.
Rottenberg, M. ―The Interpretation of Rebekah‘s Question, ‗Why am I like this?‘‖ (Heb.) BMik 29
(1983/84) 218 –19. Williams, J. G. ―The Comedy of Jacob: A Literary Study.‖ JAAR 46 (1978) 208.
Translation
19This is the family history of Isaac, the son of Abraham. Now Abraham had
fathered Isaac. 20 Isaac was forty years old when he marrieda Rebekah, the daughter of
Bethuel the Aramean from Paddan -Aram and the sister of Laban the Aramean.
21Isaac interceded to the LORD for his wife because she was childless, and the LORD
heededa hisb prayer, and Rebekah his wife conceived.
22The children smasheda each other inside her, so that she said: ―If it is like this,
whyb am Ic here?‖ So she went to consult the LORD. 23The LORD said to her:
―Two nationsa are in your womb.
Two peoples will be dividedb even as they come out of cyou.
One people will be stronger than the other.
The older will be a slave of the younger.‖
24When the time for her to give birtha was up, there were indeedb twinsc in her
womb. 25 The first came out all reddish,a like a hairy cloak, so theyb called him Esau. 26
Afterwards his brother came out wit h his hand clutchinga Esau‘s heel, so theyb called
him Jacob. Now Isaac was sixty years old when they were born.
27The boys grew up. Esau became an expe rt hunter, a real countryman. But Jacob
was a quiet man, who lived in tents.a 28 Isaac loved Esau for his hunting,a whereas
Rebekah loved Jacob.
29Jacob had madea a stew, when Esau came in from the country exhausted. 30 Esau said to

Jacob, ―Please let me swallowa some of the red stew, this red stew, because I am
exhausted.‖ So he was called Edom. 31 Jacob said, ―Sella at onceb your firstborn‘s rights to
me.‖c 32 Esau said, ―Here I am about to die. Of what value to me are thea rights of a
firstborn?‖ 33 Jacob said, ―Swear to me at once.‖ a So he swore to him, and he so ld his
firstborn‘s rights to Jacob,a34a while Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew.a He ate, drank,b
stood up, and went away. So Esau treatedc the rights of the firstborn with contempt.
Notes
20.a. 
+ inf constr 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
21.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. niph [
. On pointing, cf. GKC, 51n. On this use of the niph, ―tolerative,‖ see WOC, 390.
21.b. 
lit. ―for, by him.‖ ―The efficient cause (or personal agent) is, as a rule, attached to the
passive by 
‖ (GKC, 121f).
22.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. pl. impf. hithp  22.b. Enclitic 
makes the question more pointed (cf. 18:13; GKC, 136c).
22.c. BHS suggests inserting 23.a. With SamPent and Q, read 23.b. 3 masc. pl.
impf. niph  23.c. On use of 
here, see GKC, 119ff.
24.a. cf. n. 4:2.b.*
24.b. cf. SBH, 95.
24.c. SamPent has the fuller spelling  25.a. On syntax, cf. Joüon, 126a.
25.b. G, S have sg, ―he called,‖ as in v 26.
26.a. Fem sg ptcp qal 
.
26.b. Impersonal 3 masc. sg ―he‖ = ―they.‖ SamPent reads ―they called .‖
27.a. cf. n. 4:20.c.*

28.a. SamPent 
―his hunting.‖ G, Vg understand it similarly, but MT is adequate.
29.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg hiph 30.a. 2 masc. sg impv hiph 
+ 1 sg suffix.
31.a. 2 masc. sg impv 
+ aµh suffix ( GKC, 48i).
31.b. 
lit. ―today,‖ with the nuance ―now, at once, first of all.‖ cf. 1 Sam 2:16; 1 Kgs 1:51; M.
Rottenberg, Lesá 48–49 (1983 –85) 60 –62.
31.c. Note unusual position of 
. Commonly next to the verb. Probably indicates emphasis ―to me‖; cf. EWAS, 44–45.
32.a. Note the omission of the def art in a question (Joüon, 137p).
33.a-a. With SBH, 135 –36, linking these clauses chiastically with the first clause of v 34.
34.a-a. cf. preceding note.
34.b. cf. n. 9:21.a.*
34.c. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. apoc 

Form/Structure/Setting
The opening of this section is clear: ―This is the family history of Isaac‖ is one of the
ten headings marking a new division within Genesis (cf. 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 11:27; 25:12). Its
ending is not so obvious. Coats suggests 25:26, and Gunk el and Westermann propose
25:28; whereas the majority prefer 25:34. In the light of the parallels with 11:27 –12:9, the
last view has most in its favor. This section is in essence an introduction to the whole cycle
of Jacob and Esau. The narrator offers us glimpses of three episodes in their early years that
both determine and illustrate the subsequent course of their careers. In these sixteen verses,
we have their future lives in a nutshell. These introductory paragraphs serve as a trailer to
the main story , which comprises Gen 26 –35.
It may be analyzed as follows:
Heading:
―This is the family history‖(19a)
Isaac‘s nearest relations(19b –20)
Episode 1:
Pregnancy and Birth of Esau and Jacob(21 –26)

Scene 1. Isaac prays for Rebekah(21)

Scene 2. Problems of p regnancy explained(22 –23)

Scene 3. Birth of twins(24 –26)
Episode 2:
Esau and Jacob contrasted(27 –28)
Episode 3:
Esau sells his birthright to Jacob(29 –34)

Much of the information contained in this section is indispensable for understanding the
later sto ries, and all of it contributes to an appreciation of the themes of the unfolding
narrative. vv 19b –20 remind us of Isaac‘s links with Laban and Paddan -Aram. Laban,
Rebekah‘s brother, is to give his daughters to Jacob in marriage. Indeed, Laban is to dicta te
virtually twenty years of Jacob‘s life in Paddan -Aram (chaps.
The childlessness of Rebekah links her both with her mother -in-law Sarah and with her
daughter -in-law Rachel. But whereas the parallel stories make much of the matriarch‘ s
barrenness, here the point is slipped over quickly. The narrative here focuses on the
struggles of her sons. Even before birth they are locked in conflict, a feature that will
dominate much of the following narratives (chaps. 27, 32 –33). And into this co nflict will be
dragged their parents, as the father favors Esau and the mother Jacob (vv 27 –28; cf. chap.
27). Finally, the carelessness of Esau in selling his birthright to Jacob both shows a
preliminary fulfillment of the divine promi se that ―the older will be a slave of the younger‖
(v 23) and anticipates the much greater victories Jacob will win in the years ahead (vv
29–34; cf. chap. 27; 32 –33). In all these ways this opening section introduces the key
themes of the Jacob cycle.
However, this section does not merely look forward; it also looks back, particularly to
the opening of the Abraham cycle that it closely parallels.

―This is the family history of‖
25:19; cf. 11:27

―Abraham fathered Isaac‖
25:19; cf. 11:27

―Isaac married Rebekah‖
25:20; cf. 11:29

―(Rebekah) was childless‖
25:21; cf. 11:30

Journey to oracle (land)
25:22; cf. 11:31

―And the LORD said‖
25:23; cf. 12:1

Predictions
25:23; cf. 12:1–3

First fulfillment
25:24 –26; cf. 12:4

Age of patriarch then
25:26b; cf. 12:4b

Second fulfillment of pred ictions
25:27 –34; cf. 12:5–9

Wife/sister scene
26:1–11; cf. 12:10 –20

These parallels are sufficiently close to suggest that they are not coincidental. The
history of Isaac‘s family is being deliberately compared with that of Abraham. And if this is
so, special attention needs to be paid to the divine oracle summarizing the future career of
Esau and Jacob in 25:23, for this occupies a position analogous to the promises made to
Abraham in 12:1 –3. The latter passage is of cardinal importance not just for the Abraham
cycle but for the whole Pentateuch whose theme it states. Here 25:23 is similarly
programmatic: it announces the God -determined career of Jacob to be one of conflict
culminating in ultimate triumph.
Source critics usually assign vv 19 –20, 26b to P because of the toledot formula and the
use of 
in v 19, because of its chronological details (vv 20, 26), and because of the mention of
Paddan -Aram in v 20. vv 21 –28 are usually assigned to J because they mention the LORD
(vv 21, 23). More doubt surrounds vv 29 –34. Gunkel and Procksch held it came from E
because of its affinity with 27:36, whereas Westermann believes it came originally from an
independent source. Mo st, however, ascribe the passage to J.
Volz ( Der Elohist , 70 –72), Fokkelmann ( Narrative Art , 86 –94), and Blum ( Die
Komposition , 79–80) have all given strong reasons for holding to the substantial unity of vv
21–34 (apart from 26b), and for its ascription t o J. But what is to be made of the P
fragments (vv 19 –20, 26b)? Westermann has pointed out that v 26b, ―Now Isaac was sixty
years old when they were born,‖ can hardly have stood alone. It presupposes a mention of
the birth of Jacob and Esau. Without the ma terial in the preceding verses, we could not
identify ―they‖ in v 26b. He has drawn attention to similar hiatuses in 11:27b and 12:5c
caused by the standard source analysis. He therefore ascribes both 11:27 –12:9 and
25:19 –34 in their present forms to the w ork of the final redactor who combin
Our analysis of the parallels between 11:27 –12:9 and 25:19 –34, which comprises
material drawn from both the putative sources J and P, supports Westermann‘s view that
25:19 –34 reflects essentially the final editor‘s hand . Indeed, the parallels suggest a much
greater degree of unity within both passages than is usually admitted. But whereas
Westermann wants to distinguish between J and the final redactor, I regard the evidence as
insufficient to distinguish two hands here and would prefer to believe it all reflects the hand

of J.
Comment
19 ―This is the family history of Isaac.‖ On this standard heading, see Wenham,
Genesis 1 –15, 268 –69. Isaac barely appears in the story after chap. 27, yet this heading
covers all of 25:19 –35:29, because these chapters span the whole period in which Isaac was
nominally head of the family, so that his sons‘ deeds are in some sense part of his story.
―The son of Abraham. Now Abraham had fathered Isaac.‖ It is quite unusual for the
toledot form ula, ―This is the family history of X,‖ to be followed by a reference to X‘s
father; it is usually followed by a reference to X‘s descendants. The retrospective reference
to Abraham here and in 25:12 reminds the reader both of the drama surrounding Isaac‘s
birth and of the promises that will find fulfillment through him.
20 This verse summarizes the story of Isaac‘s marriage to Rebekah and looks forward
to Jacob‘s future journey to Paddan -Aram and his dealings with his uncle Laban (Gen
29–31). It is this fo rward glance that explains the otherwise unnecessary reference to
Laban. Only here is Isaac‘s age at his marriage given. If the chronological details in the
patriarchal story are to be taken literally, this would put Isaac‘s marriage some thirty -five
years before Abraham‘s death, but see Comment on 24:62 –67. Taken in conjunction with
the other remark about Isaac‘s age in 25:26, this comment puts the pregnancy of Rebekah
in a different light.
―Paddan -Aram‖ occurs only in Genesis (28:2, 5 –7; 31:18; 33:18; 35: 9, 26; 46:15; 48:7).
It is the homeland of the family of Bethuel, Rebekah, and Laban, somewhere in the
northern Mesopotamia, probably in the vicinity of Harran (cf. 11:31). The meaning of
Paddan is uncertain. It may be the equivalent of ―field,‖ as in Hos 12:13(12). Alternatively,
it may be connected with Akk. paddaµnu ―road‖ (cf. AHW, 807) and could be an alternativ e
name for Harran.
―The Aramean.‖ Why the text should so clearly emphasize the ethnic identity of
Bethuel and Laban is uncertain, but this aspect of Israel‘s origin is echoed later (Deut 26:5).
21–26 The first episode in Jacob‘s life is antenatal and falls into three scenes:

v 21
Isaac‘s intercession

vv 22 –23
Rebekah‘s pregnancy

vv 24 –26
The birth of twins

21 ―Isaac interceded to the LORD for his wife.‖ Throughout Genesis, Isaac appears as a
rather passive figure, liable to be imposed on by his father, his wife, his children, and
foreigners. But here for the first time he is presented as taking an initiative by interceding
for his wife. Elsewhere this te rm [
involves a request to remove some serious ill; it occurs most frequently in Exodus of

Moses entreating God to send away the plagues (8:4, 5, 24, 25, 26 [8, 9, 28, 29, 30]). ― [
here designates the powerful pacifying influence of a man of God on G od‖ (R.
Albertz, THWAT 2:386).
―For she was childless.‖ The initial barrenness of the matriarchs is a recurrent theme in
Genesis; cf. Comment on 11:30.
―The LORD heeded his prayer, and Rebekah his wife conceived.‖ The absence of any
reference to time enhances the impression of Isaac the powerful intercessor. Like those of
his father Abraham, his prayers for barren women are ans wered by God (cf. 15:2; 20:17;
21:1–2). Only later do we learn of Isaac‘s great persistence in prayer.
22–23 Isaac‘s prayer is answered by a multiple pregnancy, which, though a tribute to
the efficacy of his prayer, is extremely painful for Rebekah. ―The children‖ (number
unspecified) ―smashed themselves inside her.‖ The verb 
―smash, crush‖ is most frequently used figuratively of the oppression of the poor.
Literally, it is used to describe skulls being smashed (Judg 9:53; Ps 74:14) or reeds being
broken (e.g., Isa 36:6). The use of such a term here vividly indicates the violence of the
struggle within Rebekah‘s womb.
22 ―If it is like this, why am I here?‖ The pregnancy is so painful th at she wonders if
there is any point going on living. After they had grown up, Rebekah had similar thoughts
(27:46; cf. Job). ―What a unique conflict we have here! A conflict of twins which rages
even in the womb and so vehemently that their mother is driven to despair. ‗Behold, how
good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity‘ a psalmist says, but to Jacob and Esau
any room is too small when they are together. Their first battlefield is their mother‘s womb.
How cruelly the sweet expectations of children, the greater after twenty years of hope and
despair, are dashed for Isaac and Rebekah! As early as the pregnancy their parental
happiness is threatened. ‗What shall I do‘ Rebekah wonders in despair‖ (Fokkelman
Narrative Art , 88).
―She went to consult the LORD.‖ Elsewhere this involves consulting a prophet; cf. Exod
18:15; 1 Sam 9:9; 1 Kgs 22:8. Further details of this consultation are not given, since they
are not relevant, but the prophetic message is given.
23 ―Two nations are in your womb.
Two peoples will be divided even as they come out of you.
One people will be stronger than the other.
The older will be a slave of the younger.‖
The oracle is cast in two pairs of lines. In typical poetic style, the second h alf of each
couplet develops and intensifies the ideas in the first half.
Abraham and Sarah had been promised that many nations would be descended from them
(17:4 –6, 16), so the first line hardly says anything fresh. It is little more than an affirmation
of the older promise and need not even imply a twin birth. But the second line, ―Two
peoples‖ (
The second couplet exhibits the same development from the general, ―One people will
be stronger than the other,‖ to the more precise and definite, ―The older will be a slave of
the younger.‖ But again, by itself this is a perplexing oracle. If Rebekah has twins, how can
one be older than the other? In the light of the rest of the story, its meaning is clear. It
points forward to Jacob‘s domination of Esau, to I srael‘s subjugation of Edom. Their names
may indeed, as Strus ( Nomen -Omen , 60, 135) suggests, be alluded to in this cryptic saying.

[
―be the slave of‖ not only rhymes with 
―Jacob‖ by having the same vowels but has three consonants in common too. And
―younger‖ 
seems to be a play on ―Seir‖ 
, an alternative name for Edom or Esau (e.g., Gen 32:4 [3]; 33:14, 16). But to Rebekah
this ca n have been far from apparent; she must have returned from the prophet little the
wiser.
The term used here for ―older‖ ( 
rab) occurs also in Akkadian texts of the mid -second millennium B.C. from Nuzi,
Alalah, Ugarit, and Assyria with the same meaning. Later texts use slightly different
terminology, such as aplu rabû or maµru rabuÆ . So Selman suggests this is an indication
of the antiquity of this text (―Comparative Customs,‖ in Essays , 126).
24 At last the enigmatic prophetic saying is confirmed and cla rified;  25–26 The
very manner of their birth seems to be an omen visibly underlining the prophetic oracle.
25 ―Reddish.‖ The adjective also describes David in 1 Sam 16:12; 17:42. Translation of
color terms is notoriously difficult, so it is uncertain w hat color is intended and whether it
describes the color of Esau‘s hair or his skin. However, there is undoubtedly a play on
Esau‘s other name Edom ( 
) in the term ―reddish‖ (  ―Like a hairy coat.‖ Here there is word -play with the
term ―Seir,‖ the n ame of the territory of Edom, which contains the same root consonants
(
) as ―hair‖ and in turn anticipates the word ―Esau‖ ( [
). Esau‘s shaggy hairiness has often been compared to Enkidu, a wild uncivilized man
in the Gilgamesh epic, whose ― whole body is covered with hair‖ (GE 1.36). Vawter
observes ―Hairiness or shagginess seems to have been eo ipso a mark of incivility. …
Similarly, there was a prejudice against a … redheaded person, which existed not only in
the ancient N ear Eastern world but well into the time of Western Christianity as well. Judas
Iscariot was depicted in mediaeval art as a redhead! … In respect to Esau, therefore, the
author‘s word -plays go beyond mere cleverness and insinuate a bias against him from th e
beginning‖ (288). Sarna, on the other hand, thinks a ruddy complexion is intended, which
in Crete, Egypt, and Ugarit was associated with heroes.
―Esau‖ the name is unknown elsewhere in the ancient Orient, and its etymology is
uncertain. Arabic gasûiya ―covered,‖ ―hidden‖ has been suggested. Another less likely
possibility is that the name is connected with Ousoos, a hunter in Phoenician mythology
(Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 1.10.9 –10). Certainly the OT offers no explicit
etymology but here simply associates his name with hairiness.
26 The name Jacob, on the other hand, is well known. It is usually regarded as a shortened
form of 
ya>qob -el ―may El protect, reward‖ (the meaning of the verb is unsure) and is a typical
Amorite name of the early second millennium. It is found in inscriptions from Chagar
Bazar (1800 B.C.), Qatuna (c. 1700 B.C.), and occasionally in second -millennium Egyptian
texts.
However, as usual, the Bible is not intereste d in a historic etymology but in the events

associated with the birth that led the parents to choose this name. The baby emerged
clutching Esau‘s heel ( [
>aµqeµb ) so he was called  ―Now Isaac was sixty years old when they were
born.‖ The birth of the first child was a most significant event in a man‘s life, so his age at
the time is often recorded (5:3, 6, 9, 32; 11:26; 16:16; 21:5). It also shows, contrary to
one‘s initial impression on reading 25:21, how long a period elapsed between Isaac‘s
interce ssion and Rebekah‘s conception. It further implies that their joy outweighed all the
forebodings evoked by the pregnancy and ominous delivery. Esau and Jacob were the
answer to persistent prayer and the fruit of a harrowing pregnancy. Isaac and Rebekah‘s j oy
at the twins‘ safe arrival must have been correspondingly great.
27–28 But as the boys grow up, the different characters already suggested at birth begin
to emerge. Esau, the rough and hairy child, becomes the great hunter, the man of the open
spaces, w hereas Jacob is the quiet stay -at-home. The word translated ―quiet‖ ( 
) is most problematic. Usually it means ―perfect‖ and is a term of highest moral
approbation (e.g., Job 1:1, 8; 2:3; cf. Gen 6:9). However, such a moral sense is inappropriate
here, but it is not obvious in what way Jacob is perfect. Perhaps the sense is suggested by
the cognate verb  ―Who lived in tents‖ contrasts him with his wild hunting brother and
may well suggest he would become a herdsman (cf. 4:20) like his father and grandfather (cf.
13:5).
28 ―Isaac loved Esau for his hunting.‖ Now another side of Isaac‘s c haracter emerges.
He is not only a passive, peaceable man of prayer but a gourmand who loves his food. And
this exacerbates the tension between the rival brothers, the more so because Rebekah favors
Jacob. The reason for her favoritism is not stated; it is left to our surmise. Was it his
lifestyle, that he was easier to manipulate than his brother, that he was more often at home?
Whatever her motives, the scene is now set for chap. 27, where Rebekah uses her husband‘s
appetite and Jacob‘s tractability to ac quire the blessing for the son she loves, yet thereby
losing him. The brothers are already moving inexorably toward realizing the prophetic
announcement of their division.
29–34 If the previous episode shows the division between the brothers deepening as
predicted, this one shows how the younger starts to make a slave of the older, how Jacob
the heel -catcher deserves his name.
29 ―Jacob had made a stew.‖ How, when, and why is not stated. Even its contents are not
described. The significant thing is that the strong hunter came in ―exhausted‖ ( [
). Exhaustion is in the Near East more likely caused by exertion and thirst than by hunger
(cf. Judg 8:4; Isa 29:8; J ob 22:7). So what Esau most needed was a drink and a rest.
30 Certainly his remarks, ―Please let me swallow some of the red stuff, this red stuff,
because I am exhausted,‖ do not suggest he is quite as weary as he professes. He does
manage to say ―please,‖ to use high -flown language (―swallow‖), and then implicitly, if
rather uncouthly, to praise the quality of the stew —―the red stew, this red stew.‖ Surely this
description suggests a rich meaty stew such as a hunting man like Esau would relish. In
passing, it is explained that this is why Esau is also called Edom, for the word sounds
almost like the word ―red,‖ 
<eðdoµm , the third play on the names of Esau in this opening section (cf. 25:23, 26).
31 Whereas Esau drools over the mouth -watering stew and babbles on, Jacob‘s reply is
brusque. ―Sell at once your firstborn‘s rights to me.‖ Note the omission of ―please,‖ the use

of ―at once,‖ and the emphatic position of ―to me.‖ The way Jacob states his demand
suggests long premeditation an d a ruthless exploitation of his brother‘s moment of
weakness.

―firstborn‘s rights.‖ The first son in the family was held in especial esteem in Israel; he
was regarded as the first fruits of his father‘s strength (49:3) and dedicated to God (Exod
22:28 [29]). He was in turn specially privileged during his lifetime (Gen 43:33) and when
the inheritance was divided up. Deut 21:17 (like MAL B1) provides that the firstborn shall
receive a double share, that is, twice as much as any other brother, of his fa ther‘s property.
Similar customs are known in other parts of the ancient Near East, but since it was not
universal practice, we cannot be sure that it is presupposed here. However, whatever
advantages Esau enjoyed as the firstborn he is now invited to sell for a bowl of stew. ―Esau
sold this portion and nothing else just as in Old Babylonia and in Nuzi inheritances are the
object of buying and selling among brothers. Esau‘s rank and position are not affected by
this transaction as chap. 27 shows quite clear ly‖ (M. Tsevat, TDOT 2:126). It may also be
significant that 
―rights of firstborn‖ is an anagram of 
―blessing,‖ the subject of chaps. 26 –27 and a key theme in Genesis. What Esau is
prepared to forfeit here will pave the way to his greater loss, the loss of the blessing, in
chap. 27.
32 Esau prattle s on, showing he is far from being on the point of death and exhibiting a
careless indifference to a privilege that the ancient world held dear: ―Of what value to me
are the rights of a firstborn?‖
33–34 Jacob‘s curt three -word reply, ―Swear/to me/at once, ‖ confirms that he is cold and
calculating, determined to cash in on his brother‘s folly.
The chiastic structure of vv 33b –34a, ―He sold to Jacob while Jacob gave to Esau,‖
highlights the two -sided nature of the deal and draws attention to the inequity of the
arrangement, ―Esau sold —but Jacob gave.‖ And what was it he gave? Not a rich meaty
stew, that the word ―red‖ back in v 30 suggested, but only a dish of lentils. With this
last-minute revelation we should be stunned. Fancy trading all those treasured ri ghts of
inheritance for a mere bowl of lentil soup. We are left to admire Jacob‘s sharpness and
wonder at Esau‘s folly. The four verbs, ―he ate, drank, stood up, and went away,‖ allow us
a chance to reflect on his behavior. After his earlier loquaciousness , Esau‘s silence is eerie.
Does he really care about his birthright, or is bitterness already making it impossible to talk
to his brother? The final comment of the narrator, ―So Esau treated the rights of the
firstborn with contempt,‖ is important, because explicit moral commentary is rare in the
Bible. It emphasizes, as has already emerged in the dialogue, that Esau has treated with
flippancy something of great worth. Though Jacob has been portrayed as heartlessly
exploitive, the narrator finds it unnecess ary to comment on that aspect here. The subsequent
stories will show how Jacob had to pay for the enmity he had stirred up. Here the most
decisive aspect is mentioned. ―By his irresponsible behavior toward the choice Jacob
offered him, actually Esau despis es himself and also Yahweh; therefore he must change
places with Jacob‖ (M. Görg, TDOT 2:63).
Explanation

This section serves as overture to the family history of Isaac. Some characters are
already familiar to the reader, Isaac, Rebekah, and Laban, but the two principal actors in
this new stage of the drama, E sau and Jacob, have not been introduced before. And what is
said about them here, particularly in the prophetic oracle, ―The older will be a slave of the
younger,‖ will determine their whole career.
chap. 24 introduced Rebekah, the dynamic bustling daughte r of Bethuel. Energy and
enthusiasm bubbled out of her as she willingly agreed to go with Abraham‘s servant to the
land of Canaan to marry Isaac. That same story showed unambiguously how God
controlled events and answered the servant‘s prayer, so that imme diately he found an even
better bride for Isaac than he expected. And Rebekah had left home with the blessing
ringing in her ears, ―May you, our sister, become thousands of ten thousands‖ (24:60).
But as 25:21 resumes the story, we learn that Rebekah‘s sit uation has turned out very
differently; she is childless, and that, as chaps. 12 –20 showed, is a miserable condition for
any woman in ancient society, let alone one who has been promised a multitude of children.
For nearly twenty years she suffered until t he LORD heeded her husband‘s prayers and she
conceived. But the happiness of motherhood was clouded by the agonies of carrying twins,
so that she wondered if life was worth living.
Consulting a prophet, she is told that ―two nations are in your womb.‖ Thou gh this is
not an unambiguous diagnosis that she has twins, it does suggest that her offspring will
survive and multiply sufficiently to become nations. In this way, the ancient promises to
Abraham are reaffirmed. Further, she is told that from birth they will be divided, which not
only suggests that they are twins but that they will be quarreling from childhood. Then,
finally, she is told that ―the older will be the slave of the younger,‖ another enigmatic
pronouncement in the context of a multiple pregnan cy.
But the birth clarifies the issues. Twins are indeed born, and the second emerges trying to
catch the heel of the first. The struggles inside her womb are all set to carry on outside.
Sadly, the conflict is aggravated by the parents‘ partiality. Isaac, the passive man of prayer,
is also shown to be a man of appetite, and this causes him to favor his hunting son Esau,
who brings him the game he enjoys. But Rebekah, the maternal activist, prefers her quiet,
reserved son, Jacob, who is s et to become a herdsman like his father and grandfather. So
already the truth of the prophetic oracle is beginning to be realized.
More evidence of its truth is shown by the red stew incident. Returning weary from the
hunt, Esau begs his brother for a port ion of the red stew he has prepared. Brotherly
affection would surely demand that Jacob freely meet Esau‘s needs. But with callous
calculation, Jacob insists that Esau exchange his firstborn‘s inheritance rights for the stew,
that he should surrender preci ous long -term goods for the immediate appeasement of his
hunger. Amazingly, Esau consents, and Jacob acquires the firstborn‘s right of inheritance.
Already the elder is becoming slave of the younger. But the seeds of deadly animosity
between the brothers h ave been sown, and as they germinate and grow, the whole family
will burst apart yet further fulfilling the prophetic prediction that ―they will be divided even
from your womb.‖ The account of the bitter feud and its consequences will take up most of
chaps . 27–33.
But the story of the conflict between Jacob and Esau does not end with Genesis. As
their names and the oracle make apparent, Jacob and Esau are the forefathers of two
nations, Israel and Edom, who were bitter rivals throughout the OT period. Edom‘s
traditional home was south and east of the Dead Sea. When Israel wandered through the
wilderness on the way to Canaan, they had to skirt the land of Edom because of their

refusal to allow the Israelites to pass through their territory (N um 20:14 –21). Throughout
the monarchy period there was conflict between Edom and Israel. Sometimes Edom was
incorporated into the Israelite empire (1 Sam 14:47; 2 Sam 8:14); sometimes it enjoyed
independence and used every opportunity to assert itself agai nst Israel (2 Kgs 8:20, 22). At
the fall of Jerusalem, Edom sided with the Babylonians and helped cut off those Judeans
trying to escape from the Babylonians. This unbrotherly action is recalled bitterly in the
prophets (e.g., Ezek 25:12 –14; Obad 10 –14; Ps 137:7). It is, therefore, predicted that Edom
will be destroyed once and for all and incorporated into the kingdom of Israel (e.g., Obad
18–21; Mal 1:4). That would represent th e ultimate fulfillment of the prediction that ―the
older will be slave of the younger.‖
But the reverberations of this age -old conflict are not forgotten in the NT. As often, the
book of Hebrews points to the patriarchal stories to draw po ints for the present. Its readers
were probably Jewish Christians tempted to avoid persecution by reverting to Judaism.
Like Esau, they were ready to swap long -term blessing for immediate relief, so Hebrews
warns ―See to it … that no one be immoral or irre ligious like Esau, who sold his birthright
for a single meal. For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he
was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears‖ (Heb
12:15 –17).
Hebrews thus sees Esau as a type of the backslider or unbeliever. So does Paul in his
use of the key verse in our section:
―Two nations are in your womb …
The older will be the slave of the younger.‖
As already noted, this verse is programmatic: it explains the whole Jacob and Esa u
story in much the same way that 12:1 –3 illuminates the Abraham story. It is an
announcement that, contrary to natural expectation, Esau the oldest will lose his rights to
inheritance and blessing, which will be usurped by Jacob. For Paul, this is an exam ple of
the mystery of election. Why is it, he asks in Rom 9 –11, that the Jews have failed to
recognize Jesus as the Christ when they have all the spiritual resources enshrined in the Old
Covenant. He begins his discussion by citing various examples from th e OT where God‘s
choice has nothing to do with human merit: ―[W]hen Rebecca had conceived children …
though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God‘s
purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call, she was
told, ‗The elder will serve the younger‘‖ (Rom 9:10 –12).
Certainly, here Paul seems to have caught well the spirit of Genesis. There is no
disguising the failures of the chosen line. Noah stumbles. Abraham goes as tray more than
once. Isaac and Rebekah are partisan. Jacob is at times positively obnoxious, and the author
of Genesis does not disguise his disapproval of such conduct. Yet despite all their
sinfulness, God‘s chosen are preserved and blessed. God‘s saving purpose is not thwarted
by human weakness, though it may be delayed. God chooses the patriarchs not because
they are particularly loveable characters but because of his declared intention that in them
all the families of the earth should find blessing. So the patriarchs emerge from Scripture
not as lily -white heroes but as real men of flesh and blood, red in tooth and claw. And with
them and their failings everyone can identify.
―Though justice be thy plea, consider this —
That in the course of justice none of us
Should see salvation.‖( Merchant of Venice, IV.i)

Portia might have been describing the situation of the patriarchs, but her words apply to all.
And the fact that God was able to use men like Jacob to forward his purposes may shock
us, but it should surely encourage us, too, for at times we fall as badly as he did. If God
could use him, may he now graciously use us.
Isaac and the Philistines (26:1 –33)
Bibliography
See also Bibliographies on 12:10 –20; 20:1 –18; 21:1 –21; 21:22 –34.
Cornelius, I. ―Gen 26 and Mari: The Dispute over Water and the Socio -Economic Way of Life of
the Patriarchs.‖ JNSL 12 (1984) 53 –61. Eichler, B. L. ―‗Please say that you are my sister‘: Nuzi and
Biblical Studies.‖ (Heb.) Shnaton 3 (1978/79) 103 –15. Exum, J. C., and Whedbee, J. W. ―Isaac,
Samson, and Saul: Reflections on the Comic and Tragic Visions.‖ Semeia 32 (1984) 5 –40. Gispen,
W. H. ―A Blessed Son of Abraham.‖ In Von Kanaan bis Kerala: FS J. P. M. van der Ploeg, ed. W.
Delsman and J. Nelis. AOAT 211. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1982. 123 –29. Görg, M. ―Die
Begleitung des Abimelech von Gerar (Gen 26:26).‖ BN 35 (1986) 21 –25. Luke, K. ―Esau‘s
Marriage.‖ IndTS 25 (1988) 171 –90. Martin -Achard, R. ―Remarques sur Gen 26.‖ ZAW 100 Sup
(1988) 22 –46. Miscall, P. D. ―Literary Unity in OT Narrative.‖ Semeia 15 (1979) 27 –44. Nicol, G.
G. ―Studies in the Interpretation of Gen 26:1 –33.‖ Diss., Oxford, 1987. Safren, J. D. ―Ahuzzath
and the Pact of Beer -Sheba.‖ ZAW 101 (1989) 184 –98. Schmitt, G. ―Zu Gen 26:1 –14.‖ ZAW 85
(1973) 143 –56. Zwickel, W. ―Rehobot -Nahar.‖ BN 29 (1985) 28 –34.
Translation
1 There was another famine in the land besides the first famine that occurred in the
days of Abraham. So Isaac went down to Gerar to Abimelek,a the king of the Philistines.
2 Then the LORD appeareda to him and said, ―Do not go downb to Egypt. Camp in the
country which I shall tell you. 3 Settle in this country, so thata I may be with you and
bless you. For it is to you and your de scendantsb that I shall give c all thesed lands,c and
I shall confirm the oath which I swore to your father Abraham. 4 I shall multiply your
descendants as the stars of heaven, and I shall give to your descendants a all these
lands,a and in your descendants all the nations of the earth shall find blessing. 5 This is
because Abrahama obeyed me, kept my instructions, commandme nts, statutes, and my
laws.‖
6 So Isaac lived in Gerar.
7 Then the men of the place asked about his wife. So he said, ―She is my sister,‖
because he was afraid to say ―a My wife, lest the men of the place killb me because of
Rebekah for she is beautiful to look at.‖
8 When he had spent a long time there, Abimelek, king of the Philistines, lookeda
through a window and sawb Isaac playingc with his wife Rebekah! 9 So Abimelek
summoned Isaac and said, ―So thena she really is your wife. Why did you say, ‗ She is
my sister‘?‖ Isaac said to him, ―Because I thought that I might die because of her.‖ 10
Abimelek replied, ―Whata have you done to us? Almost any of the people b could have
lainb with your wife and broughtc great guilt upon us.‖ 11 Then A bimelek issueda an

order to all theb people. ―Anyone who touches this man and his wife shall certainlyc be
putd to death.‖
12 Isaac sowed seed in that land that year, and he harvested a hundredfold,a and the
LORD blessed him. 13 The man prospered, and a he we nt on prosperinga until he was
exceedingly well off. 14 He acquired flocks and herds and many slaves, so that the
Philistines were jealousa of him. 15 a All the wells which the servants of his father had
dug in Abraham‘s times the Philistines had sealedb and filled them with earth.a 16 So
Abimelek said to Isaac, ― Leave us for you have become much too powerful for us.‖ 17
Then Isaac went from there, made his encampmenta in the valley of Gerar, and dwelt
there.
18 Then Isaac had reduga the wells of water which b had been dugb c in Abraham‘s
timec and the Philistines had sealed after Abraham‘s death. He had called them by the
same names that his father had. 19 Then Isaac‘s servants dug in the valleya and found
there a spring of flowing water. 20 Then the shepherds of Gerar disputeda with Isaac‘s
shepherds saying, ―The water belongs to us.‖b So the well was called ―Quarrel‖
because they quarreledc with him. 21a Then they dug another well and disputed over that
as well, so it was called, ―Hostility.‖ 22 Then he moveda from there and dug another
well, and they did not dispute about that. So he called its name ―Open spaces‖ and
said, ―because now the LORD has made space for us and we shall b e fruitful in the
land.‖
23 He went upa from there to Beersheba. 24 In that night the LORD appeared to him and said
to him, ―I am the God of Abraham your father. Do not be afraid,a for I am with you and I
shall bless you and multiply your descendants for the sake of my servant Abraham.‖ 25 He
then built an altar there and called on the name of the LORD . He pitcheda his tent there,
and Isaac‘s servants dugb a well there.
26 a Then Abimelek went from Gerar to him,a and also Ahuzzat his police chief and
Phicol the commander of his army. 27 Isaac said to them, ―Whya have you com e to me, b
since you hate me and have expelledc me from being with you?‖b 28 They said, ―We
have seen ourselvesa that the LORD is with you, so we said ‗Let there beb an oath
betweenc us, between d us and you, so thate we may make a treaty with you. 29
(Promise)a that you will not dob evil to us, just as we have not touchedc you, as we have
only done good to you and sent you away in peace. Blessed are you now byd the LORD
.‖
30So he made a feast fo r them, and they ate and drank. 31 In the morning they arose,a
and each swore to each other. Isaac accompanied them, and they went away from him
peacefully.
32The samea day Isaac‘s servants came and toldb him about the well which they had dug.
They said to him,c ―We have found water.‖ 33 So he called it ―Oath,‖ so the name of that
city is Beersheba till this day.
Notes
1.a. Codex Leningrad, which BHS reproduces, has a dagesh in 
of Abimelek, which is unusual. E. A. Knauf ( BN 10 [1979] 23 –35) suggests it is to
distinguish this Abimelek from the earlier one; cf. 20:2–4.

2.a. cf. n. 12:7.a.*
2.b. 2 masc. sg impf. 3.a. Weak waw + impf. following impv or juss has final force. cf.
n. 12:2.a.; Joüon, 116b; Lambdin, 119.
3.b. Placing indirect obj, ―you and your descendants,‖ before verb may be emphatic
(GKC, 142g; cf. EWAS, 38–39, 43 –44).
3.c-c. G has ―all this land.‖
3.d. SamPent has more usual spelling 
instead of MT 4.a-a. G, SamPent as in v 3; cf. n. 3.c -c.*, 3.d.*
5.a. G, SamPent add ―your father.‖
7.a. G, SamPent add ―She is.‖
7.b. 3 masc. pl. impf. 
+ 1 sg suffix.
8.a. cf. n. 19:28.a.*
8.b. 
shows what is seen through Abimelek‘s eyes and suggests his surprise ( SBH, 95).
8.c. cf. n. 21:9.a.*
9.a. On the translation of 
―so then,‖ cf. n. H. Snaith, VT 14 (1964) 225, who argues that wherever the term is used
there is ―an idea of contrariness, exception, restriction, even contradiction,‖ in this instance
―Contrary to what you have said, it is plain that she is your wife.‖ cf. SBH, 177.
10.a. Note enclitic 
making the question more shocked (cf. n. 3:13.a.).
10.b-b. Use of pf to express possible actions in the past ( GKC, 106p; WOC, 494).
10.c. cf. n. 20:9.c.*
11.a. cf. n. 2:16.a.*
11.b. G, SamPent read ―his people.‖
11.c. Inf abs qal 11.d. 3 masc. sg impf. hoph 12.a. G, S read  13.a-a. Note
use of inf abs 
+ verbal adjective 

(adjective usual with stative verbs, Joüon, 123s). ―The idea of long continuance is very
frequently expressed by the verb 
to go , along with its infinitive absolute . … The action itself is added in a second
infinitive absolute or sometimes in a participle or verbal adjective‖ ( GKC, 113u).
14.a. On the omission of dagesh from piel form 
, see GKC, 52d.
15.a-a. On this type of clause, see SBH, 92–93; EWAS, 93–97.
15.b. 3 masc. pl. pf piel 
+ 3 masc. pl. suffix. masc. suffix refers to wells (f). For possible reasons, see GKC, 60h,
135o; WOC, 302.
17.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. 18.a. On use of 
+ another verb (here ―dig‖) = ―do … again,‖ see GKC, 120d; Lambdin, 238. On the
pluperfect sense ― had redug,‖ see Comment ; Jacob, 551 –52; cf. 8:1.
18.b-b. lit. ―they dug.‖ On use of 3 masc. pl. ―they‖ for indefinite personal subj ―one,‖ cf.
GKC, 144f. For pluperfect ―had dug,‖ cf. GKC, 111q.
18.c. For ―in days of Abraham,‖ SamPent, Vg, S read ―servants of Abraham,‖ so that
the whole clause reads ―which the servants of Abraham had dug,‖ a smoother but not
necessarily superior reading. G combines both readings: ―which the servants of his father
dug in his father‘s time.‖
19.a. G adds ―of Gerar.‖
20.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. pl. impf. 20.b. ―To us‖ precedes the subj ―water‖ in
Heb., probably emphasizing their claim to ownership ( GKC, 141m; cf. EWAS, 14).
20.c. 3 masc. pl. pf hithp [21.a. G adds, as in v 22, ― Having moved from there.‖
22.a. cf. n. 12:8.a.*
23.a. cf. n. 13:1.a.*
24.a. cf. n. 15:1.b.*
25.a. cf. n. 12:8.c.*
25.b. Waw consec + 3 masc. pl. impf.  26.a-a. Episode -initial circumstantial clause;
see SBH, 79.
27.a. On difference between [
and more usual 

, see J. Barr, JTS 36 (1985) 1 –33. Here [
may be prompted by use with the verb 27.b-b. Here linked circumstantial clauses
used to introduce an antithesis to original question, ―Why have you come?‖ ( GKC, 142d;
SBH, 90).
27.c. Waw consec + 2 masc. pl. impf. piel 
+ 1 sg suffix.
28.a. Inf abs of 
. On form, see GKC, 75n. Used here to stress ―that the writer or speaker has especially
intense interest in … what he expressed by the verbal form … ‖; so this clause should be
translated ―something like ‗we tell you, we have seen‘‖ (EWAS, 88; cf. 31:30; 37:8, 10).
28.b. cf. n. 13:8.a.*
28.c. Note  28.d. But 
+ suffixes means ―between‖ when one party is involved, so ―us‖ in second case =
Abimelek, and ―you‖ = Isaac ( GKC, 103p1; Joüon, 103n).
28.e. cf. n. 26:3.a.*
29.a. 
often introduces an oath ( GKC, 149c).
29.b. On pointing, cf. GKC, 75hh.
29.c. On pointing, cf. GKC, 65h.
29.d. lit. ―blessed of the LORD.‖ On the use of the constr state to express agency, see
Joüon, 121p.
31.a. lit. ―they acted early‖ (cf. n. 19:27.a).
32.a. lit. ―that day‖ with the meaning ―the same day‖ (Joüon, 143j).
32.b. Waw consec + 3 masc. pl. impf. hiph 32.c. G apparently read 
―not‖ instead of 
―to him,‖ i.e., ―We have not found water.‖
Form/Structure/Setting
The limits of this unit are clearly defined. v 1, ―There was another famine … ,‖ clearly
introduces a fresh section with its back reference to the earlier famine described in 12:10. It
ends with the naming of Beersheba in v 33 (cf. 21:31 –32). vv 34 –35 with their comment on
Esau‘s marriages introduce a topic quite foreign to the rest of chap. 26 and indee d form part
of the frame (cf. 27:46 –28:9) of Jacob‘s deception of Isaac in chap. 27.

26:1–33 falls into seven episodes:

vv 1–6
Divine promises to Isaac in Gerar

vv 7–11
Isaac and Abimelek in Gerar

vv 12 –17
Isaac blessed in Gerar and therefore expelled by Abimelek

vv 18 –22
Isaac digs wells in the valley of Gerar

vv 23 –25
Divine promises in Beersheba

vv 26 –31
Isaac and Abimelek make peace in Beersheba

vv 32 –33
Isaac digs well at Beersheba

It may be n oted how the episodes set in Beersheba echo the earlier ones in Gerar.
vv 1–6
//
vv 23 –25
Promises
vv 7–11, 12 –17
//
vv 26 –31
Isaac and Abimelek
vv 18 –22
//
vv 32 –33
Wells

The promise in v 24 briefly sums up the fuller promise in vv 2 –5. Similarly, the
negotiations between Isaac and Abimelek in Beersheba in vv 26 –31 make frequent and
explicit allusion to their earlier dealings in Gerar (cf. v 27 with v 16; v 28 with vv 3, 12; v
29 with vv 10 –12). And the parallel betw een the well -digging at Beersheba (vv 32 –33) and
in the valley of Gerar (vv 18 –22) is also obvious. Though some earlier scholars (cf. Gunkel,
Noth [ History of Pentateuchal Traditions , 104]) regard this chapter as a collection of
origina lly independent traditions, more recently there has been a greater willingness to
acknowledge the coherence of the material. Van Seters ( Abraham in History ) argued that

within chap. 26 each episode presupposed what preceded it (e.g., vv 12 –16 presuppose vv
1–11; vv 17 –22 presuppose v 16, whereas vv 26 –31 presuppose vv 7 –17). His argument is
partially accepted by Westermann and Coats, though Westermann thinks the present unity
is compiled from an account of Isaac‘s dealings w ith Abimelek (vv 12 –17, 26 –31) with
details about wells and journeys. Coats, on the other hand, thinks a tale of a threat to the
ancestress in vv 1 –17 has been combined with a well itinerary in vv 17 –33. Blum ( Die
Komposition ) and Nicol (―Studies in the In terpretation‖) much more confidently affirm the
coherence of all the material in vv 1 –33. Blum describes it as an ―extraordinarily tightly
composed narrative unity‖ (302). He points to the way the second half of the chapter makes
frequent reference to rema rks in the first. He sees two themes uniting the material in this
chapter, Isaac‘s relations with the Philistines and the LORD‘s blessing of Isaac. Nicol
similarly points out that ―each unit demands a certain amount of tacit knowledge which
must be derived from the previous unit(s)‖ (63), that there is no evidence that any of the
episodes in chap. 26 ever existed independently as oral stories (23), and that all the material
in vv 1 –33 relates coherently to the promises made to Abraham, of land, descendants, and
blessing to the nations. The promise to the nations is, according to Nicol, the most
important aspect of the promises as far as this chapter is concerned (18 –30). The chapter
relates how the blessing of Isaac is at first seen as a threat by the Philis tines so they expel
him (v 16), but later, acknowledging its God -given origin, they return to Isaac and thereby
enjoy a share of it (vv
But the biggest problem posed by this chapter is not its inner coherence but its
relationship to the surrounding materia l. On first sight, 26:1 –33 looks quite out of place in
the cycle of Jacob and Esau stories, which began in 25:20 –34 and immediately resumes in
26:34. Though the birth and early years of Jacob and Esau have been recounted in the
previous chapter, there is n o sign of them in 26:1 –33. How could the Philistines have failed
to realize that Rebekah was married if she was accompanied by twin boys of whatever age?
―The whole passage (26:1 –33) proceeds as if Isaac were unencumbered by the presence of
children, had n ot yet received Yahweh‘s blessing, and possessed little personal wealth.‖ So
Nicol argues that this chapter relates to ―events in Isaac‘s life prior to the birth of his sons‖
(Nicol, ―Studies in the Interpretation,‖ 15). While suspending judgment about whe re this
narrative fits chronologically in Isaac‘s biography, we must explore further its position
within the Jacob cycle. Is there any literary logic to its being placed here in that cycle,
rather than right at the beginning? Or must we concur with Skinner (355) that it is ―a
misplaced appendix to the history of Abraham‖?
It is now widely agreed, following the work of Fishbane ( JTS 26 [1975] 15 –38) and
Fokkelmann ( Narrative Art ), that the entire Jacob cycle is cast roughly palistrophically; it
begins with strife between the twins, leading to Jacob leaving home and living for twenty
years in Syria, and then to his return and eventual reconciliation with Esau. (For fuller
discussion, see Form/Structure/Setting on 25:19 –35:29. ) However, two large blocks of
material, chaps. 26 and 34 (the rape of Dinah), on first sight have nothing to do with this
palistrophic arrangement. It may also be noted that the Joseph story (chaps. 37 –50) shortly
after it begins has a chapter, 38, devote d to a topic (Judah and Tamar) apparently
unconnected with the main theme. And when the concluding chapters of the Abraham cycle
are examined carefully, chap. 24 with its account of the betrothal of Rebekah stands out; on
chronological grounds at least, ch ap. 24 would be placed better after 25:1 –6 instead of
before it. So the problem of chap. 26 is by no means an isolated one within the book. There
are other passages that a modern editor might have been tempted to place elsewhere. But

we must inquire why th e ancient editor chose to put chap. 26 at this point.
Fishbane‘s observation that chap. 26 balances chap. 34 in the Jacob cycle is helpful.
―Without chapter 26, Gen 25 and 27 would be more harmoniously joined . … In a parallel
manner Gen 34 interrupts Gen 33 and 35.
―The symmetry between Genesis 26 and 34, together with their parallel functions as
interludes, thus preclude any assumption of a haphazard editorial arrangement. Moreover,
they are linked to each other and to their respective contexts by the com mon themes of
deception and strife. The first section of chapter 26, in which Isaac deceives Abimelekh
with regard to Rebekkah (v 7), involves a case of strife wherein a wife is called a ‗sister‘
(<ahot ) and there is fear of intercourse (stem: shakhav ) with a member of an uncircumcised
ethnic group. In its second section, in which Isaac charges the Philistines with deception (v
27), there is a case of strife among the shepherds (v 20) as well as an issue of covenantal
malfeasance in which the treaty partner s are called ‗brothers‘ ( <ahim ). In a parallel way,
Genesis 34 also reports an event involving deception ( mirmah , v. 34; cf. 27:35; and
29:25) —but now because of an actual case of intercourse (stem: shakhav ) between the
‗uncircumcised‘ Schechem ben Hamor and Dinah, the sister ( <ahot ) of Simeon and Levi.
The deception also involves covenantal malfeasance (v 10) and considerable strife‖
(Fishbane, Text and Texture , 47).
Rendsburg ( Redaction of Genesis , 58) has underlined Fishbane‘s observ ations by
pointing to a number of words or roots both chapters have in common: hiphil of 
―multiply‖ (26:4; 34:12); 
―kill‖ (26:7; 34:25 –26); 
―flock‖ (26:14; 34:5, 23); 
in ―make space, Rehobot‖ (26:22); cf. 
―expanse‖ (34:21); and 
―peace, peaceful‖ (26:29, 31; 34:21). Thus two chapters that at first apparently have
little to do with the main story line of the Jacob cycle can be seen on closer study to be
closely related to each other in terminology and the me; both discuss the patriarchs‘
relations with the indigenous inhabitants of Canaan. We shall also argue below that they
serve to enhance the telling of the main plot of the Jacob cycle.
However, this chapter also serves to link the Jacob cycle with the A braham cycle. It
contains eight explicit references to him (26:1, 3, 5, 15, 18 [2x], 24 [2x]) compared with
fifteen in all of chaps. 27 –50. But besides this explicit recall of the Abraham story, topics
covered in chap. 26 parallel those early in the Abraha m cycle as well as some later on.
Above (p. 173) it was observed that the sequence of material in 25:19 –34 paralleled
11:27 –12:9. This continues in chap. 26.
26:1–11
//
12:10 –20
Famine and the wife/sister
26:12 –22
//
13:2–10
Wealth prompts quarrels between patriarch‘s herdsmen and others
26:23

//
13:11 –12
Separation
26:24
//
13:14 –17
Divine promise of descendants
26:25
//
13:18
Altar built, patriarch encamps
26:26 –31
//
chap. 14
Good relations established with foreigners
26:29
//
14:19 –20
Patriarch blessed by foreign king

Taken in conjunction with the parallels between 11:27 –12:9 and 25:19 –34, this table
suggests that the position of chap. 26 is not so capricious as appeared at first. Rather, a
conscious effort is being made to compare th e career of Isaac with that of his father
Abraham.
Other parallels emerge toward the close of the Abraham cycle, which also records
incidents that involve Abimelek, king of Gerar, so making the parallels even more obvious.
26:1–11
//
20:1–18
The wife/siste r
26:15 –21
//
21:25
Disputes about wells
26:26
//
21:22
Abimelek and Phicol
26:28
//
21:22
―The LORD has been with you‖
26:28
//
21:23
Let there be an oath

26:30 –31
//
21:24 –31
Treaty made
26:32 –33
//
21:31
Well of Beersheba named

It is noteworthy that it is precisely the material that does not mention Abraham‘s children,
Ishmael and Isaac, that parallels 26:1 –33 most closely. Similarly, most of the Jacob cycle
concerns the deeds of Isaac‘s sons, Jacob and Esau, but here there is no mention of them,
only of their parents, Isaac and Rebekah, and foreigners. The parallels with the Abraham
story thus show that though the arrangement of material in Gen 25 –26 may well be
unchronological at points, chap. 26 at least is hardly misplaced. In deed, it serves a most
important function, locking together the Abraham and Jacob cycles and highlighting the
parallels between Abraham and his son. Its position and content invite the reader to reflect
on the similarities and differences between the caree rs of Abraham
Within the Jacob cycle, it has an equally important role. After the turbulent beginning to
the story, with Jacob and Esau wrestling in their mother‘s womb and Jacob seizing the first
opportunity to obtain his brother‘s rights, this chapter pr esents us with an interlude. We see
Isaac as a timid, peace -loving man who avoids conflict with his neighbors wherever
possible, such a contrast to his contentious sons, who are forever squabbling. This chapter
therefore serves to heighten our appreciation of the unnaturalness of the intrafamilial strife
that is about to tear apart Isaac‘s family in the following chapter. Yet Isaac receives the
promises (26:2 –5) without fighting for them. He is pushed around by the Philistines
(26:12 –21), yet at the end the y come to him asking for a treaty (26:26 –32). If Isaac could
achieve so much without manipulating people, why do Jacob and Rebekah have to resort to
the tactics about to be described. chap. 26 also underlines what is at issue in Jacob‘s
deceitful acquisiti on of Isaac‘s blessing. Here we are reminded of Isaac‘s great wealth,
which both the narrator and the pagan actors within the story ascribe to the LORD (26:12,
28–29). If the source of blessing was obvious to foreigners, how much more so was it to
Jacob and Esau. No wonder they fought with such ferocity to make it their own.
Source critics generally ascribe chap. 26 to J because of the unmistakably J phraseology.
For example, even Abimelek refers to the deity as the LORD. However, its relationship to
other parts of J, especially 12:10 –20, has been widely discussed; it has often been
maintained that 26:1 –11 is the earliest of the three wife -sister accounts (see
Form/S tructure/Setting on 12:10 –20). Recently though, following the observations of Van
Seters ( Abraham in History ) of the dependence of 26:1 –11 on previous passages in the
book, it is now recognized that this chapter represents a late phase in the composition o f J
(cf. Westermann; Coats; Martin -Achard, ZAW 100 Sup [1988] 22 –46). Blum ( Die
Komposition ) suggests on the basis of 26:5 that the promises reflect deuteronomistic
additions to an earlier story, which may date from the period of the monarchy. However,
the supposedly deuteronomic phraseology actually finds closer parallels with priestly texts
in the Pentateuch (see Comment ). Westermann and Coats seem inclined to date the basic
materi al earlier. But there are no very cogent arguments in any direction. I shall be content
to assume the story comes from J, the principal editor of Genesis.

Comment
1–6 This first episode in the account of Isaac‘s dealings with the Philistines describes how
he came to live among them and records the promises made to him. It is these promises that
secretly determine the relationship between Isaac and Abimelek, so they are set out right at
the beginning. The wording of the promises here clearly echoes 22:16 –18, and the double
reference to Abraham (26:1, 5) invites comparison between the careers of father and son.
1 ―The first famine‖ (see 12:10). For the first famine of Genesis, see 41:54 –42:3. On the
name ―Abimelek‖ and ―Gerar,‖ cf. Comment on 20:1 –2. His territory is called ―the land of
the Philistines‖ in 21:32, 23, but here he is called ―king of the Philistines.‖ K. A. Kitchen
(POTT, 56) observes that the description of the Philistines in Genesis does not fit in with
what we know of them from extrabiblical sources (the real Philistines did not arrive in
Canaan till about 1200 B.C.) nor with their descriptions in Judges and Samuel. ―T hose in
Genesis live around Gerar, and under a king, not in the ‗pentapolis‘ (i.e., Gath, Gaza,
Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron) under ‗lords‘ ( seáraµnéÆ ); they are relatively peaceable, not
forever waging wars, despite having an army commande r. It is, therefore, more prudent to
compare the Philistines of Abraham and Isaac with such people as the Caphtorim of Deut
2:23, and to view the term itself as a thirteenth – to twelfth -century term used of an earlier
Aegean group such as the Caphtorim by the narrator.‖ There is ample archeological
evidence of Aegean contact with the Levant as early as the third millennium B.C. (E. M.
Yamauchi, Greece and Babylon: Early Contacts between the Aegean and the Near East
[Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967] 26 –42), which makes Kitchen‘s position plausible.
Within the context of Genesis, the reference to the earlier famine invites comparison to
Abraham‘s actions in similar circumstances. Will Isaac, like his father, go down to Egypt?
Will he attempt to pass off his wife as his sister? Thus the very opening of this chapter
raises the tension and suggests the anxieties that must have been aroused in Isaac‘s mind by
the famine.
2–5 These verses express the first promise made directly to Isaac, but they are replete
with echoes o f chap. 22, which Isaac may be presumed to have heard.
2 First Isaac is told not to go to Egypt; there is no simple repetition of Abraham‘s
experience. Rather, he is to ―Camp in the country which I shall tell you.‖ Here the first and
last commands to Abrah am are alluded to: ―Go … to the country that I shall show you‖
(12:1); ―Go … to the district which I shall tell you ‖ (22:2). These allusions make it clear
that even if Isaac is not to walk in his father‘s footsteps geographically, he must follow him
spirit ually.
―Camp in the country which I shall tell you.‖ Is the country Canaan or Gerar? The majority
of commentators assume that Gerar is meant, as v 3 makes plain. However, Nicol (―Studies
in the Interpretation,‖ 122) suggests that a contrast is being drawn between vv 2 and 3. He
understands v 2 ―camp‖ ( 
) to mean ― live permanently in the land of Beersheba,‖ which is within Canaan, whereas v
3 means ―settle ( 
) as a temporary immigrant in Gerar.‖ 
is used in this sense of Abraham‘s residence in Egy pt in 12:10. However, though BDB,
1014 –15, suggests 
―camp ‖ means ―dwell permanently,‖ the term does not by itself indicate the duration of the
dwelling (so A. R. Hulst, THWAT 2:906). Elsewhere in the Pen tateuch, it almost always
denotes dwelling in a tent (Gen 9:27; 14:13; 16:12; 25:18; 35:22), especially of God‘s

dwelling in the tabernacle ( 
; e.g., Exod 25:8; 29:45 –46; 40:35). It seems also to be a poetic synonym for ―dwell‖ (e.g.,
Deut 33:12).
3 ―So that I may be with you.‖ Though Abimelek observed to Abraham that ―God is
with you‖ (21:22; cf. 26:28), this is the first time that the LORD himself makes such a
promis e, but it is repeated on several occasions to Jacob (28:15; 31:3; 46:4). God‘s
presence is a guarantee of protection and success (cf. 39:2). ―Bless you‖ (cf. 12:2; 22:17;
26:24; 27:7). ― For it is to you and your descendants that I shall give all these lands.‖ This
formulation is novel. Only once before in 17:8 has the land been promised to you and your
descendants. Hitherto, the promise has usually been that Abraham‘s descendants will be
given the land. The word order in which the indirect object ―you and your descendants‖
comes before the verb may make his promise especially emphatic. Certainly ―all these
lands‖ extends the promise beyond the mere land of Canaan; apparently even countries
surrounding Canaan, such as the land of the Philistines, will be given to Isaac and his
descendants. Furthermore, the motivation for such divine bounty is fresh: ―I shall confirm
my oath which I swore to your father Abraham.‖ Only here does God speak of c onfirming
an ―oath‖ as opposed to a ―covenant‖ (17:7, 19, 21). The oath is that referred to in 22:16
(cf. 24:7), as is shown by the multiple quotations from 22:16 –18, the only divine oath in
Gen 12 –25.
4 This verse virtually quotes 22:1 7–18a, replacing ―that you may possess the gate of
your enemies‖ with ―I shall give to your descendants all these lands‖ (cf. 26:3), perhaps a
less bellicose formulation to suit the more pacific Isaac.
5 This verse expands 22:18b, ―beca use you have obeyed me.‖ The additions, ―kept my
instructions, commandments, statutes, and my laws,‖ reinforce and underline the extent and
thoroughness of Abraham‘s obedience. Though often said to be a typically deuteronomic
phrase, in fact, ―keep my inst ruction‖ occurs only once in Deuteronomy (Deut 11:1) but
much more frequently in priestly texts in Leviticus and Numbers. Similarly, ―keep my
commandments,‖ ―keep my statutes,‖ and ―keep my laws‖ are frequent phrases in priestly
texts but less typical of D euteronomy, which never speaks of laws in the plural.
Presumably, this text has been ascribed to deuteronomistic editing because it strings
together terms, but this is more a feature of rhetorical style than authorship.
It is striking that despite the clea r quotation of Gen 22:16 –18 here, the merit Isaac
inherits is not his own obedience on that occasion but his father‘s. His own willingness to
be sacrificed is not mentioned, only his father‘s readiness to offer him.
6 ―So Isaac lived in Gerar‖ shows Isaac‘ s obedience. But his presence in Gerar becomes
the occasion of his error.
7–11 These verses invite close comparison with the earlier episodes, 12:10 –20;
20:1–18, which are presupposed here. Now Isaac is about to mislead his foreign hosts in
much the same w ay that Abraham did by saying that his wife is merely his sister.
7 The brevity of the narrative presupposes knowledge of the earlier accounts. Here the
narrative focuses on Isaac‘ s fears. As Abraham before him, he is afraid that he will die
because of his wife‘s beauty; in 24:16 she was described as ―very beautiful.‖ This comment
does not necessarily show that at this time Rebekah was still childless, though the parallels
may sugge st this; rather the fact that they could live a long time in Gerar without anyone
realizing that they were man and wife indicates that this episode precedes the birth of Esau
and Jacob. ―The men of the place,‖ as opposed to the men of Gerar or the Philisti nes, may

suggest Isaac‘s suspicions about them; morally they are an unknown quantity in his eyes,
and he has forgotten the promise, ―settle in this country … so that I may be with you‖ (v 3).
8 ―A long time.‖ That Isaac and Rebekah enjoyed a long unmoleste d stay in Gerar shows
that his fears were unfounded. ―Through a window‖ is too vague to be sure what is meant.
Gunkel surmises that the king looked through his palace window across the street through
Isaac‘s window. Dillmann believes that they were in the palace garden. That he saw them
―playing‖ ( ]
meása \heµq ), clearly a euphemism for intimacy only proper between spouses, is what
mattered. Note, too, the play on Isaac‘s name (cf. 17:17; 18:12 –13; 21:9).
9–10 The phraseology of Abimelek‘s angry interrogation (―summoned‖) echoes earlier
similar scenes in chaps. 3, 4, 12, and 20 (3:9; 12:18; 20:9). ―What have you done to us‖
(3:13; 4:10; 12:18; 20:9) shows that right lies on Abimelek‘s side, not Isaac‘s.
As on t he previous occasion, Abimelek shows that he is a God -fearing man who
eschews sin. ―Any of the people could have lain with your wife and brought great guilt
upon us‖ (cf. 20:9). 
―great guilt‖ is rarely used in the abstract as here; most frequently it denotes the guilt
offering (cf. Lev 5:15 –25 [6:7]), one of the most costly sacrifices demanded for serious sins
such as adultery (Lev 19:21 –22). Isaac‘s behavior, Abimelek argues, far from bringing
divine blessing on the nations (cf. 26:4), has actually brought him and his people into a
most dangerous situation.
11 So Abimelek issues a royal decree under which anyone who molests Isaac or his
wife will be subject to the death penalty. For the legal terminology used here, cf. Exod
19:21; 21:12, 15, 17; Lev 20:2, 9 –13. So all Isaac‘s fears for his own life (vv 7, 9) are
shown to be without foundation. As he promised, the LORD is with Isaac and is blessing
him.
12–17 God‘s blessing o f Isaac is also demonstrated by his material prosperity, but
whereas in the previous episode Isaac‘s folly leads to royal protection, here his affluence
prompts deportation.
12 Only here is any one of the patriarchs said to have sown and harvested crops, t hough
it is quite common for bedouin to do this in the Near East. It confirms that the LORD is
indeed looking after Isaac; he did not need to enter Egypt to escape the famine (v 1). His
hundredfold yield, the best to be expected in Palestine (cf. Matt 13:8), was another sign of
divine blessing.
―The LORD blessed him.‖ Though there have been many promises of divine blessing in
Genesis, this is only the third time the narrator has noted that the blessing has become a
reality (cf. 24:1; 25:11), thus fulfilling the promise to Isaac in 26:3, anticipating Abimelek‘s
recognition of God‘s blessing on Isaac (26:29), and anticipating the great theme of chap.
27.
13–14 Further proof of divine blessing and presence is the multiplication of Isaac‘s
flocks and herds (cf. 13:2–7; 30:25 –43). But as Abraham experienced before and Jacob
afterwards, this leads to tension and animosity.
―Were jealous‖ (cf. 30:1; 37:11).
15–16 Abraham‘s wells had been seized, but when he protested, Abimelek said he was
totally unaware of the problem and returned them. Here the more passive Isaac apparently
says nothing, despite the treaty made by his father, and eventually Abimelek expels him
merely because ―you have become much too powerful for us,‖ a term used only here and in

Exod 1:7, 20 of the Israelites in Egypt. The Egyptian Pharaoh would later say, ―Get away
from me,‖ just as Abimelek said to Isaac.
17 ―Made his encampment,‖ apart from 33:18, elsewhere in the Pentateuch always
refers to the Israelites‘ camping in the wilderness (e.g., Exod 14:2; 19:2; Num 33:5 –49).
Like Abraham‘s before him, Isaac‘s life foreshadows the experiences of his descendants.
(cf. Comment and Explanation on chaps. 12 –13.)
18–22 The next episode, after an introduction looking back to vv 12 –17, falls into three
brief scenes (vv 19 –20, 21, 22), each concerning a dispute about a well. The first two Isaac
is forced to give up, but the third he can retain. The OT often casts stories in three scenes (J.
Licht, Storytelling in the Bible , 51–74).
18 As Jacob argues, this section appears to be a flashback to the previous episode
before Isaac was expelled from Gerar, hence the translation ― had redug‖ The fact that ―he
had called them by the same names that his father had‖ underlines the injustice of hi s
expulsion, for according to 21:23 –33, the name of one of the wells commemorated a treaty
with Abimelek, in which he recognized the right of Abraham and his descendants to use the
well.
19–20 However, Isaac‘s departure from Gerar did not end his harassmen t. When his
servants dug a well, the Gerarites claimed it. ―So the well was called ‗Quarrel.‘‖ Naming a
water source after an unhappy incident that occurred in its vicinity is also a feature of the
wilderness wanderings. Three watering holes between the Re d Sea and Sinai are named in
Exodus (15:22 –27; 17:1 –7).
22 It is quite uncertain where the first well, ―Quarrel,‖ was. If ―Open Spaces‖
(reáh\oµboÆt ) lies somewhere in Wadi Ruheµbe twenty miles southwest of Beersheba,
then ―Hostility‖ ( sŒit \naµh ) could be Wadi Sðut \ein/Sðut \net, mentioned by Dillmann.
The location is less important than the significance: ―Now the LORD has made space for us
and we shall be fruitful in the land.‖ Experiencing peace at last, Isaac recalls the promises
that the land would belon g to a multitude of descendants (cf. 26:4). 
―be fruitful,‖ though used often in Gen 1 –11, here appears for the first time in the
patriarchal story. Elsewhere in Genesis it is always paired with 
―multiply,‖ a term already used in 26:4 and about to be used again in v 24. Thus
Isaac‘s expression of faith anticipates the renewal of the promises in the next episode.
23–25 The renewal of the promises in Beersheba is essentially a summary and
reaffirmation of those in vv 2 –4. However, there are a few small changes. God‘s
self-introduction may be noted: ―I am the God of Abraham your father.‖ On this and similar
phrases in Genesis, Alt ( Der Gott der Väter ) built a whole theory of patriarchal religion
(see Introduction ). However, here and elsewhere (cf. 24:12, 17, 42, 48) use seems to be
closely related to the context. Throughout this chapter there is a very strong emphasis on
Isaac‘s relationship to his father, and this is reflected in this speech a s well. Note its
conclusion: ―for the sake of my servant Abraham.‖
―Do not be afraid‖ (cf. 15:1). Fear is mentioned as a motive for Isaac‘s action only in
v7. The way he is pushed around by Abimelek since then could be construed as a re flection
of his peaceable temperament. This remark suggests that timidity may also lie behind his
lack of resistance. But whatever Isaac‘s doubts and fears, he is reassured that the promises
still hold ―for the sake of my servant Abraham.‖
25 As Abraham di d before him, Isaac expresses his faith in and gratitude for the
promises by building an altar, offering sacrifice, and worshiping the LORD (cf. 12:7–8; 13:4,

18; 4:26).
―Pitched his tent‖ (cf. 12:8; 33:19; 35:21).
―Dug a well.‖ Immediately following the land promise, this looks like an act of faith, but
nearly every well dug so far has been the occasion for trouble with the Philistines. Will it
prove to be so this time, so that yet again Isaac will be forced into an ignominious retreat?
26–31 The treaty between Isaac and the Philistines brought a happy resolution to years
of dissension. There are many echoes of the similar negotiations between Abraham and
Abimelek in 21:22 –34; note the same negotiators, Abimelek and P hicol, the same setting,
Beersheba, and the same motives, ―God is with you‖ (21:22), ―The LORD is with you‖
(26:28), leading to a non -aggression pact.
26 ―Ahuzzat his police chief‖ is not mentioned in chap. 21. Ahuzzat, ―possession,‖ has
a form similar to Goliath (
). [
―police chief‖ may be the equivalent of 
―friend,‖ a title of trusted royal officials (2 Sam 15:37; 16:16; 1 Kgs 4:5). But Safren
(ZAW 101 [1989] 190 –98) plausibly argues t hat the Hebrew term is equivalent to Akk.
merhÉuÆ, ―supervisor of the pastorages,‖ at Mari a powerful official who controlled
grazing rights and had a police force to enforce his decisions. That Abimelek is
accompanied apparently only by two leaders of Ger ar, or at least no band of men is said to
accompany him (cf. 33:1), suggests his mission is peaceable.
27 However, Isaac‘s experiences in Gerar have not been happy, and he bristles with
suspicion as he greets them. ―Why have you come to me, since you hate me and have
expelled me … ?‖ Considering how Isaac has taken their earlier action lying down, this is
an abrupt change of tone. Is he now showing real courage and faith, or is this bravado
simply because there is no serious threat appar ent?
28 Abimelek‘s reply is, however, irenic and flattering. Here Abimelek acknowledges,
as he did with Abraham, that ―the LORD is with you,‖ and he proposes a treaty. Whereas
Isaac had been, and perhaps still viewed himself as, the weaker party, Abimelek insists that
their positions are now reversed and that he wishes to make a treaty with Isaac.
29 Abimelek puts the best gloss he can on his treatment of Isaac. He had issued a decree
that ―anyone who touches this man and his wife would be put to death‖ (v 11), so that he
could claim ―we have not touched you.‖ But to say ―we have only done good to you and
sent you away in peace‖ is somewhat of a euphemism.
―Blessed are you now by the LORD‖ (cf. Melchizedek‘s blessing of Abraham 14:19 –20).
As promised in 12:2, the patriarch has become a blessing. And by invoking blessing on
Isaac, Abimelek is indirectly securing his own blessing (cf. Comment on 12:2 –3).
30 ―So he made a feast for them, and they ate and drank.‖ Oriental hospitality should
have dictated such treatment before the speech just recorded (cf. 14:18; 18:3 –8; 19:2 –3).
That there is no mention of a meal till after these compliments have been showered shows
the depth of alienation that had to b e overcome and indicates that both sides did reach
agreement. Meals form a standard part of treaty celebrations, from ancient to modern times
(cf. 31:54; Exod 24:11); indeed, it has been said that the Hebrew word for ―treaty,
covenant‖ (
) derives from the verb to ―eat, dine‖ ( 
; TDOT 2:253), though this is not very likely. Whatever the precise significance, the act

of eating and drinking indicates reconciliation between the two sides. Indeed, the whole
episode illustrates Prov 16:7, ―When a man‘s ways please the LORD, he makes even his
enemies to be at peace with him.‖
31 Whereas Abimelek had speciously claimed to have sent Isaac away in peace (v 29), the
terminology is appropriate here. Isaac sets them on their way by accompanying them for a
short distance (cf. 18:16).
32–33 This last incident confirms the reversal of roles that had become obvious in the
last encounter between Isaac and Abimelek. On an earlier occasion, every time Isaac‘s
servants had discovered wells they were forced to abandon them (vv 18 –21). N ow they find
yet another well, and he names it ―Oath,‖ after the oath he had just sworn to Abimelek.
Earlier he had been giving the same names to the wells he had dug as his father had (v 18).
Here he does it yet again. Beersheba‘s name is connected in 21: 25–31 with the oath
Abraham made that allowed him to use a well nearby. The servants comment, ―We have
found water,‖ seems superfluous, for all useful wells have water, but here their remark
surely reinforces the feeling of security. Isaac had been forced by famine to leave
Beersheba for Gerar; now the discovery of a good water supply seems like a pledge of
future security in the land. Thus this whole chapter closes triumphantly with Isaac walking
confidently in his father‘s footsteps, experiencing for hims elf the incipient fulfillment of the
divine promises.
Explanation
Isaac spends most of his life in the shadow of other members of his family, either of his
father Abraham or of his sons Jacob and Esau. Indeed, after chap. 27 he virtually disappears
from th e story until the brief mention of his death in 35:27 –28. Here and only here within
Genesis does he appear as a person in his own right, but even here he seems to have less
drive than either his father or his sons. This narrative that tells of his relation s with the
Philistines portrays him as a rather timid character whom the Gerarites push around.
Nevertheless, this somewhat ineffectual man receives yet greater promises and experiences
their fulfillment in fuller measure than even his father Abraham did. This narrative thus
demonstrates that the power of God can work even through those who by human standards
are most unlikely material.
Throughout this narrative, comparisons are being drawn between Isaac and his father.
There are proportionately more refere nces within this chapter to Abraham than at any other
point in the subsequent chapters. Not only is Abraham frequently mentioned, but the
narrator draws attention to the similar situations Isaac and Abraham face. v1 compares the
famine Isaac encountered wi th that Abraham faced. Like Abraham (20:1), he took refuge in
Gerar, between Canaan and Egypt, and he was evidently contemplating going farther (cf.
12:10), for the LORD had to tell him, ―Do not go down to Egypt‖ (v 2).
Prohibited from following his father‘s example of seeking relief from the famine in
Egypt, he is encouraged in language that echoes the first and last great tests of Abraham‘s
life ―to camp in the country which I shall tell you‖ (v 2; cf. 12:1; 22:2). In expectation of his
obedience, he is further promised, as was Abraham, that the LORD will be with him and
bless him. The promise continues: ―to you and your descendants … I shall give all these
lands, and I shall confirm the oath which I sw ore to your father Abraham. I shall multiply
your descendants … and in your descendants all the nations of the earth shall find
blessing.‖ This is a full and fairly precise reiteration of the promises made to Abraham after

he had shown his willingness to s acrifice Isaac. That this quotation is not accidental is
shown by the reference ―to the oath which I swore,‖ for it is only in chap. 22 that the
promises are described as an oath. The promises in 22:16 –18 are more categorical and
unconditional than anywher e else in the Abraham cycle; in the light of Abraham‘s
obedience, the original promises can now be termed guarantees. But now the guarantees of
22:16 –18 are enhanced. The promises are now made to you and your descendants. It is not
merely the land of Canaa n that is promised but ―all these lands.‖ So although it would be
easy to write Isaac off as a second -class character among the patriarchs, the promises made
to him here outshine any that his father Abraham received. Indeed, he saw more of the
promise fulf illed than his father did.
Yet this can hardly be ascribed to his model behavior. Though Abraham had twice tried
to pass off Sarah as his sister and been sternly reprimanded for so doing, explicitly by the
Pharaoh and by Abimelek, and implicitly by the nar rator, the next episode shows Isaac
making exactly the same mistake, because, as Isaac himself tells us, ―he was afraid.‖
Despite the pledge of divine presence and blessing that he had received, timidity had the
better of him. Like his father before him, I saac was prepared to sacrifice his wife‘s honor
for his own safety. Happily for all concerned, the real situation was discovered before
Rebekah was abducted, but, as Abimelek points out, the sin of Isaac could have led to
divine punishment befalling the wh ole people. Once again the patriarch and his wife are
saved from his folly by the mercy of God and the integrity of the foreign king. Abimelek‘s
decree, ―Whoever touches this man and his wife shall certainly be put to death,‖ underlines
his concern for sex ual morality.
Yet despite Isaac‘s lapse from faith and propriety, he continues to flourish. His
hundredfold harvest in the land is unparalleled elsewhere in the patriarchal narrative, but it
is clear proof that the LORD had blessed him (v 12), and it shows the worth of the land that
has been promised to him, even though his wandering lifestyle precluded his enjoying such
harvests regularly. The great promises made to him and his father can and will be fulfilled.
His flocks and herds also flourish.
But Isaac ‘s prosperity provokes jealousy, so that just when he appears to be on the
verge of inheriting the promise, it slips out of his grasp, at least for a while. Abraham had
made an agreement with Abimelek allowing him to use a well near Beersheba. At the time,
this had been a momentous step, for this was the first legal title Abraham had acquired in
the land of promise. But now even these rights are forgotten and disregarded. Wealthy Isaac
is expelled from the territory of Gerar. Abraham‘s wells, even those red ug by Isaac‘s
servants, are seized, and Isaac is forced to move on. Twice this happens; a well dug by
Isaac‘s men is taken over by the shepherds of Gerar, so that they are driven far from Gerar.
Finally, at the third well, they are left in peace, so Isaac called it Rehobot, ―Open spaces …
because now the LORD has made space for us and we shall be fruitful in the land‖ (v 22).
Whatever appearances may suggest to the contrary, Isaac has not lost faith in the promise.
And from then on his fortunes improve. At Beersheba, the promises are reaffirmed, ―I am
the God of Abraham your father. Do not be afraid, for I am with you and I shall bless you
and multiply your descendants for the sake of my servant Abraham‖ (v 24). And like
Abraham, Isaac responds in worship, b uilding an altar, offering sacrifice, and calling on the
name of the LORD.
But whereas the first promise to Isaac was followed by a test, which Isaac hardly
excelled in, this promise is followed by encouragement, indeed partial fulfillment of the
promises. No sooner had Isaac‘s servants dug another well than Abimelek and his reti nue

arrive. If Isaac‘s heart sank at yet another confrontation with the Philistines, he did not
show it. In fact, he addresses them with unusual straightness: ―Why have you come to me,
since you hate me and have expelled me?‖ (v 27). This time, however, in stead of harassing
him, Abimelek‘s delegation sues for peace. Isaac is so powerful, ―We have seen ourselves
that the LORD is with you,‖ that they want to make a treaty with Isaac. Somewhat
disingenuously, they gloss over their former maltreatment of Isaac, and Isaac, ―blessed by
the LORD,‖ graciously grants their request. The oath is sworn. They leave in peace, and that
very day a well with abundant water is discovered. This surely suggests that Isaac‘s tenure
of the land of promise is more secure now than at any time in his career. A treaty with the
Philistines means that they have acknowledged his right to stay, while the good well will
mean that drought or famine is less likely to affect him and force him to leave the land of
promise.
Thus this account of Isaac‘s dealings with the Philistines portrays Isaac as very much
walking in his father‘s footsteps. He receives similar promises, faces similar tests, fails
similarly, but eventually triumphs in like fashion. Indeed, in certain respects he is given
more in the promises and achieves more. He is promised ―all these lands,‖ and by the end
of the story he is securely settled in Beersheba and has a treaty with the Philistines in which
they acknowledge his superiority.
But this narrative does not just look back ward to Abraham; it looks forward too. Most
obviously it looks to the experiences of Israel expelled from Egypt, forced to wander in the
wilderness looking for water until they arrive at Mount Sinai, where the LORD speaks to
them. Thus just as Abraham‘s ca reer in chaps. 12 –13 foreshadowed Israel‘s exodus and
wilderness experiences (see Wenham, Genesis 1 –15), so Isaac‘s does too. And, though
there are difficulties with identifying these Philistines of Gerar with the better -known
Philistines of David‘s day, i t cannot be ruled out that the treaty with Abimelek and his
apparent recognition of Isaac‘s suzerainty look forward to the day when David would
subdue the Philistines (2 Sam 8:1). Certainly the promise, ―I shall give to your descendants
all these lands,‖ w as not forgotten; psalmists, prophets, and the NT look forward to the son
of David, who will ―have dominion from sea to sea‖ and rule ―all tribes and peoples and
tongues‖ (Pss 2; 47; 72; Isa 2:2 –4; 4:2 –6; 11:10; 55:3 –5; Matt 28:18 –20; Rev 7:9–12).
As elsewhere in Genesis, there is hardly any explicit comment on Isaac‘s behavior
described here. Like the other patriarchs, he is portrayed as a man of very mixed character.
He is timid, fearful for his own skin; he is prepared to lie and to put his wife at risk to save
himself. For this, Abimelek justly censures him, and the very phraseology used shows that
the narrator concurs with him. And yet despite Isaac‘s failings, the LORD is with him,
protects him, blesses him, and makes him extremely wea lthy. God‘s gracious promises will
be fulfilled despite the frailty of his chosen vessels (Rom 11:29; 2 Cor 4:7). But Isaac‘s
shortcomings must not be overstressed. Though his timidity in some situations led him
astray, in others it prompted him to be conc iliatory where others might have stirred up
strife. There is thus an ambivalence about his failure to stand up to the men of Gerar, who
kept seizing the wells dug by his servants. But there is no doubt about the outcome of his
behavior; it leads to ever in creasing prosperity so that even his hostile neighbors come
begging for his goodwill. Ps 37 (Ps 37:3, 11, 39 –40; cf. Matt 5:5; 1 Pet 2:19 –25; 3:8 –12)
could be a commentary on this chapter:
―Trust in the LORD, and do good;
so you will dw ell securely, and enjoy security. …
But the meek shall possess the land,

and delight themselves in abundant prosperity. …
The salvation of the righteous is from the LORD;
he is their refuge in the time of trouble.
The LORD helps them and delivers them;
he delivers them from the wicked, and saves them,
because they take refuge in him.‖
Jacob Cheats Esau out of His Blessing (26:34 –28:9)
Bibliography
See also Bibliography on 24:1 –67.
Ackerman, S. ―The Deception of Isaac, Jacob‘ s Dream at Bethel, and Incubation on an Animal
Skin.‖ In Priesthood and Cult, ed. G. Anderson and S. Olyan. JSOTSup 125. Sheffield: Academic,
1991. 92 –120. Coats, G. W. ―Strife without Reconciliation —A Narrative Theme in the Jacob
Traditions.‖ In Werden und Wirken des ATs: FS C. Westermann, ed. R. Albertz, H. -P. Müller, H. W.
Wolff, and W . Zimmerli. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980. 82 –106. Dahood, M. ―Poetry
versus a Hapax in Gen 27:3.‖ Bib 58 (1977) 422 –23. Fokkelman, J. P. Narrative Art in Genesis.
97–112. Hemiel, H. Y. ―The Mother of Jacob and Esau.‖ (Heb.) BMik 32 (1986/87) 332 –44.
Keukens, K. H. ―Der irreguläre Sterbesegen Isaaks: Bemerkungen zur Interpretation von Gen
27:1–45.‖ BN 19 (1982) 43 –56. Kselman, J. H. ―Semantic -Sonant Chiasmus in Biblical Poetry.‖ Bib
58 (1977) 219 –23. Lang, B. ―Altersversorgnung, Begräbnis und Elterngebot. ‖ ZDMGSup 31 (1977)
149–56. Levin, S. ―Isaac‘s Blindness: A Medical Diagnosis.‖ Judaism 37 (1988) 81 –83. Luke, K.
―Isaac‘s Blessing: Genesis 27.‖ Scripture 20 (1968) 33 –41. Schedl, C. ―Worte und Zahlen: Neuer
Zugang zu den Genesisquellen. ‖ ZAW 77 (1965) 259 –67. Schmidt, L. ―Jakob erschleicht sich den
väterlichen Segen: Literarkritik und Redaktion von Gen 27:1 –45.‖ ZAW 100 (1988) 159 –83. Sharp,
D. B. ―In Defense of Rebecca.‖ BTB 10 (1980) 164 –68. Ska, J. L. ―Sommaires proleptiques en Gen
27 et dans l‘histoire de Joseph. ‖ Bib 73 (1992) 518 –27. Willi -plein, I. ―Gen 27 als
Rebekkageschichte: Zu einem historiographischen Kunstgriff der biblischen Vätergeschichten. ‖ TZ
45 (1989) 315 –34. Zakovitch, Y. ―Reflection Story: Another Dimension of the Valuat ion of
Characters in Biblical Narrative.‖ (Heb.) Tarbiz 54 (1984/85) 165 –76.
Translation
34 When Esau was forty years old, he married Judith, the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and
Basemath, the daughter of Elon the Hittite.a 35 And they madea life miserable for Isaac and
Rebekah.
27:1When Isaac was old and his eyesight was too poora for him to see,b he summoned
his elder son Esau and said to him, ―My son.‖ He replied, ―Here I am.‖ 2 He said,
―Sincea I have grown oldb and I do not know when I shall die,b 3 now takea your
weapons, your quiverb and your bow, go intoc the field, and hunt me some game.d 4
Make me a tasty stew that I love and bringa it to me to eat,b so that my soul may bless
you before I die.‖ 5a Now Rebekah was listening when Isaac spoke to his son Esau.a So
Esau went out into the country to hunt game to bringb it in.
6 Then Rebekah said to Jacob her son, ―I have justa heard your father speaking to
your brother Esau like this. 7 ‗Bring me game and make me a tasty stew for me to eat,
so that I may bless you in the LORD ‘s presence before I die.‘ 8 Now, my son, obey me in

what I command you. 9 please go to the flock and take from there two good kids so thata
I may make them b into a tasty stewb for your father that he loves. 10 Then bring it to
your father for him to eat so that hea may bless you before he dies.‖
11 Then Jacob said to his mother Rebekah, ―My brother Esau is hairy, but Ia am a
smooth man. 12 Suppose my father touchesa me, I shall seem like a mockerb to him and I
shall bring upon myself a curse instead of a blessing.‖
13 His mother said to him, ―Let the curse on you fall on me.a Justb obey me. Go and
get it for me.‖ 14 So he went, took it, and brought it to his mother. Then his mother
made a tasty stew as his father lov ed.
15 Then Rebekah took her eldera son Esau‘s favorite clothes, which she had with her
in the house, and dressedb her youngera son Jacob. 16 The skins of the kids she put on
his hands and on the smooth part of his neck.a 17 She gave the tasty stew and the bread
she had made into the hands of her son Jacob.
18 Then Jacob went in to his father, and said, ―My father,‖ and he said, ― Here I am.
Who are you, my son?‖ 19 And Jacob said to his father, ―Ia am Esau, your first born. I
have done as you told me. Comeb on, sitc up and eatc of my game in order that your soul
may bless me.‖d 20 Then Isaac said to his son, ―How did you evera find it so quickly my
son?‖ He replied, ―Because the LORD your God made me meet it.‖ 21 So Isaac said to
Jacob, ―please comea close so th at I can feelb you, my son. Are you reallyc my son Esau
ord not?‖ 22 So Jacob camea close to Isaac his father, and he feltb him. Then he said,
―The voice is Jacob‘s, butc the hands are Esau‘s.‖ 23 But he did not recognizea him
because his hands were hairy like the hands of his brother Esau, so he blessed him. 24
He said, ―Are youa really my son Esau?‖ He said, ―Ib am.‖ 25 He said, ―Bring it closea
to me that I may eatb from my son‘s game in order that my soul may bless you.‖ So he
servedc him and he ate, and he brought him wine and he drank.d
26Then his father Isaac said, ―please comea close and kissb me, my son.‖ 27 So he
came close and kisseda him, and he smeltb the fragrance of his clothes, and he blessed
him and said, ―Look, my son‘s fragrance is like the fragrance of landc which the LORD
has blessed.
28 May God give you of the dew of heaven
and the richness of the earth
an abundance of grain and new wine.
29 May peoples serve you
and nations bowa down before you.
Be lord over your brother
and may your mother‘s sons bowa down before you.
Cursedb are those who curse you,
and blessedb are those who bless you.
30 Isaac had finisheda blessing Jacob, and Jacob had justb comec out from Isaac‘s
presence, when Esau his brother came in from hunting. 31 So he also made a tasty stew
and brought it in to his father. Then he said, ―May my father arisea and eat of his son‘s
game, so that your soul may bless me.‖ 32Then Isaac his father said to him, ―Who are
you?‖ He replied, ―Ia am your son, your firstborn, Esau.‖ 33Then Isaac was gripped by
an uncontrollable trembling, and he said, ―Who was it thena who huntedb game,
brought it me, and I ate it allc before you came and I blessed him? Yes,d he will be
blessed.‖ 34aAs soon as Esau hea rd his father‘s words, he let out a loud and very

anguished scream, and he said to his father, ―Bless me, even me,b father!‖ 35Then he
said, ―Your brother has come with deceit and taken away your blessing.‖ 36He said, ―Is
he not rightlya called Jacob? He has cheatedb me thesec two times. My right as the
firstborn he took away, and just now he has taken away my blessing.‖ He said, ―Did
you not reserve a blessing for me?‖ 37Isaac replied and said to Esau, ―Look, I have
madea him lord over you; I have made all his brothers his servants, and I have provided
him with grain and new wine. So for youb then, wh at can I do, my son?‖ 38So Esau said,
―Don‘t you have just one blessing for me? Bless me, yes me, father,‖ a and he broke
down and wept.b 39 So his father Isaac replied and said to him:
―Your dwelling shall be
away from the richness of the earth
and the dew of heaven above.
40You shall live by your sword,
and be subject to your brother, and when you growa restless,
you shall tear off his yoke from your neck.‖
41So Esau bore a grudge against Jacob because of the blessing with which his
father had blessed him, and Esau said to himself, ―The days of mournin g for my father
are drawing close, so that I can kill my brother Jacob.‖ 42Now it was reporteda to
Rebekah what Esau, her elder son, had said, so she sent and summoned her younger
son, Jacob, and said to him, ―Your brother Esau is even nowb consoling himself about
you by planning to kill you. 43Now, my son, obey me. Get up, run away by yourselfa to
Laban my brother in Harran. 44Stay with him for a few days until your brother‘s wrath
abates, 45until your brother‘ s anger subsides from you and he forgets what you did to
him, then I shall send and bring you back from there. Why should I lose both of you
togetherain a singleb day?‖
46Then Rebekah said to Isaac, ―I loathea my life because of the Hittite women. If
Jacob marriesb some of the Hittite women like these,c some of the girls of this country,
why should I go on living?‖
28:1So Isaac summoned Jacob, blessed him, gavea him orders, and said to him, ―You must
not marry any of the Canaanite women. 2Up, go to Paddan -Arama to the house of Bethuel,
your mother‘s father, and marry there any of the daughters of Laban, your mother‘s
brother. 3May God Almightya bless you, makeb you fruitful, and multiplyb you so that you
become a multitude of peoples. 4May he give the blessing of Abrahama to you and to your
descendants with you to inheritb the land to which you emigrated, which Godc has given to
Abraham.‖ 5So Isaac sent Jacob away, and he went to Paddan -Aram, to Laban, the son of
Bethuel the Aramean, the brother of Rebekah, mother of Jacob and Esau.
6So Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob and had senta him away to
Paddan -Aram to marry there, and that when he blessed him that he had commanded
him, ―You must not marry any of the Canaanite women,‖ 7and that Jacob had obeyed
his father and mother and gone to Paddan -Aram. 8Then Esau realized that Isaac his
father did not like Canaanite women. 9So Esau went to Ishmael and married Mahalat.
She was a daughter of Ishmael, Abraham‘s son, and the sister of Neb aiot. He married
her as wella as his other wives.
Notes

34.a. Sampent has 
―the Hivite‖ (cf. G) instead of  35.a. Waw consec + 3 fem. pl. impf. 27.1.a.
Waw consec + 3 fem. pl. impf.  1.b. 
(on this usage, see GKC, 119y; Joüon, 169h) + inf constr  2.a. On 
―since,‖ see Lambdin, 170–71; main clause in v3.
2.b-b. Clause in specifying apposition to first ( SBH, 47).
3.a. cf. n. 26:14.c.*
3.b. Found only here. Sampent spells it  3.c. On the use of the accusative to
express direction after verbs of motion, see GKC, 118f; WOC, 170. cf. 1 Sam 20:11.
3.d. K 
―a piece of game‖ ( GKC, 122t). Q 4.a. 2 masc. sg impv hiph 
+ aµh ending; cf. Joüon, 48d.
4.b. Waw + 1 sg coh 
. The sequence impv + coh expresses intention or consequence ( GKC, 108d; WOC, 575).
5.a-a. Episode -final circumstantial clause ( SBH, 81).
5.b. Inf constr hiph 
. Instead of ―to bring it,‖ G has ―for his father,‖ possibly equivalent to  6.a. On
this nuance of 
, see Lambdin, 169.
9.a. cf. n. 4.b.*
9.b-b. On the use of the double acc after [
―make something into something,‖ see GKC, 117ii; Joüon, 125w.
10.a. G, ―your father.‖
11.a. The position of the pronoun ―I‖ within the sentence emphasizes it slightly ( SBH,
152; EWAS, 11).
12.a. 3 masc. sg impf. 
+ 1 sg suffix.
12.b. 

+ masc. sg ptcp pilpel [[26.a. Word order, predicate ―on me‖ preceding subj ―curse on
you,‖ emphasizes predicate (EWAS, 14).
26.b. On use of 
, see SBH, 177; WOC, 670.
15.a. Comparatives, e.g., ―older, younger,‖ in Hebrew are expressed by the simple
adjectiv e, ―old, young.‖
15.b. Waw consec + 3 fem. sg impf. hiph  16.a. Sampent has sg, but pl. of 
more common in Genesis (cf. 33:4; 45:14; 46:29).
19.a. The more natural Heb. word order in reply would be ―Esau am I.‖ ―Jacob …
betrays himself by the eagerly self -assertive form of the reply he chose‖ (EWAS, 19).
19.b. Impv of verbs of motion often functions merely as hortatory ptcp (SBH, 56–57).
19.c. 2 masc. sg impv 
+ aµh ending (cf. n. 4.a.).
19.d. Note suffix on impf. joined by a&#181 ; (GKC, 60d).
20.a. Enclitic 
may suggest Isaac‘s astonishment ( GKC, 266c, 148b; WOC, 312, 326; cf. 3:13). But cf.
Joüon, 143g; EWAS, 264–36.
21.a. 2 masc. sg impv 
+ aµh ending.
21.b. Simple waw (―so that‖) + 1 sg impf. 
+ 2 masc. sg suffix.
21.c. 
here not only adds liveliness and concern to question, but used here particularly
because identification is the issue (EWAS, 264–35; cf. n. 20.a.).
21.d. For similar structure of question 
… 
, cf. 24:21, which effectively ―restricts the YES possibility to haá, is it true that ?‖ (SBH,
148.)
22.a. cf. n. 18:23.a.*

22.b. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
22.c. On the antithesis, see SBH, 181.
23.a. 3 masc. sg pf hiph 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
24.a. Sampent reads 
, but it is quite permissible to introduce question without interrogative 
(GKC, 150a).
24.b. Affirmative reply usually expressed by repeating key word in question ( GKC,
150n).
25.a. 2 masc. sg impv hiph 
+ aµh ending.
25.b. On the sequence of tenses impv + coh, see GKC, 108d.
25.c. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. hiph 
. On pointing, see GKC, 29e.
25.d. cf. n. 9:21.a.*
26.a. cf. n. 21.a.*
26.b. 2 masc. sg impv 
+ aµh ending.
27.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. 27.b. cf. n. 8:21.a.*
27.c. Sampent, cf. G, adds  29.a. cf. n. 18:2.d.* For the usual pointing, see BHS
footnotes.
29.b. Note sg predicates, ―cursed, blessed,‖ with pl. subjs, ―those who curse/bless you.‖
Shows that each one is affected individually by the statement ―those that curse thee, cursed
be every one of them, and those that b less thee, blessed be every one of them‖ ( GKC, 145l).
30.a. On use of two pfs to describe immediately successive actions, see GKC, 164b1.
30.b. On this nuance of 
, see Joüon, 123k; WOC, 588.
31.a. 3 masc. sg juss 

, but unusual pointing ( GKC, 72t; Joüon, 80k).
32.a. The initial position of ―I‖ seems to make Esau‘s reply emphatic; cf. v19; EWAS,
19.
33.a. 
―serves to point to the logical question or statement containing it and the foregoing
statement with the particle‖ (EWAS, 267).
33.b. Ptcp may have pf meaning ( GKC, 116d) and then be followed as here by waw +
finite verb (Joüon, 121j; WOC, 561, 631).
33.c. BHS proposes emending 
to 
(inf abs). Unnecessary.
33.d. 
―also‖ may sometimes emphasize, but here perhaps just ―and, also‖ ( SBH, 166; EWAS,
145).
34.a. Sampent, cf. G, adds 34.b. Repetition of the pronoun emphasizes Esau‘s high
emotion.
36.a. On use of 
, see SBH, 166; GKC, 150e.
36.b. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. [
+ 1 sg suffix.
36.c. On use of 
before numerals, see GKC, 1266d.
37.a. 1 sg pf 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
37.b. Word order (―for you‖ would not normally come first in clause) and use of 
―then‖ emphasizes this element ( GKC, 142g, 150l).
38.a. G adds ―But Isaac being stupefied.‖
38.b. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. apoc  40.a. 2 masc. sg impf. hiph 
. Meaning is uncertain; he nce variation in versions (see BHS).

42.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg hoph 
. On the construction, a pass verb, ―was reported,‖ with direct obj, ―words of Esau,‖ see
GKC, 121a; Joüon, 128b; WOC, 182.
42.b. On this nuance of 
, cf. Lambdin, 169.
43.a. On the nuance of 
, cf. n. 12:1.a.
45.a. On this translation of 
―frequently employed when giving an exaggerated, aggravated or extreme case,‖ see
EWAS 143–44 (cf. GKC, 154a1).
45.b. See GKC, 118i.
46.a. 1 sg pf qal 46.b. Ptcp used for present or imminent fut (Joüon, 167h).
46.c-c. Omitted by G.
28:1.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. piel 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
2.a. On the pointing, see GKC, 90i.
3.a. In blessings, God‘ s name often comes first in the sentence, whereas more usually
the verb precedes the subj (EWAS, 35).
3.b. Waw + 3 masc. sg juss hiph 
/
+ 2 masc. sg suffix.
4.a. Some MSs, Sampent add ―your father‖; G adds ―my father.‖
4.b. 
+ inf constr 
+ 2 masc. sg suffix.
4.c. Sampent reads ―the LORD.‖
6.a. The waw + pf is unexpected, so BHS suggests emending to waw + impf., which
would be more regular. Inconclusively discussed in GKC, 112pp. WOC, 542, suggests that
this is regular way of expressing pluperfect.

9.a. For this meaning of [
, see GKC 199aa2.
Form/Structure/Setting
Determining the opening and close of this section is here more problematic than usual;
the medieval chapter divisions and modern source -critical th eories obscure the issues.
That a new major section within the narrative begins in 26:34 is suggested by the abrupt
reappearance of Esau, completely unmentioned in 26:1 –33, and by the initial 
, lit. ―and it was when,‖ which often marks an important new development within a
narrative (25:20; 26:1). However, since the subject matter of 26:34 –35, Esau‘s foreign
wives, reappears in 27:46 and indeed dominates 27:46 –28:9, it seems probable that in the
editor‘s mind 26:34 –35 anticipates the con clusion of this section of narrative, so that the
account of Isaac‘s deception is set within the framework of the problems caused by Esau‘s
marriages. These same reasons argue for a close of this story at 28:9, rather than at 27:45.
This division of the ma terial is supported by the Jewish lectionary, which begins a new
reading at 28:10, and in recent times by Dillmann, Vawter, Coats, and Ross ( Creation and
Blessing ), who all recognize that 26:34 –28:9 constitutes a coherent unit within the present
book of Ge nesis.
However, it hardly constitutes a freestanding independent tale; it is very much part of
the longer narrative of Jacob and Esau. It clearly refers back to the story of the twins‘ birth
and early conflicts (25:20 –34). The blessing of Isaac (27:27 –29) elaborates and underlines
the oracle given in 25:23. Esau refers both to the naming of Jacob (25:26) and to his loss of
his birthright (25:28 –34) in 27:36. Indeed, the whole story rests on the divided loyalties and
preferences of Rebekah and Isaac first me ntioned in 25:28. In 28:4, Isaac bestows on Jacob
the blessing of Abraham, a key theme of chap. 26, and other phrases in 28:2 –4 seem to hark
back to the same chapter, e.g., being made fruitful and multiplying (26:22, 24). But, of
course, it also looks forward to the rest of the Jacob cycle, anticipating Jacob‘s sojourn in
Paddan -Aram, his marriage to Laban‘s daughters, and his eventual return. Within the
overall palistrophic arrangement of the Jacob cycle, this section corresponds to the great
reconciliation between Jacob and Esau, which takes place when Jacob returns (chaps.
32–33).
The material is arranged in five scenes, preceded and followed by reports of Esau‘s
marriages .

26:34 –35
Esau marries Hittites

27:1–5
Isaac instructs Esau to prepare to be blessed

27:6–17
Rebekah instructs Jacob to acquire blessing

27:18 –29

Isaac blesses Jacob

27:30 –40
Esau appeals to Isaac for blessing

27:41 –28:5
Rebekah thwarts Esau‘ s revenge; Jacob sent to Paddan -Aram

28:6–9
Esau marries an Ishmaelite

The scenic division is widely agreed among commentators. 27:5, with its reference to
Rebekah listening, is transitional and by some is made part of the second scene. However, it
seems preferable to regard this circumstantial clause as episode -final and make the second
scene begin with v6. The final scene, 27:41 –28:5, is usually split in two, 27:41 –45 and
27:46 –28:5. However, if change of actors is the criterion, it should really be s plit in three
(cf. Sarna):

27:41 –45
Rebekah and Jacob

27:46
Rebekah and Isaac

28:1–5
Isaac and Jacob

But all of 27:41 –28:5 in its present context relates to Rebekah‘s scheme to save Jacob
from Esau‘ s wrath, and so I, like Coats, see it as constituting a unit within the narrative.
27:1–40 constitutes a type scene, the death -bed blessing scene. Other examples in the
OT include Gen 48 –49; 50:24 –25; Deut 31 –34; Josh 23 –24; 1 Kgs 2:1 –9; and in the
intertestamental literature Tob 4, 14; T. 12 Patr. 1. Usually when the great man knows he is
about to die, he summons his nearest male relatives and blesses them. But here, as Keukens
(BN 19 [1982] 43 –56) points out, Isaac pr ofesses to be ignorant of when he is going to die
and then summons only one of his sons for blessing. The whole procedure is thus flawed
from the outset.
Traditional source critics assigned 26:34 –35 and 27:46 –28:9 to P and 27:1 –45 to JE,
though there was d oubt about which verses belonged to J and which to E. It was argued that
two sources must be present here, because both J and E know of Jacob‘s flight to
Mesopotamia and because there are doublets within chap. 27, e.g., vv 21–23//24 –27a;
30a//30b; 33 –34//35 –38. Further support for source division rests on the different divine
names: ―The LORD‖ in vv 7, 20, 27, but ―God‖ in v28. However, the consensus among
modern source critics, ever since Volz ( Der Elohist , 61–70) is that t he whole passage is a
substantial unity from the hand of J (so most recently Westermann; Coats; cf. Blum, Die
Komposition ; only Schmidt [ ZAW 100 (1988) 159 –83] wants to find two sources here).
Repetition within the narrative is not evidence of two sources but of the narrator‘s drama

However, ancient and modern source critics are agreed that 26:34 –35 and 27:46 –28:9
belong to P. But the grounds for this ascript ion are not weighty. 26:34 –35 is assigned to P
simply because v34 contains details of Esau‘s age and chronological information is
automatically ascribed to P, and because 28:9, ―as well as his other wives,‖ refers back to
26:34 –35. Since 28:1 –9 is P, 26:34 –35 must be too. But as Delitzsch observes, the fact that
the names of Esau‘s wives in 36:2 –3 (P) differ from 26:34 –35 and 28:9 suggests that the
source here cannot be P. Further, Esau‘s marriage at the age of forty corresponds to Isaac‘s
(25:20) at the sa me age, while Rebekah‘s comment in 27:46 is very like 25:22. We argued
above ( Form/Structure/Setting on 25:19 –34) that 25:20 –22 reflects the hand of the final
redactor, and the same could be the case here. The case for finding P here therefore rests
entire ly on 28:1 –8, which contains a number of terms frequently said to be characteristic of
P: ―Canaanite women‖ (vv 1, 6, 8), ―Paddan -Aram‖ (vv 2, 5, 7), ―God Almighty,‖ ―fruitful
and multiply,‖ ―multitude of peoples‖ (v 3), ―land to which you emigrated,‖ ―God ‖ (v 4),
and ―the Aramean‖ (v 5). Despite this impressive list of terms, it proves very little.
―Canaanite women‖ and ―multitude of peoples‖ are only found once outside this passage
(36:2; 48:4). ―Make you fruitful and multiply you,‖ ―Paddan -Aram,‖ and ―Ar amean‖ are
found in non -P passages (probably J), i.e., 25:20; 26:4, 22, 24; 31:18, 20, 24. This leaves
only ―land to which you emigrated‖ and ―God Almighty‖ as possible indicators of P (cf.
17:8; 36:7; 37:1; 17:1; 3 5:11; 43:14; 48:3). On the other hand, ―to you and your
descendants with you to inherit the land‖ is very reminiscent of the promises recorded in J
(e.g., 12:7; 13:15; 15:7; 22:17; 24:7, 60; 26:3, 4) as well as P (17:8). An d the mention of the
blessing of Abraham and the land God has given to Abraham seems to connect this passage
not simply with the Abraham cycle but with chap. 26, where the blessing of Isaac is most
frequently associated with that given to Abraham (see Form /Structure/Setting on 26:1 –33).
Rather than claim that the vocabulary of 28:1 –5 is distinctively P or characteristic of J,
it would be more accurate to say that it is typical of passages where the promises to the
patriarchs are being quoted or mentioned. I n short, the terms used are genre -specific not
source -specific. They do not show that a different writer is at work, only that promises are
the subject matter. Nor is the syntax or word order any more revealing, for as Radday
(Genesis , 79) has shown, human speech in all three sources is indistinguishable.
It is often said that 28:1 –9 knows nothing of the enmity between Esau and Jacob and
therefore cannot come from the same source as chap. 27. But this is to equate silence with
ignorance. 28:1 –9 may well pre suppose knowledge of the dispute just described but see no
point in discussing it further. Indeed, the comments about Esau going to marry an
Ishmaelite after he had heard Jacob being told not to marry a Canaanite does suggest at
least rivalry between the b rothers. This is confirmed by the comment that ―Esau realized
that Isaac his father did not like Canaanite women‖ (28:8). Evidently he did not care what
his mother thought (27:46). Conversely, that Isaac fails to mention to Jacob that Bethuel
and Laban are related to him as well as to Rebekah surely reflects the fact that Jacob is her
son, while Esau is his (28:1 –2). Further, 28:5, in relating Jacob‘s obedience, says that he
went to ―Paddan -Aram, to Laban, the son of Bethuel.‖ This combines reference to 27: 43
with 28:2; Rebekah had told Jacob to go to Laban (27:43), whereas Isaac had told him to go
to Paddan -Aram to the house of Bethuel (28:2). Thus, 28:5 appears to know both
Rebekah‘s command and Isaac‘s. This is confirmed by 28:7, ―Jacob had obeyed his fat her
and his mother .‖ To dismiss ―and his mother‖ as a harmonizing gloss (Gunkel) is, as
Westermann observes, unwarranted. But it does show that the author of 28:1 –9 was aware
of 27:41 –45 and presumably what led up to it (27:1 –40). Furthermore, 28:1 –2 ―seem s to

echo‖ (Gunkel) or ―is modelled on‖ (Skinner) 24:3 –4, and similarly ―the content of the
blessing of Isaac (i.e., 28:3–4) particularly recalls that of 26:2 –5, 24‖ (Strus, Nomen -Omen ,
112–13). Both chaps. 24 and 26 are usually ascrib ed to J, so it seems reasonable to
conclude that 28:1 –9, at least in its present form, also reflects his hand. Hence, I shall
assume 26:34 –35; 27:45 –28:9 come from the same hand as that which composed the rest of
the section.
Comment
34–35 The opening verb form 
, lit. ―and it was‖ (untranslated here), and the note about Esau‘s age indicate a major new
development in the story. The quiet interlude of 26:1 –33, which described Isaac‘ s life
before Rebekah conceived, is now forgotten. We reenter the world of the warring twins.
34 This remark about Esau‘s marriage appears to be mere biographical record. He
marries at the same age as did his father Isaac (25:20), but unlike Isaac who marr ied one
girl from Abraham‘s family, Esau marries two Hittite women. When Abraham‘s intense
concern that Isaac should on no account marry a Canaanite is recalled, it is somewhat
unexpected that Esau should marry two. The Hittites of Genesis seem to be a sub group of
the Canaanites (10:15; 36:2; see Comment on 23:3). Does this reflect slackness on Isaac‘s
part, that unlike Abraham he did not bother to find Esau a suitable wife, or Esau‘s
deliberate rejection of family tradition? The narrative opens up both pos sibilities and never
decides the issue, so that this opening note casts a shadow over both Esau and Isaac, who
otherwise would appear completely exploited in the ensuing tale of deception. But once we
realize that neither Esau nor Isaac care about Abraham‘ s principle of not marrying
Canaanites, we cannot entirely condemn the way Jacob and Rebekah achieve their goals.
Esau‘s indifference to the law‘s demands, which Abraham held so dear, suggests that
perhaps he does not deserve to inherit Abraham‘s blessing.
Later, according to 28:9, Esau married Mahalat the daughter of Ishmael and sister of
Nebaiot, whereas according to 36:2 –3 he married Adah, daughter of Elon, Oholibamah,
daughter of Anah, and Basemat, daughter of Ishmael and sister of Nebaiot. How these
divergent traditions are to be reconciled is unclear, but these differences do suggest that at
some stage the traditions were independent.
―Judith‖ only used here as a proper name in the OT. In later texts it means a female
Judean, i.e., Jewess. ―Basemat‖ means balsam according to Noth, ( Personennamen , 223).
35 lit. ―and they were bitterness of spirit [ 
] to Isaac and Rebekah.‖ The phrase ―bitterness of spirit‖ occurs only here, but it seems
akin to 
―bitter in soul,‖ which denotes an intense anguish such as Hannah and Job experienced
(1 Sam 1:10; Job 7:11; 10:1). What their Hittite daughters -in-law did to make life so
miserable for Isaac and Rebekah is left unclarified, but already some of the costs of Isaac‘s
indifference and Esau‘s rebelliousness are becoming apparent.
27:1–5 The opening scene has Isaac and Esau alone, with Rebekah listening in the
wings. Here, with minimal detail, the essential points that must be appreciated if the rest of
the story is to be understood are set out. Certain words, ―old,‖ ―bless,‖ surely echo the
previous deathbed scene in Gen 24, when Abraham sent his servant to find a non -Canaanite
wife for Isaac.
1 ―His eyesight was too poor.‖ For this description of failin g sight in the elderly, cf.

Deut 34:7; Zech 11:17; Job 17:7. It is mentioned here, of course, to explain how Jacob
could think of tricking his father into blessing him.
Elsewhere in the OT, it is normal for a dying man to summon all his close male relatives and
to bless them publicly and in this way to organize the succession (cf. Gen 49; 50:24 –25). It
is, to say the least, irregular for Isaac to summon merely one of his sons, especially since
Jacob a nd Esau were twins. It raises questions: Why is Isaac prepared to break with
convention? Why does he want to bless Esau and not Jacob, since both were entitled to
some blessing (cf. vv 34, 38)?
This departure from convention is the more striking when Abraham‘s concerns at this
point in his life are contrasted with Isaac‘s. Given the way Esau had flouted family custom
by marrying two Canaanites and the distress this action had caused his parents, it comes as
a surprise to find Isaac on hi s deathbed preparing to bless Esau, the more so because at the
same point in his life Abraham was desperately concerned that Isaac should marry only
within the clan and because the birth oracle had promised Jacob‘s ascendancy over Esau
(25:23).
2 ―I do not know when I shall die.‖ Speiser‘s attempt to show that this phraseology
reflects Hurrian custom is probably misguided (see Thompson, Historicity , 285 –93).
However, he was right to draw attention to the unexpectedness of the remark. In the Bible
and until relatively recently, people hoped to know when death was imminent in order to
summon the family, make their final farewells, and leave their last instructions (47:29;
50:24; Josh 23:14). Often, indeed, God warns old leaders that they are about to die and t o
prepare for death (e.g., Num 20:24; 27:13; Deut 31:14). So why does Isaac here say that he
does not know when he will die? Is he telling the truth? If so, why is he preparing to give a
deathbed blessing? Or does he realiz e he is near to death and is trying to disguise the fact,
so that all sons will not assemble to receive his blessing? However we take these
problematic words, they do not reflect well on Isaac‘s intentions. Clearly, he wants to make
sure to bless Esau and to give nothing to Jacob.
3–4 ―Go into the field and hunt me some game.‖ We have already been told that ―Isaac
loved Esau for his hunting,‖ so when he says ―Make me a tasty stew that I love,‖ we realize
that Isaac‘s sensuality is more powerful than his the ology. Outside this chapter (vv 7, 9, 14,
17, 31) ―tasty stew‖ only occurs in Prov 23:3, 6. Note the qualifying phrase, ―that I love,‖
suggesting the old man‘s bondage to his appetite.
4 ―So that my soul may bless you before I die.‖ Isaac does not say simp ly, ―So that I
may bless you.‖ The use of ―my soul‖ rather than ―I‖ seems to express Isaac‘s strong desire
to bless Esau (cf. Deut 12:20; 14:26; Ps 84:3 [2]; Cant 1:7; 3:1 –4). He is quite deliberately
prepared to overlook Esau‘ s misdemeanors and the God -given oracle. Isaac‘s will is pitted
against God‘s and Rebekah‘s. Thus the stakes are high. Though ―Esau went out into the
country to hunt game‖ sounds very matter -of-fact, it is a dramatic exit to those who are
aware of the issu es at stake. Will Isaac and Esau triumph or Rebekah and Jacob, as the
LORD had promised?
6–17 Energy and decisiveness characterized Rebekah in her youth (chap. 24). These
traits have not deserted her now as she takes command of the situation. She may well have
been angered by Isaac‘s disregard for conventional propriety in not summoning both sons
to be blessed, but was she right to react to his deceitful behavior by perpetrati ng an even
more hurtful ruse on her blind and dying husband? The narrator does not answer the
question in so many words, but he does leave some clues to his attitude.

6 Note how Jacob is called ― her son,‖ whereas in v5 Esau is called ― his son,‖ thus
remind ing us of the rift that divides the family (25:28). It is because of her son‘s interest
that Rebekah takes such decisive action.
7 Rebekah, perhaps surmising that Jacob will need a little persuading to undertake her
potentially dangerous scheme, modifies I saac‘s words to Esau. Isaac said, ―Take your
weapons … so that my soul may bless you before I die‖ (vv 3 –4). Rebekah omits all the
remarks about hunting, which might have put Jacob off, then continues ―that I may bless
you in the LORD‘s presence before I d ie.‖ By changing ―my soul‖ to ―I,‖ Rebekah seems to
be playing down the strength of Isaac‘s desire to bless Esau, while by adding ―in the
LORD‘s presence,‖ she is emphasizing the importance of what Isaac proposes to do.
Through this reporting of Isaac‘s re marks, she seems to be insinuating the importance of
Jacob acquiring the blessing while minimizing Isaac‘s determination to bless Esau.
8 It is most unusual for the verb 
―command‖ to be used with a feminine subject (cf. Esth 4:5). This is the only example
of the feminine participle of the verb in the OT. Here, then, Rebekah is portrayed as
exerting all the maternal authority she can muster in order to make Jacob carry out her
scheme.
9–10 Note that although Isaac asked Esau to prepa re the tasty stew, here Rebekah says
she will do that. Jacob has merely to fetch the two goats and carry the stew into his father.
Why did she not tell Jacob to prepare the stew? Because she thought he was an incompetent
cook, too slow, or because she want ed to do all she could? Maybe all these motives
underlie her action.
11–12 Rebekah‘s scheme faced Jacob with a dilemma: should he follow his mother‘s
command or his father‘s will? When the OT is compared with earlier ancient oriental
pract ice, it may be seen to be clearly enhancing the authority of the mother, since father and
mother are often put together in laws and wisdom (e.g., Exod 20:12; 21:15, 17; Prov 1:8;
6:20). However, undoubtedly the OT expects parents to have a common policy toward their
children, so what should be done where father and mother disagree is not so obvious.
However, since wives are expected to defer to their husbands (e.g., Num 30), it would seem
likely that Jacob, despite being his mother‘s pet, ought to have had more regard for his
father‘s wishes. But instead of basing his doubts on moral principles, he merely expresses
his worry that he may be found out. Evidently he agrees with h er aims and is only worried
lest her scheme backfire on him.
Note the word -play ―hairy‖ ( 
sŒaµ>ir ) with the other name for Esau, Seir (see 25:25).
The verbal root [[
―mock,‖ used only here and in 2 Chr 36:16, seems a very strong one. It would certa inly
be a most inappropriate way to treat a blind man, let alone one‘s parent (cf. Lev 19:14;
Exod 21:17). Indeed, Deut 27:18 invokes a curse on those who physically mislead the
blind, so it is quite realistic for Jacob to envisage a cu rse falling on him for deceiving his
blind father.
13 Rebekah‘s reply is as remarkable for what it does not contain as for what it does. She
says nothing about dressing up Jacob in goatskin and his brother‘s clothes. That might have
alarmed Jacob even more . Instead she focuses on the most serious point, that Jacob may be
cursed for his efforts. The word order, ―Let the curse on you fall on me,‖ emphasizes that
Rebekah is the one, not Jacob, who will suffer should Isaac pronounce a curse instead of a

blessin g. Her remark is hypothetical, for Isaac does not curse Jacob, but it is doubtful
whether she could have diverted any curse onto herself by simply saying so. The blessing is
not transferable even to Esau for whom Isaac intended it, so how could a curse be diverted?
Presumably Rebekah realized this, for her plan depends on the irrevocability of the
blessing, so her remark, ―Let the curse … on me,‖ expresses the ferocity of her desire to
make Jacob carry out her plan. Probably, Jacob realized curses could not be transferred
either and his submission to his mother‘s will again underlines his complicity in the
scheme. But her closing words, ―Just obey me. Go and get it for me,‖ repeating her opening
injunction (vv 8 –9) somewhat more brusquely, reveal her impatie nce and urgency. It is a
naked appeal to maternal authority.
14–17 These verses describe the completion of the preparation. Notice how Rebekah
does nearly everything. All that Jacob did is described in three Hebrew words, ―So he went,
took, and brought.‖ T he very baldness of this comment, there is no mention of Jacob
running or hurrying, may suggest a lack of enthusiasm on his part for the plan. But if the
narrator has roused our ire by his portrayal of the Machiavellian matriarch manipulating
Jacob to defe at the purpose of her blind and dying husband, he suddenly reminds us of the
other side by the essentially superfluous comments about the ―tasty stew as his father
loved .‖ The narrator says ―his father,‖ rather than ―her husband‖ or ―Isaac,‖ to remind us o f
the rift in the family that has led Rebekah to act in this way, while the comment ―as … he
loved‖ draws attention to Isaac‘s appetite that has resulted in favoritism and division.
But the implied criticism is once again set in the context of Isaac‘s path etic condition.
Though Rebekah did not say anything about Isaac‘s possible detection of the ruse if he felt
Jacob, she took precautions to avoid it by dressing Jacob in his brother‘s best clothes and
putting hairy goatskins on his arms and neck. That such a device could deceive Isaac has
struck some commentators as absurd. Yet it is eloquent testimony to the decline in Isaac‘s
powers. He is not merely blind, but his sense of touch is also failing him. He is as much to
be pitied as to be blamed.
18–29 In thi s second scene, Jacob and Isaac are the sole actors. Whatever Jacob‘s
earlier hesitations about taking the part of his brother, he now throws himself
wholeheartedly into it. But he nearly gives himself away by talking too much and
overasserting his identit y with Esau. Within this scene, Isaac speaks eight times and Jacob
four times. However, after Isaac says, ―The voice is Jacob‘s, but the hands are Esau‘s,‖
Jacob only speaks once to say one word ―I (am)‖ (v 24). It is as though Jacob realizes his
voice may betray him, so thereafter he says as little as possible.
Throughout the scene there is great tension, first as Isaac persistently inquires who it is
who has brought him his meal so quickly. His eyesight may have failed, but his other
faculties seem more a lert than Rebekah and Jacob expected, so we wait with bated breath to
see whether their ruse will be unmasked. For even when Jacob stops talking, the danger of
discovery is not over, as Isaac persists in asking him to ―come close‖ (vv 21, 25, 26). Isaac
wants to feel him to see if Jacob is really Esau. Apparently satisfied, he blesses him, but
then surprisingly he asks again, ―Are you really my son Esau?‖ Jacob‘s terse ―I am‖ seems
to satisfy him, but he twice more asks him to come close to kiss and embrace him (vv
25–27; cf. 48:10). Will Isaac‘s last hug of the quivering Jacob give the game away? It is
only when the words of blessing (vv 27 –29) are pronounced that the tension finally relaxes.
The plot has been successful; Jacob has acqui red his brother‘s blessing.
18 The opening ―My father,‖ as in 22:7, is a deferential request to say something. It is
enough to identify the speaker as Isaac‘s son, but which son? Isaac‘s immediately

suspicious reply, ―Who are you, my son?‖ shows that the deception may be more difficult
than Rebekah had hoped.
19 Perhaps taken aback by his father‘s suspicion, Jacob overreacts in asserting his
identity. The normal reply in Hebrew to his father‘s question is ―Esau am I,‖ but he uses a
more ass ertive form ― I am Esau‖ and then rattles on about being Jacob‘s firstborn, doing
what he has been told, and would his father now please bless him. The reference to him
being the firstborn is like much else in this speech unnecessary, but it is, of course, a key
word in the whole cycle. ―Firstborn‖ ( 
bkr) is an anagram of ―bless‖ ( 
brk), and it is the firstborn‘s blessing that Jacob is after. Although he does obtain it on
this occasion, he is paid back later by getting a firstborn ( 
bkyrh ) that he does not want (29:26)!
20 Isaac‘s astonished question, ―How did you ever find it so quickly … ?‖ prompts a
rather lame reply from Jacob, ―Because the LORD your God made me meet it.‖ Though
excoriated by commentators for taking God‘s name in vain and thus sinning even more
deeply, Jacob is really on the verge of giving himself away by not offering a more
convincing reply to this question. Isaac is not so dim as he thought.
21 With Isaac‘s request that Jacob come close so that he may feel him, the n arrative
becomes ever more tense. Will he be discovered or not?
22–23 But the disguise provided by Rebekah is sufficient. Only the voice does not seem
to fit. Nevertheless, Isaac is sufficiently persuaded to bless Jacob. ―So he blessed him.‖
Since the bles sing is not pronounced until v27, introduced by the same verbal form ―and he
blessed him,‖ this has occasioned some difficulty. Volz ( Der Elohist , 66) suggested ―so he
blessed‖ is a gloss. Others that it is a mark of different sources. Recently, Westermann has
argued for the integrity of the passage, but that the sense of ―he blessed‖ is different here
from v27. Here it refers to the whole action of blessing, i.e., the rite of eating, drinking,
kissing, and pronouncing blessing, whereas in v27 it refers only to the pronouncement.
Jacob, however, suggests that in v23 ―bless‖ has a less specialized sense ―to greet, to thank‖
(cf. 24:31; Josh 14:13; 1 Sam 26:25). In support of this rendering may be noted THWAT
1:359: ―In everyday Israelite usage brk means simply ‗greet.‘‖ Alternatively, Keil,
Delitzsch, Gispen, Ska ( Bib 73 [1992] 518 –27), NEB, NAB may be correct to take it as
proleptic, ―so that is why he blessed him.‖
24–26 The tension again rises as Isaac inquires whether Jacob is really Esau and as he is
invited to come close and kiss his father. (Kissing was a regular part of the farewell; cf.
48:10; 50:1.) However, all goes smoothly. The wine not only makes it a celebratory
occasion, but it ensures that Isaac‘s critical faculties will be lulled and that he will not ask
any more awkward questions. As long as Esau does no t turn up, Jacob is safe and the
blessing will soon be his.
27–29 The blessing is in verse (cf. Gen 49; Deut 33). It was, of course, intended for
Esau but was pronounced over Jacob. And its contents reflect this hybrid setting. It begin s
with mentioning ―the fragrance of the land.‖ 
―land‖ refers to the open uncultivated plain, where flocks may be pastured and men
like Esau hunt (cf. Comment on 2:5). However, Isaac then prays for ― the dew of heaven and
the richness of the earth,‖ either heavy rain or the rich harvests such rainfall produces, ―an
abundance of grain and new wine.‖ These are not the concerns of the nomadic hunter but
those of the settled farmer. ―Grain and new wine‖ of ten occur together in lists of the

products of Canaan (e.g., Deut 7:13; 28:51; 33:28; 2 Kgs 18:32; Hos 7:14; Joel 1:10). So
this remark is much more appropriate for Jacob than for Esau, looking forward ultimately
to the set tlement in the promised land.
29 The phraseology of these promises clearly echoes the birth oracle (25:23). 
―nations/people‖ occurs only here and in 25:23, and the verb [
However, the precise meaning of the prayer/prediction, ―May peoples serve you and
nations bow down before you,‖ is less clear. It may be looking forward to Israel‘s victories
in the conquest or early monarchy period, or to the lesser -known victories of the Edomites.
―Be lord over your brothers‖ again echoes 25:23, ―The older will be a slave of the
other,‖ and, as 27:37, is the key statement of the blessing, which Isaac insists cannot be
retracted. 
―lord‖ occurs only here and in 27:37. The feminine 
means mistress (16:8 –9) or ―queen -mother‖ (2 Kgs 10:13).
―May your mother‘ s sons bow down before you.‖ In its immediate context, this is a
continuation of the previous line, a prayer that Jacob will be honored by Esau and any other
brothers he may have. In the broader context of the Jacob cycle, it may be noted that it is
Rebeka h‘s grandsons (Jacob‘s sons) who in fact bow down to Esau (33:3, 6 –7). Here again
the Delphic nature of the blessing is evident; it has multiple meanings, being intended for
Esau but addressed to Jacob. It also anticipates Joseph‘s experiences, in dreams a nd in
reality, of his brothers bowing down before him (37:7, 9, 10; 42:6; 43:26, 28).
Hitherto this blessing stands quite apart from the normal patriarchal promises. There is
nothing explicit about numerous descendants or the gift of the land or blessing t o the
nations, the standard ingredients of the promises. Two of these appear in the second
blessing of Jacob (28:3 –4). The omissions here again reflect that this promise is intended
for Esau rather than Jacob. Only the last clauses, ―Cursed are those who c urse you, and
blessed are those who bless you,‖ hark back clearly to the Abrahamic promise. But when
compared with 12:3, ―I will bless those who bless you, and he who disdains you I shall
curse,‖ it is evident that 27:29 is a much less personal formulation . It uses the passive
participles ―cursed/blessed‖ instead of ―I shall bless/curse‖; it reverses the order of blessing
and cursing; and it implies a multitude of enemies, not just a few, by using ―those who
curse you‖ for ―he who disdains you.‖ All these c hanges suggest that the intended recipient
of this verse is in a less intimate relationship with God than Abraham was. For fuller
discussion, see Comment on 12:3.
Nevertheless, the overall thrust of the blessing is extremely positive. It opens with a
refer ence to the LORD‘s blessing in v27, and its very last words are ―blessers blessed.‖
Since blessing is at the center of this story and indeed of Genesis, it is clearly most
significant that Jacob has obtained such a categoric affirmation of his status as th e blessed
one.
30–40 The poignant pathos of this scene is unsurpassed in Genesis. The dialogue is
most moving, and unlike most OT narrative, the intense emotions of the actors are described
with some fullness. ― Isaac was gripped by an uncontrollable trembling‖; ―He let out a loud
and very anguished scream.‖ But the purpose of this scene is more than dramatic; it
underlines the fact that however irregular was Isaac‘s blessing, it was irrevocable, ―Yes, he
will be blessed‖ (v 33), and Esau or Isaac can do nothing to change it.
30 This underlines how close Esau came to stopping the blessing of Jacob. Had he arrived
just a few minutes earlier, he might have found Isaac eating and unmasked his brother. But

all was quie t in Isaac‘s tent when Esau returned, so he went off to prepare his tasty stew.
31 No doubt the preparation of the stew took some time, but at last in a very cheerful
mood Esau brings it in: ―May my father arise and eat of his son‘s game in order that your
soul may bless me.‖ Contrast the much more deferential opening, ―My father,‖ in v18 and
in 22:7. One wonders whether Esau‘s heartiness in fact transgressed oriental etiquette;
should a son really address his dying father with such gaiety? In any case, it shows him
flushed with his success and expecting the best from his father.
32 But his humor is suddenly deflated by Isaac‘s question, ―Who are you?‖ When Jacob
had brought in his stew, Isaac had said, ―Who are you, my son?‖ Isaac apparently does not
even r ecognize Esau as his son. So his shocked reply begins ―I am your son,‖ and then he
makes his claim more specific, ―your firstborn, Esau.‖
33 It is now Isaac‘s turn to panic: ―He was gripped by an uncontrollable trembling,‖ lit.
―he trembled a very great trembling.‖ The verb 
―tremble‖ expressed intense fear and alarm by itself (e.g., by Joseph‘s brothers when
arrested, 42:28, by the people on Sinai, Exod 19:16, or by Abimelek visited by David, 1
Sam 21:2 [ 1]). Here it is supplemented by the cognate noun ―trembling‖ and superlative
adjective ―very great.‖ Hebrew can hardly express Isaac‘s panic more graphically.
At last he explains what happened. He has blessed some unknown, and that blessing
cannot be revok ed: ―Yes, he will be blessed.‖
34 Once again the Hebrew is remarkable for using a strong verb, ―scream,‖ with a
cognate noun and superlative adjective. On 
―scream,‖ cf. Comment on 4:10. Isaac‘s extreme panic is matched by his son‘s extreme
distress. When he at last speaks, his plea is pathetic in its simplicity, ―Bless me, even me,
father.‖
35 Isaac now answers his own question, ―Who was it then‖ (v 33), and explains why he
cannot now bless Esau. He had thought there was something s uspicious about his first
caller; now he realizes what has happened: ―Your brother has come with deceit and taken
away your blessing.‖ The noun 
―deceit‖ and the verb 
―deceive‖ both suggest deliberate planning, e.g., by the sons of Jacob (34:13), by the
Gibeonites (Josh 9:22), by merchants with unfair scales (Amos 8:5). Later Jacob complains
to Laban about his substituting Leah for Rachel, ―Why have you deceived me?‖ —a clear
case of do as you would be d one by.
36 ―He has cheated me these two times.‖ ―Cheated‖ ( [
) is a bitter pun on Jacob‘s name ( 
). However, the precise meaning of [
is unclear as it only occurs here, in Jer 9:3(4), and in Hos 12:4(3) as a description of
Jacob‘s own behavior. On the basis of an Ugaritic cognate, >qb ―to deceive, impede,‖ KB
suggests the verb means ―to deceive.‖
―Did you not reserve a blessing for me?‖ Had this be en a proper deathbed farewell, all
the sons should have been invited to receive a blessing, but it was not. Esau alone was
summoned because Isaac intended to confer a blessing only on him. He went along with
this scheme; now he is left with nothing. In the Hebrew there is a nice alliteration between
my ―birthright‖ (  ]

beákoµraµtéÆ ) and ―my blessing‖ ( 
birkaµtéÆ ). Note too the repetition of ―take‖ (  37 Isaac reaffirms the contents of the
blessing pronounced over Jacob, with one slight change. Instead of ―may your mother‘s
sons fall down before you,‖ which could anticipate 33:3, 6 –7 (see Comment on v 29), he
says ―I have made all his brothers his servant s,‖ which seems to look forward to Israel‘s
conquest of surrounding peoples in the period of the settlement or monarchy. Thus, Isaac
interprets his blessing of Jacob in a most disadvantageous way for Esau, and so concludes
hopelessly, ―So for you then, wha t can I do, my son?‖
38 Esau repeats his pathetic plea (cf. v 34, 36) and then breaks down in sobs of despair
(cf. 21:16).
39–40 Whether Isaac‘ s eventual response should be described as a blessing is moot.
The first line may be taken in two different ways. ―From the richness of the earth and the
dew of the heaven above‖ echoes the blessing of Jacob (v 28). But there the prefixed 
―of/from‖ mea ns ―some of.‖ But does it carry the same sense here? Medieval
commentators said it did, but most modern commentators agree that it here has a privative
sense, ―away from,‖ because this makes best sense in the context. Esau is being condemned
to a wandering existence like Cain or Ishmael, haunting the dry wilderness to the south and
east of Canaan. And certainly the traditional area of Edom southeast of the Dead Sea is
much more arid than the land of Israel. However, if Esau was clutching at any straw, he
may well be presumed to take it in the more optimistic sense, ―Of the richness of the earth
and dew of heaven.‖
―You shall live by your sword.‖ Throughout the OT, Edom appears as a militant nation,
often hostile to his brother Israel (Num 20:18; 1 Sam 14:47; 1 Kgs 11:14 –16; 2 Kgs
14:7–10; Obad; Ps 60:10 –11 [8 –9]). From the time of David, Edom was part of the Israelite
empire, but later it regained its independence (2 Kgs 8:20 –22) and after the fall of
Jerusalem took revenge on Judah (cf. Obad; Ps 137:7). It is perhaps these events to which
―when you grow restless, you shall tear off his yoke‖ refer. Thus, the blessing of Esau does
end with a glimmer of hope.
41–28:5 In this final composite scene, the dominating, organizing Rebekah reappears . It
is, in fact, her last appearance in Genesis. Once again she manipulates her beloved son
Jacob and her husband to do what she wants. But ultimately all her maneuvers are futile.
Her efforts on behalf of Jacob lead to his flight from home, so that what she was seeking to
avoid, ―Why should I lose both of you … ?‖ is what really happens. So the career of the
woman whose bright start promised to make her the female equivalent of Abraham
eventually ends in shadow.
41 ―Esau bore a grudge.‖ The verb used here (
) is rare and suggests long -term persistent hatred (cf. 50:15; Ps 55:4 [3]; Job 16:9;
30:21). ―The days of mourning for my father are drawing near.‖ Joseph‘s brothers also
expected him to take vengeance after their father‘ s death. But why did Esau plan to
postpone his revenge? Isaac was surely too doddery to punish him physically. Does it
reflect his affection for his father whom he did not want to hurt further, or fear that his
father might curse him and disinherit him? Th e text does not say, so both possibilities must
be left open. But it does underline the intensity of Esau‘s hatred by the final word, ―so that I
can kill my brother .‖ He is bent not just on murder but on fratricide; he is intent on slaying
the very one who m he should protect. He is potentially a second Cain.
42 Even more intriguing is the problem posed by the comment, ―Now it was reported to

Rebekah what Esau … had said,‖ when in the preceding verse we were told ―Esau said to
himself . … ‖ Is it that after keeping his ideas to himself for a while, Esau later started
bragging about what he planned to do? Or is it that Rebekah only received a distorted
account of what Esau had in mind, perhaps that he was going to kill Jacob, but not when?
Or does it show Rebe kah is a prophet, able to divine her son‘s thoughts ( Gen. Rab. 67:9)?
Her injunction to Jacob suggests that either she has received an inaccurate report of
what Esau was saying or that she put a slant on them in order to make Jacob act more
promptly. The use of 43 She continues in her most commanding matriarchal tone,
employing the same phraseology that she employed to move Jacob before, ―Now, my son,
obey me‖ (cf. vv 8, 13). The ve rb ―run away‖ again underlines the deadly danger Jacob
faces if he stays (cf. Exod 2:15; 1 Sam 19:12), but then Rebekah encourages him to go by
suggesting he go to his relations in Paddan -Aram, in fact to her brother Laban. As Jacob‘s
uncle, he is bound to offer him protection.
44–46 And anyway, your stay there will be only ―a few days‖ (cf. 29:20, Dan 11:20; the
only other occurrences of this phrase). Then you will be able to come home. I shall send
and fetch you. Bu t it is essential that you leave now, for your brother is extremely angry:
―Until your brother‘s wrath abates, until your brother‘s anger subsides from you.‖ This
double reference underlines the chief cause of her concern. And if he kills you, I shall lose
both of you. You will be dead, and vengeance will taken out on Esau. He will be killed or,
like Cain, forced into exile.
This powerful plea by Rebekah with its dire warnings of what will happen if Jacob
stays and the rosy prospect she paints of a short an d congenial stay in Paddan meet with no
immediate response from Jacob. Considering with what alacrity he cooperated earlier, this
is strange. Does he no longer trust his mother? Does he know she is exaggerating the
immediate danger, or is he afraid to go t o Paddan -Aram? Or does he intend to go but not in
a hurry? Again the narrator leaves us guessing.
46–28:5 But Rebekah is convinced that Jacob must leave immediately and decides to
use Isaac to send him away. Note once again how she skillfully deploys her a rguments to
persuade Isaac to do what she wants. Isaac was never very fond of Jacob, though he adored
Esau, so to inform him that Jacob was under threat from Esau would not have been tactful
or likely to have achieved what she wanted. Rebekah had long been partisan toward Jacob,
so Isaac would have surely discounted any suggestion from her that Esau might kill Jacob.
Instead, she wisely appeals to what they do agree on, that Esau‘s wives are awful; 26:35
said that they made life miserable for Isaac and Rebe kah. She is even more colorful, ―I
loathe my life because of the Hittite women.‖ 
―loathe‖ is a very strong term of disgust (cf. Lev 20:23; Num 21:5). But it could be worse.
Jacob might do the same! Rebekah does not say any more; her husband might object if she
told him what to do. Nor does she actually call them Esau‘s wives, which might trigger a
positive attitude toward them, but simply ―the Hittite women.‖
28:1–2 Happily, Isaac does wha t Rebekah wanted without her direction. In words very
reminiscent of his father Abraham, ―Do not marry … one of the Canaanite girls‖ (24:3);
―Go to my country … and take a wife for my son‖ (24:4), Isaac bids Jacob leave home and
find a wife among his kinsf olk. However, whereas Abraham sent his servant on Isaac‘s
behalf, Isaac sends Jacob himself. For Jacob to take a lead in looking for a wife would seem
more typical. Isaac is always portrayed as somewhat passive. However, whereas Abraham‘s
servant was simpl y told to find a Mesopotamian girl for Isaac, Jacob is more or less told to

marry one of Laban‘s daughters, so he did not have a very wide choice either! Note how
Isaac describes Bethuel as your mother‘s father and Laban as your mother‘s brother, when
they were also his cousins. This may well reflect on Jacob‘s closeness to his mother and
shows how Isaac encouraged Jacob to leave home.
3–4 Isaac‘s blessing on this occasion is very different from that he had planned for Esau
(27:27 –29). He describes this ble ssing as the blessing of Abraham. And it largely echoes
the promises made to Abraham, for nearly every phrase is found in the Abrahamic promises
(cf. 12:2–3, 7; 13:15, 17; 15:7 –8, 18; 17:1, 6, 8, 16, 20; 22:17; 24:7) and in their
recapi tulation to Isaac (26:3 –4, 24). However, this is the first time that Jacob has been
designated heir of the Abrahamic promises, so it is not surprising that the closest parallels
to the whole are in 35:11 –12 and 48:3 –4; cf. also 28:13, w here the first promise made to
Jacob is recalled.
5 Jacob had ignored his mother‘s warning, but he does what his father orders. But there
are no verbs suggesting any urgency about his journey. He simply ―went to Paddan -Aram‖
to the house of his relatives. Here the outcome of his journey is briefly anticipated. On the
Arameans, cf. Comment on 10:22.
6–9 The description of Esau‘s reaction is surprisingly long -winded and seems to
emphasize the connection betw een the blessing of Jacob and his being sent to find a wife in
Paddan -Aram. To marry a relation rather than a Canaanite seemed to ensure parental
goodwill, so Esau decides to marry a daughter of Ishmael. That it was only after he had
heard Isaac sending Ja cob off that he realized his wives were unpopular suggests Esau was
rather slow -witted. Note though that the text says ―Esau realized that Isaac his father did
not like Canaanite women,‖ but nothing about his mother‘s feelings (26:35; 27:46), another
hint of the division in the family. Esau wanted to please his father —not his mother.
9 If the chronological data of Genesis are supposed to be taken literally, Ishmael must
already have been dead, in which case ―Isaac went to Ishmael‖ must mean he went to the
Ishmaelites (cf. 16:16; 21:4; 25:17; 27:1).
―Mahalat‖ is of unknown meaning; Noth ( Personennamen , 249) suggests
―intelligence.‖
On Nebaiot, cf. Comment on 25:13.
This remark about Esau marrying an Ishmaelite suggests a close association between the
two groups; 16:12 and 27:39 –40 certainly suggest they were kindred spirits.
Explanation
The drama of this episode is among the most gripping in Genesis. Will Isaac dislodge
Jacob‘s disguise, as he blindly gropes over the goa tskins draped round his neck? Will Esau
arrive back from the hunt before Isaac has eaten the special stew and blessed Jacob? We
wait to discover whether Rebekah and Jacob will get away with their daring ruse. But as the
narrator satisfies our love of the t heatrical here, he outrages our moral and theological sense
of propriety. How can he suggest that God‘s intention to bless Jacob could, let alone
should, be forwarded by such underhanded tactics? Driver (255) aptly sums up what seems
to be the gist of the story as follows: it ―tells how, instigated by his ambitious and designing
mother, Jacob deceives his aged father, and wrests from his brother his father‘s blessing.
That the action of Rebekah and Jacob was utterly discreditable and indefensible, is of
course obvious.‖
Most readers would undoubtedly agree with Driver‘s feelings, at least on first reading.

But it seems unlikely that the writer of Genesis saw his characters in such black -and-white
terms. The episode begins by remarking that Esau had married t wo Hittite wives, who made
life miserable for Isaac and Rebekah. In the perspective of Genesis, bigamy is in itself
questionable. God only created one wife for Adam, Lamek the first bigamist was vicious,
and Jacob‘s family was always at loggerheads because he had two wives. If bigamy was
doubtful, marrying Hittites, i.e., Canaanites, should certainly have been avoided.
Intermarriage with Canaanites was quite out of the question for Isaac; his father Abraham
had sent a servant all the way to Harran to find him a suitable wife. Loyalty to family
tradition should have dictated that Esau do the same.
Or does Esau‘s marriage to Canaanites really reflect on Isaac‘s neglect of duty? After
all, before Isaac was forty (25:20), Abraham had arranged his marriage to Rebekah. Why
had not Isaac done the same for Esau and Jacob? Throughout Genesis, Isaac is portrayed as
rather passive. Indeed, in th e previous chapter, his quiet peaceable nature in avoiding
confrontation with the Philistines was implicitly applauded, and he was rewarded by a
reaffirmation of the promises and great prosperity. Here, however, his virtue has become a
vice; his quiet pati ence has become lethargy. Failing to find suitable wives for his sons, his
life has been made miserable by unsuitable daughters -in-law. But this experience had not
taught Isaac to be less partisan, for on his deathbed he again flouts convention and
summons just Esau to receive his last blessing, whereas it was customary for a dying man
to call all his sons to his side to receive an appropriate blessing. Deliberately, though, Isaac
calls only Esau to receive his blessing, and he leaves out Jacob. The reason he gives for
only calling Esau is that he makes a ―tasty stew that I love.‖ One cannot but be reminded of
Esau, who some years earlier had swapped his birthright for a lentil stew. If the narrator
expects us to compare this deathbed scene with Abraham‘s (c hap. 24), he implies that Isaac
and Esau are both alike in putting appetite before principle, self -indulgence before justice,
immediate satisfaction before long -term spiritual values. Initially then, the blame for what
follows lies with Isaac and Esau, not simply with Rebekah and Jacob.
Rebekah, when we first met her in chap. 24, appeared to be the perfect wife for
Isaac —beautiful, energetic, and, like Abraham, willing to leave home and family for the
land of promise. Her energy complemented her husband‘s r etiring nature. But just as his
love of the quiet life led him to neglect of his paternal duties and indifference to ancient
propriety, so her dominating nature led her to overstep the bounds of moral behavior.
Faced with the prospect of her favorite son n ot being blessed at all by his father before his
death, she contrives a daring scheme whereby Jacob will receive all the blessing instead of
Esau. And it works brilliantly. After dressing up as Esau, Jacob is given a total blessing and
promised the fertili ty of the land and the subjection of his brothers. So complete is the
blessing that when Esau arrives, Isaac can find very little to say to him.
It is not clear how far Jacob approved of his mother‘s scheme. He certainly did what he
was told, though not wi th any alacrity. He raised an objection to it, ―Suppose my father
touches me … and discovers who I am . … ‖ But this objection seems to be based more on
fear than scruple, for certainly earlier he had no compunctions about exploiting Esau‘s
hunger for his own gain. So it seems likely that he did inwardly support his mother‘s aims
here, even though he had doubts about their success.
It is also not immediately clear how far the narrator approved of Rebekah and Jacob‘s
tricks. Explicit moral comment within a s tory is rare throughout the OT, but that does not
mean the narrator has no moral values or that the vivid way he recounts the success of
Rebekah‘s ruse means that he wholeheartedly endorsed it. Isaac‘s comment, ―Your brother

has come with deceit‖ (27:35), is the nearest the narrator comes to condemning their
behavior. Only subsequently does it emerge that Jacob and Rebekah suffer for their deeds.
Jacob, of course, has to flee from home to escape his brother‘s fratricidal wrath; Rebekah
hope s that he will be away only ―a few days,‖ but it lasts twenty years, and she never sees
her favorite son again. Jacob, the deceiver, is for his part cruelly deceived by his
father -in-law Laban, who makes him marry the unlovely Leah, as well as beautiful Ra chel.
And Jacob never accepted Leah or her sons, and the bitter tensions between them would
cloud the rest of his life. Like his mother Rebekah, he would spend most of his latter years
mourning the loss of his favorite son. Thus, despite his apparent silen ce about the morality
of the actions of Jacob and Rebekah, the narrator points out that they paid dearly for them.
So why then is this episode related in such detail? How does it relate to the theme of the
Pentateuch? Fundamental to the whole story is the conviction of the efficacy of the
deathbed blessing; what the patriarch says before he dies determines the destiny of his
descendants (cf. Gen 48 –49). That is why Rebekah is so desperate to make sure Jacob is
blessed instead of Esau. Th at is why Isaac declares he cannot revoke the blessing once
uttered, and why Esau pleads for him to find some blessing for him. Clearly, Genesis sees
the deathbed blessing as more than a prayer for the future; it is a prophecy whose
fulfillment is certain.
So Isaac here declares the future relationship of Esau (Edom) and Jacob (Israel), that
one would live a wandering nomadic existence away from settled agricultural existence,
while the other would enjoy the fruits of the earth. Like the birth oracle (25:23 ), Isaac
confirms that Esau, the older, will serve the younger, Jacob. These prophecies, of course,
find multiple fulfillment in the history of Israel and Edom. More than that, Isaac reiterates
the promises made to Abraham and to himself (28:3 –4), indicati ng that the line of God‘s
choice will now pass through Jacob, not Esau.
By setting this new step forward in the history of salvation in the context of such
unprincipled behavior by every member of the family, each self -centeredly seeking his or
her own interest, the narrator is not simply pointing out the fallibility of God‘s chosen,
whose virtues often turn into vices, but reasserting the grace of God. It is his mercy that is
the ultimate ground of salvation.
Jacob Meets God at Bethel (28:10 -22)
Bibliography
Barth, C. ―Jakob in Bethel —ein neues Buch zur Vätertradition .‖ TLZ 104 (1979) 331 –38.
Couffignal, R. ―Le Songe de Jacob: Approches nouvelles de Gen 28:10 –22.‖ Bib 58 (1977) 342 –60.
Donner, H. ―Zu Gen 28:22.‖ ZAW 74 (1962) 68 –70. Dumbrell, W. J. ―The Role of Bethel in the
Biblical Narratives from Jacob to Jeroboam.‖ Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology 2/3
(1974/75) 65 –76. Eissfeldt, O. ―Jakobs Begegnung mit El und Moses Begegnung mit Jahwe .‖ KS 4
(1968) 92 –98. Griffiths, J. G. ―The Celestial Ladder and the Gate of Heaven (Gen 28:12 and 17).‖
ExpTim 76 (1964 –65) 229 –30. Hammann, G. ―Le songe de Jacob et sa lutte avec l‘ange (Gen 28 et
32): repères historiques d‘une lecture et de ses variations .‖ RHPR 66 (1986) 29 –42. Houtman, C.
―What Did Jacob See in His Dream at Bethel? Some Remark s on Gen 28:10 –22.‖ VT 27 (1977)
337-51. Husser, J. -M. ―Les métamorphoses d‘un songe: Critique littéraire de Genèse 28:10 –22.‘ RB
98 (1991) 321 –42. Jacobson, H. ―An.zaqar: A Conjecture.‖ Or 45 (19 76) 269. Jensen, H. J. L.

―Reden, Zeit und Raum in Gen 28:10 –15: Textlinguistische und textsemiotische Exegese eines
Fragments .‖ LingBib 49 (1981) 54 –70. Marböck, J. ―Heili ge Orte im Jakobszyklus: Einige
Beobachtungen und Aspekte .‖ In Die Väter Israels: FS J. Scharbert, ed. M. Görg. Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989. 211 –24. Maxwell -Mahon, W. D. ―Jacob‘s Ladder‘: A Structural
Analysis of Scripture.‖ Semitics 7 (1980) 118 –30. Millard, A. R. ―The Celestial Ladder and the
Gate of Heaven (Gen 28:12,17).‖ ExpTim 78 (1966/67) 86 –87. Oliva, M. ―Visión y voto de Jacob
en Betel .‖ Est Bib 33 (1974) 117 –55. Oppenheim, A. L. The Interpretation of Dreams in the
Ancient Near East . Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 46. Philadelphia, 1956.
Otto, E. ―Jakob in Bethel: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Jakobsüberlieferung .‖ ZAW88 (1976)
165–90. Parker, S. B. ―The Vow in Ugaritic and Israelite Narrative Literature.‖ UF 11 (1979)
693–700. Pury, A. de. Promesse divine et légende cultuelle dans le cycle de Jacob: Gen 28 et les
traditions patriarcales. études bibliques . Paris: Gabalda, 1975. Rendtorff, R. ―Jakob in Bethel:
Beobachtungen zum Aufbau and zur Quellenfrage in Gen 28:10 –22.‖ ZAW 94 (1982) 511 –23.
Richter, W. ―Das Gelübde als theologische Rahmung der Jakobsüberlieferungen .‖ BZ 11 (1967)
21–52. Ross, A. P. ―Jacob‘s Vision: The Founding of Bethel.‖ BSac 142 (1985) 224 –37. Sauneron,
S. ―Les songes et leur interprétation dans l‘égypte ancienne. ‖ In Les Songes et leur interprétations .
Sources Orientales 2. Paris, 1959. 17 –61. Schwartz, J. ―Jubilees, Bethel and the Temple of Jacob.‖
HUCA 56 (1985) 63 –85. Wyatt, N. ―Where Did Jacob Dream His Dream?‖ SJOT 2 (1990) 44 –57.
Translation
10Jacob left Beersheba and went to Harran. 11He stopped in a certaina place and
spentb the night there because the sun had set. He had taken some of the stones of the
place, putc them round his head, and had gone to sleep in that place, 12when he
dreamed that he saw a a ladder erectedb on the ground with its top touchingc the sky,
angels of God going up and down on it, 13and the LORD standinga over it,b who said, ―I
am the LORD, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac.c dThe land on
which y ou are lying I shall give to you and your descendants.d 14Your descendants will
be like the dust of the earth and spread westward and eastward, northward and
southward, and all the families of the earth shall find blessing in you aand in your
descendants.a 15I am reallya with you and will guard you bwherever you gob and bringc
you back to this land, because I shall not leave you untild I have donee for you whatf I
have promised you.‖
16So Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, ―Trulya the LORD is presentb in this
place, yet I did not realize it.‖ 17Overawed he said, ―Howa awesomeb is this place. cThis
is nothing but a house of God, and this must bed the gate of heaven.‖c
18Early in the morning Jacob took a stone which he had put for his head and set it up as a
pillar and poureda oil on top of it. 19So he called the name of that place Bethel, but the city
used to be called Luz. 20Then Jacob madea a vow: ―If God willb be with me, guard me on
the journey I am undertaking, give me food to eat, clothes to wear, 21and I returna in peace
to my father‘s house, the LORD will be my God, 22and this stone which I have set up as a
pillar willa be a house of God, band from everything that you give to me, I shall give a fullc
tenth to you.‖b
Notes
11.a. The def art may be used in Heb. where the obje ct referred to is determinate in

itself, even though it is indeterminate to the writer. Hence, the English may translate the def
art ―a‖ or ―a certain‖; cf. 16:7; 19:30 ( GKC, 126r; Joüon, 137n).
11.b. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. qal 11.c. cf. n. 2:8.b.
12.a-13.b. Note the string of clauses introduced by 
+ subj (―ladder,‖ ―angels,‖ ― LORD‖) + ptcp (―erected,‖ ―going up,‖ ―standing‖). This is
characteristic of dream reports; cf. 31:10; 37:6 –7, 9; 41:1 –7 (SBH, 95).
12.b. Masc. sg ptcp hoph 12.c. Masc. sg ptcp hiph [13.a. cf. n. 24:13.b.*
13.b. More likely than ―over him‖; see Comment .
13.c. G adds ―Do not fear.‖
13.d-d. This word order, with the obj ―land‖ placed first, may emphasize the obj; cf. n.
13:15.a –a. (Joüon, 156c). SBH, 92, suggests it is used here to introduce a new topic, and
EWAS, 96–97, sees it as merely stylistic.
14.a-a. Pace BHS, there are no text -critical grounds for rega rding this phrase as a gloss.
15.a. Or ―I am now with you.‖ 
expresses immediacy; cf. Lambdin, 169.
15.b-b. G reads ―in all the way wherever you go .‖
15.c. Waw consec + 1 sg pf hiph 
+ 2 masc. sg suffix.
15.d. Clauses introduced by [
or  [
do not always express an absolute time limit, but ra ther one that extends beyond the
main clause ( GKC, 164f).
15.e. Here the pf is used with a fut pf meaning especially common after ( 
) [
―I shall have done‖ (Joüon, 112i; cf. GKC, 106o; WOC, 491).
15.f. G reads ―all that.‖
16.a. On the asseverative particle 
, cf. EWAS, 132–33; SBH, 185.
16.b. The particle 

―serves to stress the idea of existence‖ (EWAS, 101).
17.a. On 
to express astonishment, see GKC, 148b.
17.b. Masc. sg ptcp niph 
. On the potential meaning ―awesome,‖ ―ought to be feared‖ of niphal, see Lambdin,
177.
17.c-c. Co ordinated clauses in expository apposition to first clause, ―How awesome …
place‖ ( SBH, 50).
17.d. For this translation, see EWAS, 10.
18.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. qal 20.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf.
20.b. On sequence of tenses in vv 20 –21, cf. WOC, 526–27.
21.a. Waw consec + 1 sg pf qal 22.a. Note lack of concord between 3 masc. sg verb

and fem. subj ―stone.‖ Joüon, 150m, suggests that the masc. predicate ―house‖ has
influenced verb.
22.b-b. Adjunctive clause suggests tithing is an afterthought ( SBH, 92–93).
22.c. Inf abs piel [
. Inf abs with finite verb makes promise more definite (EWAS, 86).
Form/Structure/Setting
The beginning and end of this story are very clear. It opens with v 10, a summary of
Jacob‘s journey, linking this episode to the surrounding material in chaps. 27 and 29. It
closes with Jacob‘s vow in vv 20 –22, which again looks bac k to his departure from home
and forward to his eventual return.
In that the episode covers both the night of the dream and the morning after, it could be
split into two scenes (vv 10 –17; 18 –22), but it seems better to take it as a single extended
scene. I f the use of an explicit nominal subject (Jacob) marks a new paragraph, the material
divides as follows:

vv 10 –15
Jacob‘s experience at Bethel

vv 16 –17
Jacob‘s first reaction

vv 18 –22
Jacob‘s vow

Fokkelman ( Narrative Art ) has noted how key terms in this narrative are arranged
palistrophically; (A) ―place‖ (v 11), (B) ―take stones, make a headrest‖ (v 11), (C) ―sky‖ (v
12), (D) ―God‖ (v 12), (E) ―the LORD‖ (v 13), (E) ―the LORD‖ (v 16), (D) ―God‖ (v 17), (C)
―heaven‖ (v 17 ), (B) ―take stone, make a headrest‖ (v 17), (A) ―place‖ (v 19). There is also
repetition, so that the two halves of the tale fall into parallel panels; most obviously,
Jacob‘s vow (vv 20 –22) echoes the divine promises (vv 13 –15).
―place‖(v 11 3x)
―place‖ (vv 16, 17)
―stones,‖ ―headrest‖ (v 11)
―stone,‖ ―headrest‖ (v 18)
―I am really with you‖ (v 15)
―If God will be with me‖ (v 20)
―guard you wherever you go‖ (v 15)
―guard me on the journey I am undertaking‖ (v 20)
―bring you back to this land‖ (v 15)
―retu rn in peace to my father‘s house‖ (v 21)
―I shall not leave you‖ (v 15)
―and the LORD is my God‖ (v 21)

Though this is a clear, self -contained unit, it has many links with the preceding and
following narratives. v 10 ―Beersheba‖ looks back to 26:23 –28:5; ―Harran‖ forward to
29:4–31:54. His dream (vv 11 –15) invites comparison with 15:12 –21 and
32:14(13) –33(32); vv 13 –14 quote 12:3, and 13:14 –16 and are in their turn echoed in
32:10 –13 (9 –12) and 35:11 –12. The promise of divine companionship and ultimate re turn
to the land (v 15) recurs again in 31:3, 5, 42; 32:13(12); 35:3. Jacob‘s erection of a pillar
and vow (vv 18 –22) are mentioned again in 31:13 and more vaguely in 35:1 –7. Within the
Jacob cycle, this encounter with God on Jacob‘s departure from the lan d matches a similar
encounter when he returned, 32:2 –3
According to the traditional source critics (see de Pury, Promesse divine , 34–35), this
section comes from J and E. From J come vv 13 –16, 19a, that is, the divine promises and
the naming of Bethel; fro m E come vv 11 –12, 17 –18, 20 –21a, 22, that is, the dream, the
erection of the stone, and Jacob‘s vow. There is wide agreement on this analysis, but no
clear consensus about v 10 (either J or E), about 19b (J or redactor), or about 21b (E or
redactor). In t he fullest recent study on these lines, de Pury argues that v 10 is common to J
and E and that 19b is redaction and v 21b is E. However, he points out that it is most
unlikely that E‘s version of the dream ended at v 12. All other ancient Near Eastern drea ms
directed to the foundation of a sanctuary end with the god himself appearing and speaking.
Therefore E must have originally contained something like vv 13, 15. The E version, he
holds, was displaced by J‘s version ( Promesse divine , 377, 449). Based on t he
source -critical analysis, it is apparent that the main account is E‘s, supplemented by J in vv
13–16, 19. This source division was justified by the following observations: there are two
names of God, the LORD in vv 13, 16, 21 and God in vv 12, 17, 20, 2 1, 22; there is a
different perspective in v 12, where angels appear, from v 13, where the LORD appears;
there is double comment on the sacredness of the place in vv 16 and 17; the story
apparently ends in v 19; and the vow in vv 20 –22 is incompatible with the promise in vv

13–15, neither of which makes reference to the other.
However, this consensus has recently been rejected by scholars preferring a
traditio -historical explanation of the text. Most of the alleged contrasts or duplications are
susceptible of simple exegetical explanation. Even the divine name criterion is very weak,
as Rendtorff ( ZAW 94 [1982] 511 –23) and Blum ( Die Komposition ) point out. Yahweh, the
LORD, is the only name of God in the passage. Elohim, God, is a generic term, and it would
be inappropriate to replace Elohim by Yahweh in such expressions as ―angels of God‖ (v
12) or ―house of God‖ (vv 17, 22). So Blum concludes, ―Our investigation of the
literary -critical proposals has sh own the extraordinarily weak basis for the assumption of
two parallel sources in Gen 28:10ff. It may be doubted whether this shattering of the
narrative would have been seriously discussed, if the divine -name criterion had not been
unquestioningly accepted as a primary datum‖ ( Die Komposition , 23).
Tradition critics (e.g., Westermann, Re ndtorff, Blum) prefer to view the account as a simple
narrative that has been subsequently expanded at least twice. For Westermann, the earliest
pre-Israelite core consists of vv 11 –12, 16 –19. This was expanded by J adding v 15, and
then a third hand added vv 13 –14, 20 –22. Rendtorff (cf. Blum) again suggests that the
earliest material is found in vv 11 –12, 16 –19. The divine promises in vv 13 –15 were added
subsequently to link this story to the rest of the patriarchal narratives. vv 20 –22 constitute
an independent account of a vow with expansions in v 22b and later in 21b. Coats,
however, suggests that the account is essentially J with Elohistic expansions.
It is doubtful how far these traditio -historical interpretations represent a real break with
source -critical methodology. As Whybray ( Making of the Pentateuch , 210) observes, they
merely substitute their ―own set of presuppositions for the earlier ‘documentary‘ ones.‖
Certainly Skinner‘s summary of the situation, ―a complete Elohistic narrative with a
Yahwistic insertion‖ (vv 13 –16), is a simpler and more apt characterization of the section
than Coats‘. And Weisman ( From Jacob to Israel , 57–67) has argued that we have here
essentially one account reworked by J. Much earlier, Volz ( Der E lohist ) had cogently
argued for the unity of 28:10 –22 and its assignment to J. So here, as elsewhere in Genesis,
it seems likely that the last major editor of this story is J. His interests are particularly clear
in the promises (vv 13 –15) and to a lesser extent in the vow (vv 20 –22), but to conclude
that J simply added these elements to an earlier account would be rash. De Pury has
elaborated a careful case for holding that the promises of land (v 13) and protection (v 15)
and the vow (vv 20 –22) are integr al to the earliest patriarchal versions of the story. He sees
just the promises of innumerable descendants and blessing to the nations as J‘s innovations
(Promesse divine , 173 –85). Among modern critics there is thus a wide diversity of
approach to this pas sage, reflecting their different methodological presuppositions. Though
I am in most sympathy with de Pury and Weisman‘s approach, I am more cautious than
they are in distinguishing earlier and later elements within the narrative and will
concentrate on se eing this passage in the total context of the Jacob cycle and the work of J.
Comment
10–15 In this first paragraph, the narrator describes Jacob‘s journey and experiences
quasi -objectively. Subsequently, in vv 16 –22, Jacob‘s more subjective reactions to th ese
experiences are described.
10 ―Jacob left Beersheba and went to Harran.‖ Beersheba was Isaac‘s base (cf. 22:19;
26:23, 33). Isaac had told Jacob to go to Paddan -Aram (28:2, 5), whereas Rebekah had said

Harran (27:43). Clearly, the s ame general district is meant (cf. Comment on 11:31; 25:20).
There is no obvious reason for the use here of Harran rather than Paddan -Aram; it is
perhaps the more evocative term, for it is in Harran that the call of Abraham is set and t he
promises first pronounced (11:31 –12:5), promises about to be reiterated to Jacob.
11 Other biblical stories of travelers overtaken by nightfall tell of them being put up for the
night by people living in the area (cf. 19:1–3; Judg 19 :11–21). That Jacob is forced to bed
down under the stars may suggest his distance from human habitation, or his estrangement,
or simply affirm that providence overruled the traditional custom of finding lodging in
someone‘s house. The threefold mention of 
―the place‖ in this verse and then again in vv 16, 17, 19, culminating in the renaming of
the place in v 19, hints at the significance of ―the place.‖ The term is sometimes used in a
cultic sense as a ―place of worship‖ (e.g., Deut 12:5) or ―city‖ (Gen 18:24, 26), but there is
no need to read such a precise meaning into it yet, for Jacob does not recognize its sanctity
till the morning (v 17). ―He took some of the stones … and put them round his head.‖
Because v 18 speaks of one specific stone, it is often surmised that Jacob used the stone as
a pillow. However, passages like 1 Sam 26:11 –12; 1 Kgs 19:6, where the same phrase,
―round his head,‖ appears, suggest the stones were placed round his head to protect him
rather than to lie on. There is no suggestion that the stones were particularly large.
12 As elsewhere in the Bible, the dream is described through the dreamer‘s eyes (cf.
31:10; 41:1 –7). Three features of the dream are mentioned here: f irst, the ladder linking
earth and heaven; second, the angels going up and down; and third, the LORD himself. It is
not clear whether 
―ladder‖ describes a ladder (so Jacob; Gispen; Griffiths, ExpTim 76 [1964/65] 229 –30)
or ―a ramp or stairway‖ (most commentators), or whether there is Egyptian or Babylonian
influence on the imagery. What matters is that the ―ladder‖ links earth and heaven and has
been placed on the earth presumably near where Jacob is lying (cf. Houtman, VT 27 [1977]
337–51).
―Angels of God going up and down on it.‖ Most commentators regard this as merely
underlining the idea that earth and heaven were linked by a ladder. But this overlooks that
this is a new verbal cla use introduced by 
, which is evidently adding something strikingly original and fresh. Angels in the OT
are conceived of as looking after different nations and their territories and as patrolling the
earth (Job 1:6; 2:1; Zech 1:8 –17; cf. Deut 32:8). So Rashi suggests that the ascending
angels are those responsible for Jacob‘s homeland and descending ones are those
responsi ble for the foreign land to which he is going. In other words, this vision of the
angels is an assurance of God‘s protection of Jacob even though he is leaving home. This is
an attractive idea in that the vision thus anticipates the verbal assurances given in v 15. In a
similar way, Abraham‘s night vision (15:11 –12) anticipated the prophecy in 15:13 –16.
13 ―The LORD standing over it.‖ [
―over it‖ could also be translated ―over him‖ (i.e., Jacob). However, the traditional
understandi ng, ―over it‖ (cf. G, Vg, König, Jacob), seems preferable for the following
reasons: the suffixes in v 12, ―its top,‖ ―on it,‖ refer to the ladder; the vision is described
through Jacob‘s eyes, so ―over me‖ might be expected, if Jacob w as the referent (cf. 40:9,
―before me‖); and, finally, the image of Yahweh at the top of the ladder forms a fitting
climax to the whole and fits in with the idea that angels report back to him after patrolling

the earth (1 Kgs 22:19 –22; Job 1:6 –8; 2:1 –3; Zech 1:10). Though the majority of modern
commentators prefer to translate ―over him,‖ this is because they see v 15 as the start of a
new source, J, which is ignorant of the ladder. Therefore, the suffix must refer to Jacob. But
Gunkel, while holding that ―over him‖ is how J understood it originally, admits that in its
present context the phrase means ―over it.‖ However, this attempt to distinguish sources
here is suspect, for, as de Pury has pointed out ( Promesse divine , 377), it is mos t unlikely
that the dream did not include a vision of God and a message from him. This then is a
vision of God, the sovereign ruler of heaven and earth, who is ministered to by angels
constantly. This is ―the LORD, the God of Abraham … and the God of Isaac ‖ who addresses
Jacob. This heavenly vision gives the promises that follow a majestic authority and weight.
The divine title ―The LORD, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac‖
occurs nowhere else in the OT. Elsewhere can be found such titles as ―the God of Abraham
your father‖ (26:24), ―the LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob‖ (Exod 3:15, 16). Here the combination of ―the LORD‖ with ―the God of Abraham‖
indicates that the God known to the patriarchs was indeed the same God who revealed
himself to Moses (Exod 3:6 –17; 6:2 –8). But more than that, the double title ―God of
Abraham … God of Isaac‖ recalls the great promises and blessings given to them and
anticipates their reaffirmat ion and reapplication to Jacob.
13b–14 The promise here most closely parallels that found in 13:14 –16.

28:13
―The land on which you are lying I shall give to you and your descendants‖

13:15
―The whole land which you see I shall give to you and your des cendants for ever‖

28:14
―Your descendants will be like the dust of the earth‖

13:16
―I shall make your descendants like the dust of the earth‖

28:14
―Spread westward and eastward, northward and southward‖

13:14
―Look … northward and southward, eastward and westward‖

There are, of course, other passages (12:7; 15:18; 17:8; 24:7) containing the promise of
land, but in no other are the terms used so close as between 28:13 –14 and 13:14 –16. It is
noteworthy that both passa ges are associated with Bethel.
Again, ―all the families of the earth shall find blessing in you‖ quotes 12:3 verbatim,
adding merely ―and in your descendants,‖ which echoes 22:18; 26:4. Through these
remarks, the Lord reveals himself to be the very same G od who spoke to Abraham, and
what is more, confirms that Jacob is the chosen line, who will henceforth enjoy divine
protection. And even more, though he is now fleeing Canaan, he will eventually return

there. For what chiefly distinguishes this pronounceme nt of the promises from the earlier
statements is their setting: the promises were first made to Abraham as he was settling in
the land, but they are reaffirmed to Jacob as he is fleeing from it.
15 What is implied in vv 13 –14 is made explicit here: if the Lord is giving the land to
the fleeing Jacob, he will certainly preserve him and bring him back to the land at last. The
promise of divine presence, ―I am really with you,‖ is characteristic of the Jacob cycle (cf.
28:20; 31:3; 46:4), though it is also found in 26:3, 24. However, in other respects the
phraseology is quite untypical; 
―guard‖ elsewhere in Genesis occurs in this phrase only in 28:20, and [
―leave‖ nowhere else, though both terms are common in the psalms. ―Until I h ave
done for you what I have promised‖ does not mean that God‘s protection of Jacob will end
some day, but that it will outlast all his journeyings (see n. 15.d.).
So with these categorical promises that Jacob will leave the land and then return an d yet
continue to enjoy the protection of divine providence, the plot of the Jacob story is
foreshadowed. Whatever unexpected turns Jacob‘s career may take, the Lord will be with
him, saving him from disaster and ensuring the ultimate triumph of what he ha d promised.
16–17 The story shows Jacob waking up in two stages. First, described in these verses,
comes the feeling of awe as he wakes. Then, when he rises, he solemnly dedicates one of
the stones and vows to bring his tithes to the God who dwells in this place (vv 18 –22).
Throughout Scripture the encounter with God brings fear; when sinful man meets the holy
God, he is overawed and often becomes acutely conscious of his sin and unworthiness to
stand in the divine presence (3:10; Exod 3:6; 20:15(18); Judg 6:23; 13:22). ―House of God‖
(
beÆt <eáloµhéÆm ) anticipates the name Jacob is about to give to the place, ―Bethel‖ (v
19). ―Gate of heaven‖ occurs only here in the OT, but the idea that heaven, the divine abode,
has one or more entrances is a familiar idea in ancient thought. The etymology of Babylon,
―the gate of the god,‖ is similar (cf. Comment on 1
18 To show his piety, Jacob takes one of the sto nes and sets it up as a sacred 
―pillar,‖ dedicating it by pouring oil. Stones could be erected as memorials to the dead
(35:20; 2 Sam 18:18) or as witnesses to agreements, especially boundary agreements
(31:45, 51). Standing stones are frequently men tioned elsewhere in the OT as a feature of
Canaanite religion that is to be shunned, ―Beside the altar of the LORD … you shall not set
up a pillar, which the Lord your God hates‖ (Deut 16:21 –22; cf. Exod 23:24; 34:13; 1 Kgs
14:23). Now it may be argued, as de Pury ( Promesse divine ) and Westermann do, that
Jacob‘s stone is merely a witness, a reminder of Jacob‘s experience and of his vow.
However, the wording of the vow, ―this stone will be a house of God,‖ and his pouring oil
over it, a gesture frequently associated with consecrating cultic items (Exod 40:9 –13; Lev
8:10–12; Num 7:1), makes it likely that the stone is seen as more than a mere witness. It is
a cult object endued with divine power and represen ting God himself (cf. Houtman, VT 27
[1977] 343). The eighth -century Sefire treaties speak of the stones on which the treaties are
inscribed as bty <lhy< ―bethels, houses of the gods‖ (Sefire 2.C.2 –3, 9–10): ―Sacred stones
sometimes considered as the dwelling of the god or even as the god himself‖ (J. A.
Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire , BibOr19 [Rome: Biblical Institute, 1967] 90).
Philo of Byblos much later talks of animate stones, calling them baitylia , clearly a Greek
transliteration of the Semitic term ―bethels.‖ This passage in Genesis provides evidence that
this notion of sacred stones long antedates the Sefire inscriptions. Indeed, the discrepancy

between Jac ob‘s deeds and later Mosaic injunction is an indication that this tradition does
indeed go back to patriarchal times. That patriarchal religious practice does not everywhere
conform to later pentateuchal law is one sign of the antiquity of the Genesis trad ition (see
Introduction , ―The Religion of the Patriarchs‖). Indeed, it is hard to envisage this episode
being recorded at all after the late tenth century, when Bethel became a center for the
Canaanite -style worship of bull calves. Here, though, it is glor ified as a most holy sanctuary
owing its foundation to Jacob himself, and this suggests the tradition comes from an era
before Jeroboam‘s schism had sullied Bethel‘s reputation.
19 Though it might have seemed more natural to put this explanation of the cha nge of
Luz‘s name to Bethel at the end of the account, frequently Genesis prefers to put such
etiological notes before the end (cf. 16:14; 22:14; 33:17). Evidently they are seen as
incidental to the main story line. On the location of B ethel, cf. Comment on 12:8.
20–22 This vow is of great importance within the Jacob cycle, for it is mentioned again at
key points (31:13; 35:1 –3, 7). But the assertion of Westermann and others that it is a
secondary element added later to the narrative is unlikely. It is in fact entirely suitable.
Under Form/Structure/Setting , it was noted that dreams in the ancient Orient always
contained a message from the deity; they were not left uninterpreted. So vv 13 –15 are likely
to be original. And it is precisely the wording of the promises in vv 15, ―I am really with
you,‖ ―guard,‖ and ―bring you back,‖ that are echoed by Jacob in v 20. Furthermore,
dreams usually culminate in the foundation of a sanctuary, and this is reported in v 22.
Finally, the circumstances in which Jacob makes his vow are entirely fitting. Typically in
the OT, a ―vow is pronounced in a situation of distress, preferabl y in the sanctuary, and
when the believer‘s prayer has been answered, the vow is fulfilled in the sanctuary. But the
narrative in Gen 28 and the whole Jacob cycle presuppose a situation in which a vow is
fully appropriate. Jacob is in a distressed state, r unning away from home, which is
equivalent to being under threat of death. He has just received an unexpected revelation
announcing his return to his country and guaranteeing him safety on the journey. What can
be more natural than for Jacob to make a vow and pledge himself to worship the deity when
the divine promise is fulfilled, that is when Jacob has returned to the sanctuary‖ (de Pury,
Promesse divine , 438).
20–21a As already noted, Jacob‘s conditions echo the promises made in v 15; only the
mention of food and clothing is additional. Jacob‘s prayer is thus based on the divine
promise. To suggest that divine promises make prayer redundant, so that Jacob‘s vow must
come from a different author from the promise, misunderstands the nature of petitionary
prayer within Scripture (cf. Luke 11:5 –13).
21b–22 Though some rabbinic commentators, e.g., Rashi, regard ―the Lord will be my
God‖ as Jacob‘s final condition/petition, ―and if the Lord is my God,‖ this se ems less likely
than seeing it as the apodosis. In other words, Jacob promises that if the Lord brings him
back safely, that (1) he will worship the Lord, (2) venerate this place as holy (here as in vv
17–18, the sacred stone represents the holiness of the whole area), and (3) offer tithes. In
making the Lord his God and offering tithes, Jacob is imitating the actions of his
grandfather Abraham (cf. 17:7; 14:20). He is also, as father of the nation, setting a pattern
for all Israel to fo llow.
Explanation
Despite a warm paternal send -off (28:3 –4), Jacob must have been frightened and

depressed leaving home. He, the quiet home -loving boy, had been forced to flee for his life
because of the hatred of his brother. Now on the first night away f rom home, he could not
find anyone to give him a bed for the night, and he was forced to lie down under the stars.
Doubtless, he must have wondered whether there was anything in his father‘s pious hopes
for his future.
At last, falling asleep, he started d reaming. He saw angels going up and down a
stairway between earth and heaven, going out to patrol the earth, so that wherever he went
he would be accompanied by divine protectors (cf. 48:15 –16). And standing above the
ladder he saw the Lord himself, who introduced himself as the God of his father Isaac and
grandfather Abraham and assured Jacob that the promises made to them would be true for
him as well: he would inherit the land, have descendants as numerous as the dust of the
earth, an d bring blessing to the nations. But these were old promises looking to the
long-term future; they did not deal with Jacob‘s immediate needs. But these the Lord also
addressed.
―I am really with you and will guard you wherever you go and bring you back to this
land.‖ Jacob was the first in Bible history to hear the assurance ―I am with you,‖ a promise
later repeated to many of the nation‘s leaders, Moses (Exod 3:12), Joshua (Josh 1:5), and
Gideon (Judg 6:16); indeed Emmanuel, ―God with us,‖ (Isa7:14; Matt 1 :23) speaks of
God‘s continuing presence with all his people, ―for he has said ‗I will never leave you or
forsake you‘‖ (Heb 13:5). More than this, though, Jacob is assured of protection, ―I will
guard you wherever you go,‖ a sentiment reechoed in the prie stly blessing, ―The Lord bless
you and keep (guard) you‖ (Num 6:24), and in the Psalms (e.g., 121, 23). It may well be
that the angels in the dream are seen as Jacob‘s invisible bodyguards, for as another Psalm
(91:11 –12) s ays,
For he will give his angels charge of you
to guard you in all your ways.
On their hands they will bear you up,
lest you dash your foot against a stone.
Finally, last but not least for the home -lover Jacob, he was assured, ― I will bring you
back to this land.‖ Little did he suspect that it would be twenty years before he came back,
but he never stopped looking forward to that day.
For Jacob, this was his first personal encounter with God; he knew his parents‘ faith
and of their own religious experiences, but now for the first time he has come face to face
with God, and he is scared and overwhelmed. He confesses, ―Truly the Lord is in this place,
yet I did not realize it.‖ So he immediately starts to worship ac cording to the customs of the
age. He sets up the stone that had guarded his head as a sacred pillar using the oil he had
taken for his journey to consecrate it, and he makes a vow. Vows were often made in Bible
times by those in distress, e.g., Jephthah (Judg 11:30 –39), Hannah (1 Sam 1:10 –28), and
Jonah and his sailors (Jon 1:16 –2:10 [9]). Vows were solemn prayers, usually accompanied
by sacrifice, in which the worshiper promised to give God something, e.g., a sacrifice, the
child Samuel, or here tithes, when the prayer was answered. Some have questioned Jacob‘s
faith in making a vow contingent on his safe return to his homeland, when this had just
been promised by God. But real experience of God must always result in heartfelt worship;
here he gave all he had, the stone and the oil, and promised to give a tenth of all his future
income when his affairs improved. To pray for a safe return showed faith, not unbelief.
Indeed, throughout Scriptur e the basis of prayer is divine promises; it is because we have

been promised food, clothes, and the forgiveness of sins that we pray ―Our Father … give
us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our debts‖ (Matt 6:9 –33; cf. Luke 11:2 –13).
Jacob‘s experience at Bethel reaffirmed the promises yet again and brought their
fulfillment one step closer. But more than that, his experience is a model for everyone,
reminding us that in our moments of deepest crisis God is still with us and will eventually
bring his promises to fulfillment in us if we trust him. Philip Doddridge summed up the
significance of this episode for every believer in his hymn:
O God of Bethel, by Whose hand
Thy people still are fed,
Who through this weary pilgrimage
Hast all our fathers led.
Our vows, our prayers, we now present
Before Thy Throne of grace;
God of our fathers, be the God
Of their succeeding race.
Through each perplexing path of life
Our wandering footsteps guide;
Give us each day our daily bread
And raiment fit provide.
O spread Thy covering wings around,
Till all our wanderings cease,
And at our Father‘s loved abode
Our souls arrive in peace.
Jacob Arrives at Laban’s House (29:1 –14)
Bibliography for 29:1 –32:3(2)
Frankena, R. ―Some Remarks on the Semitic Background of Chapters 29 –31 of the Book of
Genesis.‖ OTS 17 (1972) 53 –64. Morrison, M. A. ―The Jacob and Laban Narrative in Light of Near
Eastern Sources.‖ BA 46 (1983) 155 -64. Postgate. J. N. ―Some Old Babylonian Shepherds and
Their Flocks.‖ JSS 20 (1975) 1 –21. Sherwood, S. K. ―Had Not God Been on My Side‖: An
Examination of the Narrative Technique of the Story of Jacob and Laban, Genesis 29:1 –32:2.
Frankfurt: Lang, 1990.
Bibliography for 29:1 –14
Daube, D. and Yaron, R. ―Jacob‘s Reception by Laban.‖ JSS 1 (1956) 60 –62.
Translation
1Jacob picked up his feet and went to the land of the people of the East.a 2Then he
saw a well in the open countryside and just there three flocks lying around it, for the
flocks were watereda from that well, but there was a huge stoneb over the mouth of the
well. 3All the flocksa used to gatherb there. They would roll the stone from the mouth of
the well and waterc the sheep. Then they used to returnc the stone to its place over the
mouth of the well. 4So Jacob said to them, ―My brothers, where are you from?‖ They

replied, ―We come from Harran.‖ 5He said to them, ―Do you know Laban the son of
Nahor?‖ They replied, ―We do.‖ 6So he said, ―Is he well?‖ They replied, ―He is, and
here is his daughter Rachel coming with the sheep.‖ 7He said, ―Look, it is still full day.
It is not time to gather ina the animals. Waterb the sheep, and then let them out to
pasture.‖ 8But they said, ―We cannot until all the flocksa are gatheredb and the stone is
rolledc away from the mouth of the well. Then we shall water the sheep.‖ 9While he was
still speaking with them, Rachel came with her father‘s sheep, for she was a
shepherdess.
10As soon as Jacob saw Rachel, the daughter of Laban, his mother‘s brother, and
the sheep of Laban, his mother‘s brother, Jacob camea near and rolledb the stone from
the mouth of the well and wateredc the sheep of Laban, his mother‘s brother. 11Then he
kisseda Rachel and weptb aloud. 12 Then Jacob tolda Rachel b that he was a relative of
her father and that he was Rebekah‘s son.b So she ranc and told her father.
13As soon as Laban he ard the news about Jacob, his sister‘s son, he ran out to greet him.
He hugged him and kissed him and broughta him into his home, and he told Laban about all
these things. 14Then Laban sa id to him, ―You are trulya my flesh and blood.‖ So he stayed
with him a month.
Notes
1.a. G adds details of Laban‘s family echoing 28:5.
2.a. lit. ―they used to water‖ (3 masc. pl. impf. hiph 
). Here the impf. is used to express repeated action ( GKC, 107e; WOC, 474) and 3 pl. for
impersonal ―they,‖ equivalent to a passive ( GKC, 144f; WOC, 71).
2.b. Sampent omits def art, but Heb. often uses it where one specific object is referred to
(GKC 126r).
3.a. Sampent reads  3.b. Waw consec + 3 masc. pl. pf niph 
. Note the string of waw consec + pf in this verse for repeated action ( GKC, 112e, WOC,
527).
3.c. Waw consec + 3 masc. pl. pf hiph 
/7.a. Inf constr niph 
. On this use of the inf constr, see GKC, 114b.
7.b. 2 masc. pl. impv hiph  8.a.. Sampent, G read ―shepherds‖ (cf. v 3).
8.b. 3 masc. pl. impf. niph  8.c. 3 masc. pl., lit. ―they rolled,‖ equivalent to a passive
(cf. n. 2.a.).
10.a. cf. n. 18:23.a.*
10.b. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. qal 

(cf. GKC, 67p).
10.c. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. hiph apoc  11.a. cf. n. 27:27.a.*
11.b. cf. n. 27:38.b.*
12.a. cf. n. 9:22.a.*
12.b-b. On this construction, see SBH, 116.
12.c. Waw consec + 3 fem. sg impf. 13.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. hiph 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
14.a. On this meaning of 
, see EWAS, 129.
Form/Structure/Setting
Chaps. 29 –31, the account of Jacob‘s relationship with Laban, constitute the centerpiece
of the Jacob cycle (viz. Gen 25 –35). It is a cycle within a cycle and, like the whole Jacob
cycle, is constructed palistrophically. The opening episode (29:1 –14), telling of Jacob‘s
arrival in Harran and his entry in Laban‘s household, is balanced by the closing story of
Jacob‘s departure with his wives from Laban (31:1 –32:1 [31:55]). The second episode,
telling how Laban outwitted Jacob in making him work for his two wives for fourteen years
(29:15 –30), is matched by the account of Jacob outwitting Laban to obtain the flocks and
herds tha t were his due (30:25 –43). At the center is the account of the birth of Jacob‘s sons,
the forefathers of the tribes of Israel (29:31 –35).
But though the Jacob -Laban cycle is a well -organized coherent narrative in itself, it is by no
means independent or se lf-contained. For example, within chap. 29 there are many
allusions to the preceding stories; v 1, Jacob‘s journey from home (cf. 28:10 –22); vv 2 –14,
his encounter at the well (cf. 24:11 –50); vv 5, 10 –14, Rebekah a s Laban‘s sister (cf. 22:23;
24:29; 27:43); and v 13, the mention that Jacob told Laban ―all these things‖ (presumably
the substance of chaps. 26 –28). In particular, there are clear echoes of chap. 27 in chap. 29.
Rebekah told Jacob ―to stay a few days‖ with her brother in Harran (27:44). In the event,
Laban invites Jacob to stay with him, and the first seven years seem to Jacob like a few
days, 29:19 –20. Furthermore, the references (vv 25 –26) to Laban deceiving Jacob and his
refusal to allow the elder to displace the younger are an ironic comment on Jacob‘s own
behavior earlier (25:23 –34; 27:19, 35). Similarly, the closing episode telling of Jacob‘s
departure from Harran anticipates the next stage of Jacob‘s career, his return to the lan d of
Canaan (31:3, 13, 17). Thus, although the Jacob -Laban stories constitute a distinct entity,
there is little evidence that they ever circulated independently of the rest of the Jacob cycle.
Defining the units within this part of the Jacob cycle is prob lematic because of their
close interconnection; each unit leads naturally into the next. Here everyone acknowledges
that the unit begins in v 1 and that there is a break after v 14, but do vv 15 –30 constitute a
new episode or are they a continuation of the opening verses? Most commentators take the
latter view, but Speiser and Fokkelman ( Narrative Art ) regard them as distinct units. The
long break, of a month, between vv 14 and 15 tends to support the subdivision of the
chapter, as does the fact that vv 1 –14 constitute a type scene in which the patriarch meets

his bride beside a well (cf. Gen 24; Exod 2:15 –21). But the arguments are finely balanced
and make little difference to the exegesis. Reading vv 1 –30 as a unit, we should view vv
1–14 essentially as background to Jacob‘s marriage. Read as a unit in its own right, it
functions also as a sequel to the preceding narratives and makes its own points about
Jacob‘s character and divine providence.
vv 1–14 fall into three scenes:

1–9
Jacob meets the shepherds of Harran

10–12
Jacob meets Rachel

13–14
Jacob stays with Laban

Source critics are unanimous that this section comes from J. Some have held that v 1 is E,
since nowhere else is Jacob said to have gone to the sons of the East. But the very
singularity of this comment makes its assignment to a particular source dubious, so most
modern critics are happy to see it as part of
Comment
1–14 These verses cons titute a betrothal type scene (cf. chap. 24), in which the patriarch
journeys to a foreign land, encounters his future bride at a well, and waters the flocks.
Close attention to those features that distinguish this scene from its parall els sheds light on
the character of those involved.
1–9 These verses describe Jacob‘s encounter with the shepherds of Harran. But first, the
situation of three flocks encircling the well is described in some fullness; this helps to
impress on us the weight of the stone and the strength of the conventions that Jacob was
prepared to flout by watering his uncle‘s flock. His conversation with the shepherds, more
of an interrogation than a chat, helps to convey the idea of a pushy young man in a hurry to
achieve his own ends.
1 ―Jacob picked up his feet.‖ ―To pick up the feet‖ occurs only here in the Bible, so its
precise nuance is unclear. Genesis Rabbah , followed by Jacob, suggests it is referring back
to Jacob‘s experience at Bethel, so that he now goes on his way cheerfully; Calvin suggests
that the experience has given Jacob faith to continue. Speiser thinks the verb 
―pick up‖ used with bodily organs (e.g., voice, 21:16; hands, Hab 3:10 ) focuses attention
on the activity involved (Seeligmann, VT 14 [1964] 80).
―To the land of the people of the East.‖ The people of the East, noted for their large
flocks and herds and numerous camels (Job 1:3), lived a nomadic life on the eastern fringes
of Canaan in Transjordan. They joined forces with the Amalekites and Midianites to attack
Israel in the time of Gideon (Judg 6:3, 33; 8:10, 11). Here ―land of the people of the East‖
may just be a way of saying ―eastwards‖ (so Jacob, We stermann).
2–3 As might have been anticipated in the land of the people of the East, the first thing
that Jacob notices is a well in the open country with three flocks lying around it. ―Open

country‖ (
) means uncultivated land, more suitable for grazin g than for crops (see Comment on
2:5), so it need not be a long way from settlement ( pace Westermann). After allowing us a
glimpse of Jacob‘s viewpoint (the two clauses introduced by 
show us things through his eyes), the narrator then explains immedia tely the
significance of the encamped flocks: they are waiting for all the flocks who are watered
from this well to gather before the huge stone is rolled away. However, it is some time
before Jacob elicits for himself the reason for the encampment by quiz zing the shepherds (v
8). It is noticeable how the narrator underlines the size of the stone and the necessity of all
the flocks gathering before it was removed. The repetition of various details in v 3
reinforces our realization of its weight and Jacob‘s strength.
4–8 This dialogue consists of four questions by Jacob and four rather surly replies by
the shepherds, suggesting their suspicion of this young foreigner and his own brash
self-confidence. Jacob, the passive puppet in his mother‘s hand, has now gr own up. Having
left home and met God at Bethel, he is now a man ready to make his own way in the world.
On the other hand, the shepherds‘ cold response to Jacob serves to accentuate the warmth
of his reception by Laban.
4 ―My brothers‖ is a polite and ingr atiating form of address to strangers (cf. 19:7).
5 Jacob‘s primary concern is to find his uncle Laban; note the threefold mention of
Laban in v 10, as directed by his parents (27:43; 28:2).
6 The shepherds‘ remark, ―Here is Rachel comi ng with the sheep,‖ has a dual purpose.
It provides them with yet another excuse for not talking to Jacob; in effect they say ―Here‘s
your cousin, ask her about your uncle.‖ But it also indicates the passing of time. With
Jacob, we peer into the distance t rying to see what Rachel is like, but it does take a while
for a flock of sheep to come close.
7 So in his impatience, Jacob asks the shepherds an almost impertinent question, ―Why
are you wasting your time waiting to water the flocks when you could water them now and
then let them graze?‖
8 Jacob‘s cockiness evidently annoyed the shepherds, for at last they speak at length
explaining the convention that only when all the flock s are present can the stone be moved
and the watering begin, a point the narrator had already made in v 3. Its repetition here sets
Jacob‘s forthcoming actions in perspective. These shepherds do not explain why they have
arrived so early, if they must wait for latecomers before watering their flocks. Gunkel
surmises that they worked on the basis of ―first come, first served.‖ Thus, the earlier they
arrived at the well the sooner their flocks were watered. But Jacob, having been apprised of
this convention, does not hesitate to disregard it.
9 Meanwhile, during this long interchange, Rachel arrives. Note the insistence on the fact
that the sheep belonged to her father.
10–12 The warmth of his greeting of Rachel contrasts sharply with the coolness with
which t he shepherds had received him. His enthusiasm empowers him to roll away the huge
stone that normally required several shepherds to move. And then he waters his uncle‘s
sheep, kisses Rachel, weeps, and finally explains that he is ―her father‘s relative, Reb ekah‘s
son.‖ This unusual sequence of actions (surely it would have been expected for Jacob to
introduce himself before kissing his cousin and weeping?) portrays a man swept along by
the joy of meeting his cousin. But what makes him so joyful? Is it relief at finding a relation
in a foreign country, or the pleasure of doing something for his uncle, or has he already

fallen in love with Rachel? Though his embrace of Rachel no doubt anticipates their later
relationship, and Isaac has already directed him to f ind a wife from Laban‘s family (28:2),
the narrative seems to play down this interpretation by repeatedly insisting that Jacob
watered the sheep, not because they were Rachel‘s, but because they belonged to Laban,
―his mother‘s brother.‖ There is also no c omment yet about Rachel‘s beauty (contrast
24:16). This suggests that Jacob‘s prime motive at this stage is to ingratiate himself with his
uncle.
13 Jacob‘s alacrity in watering his uncle‘s flocks is matched by Laban‘s in greeting
him. Of course Laban had been through all this before. Some years earlier his sister had met
Isaac‘s servant at the well, who had showered Laban‘s family with wealth in order to
persuade them to part with Rebekah. Was his haste this time prompted by the possibility of
similar enri chment? If it was, he was quickly disillusioned, for Jacob was a runaway, not a
rich emissary with ten camels. And the narrative seems to hint that from their first
encounter Laban and Jacob‘s relationship was flawed by Laban‘s concern for material gain.
―And he told Laban about all these things.‖ A similar phrase in 24:28 refers simply to
the meeting at the well, but here rather more is implied. But how much did Jacob divulge of
his past? Did he tell of his tricks to acquire his brother‘s birthright and bl essing, or only of
Esau‘s plot to murder him? Did he tell of his parents‘ injunction to go and stay with his
uncle, or also that they wanted him to marry one of Laban‘s daughters? The text is vague,
and we are left to guess, but it seems likely that Laban discovered plenty about Jacob‘s past
and realized that Jacob had not many financial assets to offer and was very much at Laban‘s
mercy. And this must inform our understanding of his comments.
14 ―You are truly my flesh and blood‖ is more ambiguous than it sounds. It is
apparently an open -hearted admission that Jacob is indeed Laban‘s close relative (cf.
Comment on 2:23), which the particle 
―truly‖ reinforces. So it could be taken as a warm welcome to Jacob to stay. However,

may s uggest a rather grudging admission on Laban‘s part of kinship. ―You have
convinced me that you are my nephew, so you may as well stay‖ (cf. Jacob; Ehrlich;
Fokkelman, Narrative Art ). On this view, Laban‘s double -dealing is already being hinted
at, even though Jacob must have understood the comment entirely positively and have been
reassured by it.
―He stayed with him a month‖ echoes his mother‘s injunction, ―Stay with him a few days‖
(27:44). (The phrase ―a few days‖ is found in 29:20.) It seems therefore unlikely that ―stay
with‖ meant that Laban legally acknowledged Jacob as a co -heir ( pace D. Daube and R.
Yaron, JSS 1 [1956] 61). Thus staying with his uncle, Jacob has begun to fulfill his parents‘
instruc tions. Will he now succeed in marrying one of Laban‘s daughters and returning
home as they had also instructed him?
Explanation
This episode in the Jacob cycle is one of the sunniest. It tells of Jacob‘s successful
arrival in his uncle‘s household in Padda n-Aram. Everything appears to run smoothly for
him. The promise that the LORD would be with him and guard him wherever he went
(28:15, 20) is here manifestly fulfilled. He arrives at a well in the East and discovers
shepherds who know his uncle, and indeed ere long his cousin Rachel appears with her

flock. God‘s overruling providen tial guidance is as manifest here as in the very similar
story in Gen 24, where Abraham‘s servant met Rebekah at the well. Whereas that servant
wore his piety on his sleeve, Jacob‘s faith is unmentioned, though his confident, almost
cocksure, approach to t he shepherds perhaps reflects his experience at Bethel.
In Gen 24 it was Rebekah who demonstrated her sterling quality by watering Abraham‘s
camels; on this occasion it was Jacob who did so by watering Rachel‘s sheep. On both
occasions, Laban ran out to gr eet the stranger; but if he recalled the first, he must have been
disappointed by the second, for Jacob brought no great wealth, only his own abilities. On
both occasions, the future bride came to the well, but whereas the match with Rebekah was
quickly ar ranged, nothing is said about Jacob marrying Rachel. So this episode ends on a
note of uncertainty. Jacob has obeyed his parents and found his way to his uncle‘s house.
The LORD has fulfilled his promise of guidance and protection. But there is no sign of him
marrying or the fulfillment of the promise of numerous descendants or of his return to the
land. He simply stayed with Laban a month. Clearly, the divine program has begun to be
fulfilled, but how and when the rest will take place is unclear. Though th e first stage has
been easy, Jacob will discover that there are many huge obstacles to be rolled away before
he can return to his land in peace.
Jacob Marries Leah and Rachel (29:15 –30)
Bibliography
Arum, N. ―‗For Rachel your younger daughter‘ —‗She is Leah ?‘‖ A ‗False‘ Statement of Identity
Reflecting a False Situation.‖ (Heb.) BMik 30 (1984/85) 541 –44. Diamond, J. A. ―The Deception of
Jacob: A New Perspective on an Ancient Solution to the Problem.‖ VT 34 (1984) 211 –13. Dresner,
S. H. ―Rachel and Leah.‖ Judaism 38 (1989) 151 –59. Eissfeldt, O. ―Jakob -Lea und Jakob -Rahel.‖
KS 4 (1968) 170 –75. Goldfarb, S. D. ―Jacob‘s Love for Rachel.‖ (Heb.) BMik 21 (1976) 289 –92.
Jagendorf, Z. ―‗In the morning, behold, it was Leah‘: Genesis and the Reversal of Sexual
Knowledge.‖ Prooftexts 4 (1984) 187 –92. Postgate,. J. N. ―Some Old Babylonian Shepherds and
Their Flocks.‖ JSS 20 (1975) 1 –20. Seters, J. Van. ―Jacob‘s Marriages and Ancient Near East
Customs: A Reexamination.‖ HTR 62 (1969) 377 –95. Steinberg, N. ―Alliance or Descent? The
Function of Marriage in Genesis.‖ JSOT 51 (1991) 45 –55.
Translation
15Then Laban said to Jacob, a―Are you, although you are my relative, workingb for
me for nothing?a Tellc me what your pay should be.‖ 16Now Laban had two daughters:
athe elder was called Leah and the young er Rachel.a 17Leah‘s eyes were soft, but
Rachela had a beautiful figure and a lovely face. 18Now Jacob loved Rachel. So he said,
―I will worka for you seven years for Rachel, your younger daughter.‖ 19Laban replied,
―It is b etter for me to givea her to you than to giveb her to someone else. Stayc with me.‖
20So Jacob worked seven years for Rachel, but they seemed like a few days because he
loveda her.
21Then Jacob said to Laban, ―Givea me my wife, for my time is completed, that I may gob
into her.‖ 22So Laban gathered all the people of the neighborhood and made a feast. 23In
the evening he took his daughter Leah and broughta her to him, and he went into her.

24Laban had givena Leah Zilpah his maid to be her maid.b 25In the morning ther e was Leah!
He said to Laban, ―Whata have you done to me? Did I not work for you for Rachel?b Whyc
have you deceivedd me?‖ 26So Laban replied, ―It is not donea in our area to giveb the
younger before the firstborn. 27 Complete the week of that one,a so that we can giveb this
one as well to you, provided you work for me for another seven years.‖ 28Jacob did so and
completed this week, and he gave him Rachel his daughter in marriage. 29aLaban had given
Rachel his daughter Bilhah his maid to be h er maid.a 30So he also went into Rachel, and he
loved alsoa Rachel more than Leah, and he worked with him another seven years.
Notes
15.a-a. This translation follows Joüon, 161j,k, in seeing the introductory 
as applying only to the second clause, ―should you serve me for nothing.‖ This seems
preferable to GKC, 150e, who see 15.b. Waw consec + 2 masc. sg pf [
+ 1 sg suffix.
15.c. 2 masc. sg impv hiph 
+ aµh ending.
16.a-a. On this construction, see SBH, 32–33. On the use of the simple adjectives ―great,
small‖ for the comparatives ― greater, smaller,‖ see GKC, 133f.
17.a. The preverbal position of Rachel accentuates the contrast with Leah ( SBH, 152).
18.a. 1 sg impf. [
+ 2 masc. sg suffix.
19.a. Inf constr 
+ 1 sg suffix.
19.b. As above, prefixed by 19.c. See n. 27:19.c.
20.a. 
+ inf constr 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
21.a. cf. n. 11:3.a.* (Joüon, 75k).
21.b. Waw consec + 1 sg coh 
. On the sequence of tenses giving a final sense, see GKC, 108d, 165a; Joüon, 116b.
23.a. cf. n. 2:19.c.*

24.a. SBH, 88, notes the anomaly of waw consec + impf. used in a circumstantial clause,
for the giving of Zilpah was contemporary with the marriage, not subsequent to the
wedding. Hence, it would be better to see this as equivalen t to a pluperfect (cf. v 29).
24.b. Sampent adds 
, which is more normal (cf. v 29).
25.a. For the enclitic 
, cf. n. 3:13.a.
25.b. In the Heb., Rachel precedes the verb for emphasis ( GKC, 142g, EWAS, 43).
25.c. Joüon, 177m, suggests that the prefixed 25.d. 2 masc. sg pf piel 
+ 1 sg suffix.
26.a. 3 masc. sg impf. niph [
. Here the impf. of customary action, hence ―may not, shall not be, done‖ ( GKC, 107g;
cf. Gen 34:7; 2 Sam 13:12).
26.b. cf. n. 15:7.c.*
27.a. For this translation, see Joüon, 143b.
27.b. Understanding the form as waw + 1 pl. coh qal 
. Alternatively, it may be understood as waw consec + 3 fem. sg niph 
, ―Then this one shall be given to you too.‖ Sampent, G, Vg render it ―that I may give,‖
which lends support to the first view, but GKC, 121b, inclines to the second.
29.a-a. cf. n. 29:24.a,b.
30.a. This 
is awkward syntactically ( SBH, 161), so G, Vg do not translate it, but since Sampent also
has it, it should be retained (―and he really loved Rachel, more than Leah,‖ so Labuschagne
[q. by Gispen]).
Form/Structur e/Setting
Does 29:15 –30 constitute a separate episode in the Jacob cycle or should it be regarded
as a unit with 29:1 –14? For the reasons set out in the previous Form/Structure/Setting , I
prefer to take the passages as separate, though closely interconnected, units.
29:15 –30 falls into two scenes, each followed by a comment on Jacob‘s labor for his
wife.

vv 15 –19

The betrothal of Jacob to Rachel

v 20
Seven years of service for Rache l

vv 21 –30a
The wedding

v 30b
Another seven years of service

According to the older source critics, this section is mainly E with P comments in vv 24,
29. The only good reason for holding that the source here is not J, the source in vv 1 –14, is
the f resh introduction of Rachel in vv 16 –17. The alleged differences in vocabulary (e.g.,
―pay,‖ v 15; ―elder/younger,‖ v 16) prove nothing. However, the purpose of vv 16 –17 is not
to reintroduce Rachel, so much as to say that she had a sister, Leah, who was less attractive
than she was, and that Jacob loved Rachel. This information is indispensable, if we are to
understand Laban‘s trickery. So, most modern writers agree that it is unnecessary to ascribe
this material to a sourc e different from J, the author of vv 1 –14 (so Speiser; Coats;
Westermann; Blum, Die Komposition ). Most still see a different hand at work in vv 24, 29,
though Blum admits it is arbitrary to ascribe these verses to P. Speiser and Vawte r,
however, note that giving a slave -girl as part of a dowry was traditional in the ancient
Orient, so that vv 24, 29 could come from the main source and not be an addition. In fact,
these verses are necessary for the understanding of the account of the pa triarchal births in
29:31 –30:24, so it does not seem necessary to ascribe them to a different sou
Comment
15 Laban‘s question sounds concerned and friendly, but the very mention of ―working‖
and ―pay‖ introduces a jarring note. It sounds friendly to offer one‘s destitute nephew
wages, but should family relationships be reduced to commercial bargaining? The words
―work, serve‖ ( [
) and ―pay‖ (root 
) are key terms in the subsequent narrative (29:18, 20, 25, 27, 30; 30:26, 29; 31:6, 41;
30:16, 32, 33; 31 :7, 41) and are laden with echoes of the exploitation Jacob suffered at
Laban‘s hands. But Laban is canny; he has learned Jacob‘s motives for coming (29:13) and
in the last few weeks has observed his attachment to Rachel, which he is willing to exploit
by inviting Jacob to make an offer.
16–17 This interruption by the narrator supplies some necessary background
information about Leah and Rachel that has been withheld hitherto but is necessary for
understanding the story. This interruption also serves to hei ghten suspense. We are forced
to wait a little before we hear whether Jacob will bid for Rachel and whether it will be
accepted. The name ―Leah‖ may mean ―cow,‖ as in Akkadian littu, Arabic la<aµtu ―wild
cow‖ (so KB, 487), whereas Rachel is Hebrew for ―ewe‖ (cf. 31:38; 32:15). What makes
eyes ―soft‖ ( 

) is unclear; most commentators think it means they had no fire or sparkle, a quality
much prized in the East. Whether her eyes were the only features that let her down is not
said, but the glowing description of Rachel as having ―a beautiful figure and a lovely face‖
suggests Leah was outshone by her sister in various ways.
18 So it is little surprise to be told that ―Jacob loved Rachel.‖ What is surprising is the
price he was prepared to pay for her hand, seven years labor, undoubtedly indicating the
intensity of his affection for her. In the ancient Near East, betrothal was effected by paying
a 
, tirhÉatum (Akk.), ―marriage present,‖ ―bride price‖ (Exod 22:15 [16]). This was
essentially a capital transfer by the groom‘s family to the bride‘s family pl edging the man
to marry. The OT fixes the maximum marriage gift at fifty shekels (Deut 22:29), but
typically the gifts were much lower. However, since Jacob could not ask his family to pay,
he offered seven years of service instead. Since casual laborers received between one -half
and one shekel a month in old Babylonian times (G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles, The
Babylonian Laws [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952] 1:470 -71), Jacob was offering Laban a
very handsome marriage gift in exchange for Ra chel‘s hand.
19 Laban gladly agrees to this excellent offer. But has he already purposed to cheat? He
says, ―It is better for me to give her to you than to someone else,‖ but he never specifies
who ―she‖ is. From the context, it appears that ―she‖ is Rache l. But in the light of Jacob‘s
very precise request to marry ―Rachel, your younger daughter,‖ it may be no coincidence
that Laban never names the daughter he intends to give Jacob. Maybe he was keeping his
options open, perhaps hoping that someone else wou ld come along to marry Leah before
Jacob had completed his seven years of service for Rachel.
20 According to later laws (Exod 21:1 –6; Deut 15:12 –18), single men who entered into
service as slaves had to be released after six years. But Jacob served seven years, yet ―they
seemed like a few days‖ because of his love for Rachel. The phrase ―a few days‖ echoes
27:44, when Rebekah had told Jacob to stay with Laban ―a few days.‖ Now that the time
has elapsed, Jacob hopes to marry Rachel and return to his homelan d. But this delightful
prospect is soon shattered.
21–30 The second scene describes the wedding seven years later.
21 In the previous scene, Laban opened the discussion. Here it is Jacob who says, ―Give
me my wife . … ‖ That Jacob had to take the initiativ e no doubt expresses his keenness to
consummate the marriage, ―that I may go into her,‖ but does it also suggest a coolness on
Laban‘s part toward the match? Did he really need reminding that Jacob‘s years of service
were completed? The suspicion of grieva nce on Jacob‘s part may be strengthened by the
way he demands his rights, ―Give me my wife,‖ without so much as a ―please.‖ Indeed, in
two of the three other passages in Genesis where the verb 
―give‖ appears by itself, there is a distinct note of desp eration apparent (30:1; 47:15;
cf. 47:16) that would not be out of place here.
22 No reply of Laban is recorded; thus his inner thoughts are left shrouded in mystery,
but maybe silence itself indicates his reluctance to arrange the wedd ing feast. However, he
does apparently do the right thing; he invites his neighbors in to celebrate the marriage.
Normally, a wedding involved processions to and from the bride‘s house, a reading of the
marriage contract, and a large meal attended by both families and neighbors. The first day‘s
celebration ended with the groom wrapping his cloak around the bride, who was veiled
throughout the ceremony (24:65), and taking her to the nuptial chamber where the marriage

was consummated. However, the feasting an d celebration continued for a whole week (cf.
Judg 14:12 –18; see further G. J. Wenham, ―Weddings,‖ in Oxford Companion to the Bible ,
ed. B. M. Metzger and M. D. Coogan [Oxford/New York: Oxford UP, 1993] 79 4–95).
Clearly, the absence of Jacob‘s family must have led to the omission of certain parts of the
celebration. More important, it made Jacob vulnerable to Laban‘s machinations.
23 The lateness of the hour, the veiling of the bride, and maybe a little too much drink
allowed Laban to substitute the unloved Leah for the promised Rachel.
24 Upon marriage, it was customary for the bride‘s father to give her a large wedding
present, a dowry. Ancient marriage contracts show that dowries typically consisted of
clothing, furniture, and money. The dowry served as a nest egg for the wife in case she was
widowed or divorced. It is not usually mentioned in the OT unless it included something
exceptionally valuable, such as slave -girls (24:61; 29:29) or a city (1 Kgs 9:16). However
mean Laban was to Jacob, he still treated his daughters generously by presenting them each
with a maid. On 
―maid,‖ see Comment on 16:1. Thus, from the point of view of subject matter, this
verse is entirely apposite. Tho ugh it sounds like an afterthought, it is actually included to
prepare the way for them to be mothers of the patriarchs. This verse and v 29 do not
therefore need to be ascribed to a source different from the rest of the chapter.
25 This verse resumes the main thread of the narrative. lit. ―and behold she Leah.‖
These three words describe Jacob‘s shock through his eyes. Seven years of working for
pretty Rachel, and now he finds he has her ugly sister instead. But as usual in Hebrew
narrative, his feelings are hinted at rather than analyzed. However, his words show what he
was thinking.
―What have you done?‖ As in 3:13 (God to Eve), 12:18 (Pharaoh to Abraham), and
26:10 (Abimelek to Isaac), 
―what‖ followed by the enclitic ―Why have you d eceived me?‖ ―Why‖ in Hebrew, as
in English, often introduces accusatory questions implying that the person should never
have acted in this way. The verb 
―deceive‖ is cognate with the noun 
―deceit‖ in 27:35. So already in accusing Laban of decei t, Jacob is in fact condemning
himself. The archdeceiver has himself been deceived.
26 Consciously or unconsciously, Laban makes the same point, ―It is not done … to
give (put) the younger before the firstborn.‖ These terms for young ( 
) and fi rstborn (
) or words derived from them have been used earlier in the Jacob cycle to describe the
relationship of Esau and Jacob (25:23, 32; 27:19, 32). But Jacob, the younger, had put
himself before the firstborn Esau, so there is a certain poetic just ice in Jacob‘s deception.
Doubtless there is a barbed underhanded dig in Laban‘s ―It is not done in our area to put
the younger before the firstborn.‖ It was not supposed to be done in Isaac‘s family either,
yet Jacob had.
However, Laban‘s attempt to justi fy his action by local convention is weak. Why did he
not make the point earlier, if this was his intention? Or why had he not found a husband for
Leah during the seven years Jacob had worked for him? Was it because Leah was too ugly
to attract a husband, or had Laban been planning all along to palm her off on Jacob? Either
way, Jacob had good reason to be incensed by his father -in-law.

27 But Laban continues urbanely with an apparent show of generosity. ―Just complete
the wedding celebrations of Le ah this week, and then next week you can start a party for
Rachel and marry her.‖ However unwilling Jacob may have been to continue celebrating
his marriage to Leah, he could not opt out. He was isolated without family support, and he
did want to marry Rac hel. Realizing he has Jacob trapped, Laban then adds a harsh extra
demand: after marrying Rachel ―you must work for me another seven years.‖ So much for
Jacob‘s hopes of returning home shortly with his new wife.
28–29 The end of dialogue indicates Jacob‘s sullen acceptance of Laban‘s new terms.
Outwardly, both do the correct thing: Jacob completes the first week of celebrations, and
Laban gives him Rachel, and Rachel, like her sister Leah, is given a maid (cf. v 24). The
meaning of Bilha h is unclear. Noth ( Personennamen , 10) suggests ―without care.‖
30 But while outward decorum may have been restored, the narrator hints at the underlying
unhappiness. ―He loved Rachel more than Leah‖ (cf. v 31). Jacob does indeed serve another
seven years, but unlike the first, they are not said to have ―seemed like a few days‖ (v 20).
They were, rather, days of sorrow and strife within the new family as the account of the
patriarchs‘ births now makes plain.
Explanation
―And they lived h appily ever after‖ is the way traditional fairy -tale romances end. But
Jacob and Rachel‘s love story has no such happy ending. The first scene tells how Jacob,
entranced with the beautiful Rachel, offers her father Laban seven years of service in lieu of
the normal marriage present given to the bride‘s family when betrothal occurred. This was
a high price to pay, but it shows how taken Jacob was with Rachel, a point underlined by
the closing comment that the seven years ―seemed like a few days because he lo ved her.‖
The second scene opens more ominously with Jacob forced to demand the wedding be
celebrated because he has served his time; he wants now to marry his beloved and to return
home. The wedding feast is duly organized, and on the first night Jacob jo ins his wife in the
nuptial bed. But in the morning he discovers it is Leah, Rachel‘s ugly older sister, that he
has married.
Jacob expostulates with Laban, but he can do nothing to alter the situation. Laban has
him over a barrel. The only concession Laba n makes is that Jacob may take Rachel
immediately as a second wife, but he must work another seven years for her. Jacob‘s bitter
resentment at Laban and at Leah is hinted at but not described. We simply hear that ―he
loved Rachel more than Leah.‖ Few marri ages can have had a worse start.
Within the narrative there is no theological comment at all, and the narrator leaves us to
reflect on how these events fit in with the promises made to Jacob and the providential
overruling of his career. The obvious linkag es with the earlier episodes in which Jacob
deceived his father (chap. 27; cf. 29:25) and in which the younger Jacob displaced his older
brother, Esau (25:27 –34; chap. 27; 29:26) surely indicate that, although Jacob is chosen, he
does n ot escape divine justice. Nowhere does Scripture allow that the elect are immune
from God‘s discipline and punishment. ―You only have I known of all the families of the
earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities‖ (Amos 3:2). ―The Lord disci plines
him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives‖ (Heb 12:5 –6; Prov 3:12).
Yet through these experiences God‘s purposes were advanced. Jacob had been promised he
would have a multitude of descendants, and it was through the unloved Leah a nd her maid
Zilpah that eight of the twelve tribes traced their descent. Thus even the deceitfulness of

Laban and Jacob can be overruled to bring the divine plan to fulfillment (Hos12:2). Human
sin may have delayed Jacob‘s return to his homeland, but all o ther aspects of the promises
made to him were advanced by his unhappy sojourn in Mesopotamia.
The Birth of Jacob’s Sons (29:31 –30:24)
Bibliography
Andersen, F. I. ―Note on Gen 30:8.‖ JBL 88 (1969) 200. Arbeitman, Y., and Rendsburg, G.
―Adana Revisited: 30 Years Later.‖ ArOr 49 (1981) 145 –57. Ben-Reuven, S. ―Buying Mandrakes
as Retribution for Buying the Birthright.‖ (Heb.) BMik 28 (1982/83) 230 –31. ——— . ―David‘s
Struggle w ith Saul in the Light of the Struggle between Leah and Rachel.‖ (Heb.) BMik 32 (1986/87)
152–53. Bosse -Griffiths, K. ―The Fruit of the Mandrake.‖ In Fontes atque Pontes: FS H. Brunner,
ed. M. Görg. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1983. 62 –74. Daube, D. ―The Night of Death.‖ HTR 61
(1968) 629 –32. Fowler, J. D. Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew: A Comparative
Study . JSOTSup 49. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1988. Lehming, S. ―Zur Erzählung von der Geburt
der Jakobsöhne .‖ VT 13 (1963) 74 –81. Lipinski, E. ―L‘Étymologie de ‗Juda.‘ ‖ VT 23 (1973)
380–81. Millard, A. R. ―The Meaning of the Name Judah.‖ ZAW 86 (1974) 216 –18. Nicol, G. G.
―Gen 29:32 and 35:22a: Reuben‘s Reversal.‖ JTS 31 (1980) 536–39. Richter, H. -F. ―‗Auf den
Knien eines andern gebären‘? (Zur Deutung von Gen 30:3 und 50:23) .‖ ZAW 91 (1979) 436 –37.
Seters, J. Van. ―The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law a nd the Patriarchs of Israel.‖
JBL 87 (1968) 401 –8. Strus, A. ―Étymologies des noms propres dans Gen 29:32 -30:24: valeurs
littéraires et fonctionelles .‖ Salesianum 40 (1978) 57 –72.
Translation
31When the LORD saw that Leah was unloved, he opened her womb, but Rachel
remained childless. 32 Leah conceived,a gaveb birth to a son, and named him Reuben,
for she said,c ―The LORD has seen my oppression, because now my husband will love
me.‖ 33 She conceived again, gave birth to a son, and said: ―The LORD has heard that I
am unloved and has also given this one to me.‖ So she named him Simeon. 34 She
conceived again, gave birth to a son, and she said, ―Now this time my husband will be
attacheda to me, because I have borne him three sons.‖ So sheb named him Levi. 35 Then
she conceived a gain, gave birth to a son, and she said, ―This time I shall praisea the
LORD.‖ So she named him Judah. Then she stopped bearingb children.
1When Rachel saw that she had borne Jacob no children, Rachel was jealous of her
sister, and she said to Jacob, ―Give me children, ora I shall die.‖b 2 So Jacob was very
angrya with Rachel and said, ―Am I in God‘s place,b who has prevented your womb
from bearing fruit?‖ 3 She said, ―Here is my maid Bilhah, go into her in order thata she
may give birth over my knees that I may be builtb up from her.‖ 4 So she gave Bilhah
her ma id to him as a wife, and Jacob went into her. 5 Bilhah conceived and gave birth
to a son for Jacob. 6 Rachel said: ―God has vindicateda me and also listened to my
voice and given me a son.‖ So she named him Dan. 7 She conceived again, and Bilhah,
Rachel‘s maid, gave birth to another son for Jacob. 8 Rachel said, ―With divine
struggles I wrestleda with my sister; indeedb I overcame her.‖ So she named him
Naphtali.

9When Leah saw that she had stopped having children, she took her maid Zilpah
and gave her to Jacob as a wife. 10aThen Zilpah, Leah‘s maid, gave birth to a son for
Jacob. 11 Leah said, a ―Luck has come,‖a so she named him Gad. 12 Then Zilpah, Leah‘s
maid, gave bi rth to another son for Jacob. 13 Leah said,―In my happiness,a for
daughters will declareb me happy.‖ So she named him Asher.
14Reuben went out in the time of the wheat harvest and found mandrakes in the
countryside and brought them to Leah his mother. And Rachel said to Leah, ―please
givea me some of your son‘s mandrakes.‖ 15a She replied to her,a ―Is it not enough that
you tookb away my husband that you also want to take my son‘s mandrakes?‖ Rachel
replied, ―For this he shall li e with you tonight in return for your son‘s mandrakes.‖
16When Jacob came in from the country in the evening, Leah went out to meet him
and said to him: ―You must come in to me, for I have really hired you at the price of my
son‘s mandrakes.‖ So he slept w ith her thata night. 17 And God listened to Leah, and she
conceived and gave birth to a fifth son for Jacob. 18 Leah said, ―God has giv en me pay,
becausea I gave my maid to my husband.‖ So she named him Issachar. 19 Leah
conceived again and bore a sixth son for Jacob.a 20 Leah said, ― God has endowed mea
with a good endowment. This time my husband will honor me, because I h ave borne
him six sons.‖ So she named him Zebulon. 21 Afterwards, she gave birth to a daughter
and named her Dinah.
22Then God remembered Rachel. God listened to her and opened her womb. 23 Then she
conceived and gave birth to a son, and she said ―God has gathered up my shame.‖ 24 She
named him Joseph, saying, ―May the LORDa addb another son to me.‖
Notes
32.a. cf. n. 4:1.b.*
32.b. cf. n. 4:1.c.*
32.c. 
here introduces direct speech ( GKC, 157b).
34.a. 3 masc. sg impf. niph 34.b. So Sampent; cf. vv 32, 33, 35. MT reads ― He called
him.‖
35.a. 1 sg impf. hiph 35.b. 
+ inf constr 30:1.a. cf. EWAS, 102.
1.b. The word order (predicate ―dying‖ before pronominal subj ―I‖) emphasizes the
predicate (EWAS, 15).
2.a. cf. n. 4:5.b.*
2.b. cf. n. 30:1.b.*; predicate ―in God‘s place‖ before subj for emphasis (EWAS, 14).
3.a. Note simple waw following impv to express purpose ( GKC, 109f.)

3.b. 1 sg impf. niph 6.a. 3 masc. sg pf qal 
+ 1 sg suffix. On the form, see GKC, 26g, 58i, 59f; WOC, 517, n. 64.
8.a. 1 sg pf niph  8.b. 
here serves as an intensive ―and‖ ( GKC, 154a1; SBH, 165).
10.a. G adds ―Jacob went into her, and Zilpah conceived.‖ This could be assimilation to
vv 4–5.
11.a-a. Wi th Q, S, Tg., reading 
. K, G, Vg read ]13.a. Grammatically obscure. This translation follows BDB, 81a,
which understands it as 
+ 
+ 1 sg suffix. Joüon, 89 l2, understands it as 
―in, with‖ + 
―happiness.‖ cf. ―with luck,‖ v 11a.
13.b. 3 pl. pf piel 
+ 1 sg suffix. Pf used here because future predicted is certain ( GKC, 106n; WOC, 490).
14.a. 2 fem. sg impv 15.a-a. G clarifies by paraphrasing ―Leah said.‖
15.b. Inf constr 
+ 2 fem. sg suffix.
16.a. Sampent reads the more usual 
for MT 
. MT could have omitted the def art by haplography or for euphony.
18.a. 
may serve as a weak causal conj (GKC, 158b; Joüon, 170e).
19.a. The dagesh in  20.a. Note that the obj ―me‖ is expressed twice, both as
suffix on ―endowed‖ and also with independent obj pronoun. This makes obj "me" more
prominent (E WAS, 152).
24.a. G, S read ―God.‖
24.b. 3 masc. sg juss hiph 

Form/Structure/Setting
This episode of the birth of Jacob‘ s sons culminates with the birth of Joseph (30:24), which
is the cue for Jacob to return home (30:25). This episode, which in fact spans about seven
years, lies right at the center of the Laban -Jacob narrative and of the whole Jacob cycle
itself. It presup poses all that has gone before, most obviously Jacob‘s flight to Harran and
his involuntary bigamous marriage to Leah and Rachel. Here the unhappy tensions caused
by that relationship are displayed most poignantly; the whole episode is governed by
Leah‘s l onging for Jacob‘s love and Rachel‘s craving for children. Leah‘s frequent
pregnancies only aggravate Rachel‘s frustration at her own childlessness. But Leah‘s
success in producing offspring leaves her deeply disappointed, for, far from drawing her
husband closer to her, it leads her to be excluded from the marriage bed, so that only
Rachel has access to Jacob. These dark passions govern the whole narrative, most
obviously in Rachel‘s appeal to Jacob for children (30:1 –2) and in Leah‘s trading
mandrakes for sex (30:14 –16), but also in the names given to the children, nearly all of
which comment on the relationships between the sisters and their husband (29:32 –35; 30:6,
8, 11, 13, 18, 20, 23 –24).
While a tightly integrated and powerful narrative on its own, t his episode also echoes
themes found elsewhere in Genesis, most obviously in other parts of the Jacob cycle.
Rachel‘s struggle to gain the upper hand over her older sister mirrors Jacob‘s triumph over
Esau, as well as the other stories of younger brothers being preferred to the elder (Cain and
Abel, Isaac and Ishmael, Joseph and his brothers). Rachel‘s desperate appeal, ―Give me
children, otherwise I shall die,‖ echoes Jacob‘s demand to Laban, ―Give me my wife‖
(29:21), and Esau‘s plea for blessing (27:36 –38). In proposing that her maid Bilhah should
bear children for her, Rachel adopts the same procedure and language as Sarah before her
(30:3; 16:2), while Leah‘s resort to hiring her husband (30:16 –18) shows her following her
father Laban‘s example of hirin g and selling, where giving would be more fitting (29:15;
30:32 –33; 31:7 –8, 41). Finally, Rachel‘s remarks about struggling and prevailing seem to
anticipate Jacob‘s achievement (30:8; 32:29).
Fokkelman ( Narrative Art ) divides the episode into three parts; in each, four children
are born.

29:31 –35
Leah alone

30:1–13
Leah and Rachel

30:14 –24
The mandrakes, Leah and Rachel

However, the following scenic analysis seems preferable: the episode falls into two
groups of three scenes:
1. The LORD opens Leah‘s womb (4 boys born) (29:31 –35)
(note 29:31, ―the LORD saw‖)
2. Rachel‘s desire for children achieved through Bilhah (2 boys born) (30:1 –8)

(note 30:1, ―Rachel saw‖)
dialogue vv 1 –3: Rachel (v 1), Jacob (v 2), Rachel (v 3)
3. Leah‘s response: children through Zilpah (2 boys born) (30:9 –13)
(note 30:9, ―Leah saw‖)
4. Leah‘s desire for intercourse (30:14 –15)
dialogue: Rachel (v 14), Leah, Rachel (v 15)
5. Jacob lies with Leah (2 boys, 1 girl born) (30:16 –21)
6. God open s Rachel‘s womb (1 boy born, another prayed for) (30:22 –24)
It should be noted how each of the first three scenes begins ―X saw that‖ (29:31; 30:1, 9),
while the last two include the comment ―God listened to Leah/Rachel‖ (30:17, 22). If the
first group of these scenes is compared to the second group, it may be observed how both
contain dialogues initiated by Rachel in an attempt to overcome her barrenness (30:1 –3,
14–15) and how in the very first scene ―The LORD opens Leah‘s womb‖ matches ―God
opens Rachel‘ s womb‖ (29:31; 30:22) in the last, thus giving the whole episode a loose
palistrophic structure. Indeed, by the end, both major problems seem to have been
addressed: Leah‘s alienation from Jacob (30:16 –21) and Rachel‘s childlessness. Forgetting
the stormy past, Rachel looks with hope to the future as she prays, ―May the LORD add
another son to me‖ (30:24). In short, this episode combines psychological insight and
dramatic pathos to produce a well -integrated narrati
But traditional source critics speak of the ―extraordinary literary compositeness‖ of this
passage … composed of small parts, in places very small fragments, of J and E‖ (von Rad,
293). Put simply, 29:31 –35; 30:9 –16 are ascribed mainly to J, while 30:1 –8, 17–24 mainly
to E. The grounds for this division are the two divine names (Yahweh in 29:31 –33, 35;
30:24; Elohim in 30:2, 6, 8, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23); two different words for maid ( 
, 30:3; 
, 30:4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 18), the first usually regarded as an E word, the latter a J word; and
finally the twofold explanations of some of the names, suggesting two sources are present
(29:32, 33; 30:6, 18, 20, 23 –24). However, once these criteria are applied, it becomes
apparent that, in chap. 30 at least, not all of vv 9 –16 can be pure J; nor can all of vv 1 –8,
17–24 be pure E. Thus, according to Gunkel, v 1a must be J because it parallels 29:31 and
30:9; 3b is J because it parallels 16:2. v 7 is an expansion because it uses the term 
, J‘s term for maid. Thus, the basically E section vv 1 –8 has J fragments in it. Likewise,
the J section vv 9 –16 has v 9b from P and part of 13b (double etymology) from E.
Similarly, the E section vv 17 –24 contains the following J insertions: vv 20a, 24b (dual
etymologies), and v 2 2b (parallel with 29:31). More recent source critics have worked on
similar principles but are much less sanguine about their results. Speiser admits ―the
boundaries between J and E are sometimes indistinct‖ (232), while Vawter is even more
candid: ―The di stinction is admittedly quite chancy when it comes to deciding which verses
belong to whom: all that we really know is that a distinction has been made somehow‖
(324).
Westermann, however, drops the JE analysis entirely. He regards the narrative as
essenti ally a J story, 29:31 –32; 30:1 –6, 14 –18, 22 –24 with later genealogical expansions,
i.e., 29:33 –35; 30:7 –13, 19 –21. This later reviser also modified 29:32; 30:6, 17 –18, 22 –24.
While this approach does more justice to the integrity of th e narrative than the traditional
source analysis does, it does not match the scenic division satisfactorily. Casting narratives

into three scenes or groups of three is a classic device of prose style. But more significantly,
it fails to appreciate the gene alogical elements and especially the etymologies that have no
point without the narrative framework. The names given to all the children are barbed and
poignant comments on their mothers‘ situations and express their deep and passionate
longings. These nam es reflect the twin themes of this narrative, Rachel‘s longing for
children and Leah‘s yearning to be loved. Without the narrative, the names and their
explanations become little more than antiquarian information. Thus Blum describes the
narrative as ―unif ied in conception and well constructed‖ ( Die Komposition , 111). He
suggests that the double etymologies of Issachar, Zebulon, and Joseph all have a part to
play in the narrative —the last in particular because it looks forward to the birth of
Benjamin. Acco rding to Blum, only 30:21, the birth of Dinah, is not integral to this
episode. Not only is she the only girl mentioned, but she has no etymology, nor is she
mentioned in 32:23(22). Rather, 30:21 must have been added later to prepare for chap. 34.
Now cert ainly the birth of Dinah is unique in this section, but that is not to say it
necessarily comes from a later hand. There is a similar phenomenon in 22:23, where
Rebekah is mentioned along with eight male descendants of Nahor; this detail prepares the
way f or chap. 24, and both sections, 22:20 –24 and chap. 24, are usually ascribed to J.
Furthermore, Leah says in 30:13, ― daughters will declare me happy,‖ so it is appropriate
for one of her daughters to be mentioned by name here. For these reasons, it seems si mplest
to regard all of 29:31 –30:24 as deriving from J, the main editor of Genesis. As elsewhere, it
is very difficult to know what sources he had access to and drew on.
Comment
29:31 –35 In this scene, Leah is the sole speaker; indeed, apart from v 31, whi ch
supplies background information for understanding her comments, Leah is the only actor.
Her soliloquies after the birth of each child underline her isolation and her longing for
Jacob‘s affection.
31 ―When the LORD saw‖ (cf. 30:1, 9) . When the LORD sees, he intends to act
decisively, often in defense of the weak and oppressed (cf. 6:5; 7:1; 18:21; 31:12; Exod
2:25; 4:31). ―Unloved‖ (pass ptcp 
), ―hated,‖ appears here in poignant contrast to ―(Ja cob) loved Rachel.‖ For this use of
―hate‖ meaning ―to love less,‖ cf. Deut 21:15; Mal 1:3. ―He opened her womb‖ (cf. 30:22).
Throughout the OT, and in most traditional societies, motherhood is perce ived as the
crowning joy of a woman‘s life. But the LORD‘s consolation of Leah did not satisfy her,
because it failed to win her husband‘s love, and it served instead to make Rachel bitterly
jealous, for like Sarah and Rebekah before her (11:30; 25:21), sh e ―remained childless.‖
32 This verse describes the birth of the first of Jacob‘s twelve sons. Reuben‘s name
sounds like  ]
―see a son.‖ Though Westermann suggests this may be an earlier explanation of the
name, this is speculative. The etymology gi ven in the existing text refers more directly to
Leah‘s misery, ―The LORD has seen [ r<h] my oppression [ b>nyy ].‖ Here the play is simply
on the consonants of the name, as is typical with the popular etymologies in the OT (cf.
Strus, Nomen -Omen , 60). The phrase ―The LORD has seen my oppression‖ seems to echo
the similar remark addressed to the persecuted Hagar (16:11) and to foreshadow 31:42
(Laban‘s treatment of Jacob) and Exod 3:7; 4:31 (the Egyptian oppression of Israe l). ―The

LORD.‖ The names of Reuben, Simeon, Judah, and Joseph, the chief actors in the Joseph
story, are all explained with reference to the divine name.
―Because now my husband will love me‖ is another loose poetic etymology of Reuben,
for ―will love me‖ has three consonants in common with Reuben ( <, b, n). It also links
back to the key word in the previous episode, ―love‖ (vv 18, 20, 30). Jacob ―loved Rachel
more than Leah.‖ Leah hoped the birth of Reuben would remedy the situation. But it did
not.
33 As with Reuben, Leah gives a twofold explanation of the name Simeon. Just as in v
32, the first, a fairly historical etymology, focuses on what the LORD has done; the second
is a looser more poetic etymology reflecting on the relationship of Leah with her husband.
In other Semitic languages, words ending in an (on) include abstract nouns, adjectives, and
diminutives. Simeon could be a diminutive derived from [
―to hear.‖ Or it may be a theophoric name, ―The god On has heard,‖ for a god >on appears
in Ugaritic texts (Strus, Salesianum 40 [1978] 64 –65; rejected by Fowler, Personal Names ,
167). In this case, Leah‘s comment, ―The LORD has heard,‖ is very apt. Within Genesis it
echoes 16:11, but its continuation, ―that I am unloved,‖ shows her b itter disappointment at
Jacob‘s failure to accept her despite the birth of Reuben. ―Unloved,‖ &; ―hated‖ (cf. 29:31),
is another free poetic play on the name Simeon; the consonants sû, n of ―unloved‖ relate to
sû m, n of Simeon, as do t he sounds an, no in  34 Levi may mean ―attached, joined.‖
Here Leah again explains her choice of name in terms of her forlorn hope that her husband
will love her.
35 ―Judah‖ may mean ―praise‖ or be understood as a verbal form, ―He (i.e., God) shall
be praised.‖ Or it may be an abbreviation of 
or 
, ―May God be praised‖ (so A. R. Millard, ZAW 86 [1974] 216 –18; see also TDOT
5:483 –85; Fowler, Personal Names , 165). Like the names of her first two sons, Reuben and
Simeon, Judah is a name that acknowledges the LORD‘s mercy to her, but here she makes
no mention of her hope for improved relations with her husband. Has she at last come to
terms with her plight? She may not enjoy her husband‘s affection, but God has given her
four sons, and she must be thankful for that. ―This time I shall praise the LORD‖; here, as in
the psalms, lament turns to praise.
―Then she stopped bearing children.‖ Why? The narrative does not immediately
explain. The most obvious explanation is tha t she became temporarily infertile, but it could
be that marital intercourse now ceased. And if this was the case, was it Jacob‘s or Leah‘s
decision? Does it represent a worsening of relations between them, or is Leah
acknowledging that intercourse without love is pointless? The narrator by his brevity leaves
these various possibilities open.
30:1–8 The second scene, like the first, begins with seeing, ―When Rachel saw‖ (cf.
29:31). When the LORD saw Leah‘s situation, he acted in mercy. But Rachel‘s reaction to
divine kindness is jealousy, and like Sarah (16:2), she adopts the desperate expedient of
having children through her maid in an attempt to be even with her sister.
1–2 ―To think that after the beautiful, gentle love story of 29:1 –20 this angry exchange
is our first and only experience of their marriage!‖ (Westermann, 2:474). The desperate
desire of women for children is often expressed in the OT (cf. 1 Sam 1:6 –8, 15 –16; Prov
30:16), but nowhere so vehemently as here. ―Give me children, or I shall die.‖ Sarah‘s and
Rebekah‘s reactions in similar situations are mild by comparison (cf. 16:2; 25:21), even

though they had waited many more years than Rachel. To blame her husband for her plight
also smacks of impiety, for the OT regards children as the gift of God, not of man (e.g., Ps
113:9). Prayer, not protest, should have been Rachel‘s reaction, as Jacob implies in his
heated respo nse, ―Am I in God‘s place, who has prevented your womb from bearing fruit?‖
Rachel demanded sons; Jacob describes children as ―fruit of the womb,‖ thereby
underlining their God -givenness (cf. Deut 7:13; 28:11; Ps 127:3). ―Am I in God‘s place?‖
said the king of Israel when faced with another impossible demand (2 Kgs 5:7).
3 But despite Jacob‘s rebuke, Rachel is set on solving her problem by her own devices
and not waiting for God to act. On the custom of surrogate marriages in the ancient Near
East and Genesis‘ view of them, see Comment on 16:1 –6. Rachel, in fact, quotes Sarah‘s
words in asking Jacob to follow this custom, ―that I may be built up from her‖ (16:2).
The phrase ―to give birth over my knees,‖ used only here and in 50:23, is a picturesque
way of stating that the baby will be adopted. Richter ( ZAW 91 [1979] 436 –37) suggests that
the phrase should be translated, ―she will bear, instead (on behalf) of my womb.‖
Perhaps anticipa ting Bilhah‘s new role as Jacob‘s slave -wife, Rachel calls her my
―slave -girl‖ (
). Usually this term defines a slave -girl‘s position vis -à-vis a master, who is also her
husband, whereas 
―maid‖ usually defines the relationship between a maid and h er mistress. cf. Comment on
16:1.
4–5 At any rate, whether moved by local convention, grandpaternal precedent, or pity,
Jacob complies with Rachel‘s request. Here, unlike 16:2, ―Abram obeyed his wife,‖ Jacob‘s
compliance is mentioned in an uncondemnatory way: ―Jacob went into her.‖ And Bilhah
apparently easily conceives and gives birth.
6 Unlike Sarah (cf. 16:5–6; 21:9 –13), Rachel is delighted by the new baby. This is
divine vindication; ―God has vindicated me‖ ( dananni ) is a play on the boy‘s name Dan.
Historically, the name Dan, ―he has judged, vindicated,‖ is probably an abbreviation of
Danilu, or Daniel, ―The god El has judged/is my judge‖ (cf. Akk. names Shamash idannani,
idin Enlil ). So Rachel‘s first explanation of the name, ―God has vindicated me,‖ is here
quite close to the historical. Dan is the perfect of the verb 
―to judge, vindicate,‖ which according to Liedke ( THWAT 1:446), denotes ―the
authoritative binding decision in a trial.‖ Often God is described as judging the nations
(15:14; Ps 7:9 [8]; 9:9 [8]; 96:10) or vindicating the poor a nd needy (Pss 68:6 [5]; 140:13
[12]).
―Listened to my voice‖ indicates that Rachel has indeed prayed, although nothing has
been said about her prayer up to this point. She saw the birth of Dan as an answer to prayer,
but whether the narrator would have agr eed is dubious in view of his attitude to surrogate
marriage in chap. 16. It is not until v 22 that he says ―God listened to her.‖
―And given me a son.‖ In her second explanation of the name Dan, there is another play
on the name. 
―give‖ contains both the consonants n and t, which is close to d. Note how Rachel
regards Dan as indeed her son, whereas Sarah rejected Ishmael, whose birth she had
organized in a similar way (cf. 16:1–7).
8 The rarity of the noun and verb here translated ―wrestle, wrestlings‖ has perplexed
interpreters from the LXX to the present. 
in the niphal elsewhere means ―to be deceitful‖ (e.g., Prov 8:8) but only here ―to wrestle,‖

while the noun 
―struggles‖ is a hapax. It is the following comment, ―I overcame her,‖ that has led to the
conclusion that these rare words are speaking of struggle (cf. 32:29 [28]). The noun 
―struggles‖ is here qualifie d by 
―of God,‖ hence our translation ―divine struggles.‖ But how can competing with her sister
be construed by Rachel as a struggle with God? For this reason, many English translations
have taken ―of God‖ as equivalent to a superlative: ―mighty wres tlings‖ ( Av, RSv), ―fine
trick‖ ( NEb), ―fateful struggle‖ ( NAb). But it is doubtful whether 
―of God‖ should be stripped of its religious content, as such translations would imply to a
secularized modern reader. In some sense, Rachel saw her struggle with Leah as a contest
in which God was involved, for he had opened Leah‘s womb but shut hers (29:31; 30:22).
So to what is Rachel referring in speaking of ―divine struggles‖? Suggestions include
―struggles in prayer‖ for God‘s grace and blessing (Delitzsch; Dillmann; Fokkelman,
Narrative Art ; Andersen, JBL 88 [1969] 200) ; struggles that result in the divine vindication
of Rachel (e.g., Procksch). Strus ( Salesianum 40 [1978] 66) thinks Genesis regards Naphtali
as a shortened (hypocoristic) form of nptly -<l ―wrestlings of El‖
Whatever the precise meaning of the name Naphtali, it is clear that the etymology
offered by Genesis is a typically poetic one. It reflects both on the mother‘s relationship
with God (cf. 29:32, 33, 35; 30:6) and upon the struggle between the sisters for Jacob‘s
affection (29:32, 33, 34; 30:6). This double interest is characteristic of the etymologies in
this narrative. Finally, ―I overcame‖ seems to anticipate 32:29(28). Jacob was to stru ggle
with the angel of God and overcome him. Here Rachel has struggled with God and her
sister and overcome. Rachel, like Jacob, is the younger child who displaces the older, much
to the latter‘s distress. This similarity in their careers also extends to t heir struggles with
God.
9–13 Tit for tat Rachel‘s triumph is short -lived. Anything she can do, Leah can do
better. Leah can bear children herself and through her maid Zilpah. Note how this scene,
like the previous two, opens with ―When Leah (the LORD/Rach el) saw.‖
11 Leah‘s explanation for her choice of name is somewhat shorter than previously, with
less obvious reference to God‘s intervention or her yearning for her husband. ―Gad‖ means
―good luck, fortune.‖ It was also the name of a Semitic deity (cf. Isa 65:11), as in the
Assyrian name gadilu or Ugaritic godya (Strus, Salesiamun 40 [1978] 67, n. 29). Though
Schunck ( TDOT 2:382 –84) argues that Gad was originally a secular word meaning ―good
luck‖ that was later personified as a deity, it seems more likely, with Noth ( Personennamen ,
126–27) and Strus, that the evolution was the other way. The etymology offered here,
―Luck has come‖ (the qere reading) or ―Good luck‖ (ketib reading), apparently takes the
name Gad just as an obser vation or as a wish. But, with Strus, it seems likely that the name
and its explanation have religious overtones.
13 The name Asher, again, may have a religious origin. Asherah was wife of El, head of
the Canaanite pantheon. Alternatively, a connection wit h Ashur of Assyria might be
posited. Or it could be an abbreviation of a name like Asarel, ―El has filled with joy‖ (cf.
Arabic asûira ―to fill with joy‖; cf. Fowler, Theophoric Names , 96, 135). Leah explains it
as ―In my happiness‖ and follows it by the comment ―daughters will declare me happy,‖
because she is the mother of so many children. Leah‘s mention of daughters looks forward
to the birth of Dinah in v 21 (cf. chap. 34). For the general sen timent, compare Prov 31:28,
―Her children rise up and call her blessed‖ (cf. Cant 6:9); Luke 1:48, ―For behold,

henceforth all generations will call me blessed.‖
14–15 This short scene brings into the open the dispute that has long been simmering
between Rachel and Leah. Leah‘s yearning for Jacob‘s love has come out repeatedly in the
names she gave to her children, while Rachel‘s desperate desire for her own children led to
her resorting to surrogate motherhood. Now there is public confr ontation.
14 Reuben, Leah‘s firstborn, may have been five or six years old at this time, if the
chronology of Genesis is to be taken as exact. The story itself suggests he may have been
somewhat older, Leah having had four children at probably two -year int ervals and then
being infertile for a while. Whatever his age at ―the time of the wheat harvest‖ (May), he
found 
, which have since the Septuagint translation (third century B.C.) been understood as
―mandrakes.‖ The mandrake ( Mandragora autumnalis ) is a perennial Mediterranean plant
that bears bluish flowers in winter and yellowish plum -sized fruit in summer. In ancient
times, mandrakes were famed for arousing sexual desire (cf. Cant 7:13) and for helping
barren women to conceiv e. These properties are certainly presupposed here and in Cant
7:13. Indeed, the word translated ―mandrakes‖ here is almost the same as 
―love‖ (Prov 7:18; Cant 1:2; 4:10; 5:1). However, M. Zohary ( Plants of the Bible , 188)
doubts whether the mandrak e is meant here, for it ―has never grown in Mesopotamia,‖
where Jacob, Leah, and Rachel lived. However, Delitzsch (2:177) notes it is found in Syria,
and it does not seem out of the question that the plant may somewhat unusually have been
found near Paddan -Aram. But whatever the plant Reuben brought home, it seems clear that
Rachel and Leah valued it as a fertility drug, Rachel because she had never conceived, Leah
because she had become infertile.
Rachel at least asked her sister politely, ―Please give me some of your mandrakes‖;
compare her fierce ―Give me children‖ (30:1) to Jacob.
15 But this request triggered a sharp and bitter response from Leah: ―Is it too little for
you … ?‖ Direct questions introduced by 
usually express great exasperation by t he speaker (Num 16:9; Josh 22:17; Isa 7:13;
Ezek 34:18). Here Leah‘s reason is understandable; she is aggrieved not simply that she has
stopped bearing children but that Jacob ―my husband‖ rarely sleeps with her, preferring
Rachel‘s bed. Suspension of conj ugal rights can, according to the usual interpretation of
Exod 21:10, be grounds for divorce.
Recognizing the justice of Leah‘s grievance, Rachel makes an offer: ―He shall lie with
you tonight in return for your son‘s mandrakes.‖ So Rachel trades one night ‘s conjugal
rights for some of the mandrakes. This one remark is an eye -opener. We are shown just
how much Jacob is favoring Rachel over Leah, that she is prepared for just one night to
give away her mandrakes. But it also shows how desperate Rachel is for children; though
Bilhah has borne her children and she has adopted them giving them names that express her
sense of triumph, she still really wants a child of her own.
Leah‘s response to Rachel‘s offer is unrecorded. Silence indicates her grudging consent .
16–21 This scene portrays at least a degree of reconciliation between Leah and Jacob,
even if it was initially secured by the unusual deal with her sister.
16 The use of the imperfect ―you must come‖ is a little less demanding than the
imperative ―come,‖ but the following infinitive absolute, ―I have really hired you,‖ shows
the intensity of Leah‘s desire. The word 
―hire‖ is a key term in the Jacob story (29:15; 30:18, 28, 32, 33; 31:7, 8, 41). The

whole of his relationship with Laban seems to be red uced to a commercial level; now even
his relationship with his wives is up for rent! At the same time Leah‘s words, ―I have really
hired you,‖ anticipate the birth of Issachar, whose name is explained in v 18.
17 The comment ―God listened to Leah and she c onceived― is a little surprising, for surely
what Leah most wanted was Jacob‘s affection, not more children. This comment does two
things: First, it shows that though Rachel and Leah may think conception is aided by
mandrakes, the text insists that childre n are God‘s gift. ―He gives the barren woman a
home, making her the joyous mother of children‖ (Ps 113:9). Sarna (209) notes that the
narrative dismisses ―the notion that such superstitions (about mandrakes) have any validity.
Leah, who gives up the mandra kes, bears three sons; Rachel who possesses them, remains
barren for apparently three more years.‖ Second, it suggests that a renewal of relations
between Leah and Jacob is on the way. See her comments in v 20.
18 Issachar is an Amorite name attested at Ma ri: yaskur -il ―May El (God) be gracious‖
(Strus, Salesianum 40 [1978], 68, n. 32). Another less likely possibility is that it comes
from 
―man of hire.‖ As often though, the mother‘s c omment is a poetic, not a historical,
etymology. She sees Issachar‘s birth as a reward for her giving Zilpah to Jacob. In
retrospect, she seems to regard this as a costly sacrifice, though at the time, the births of
Gad and Asher were joyful occasions (cf. vv 12, 13).
19–20 Leah‘s explanation of her next son‘s name, Zebulon, is more upbeat than that of
Issachar, but the historical etymology is more obscure. Zabulan is an Amorite name and
also seems to be found in Egyptian texts (Strus, Salesianum 40 [1978] 69, n. 35). The root
(M. Held, ―Root ZBL/SBL,‖ in E. A. Speiser Mem. Essays, JAOS 88 [1968] 90 –96) zbl is in
Ugaritic often associated with the gods, so Noth‘s suggestion (Personennamen, 159) that it
means ―habitation of a god‖ is not impossible. But the meaning of 
zbl is obscure. Gamberoni ( TDOT 4:29–31) prefers ―glory, heaven‖ as the root idea.
As often in her choice of names, Leah gives a dual explanation of the name, the first
focusi ng on God‘s mercy. ―God has endowed me with a good endowment.‖ The root 
―endow(ment)‖ occurs only here as a noun and verb, but it is often found in Israelite
names, e.g., Zebediah, Zabdi, Zebedee. The first two consona nts of Zebulon are the basis
for the paronomasia here. Then she gives a second explanation, emphasizing her
relationship with her husband, ―This time my husband will honor me because I have borne
him six sons‖ (cf. TDOT 4:31). Her phraseology here echoes 29:34, ―This time my husband
will be attached to me, because I have borne him three sons.‖ Thus the birth of her sixth son
finds Leah in a more optimistic mood.
21 This note of triumph is carried through in calling her daughter ―Dinah,‖ ―judgment,
vindication‖ (cf. Dan v 6). In fact, no etymology is offered for her name, perhaps because it
is too obvious or because she was merely a daughter. It is, of course, extraordinary to
mention the birth of daughters; it is done only if they are going to have an important role to
play later (cf. Rebekah in 22:23). Dinah‘s appearance does not just make the number of
children born to Jacob up to twelve; it signifies that she too will be an actor of note in a tale
of judgment and vindication (chap. 34).
22–24 This sho rt scene brings this episode to a happy conclusion. At last, Rachel
succeeds in bearing a son, this time not through her maid, not thanks to mandrakes, but
through the mercy of God. ―God remembered Rachel.‖ This scene does more though. It
marks the turning point in the Jacob story; from now on, Jacob‘s thoughts are on going

back to his homeland (30:25).
22 Gunkel (cf. Westermann) assigns each clause to a different hand. In the light of the
exact parallel construction in 8:1, ―God remembe red Noah … and God caused … and the
waters receded,‖ which is conventionally all ascribed to one source (P), it seems ill -judged to
hold that this verse is composite. Indeed, 30:22 is parallel to 8:1 not only in grammar but in
setting . Both stand at the turning points in their respective stories. It was God remembering
Noah that led to the flood waters declining; it was God remembering Rachel that led to her
conceiving and Jacob returning to the land of promise. Westermann might have e xpected
―God listened to her‖ to have preceded ―God remembered Rachel,‖ but the present order
stresses the priority of God‘s grace (cf. Isa 65:24).
―He opened her womb‖ makes a neat inclusion with 29:31. The framework of the story
impli es that Rachel had to wait at least seven years after marrying Jacob to bear her first
child, and fourteen years since their betrothal (29:18, 27).
23–24 As often, a double explanation of the chosen name is offered. The first is poetic;
it refers to the ef fect on Rachel‘s reputation of becoming a mother: ―God has gathered up
my shame.‖ Childlessness was regarded as shameful (see Isa 4:1). The second explanation,
―May the Lord add another son to me,‖ is a prayer for the future, a prayer that was indeed
answe red, but only at the cost of Rachel‘s life; she died giving birth to Benjamin
(35:16 –19).
It is also very close to the historic etymology of Joseph, which is generally regarded as an
abbreviated (hypocoristic) form of 
yosep -il ―May God (El) add (a nother child)‖ (cf. Josiphiah, Ezra 8:10). Like many of the
patriarchal names, e.g., Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, and Issachar, Joseph consists of a third person
singular imperfect verbal form (―he will … ‖ ) plus the name of God (usually understood).
Here we notice that the personal name ―The Lord (Yahweh)‖ is used to explain the name as
in 29:32, 33, 35. At other points in this episode, God (Elohim) is always preferred. It is
characteristic of the editor of Genesis to use ―The Lord‖ at the beginning and end of
sections and often to use other epithets elsewhere (cf. 17:1; 20:18; 21:1, 33); this may be
sufficient explanation here. In 3:1 –7, the narrative uses ―God‖ instead of ―The Lord God‖
as elsewhere in chapters 2 –3 to draw attention to the alienation between God and his
creatures in this scene. The same motive may be present here. After a relatively cheerful
start to the marriage (cf. 29:32 –35), alienation between hus band and wives and between the
wives and God creeps in so that they speak of him as ―God,‖ not the Lord. Only in this last
scene, with her prayers answered, is the more intimate covenantal name ―the Lord‖ invoked
again by Rachel.
Explanation
Bigamy is not explicitly condemned in the OT, unless Lev 18:18 refers to it. However,
Ge 2 records that the Lord only created one wife for Adam, which implies that anyone who
takes an extra wife is going beyond what God intended. Furthermore, all the po lygamous
marriages of Genesis turn out to be disasters. Lamek‘s pretty wives, Adah and Zillah, had
to cope with a brutal husband. Though it was his first wife, Sarah, who persuaded Abraham
to have intercourse with her maid Hagar, thereby promoting her to t he status of slave -wife,
the narrator in Gen 16 implies that this act was similar to the fall. It certainly sparked bitter
jealousy between the women, leading to Hagar and her son‘s expulsion.

But of all the polygamous marriages, it is Jacob‘s that is port rayed in most detail. Though
Jacob was tricked into marrying Leah as well as Rachel, he seems never to have forgiven
her for consenting to deceive him in this way. He always regards Rachel as his wife and
treats Leah and her children as inferior. And this discrimination persists throughout
Genesis, leading Leah‘s sons to try to eliminate Joseph, Rachel‘s firstborn and Jacob‘s
favorite, from the family.
Here the narrator gives us a few snapshots of the first stormy years of Jacob‘s marriage.
The opening vers e depicts the plight of the two wives: ―Leah was unloved … but Rachel
remained childless.‖ Both crave what the other has; Leah longs for Jacob‘s love, and
Rachel is desperate for children. The birth of every child is an occasion for the rivals to put
their feelings into words: ―Now my husband will love me,‖ ―This time my husband will be
attached to me‖ (29:32, 34), says Leah. ―With divine struggles I wrestled with my sister;
indeed I overcame her,‖ says Rachel (30:8).
We glimpse the underhand tactics both w omen use to promote their goals. Rachel
resorts to surrogate motherhood, a practice already criticized in chap. 16, to produce
children for herself. This is countered in turn by Leah using the same technique. Then Leah
exchanges an ancient fertility drug w ith her sister for a night in her husband‘s bed, from
which Rachel had driven her. But none of these attempts to manipulate their fertility
achieves anything. As Jacob (30:2) and the narrator insist, it is the Lord who opened Leah‘s
womb and then Rachel‘s (29:31; 30:22). This is a story of the triumph of God‘s power over
human sinfulness.
It is into this most bitterly divided family that the forefathers of the twelve tribes were born.
Fathered by a lying trickster and mothered by sharp -tongued shrews, the p atriarchs grew up
to be less than perfect themselves. Yet through them the promises to Abraham took a great
step toward their fulfillment, showing that it is divine grace not human merit that gives
mankind hope of salvation.
Jacob Outwits Laban (30:25 –31:1)
Bibliography
Brenner, A. ―atupim and qissurin (Gen 30:31 –42).‖ (Heb.) BMik 24 (1978) 77 –80. Saracino, F.
―Ras Ibn Hani 78/20 and Some OT Connections.‖ VT 32 (1982) 338 –43.
Translation
25Now as soon as Rachel had given birth to Joseph, Jacob said to Laban, ―Let me go,a so
thatb I may return to my home and country. 26Givea me my wives and my children, for whom
I served you, sob that I may go, for youc do know all the service I did for you.‖ 27Laban
replied to him, ―If it pleases you, I h ave grown rich,a and the LORD has blessed me because
of you.‖ 28So he said, ― Name your wages which I owe,a thatb I may give you them.‖ 29He
replied, ―Youa do know howb I have served you and howb your herds have fared with me.
30For the few that you had before I arriveda have teemed and increased, and the LORD has
blessed you wherever I have gone.b Now when can I too do something for my household?‖
31So he said, ―What shall I give you?‖ Jacob replied, ―Do not give me anything, except to
do this for me: I shall againa shepherd your flock. I shall guardb it. 32I shall go through all

your flock to removea from it every speckled and spotted animal and every dark one among
the sheep and the spotted and speckled among the goats, and they shall be my payment.
33My honesty will witness against me in the future, when you check my wages. Any of them
whic h is not speckled or spotted among the goats, or a dark one among the sheep is one
stolen by me.‖ 34So Laban replied, ―Fine, a let it bea as you suggest.‖
35That day he removeda the striped and spotted he -goats and all the speckled and
spotted she -goats, all that had any white in them and the dark ones among the sheep,
and he gavae them to his sons to look after. 36He puta three days‘ journey between itb
and Jacob, so Jacob was left to shepherd the remainderc of the flock.d
37So Jacob took branchesa of fresh poplar, almond, and plane, and he peeled
peelings of poplar, exposing the white which is on the branches. 38He s eta up the
branches which he had peeled in the water troughsb where the flock came to drink
opposite the animals, and they bredc when they camed to drink. 39The flock breda by the
branches, and the flocks gave birthb to striped, speckled, and spotted. 40The sheepa
Jacob separated and put them facing the flock toward b the striped and every dark one
among Laban‘s flock, and he made separate flocks for himself, and he did not putc them
in Laban‘s flock.
41So whenevera the robustb animals bred,c Jacob used to place the branches opposite
the flock in the troughs to breedd them with the branches. 42When the flocks were
feeble,a he did not place them, so the fee bleb ones were Laban‘s but the strongc ones
were Jacob‘s.
43So the man teemed abundantly, and he acquired manya flocks, slave -girls and slaves,
camels and donkeys. 31:1But he heard what Laban‘s sons were saying: ―Jacob a has taken
away all that belonged to our father and from what belonged to our father has madea all
this wealth.‖
Notes
25.a. 2 masc. sg impv piel 
+ 1 sg suffix.
25.b. Sequence impv + coh (of 
) indicates purpose ( GKC, 108d).
26.a. 2 masc. sg impv qal 
+ aµh ending.
26.b. Cf. n. 30:25.b.*
26.c. The use of the personal pronoun ―you‖ with the finite verb draws special attention
to the subj, ―you are the one who knows.‖ The phrase ―you know‖ is frequently used in
requests, where previous knowledge ought to mov e the one requested to agree. Cf. 31:6;
EWAS, 53.
27.a. N. M. Waldman ( JQR 50 [1964] 164 –65), and J. J. Finkelstein ( JAOS 88 [1968] 34,

n. 19) link the verb with Akk. nahÉaµsûu ―become full, wealthy.‖
28.a. For this nuance of [
, cf. BDB, 753a; Brockelmann, 110b.
28.b. Cf. n. 30:25.b.*
29.a. Cf. n. 30:26.c.*.
29.b. 
―the way in which‖ ( GKC, 157c).
30.a. ―before me.‖
30.b. ―to my foot,‖ though Gispen, 3:93, suggests that since it contrasts with  31.a.
1 sg coh qal 
―I shall return‖ here placed before ―shepherd‖ without copula to mean ―I shall
shepherd again‖ ( GKC, 120gh).
31.b. Unusually not linked by copula ―and,‖ but pace BHS no ground for omission.
32.a. 2 masc. sg impv hiph 
according to G, Vg, but apparently taken as inf abs hiph 
by Tg Onq Neof., ―I will separate.‖ Our translation follows the targums, but it makes
little difference to the sense.
34.a-a. EWAS, 116, suggests this expression ( 
+ 3 masc. sg juss 35.a. Cf. n. 8:13.b.*
36.a. Cf. n. 2:8.b.*
36.b. SamPent ―them.‖
36.c. Def art + fem. pl. ptcp niph 36.d. SamPent adds a comment based on 31:11 –13.
37.a. Here collective sg stands for pl..
38.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. hiph 38.b. 
+ constr pl. 
. On pointing, see GKC, 10g. SamPent reads 
.
38.c. Waw consec + 3 fem. pl. impf. qal 

or 
(BDB, 328b; KB, 389b). Cf. GKC, 47k.
38.d. 
+ inf constr 
+ fem. pl. suffix.
39.a. Cf. n. 30:38.c.*. Here 3 masc. pl. impf.. On the lack of concord, probably fem. subj
(―flocks, i.e., ewes,‖ as in v 38) with masc. verb, see GKC, 145p,s.
39.b. Waw consec + 3 fem. pl. impf. 40.a. Placing the obj ―sheep‖ first in the clause
draws attention to it ( GKC, 142f; cf. EWAS, 38–39).
40.b. Tg. Onq. , Ps-J; add 40.c. 3 masc. sg pf 
+ 3 masc. pl. suffix.
41.a. So the versions correctly interpret 
, but it seems unne cessary to posit the omission of [
from MT, pace BHS. On the syntax of verbs, see WOC, 534.
41.b. Def art + fem. pl. ptcp pual 
―to bind,‖ only here with the meaning ―strong, robust‖ (KB, 1076b, but cf. pass ptcp qal
in v 42).
41.c. Inf constr piel 41.d. 
+ inf constr piel 
+ 3 fem. pl. suffix.
42.a. 
+ inf constr hiph [42.b. Def art + masc. pl. pass ptcp [42.c. Cf. n. 30:41.b.*
43.a. On the p l. adjective with sg noun, see GKC, 132g, 145o; WOC, 257.
31:1.a -a. On this chiastic structure, cf. SBH, 130; common at close of section (Longacre,
Joseph , 103).
Form/Structure/Setting
The epis ode opens with a temporal clause, ―As soon as Rachel,‖ that frequently marks a
major break in narrative. It is more difficult to determine its close. Nearly all commentators
suppose 30:43 concludes the episode. However, Delitzsch continues it to 31:3, but it seems
rather odd to end with a divine command without a mention of a human response. But to

suppose that 30:43 is a conclusion and that 31:1 opens a new section is problematic, for the
latter contains no explicit nominal subject. Rather, it opens with t he subject, Jacob,
understood: ―he heard what Laban‘s sons were saying.‖ For this reason, Westermann
reorders 31:1 –2, putting v 2 before v 1. Though this makes sense of the syntax, it lacks any
textual warrant. So it is better to accept that 31:1 goes with what precedes; it cannot be the
start of a new section. It is less clear whether 31:2 represents the close of this episode or the
opening of the next. In that 31:5 echoes 31:2 so closely, ―Laban (your father) has not been
regarding me as he did previously ,‖ it seems preferable to take the new episode as opening
with 31:2, not 31:3. If it seems strange for a totally new theme, the jealousy of Laban‘s
sons, to be broached in 31:1 at the end of a section, it should be recalled that the technique
of preview is frequent in Genesis (cf. 4:25–26 previewing chap. 5; 6:1 –8 previewing
6:9–9:29; 32:2 –3 previewing 32:4 –33). It is also a regular feature of Genesis for someone
to make a comment on what has just happened toward the close of a scene or episode —here
―Jacob has taken away all that belonged to our father‖ (cf. 28:6, 20 –22; 29:29; 30:24; 32:3
[2]; 33:20; 34:31). Thus by the conventions of Genesis, 31:1 is a fitting close to the
episode.
This episode falls into two extende d scenes:

vv 25 –36
Negotiations between Jacob and Laban

vv 37 –31:1
Jacob breeds his own flock

The first scene consists of six speeches by Jacob and Laban with introduction and
concluding comments.

v 25a
Introduction: back reference to birth of Jose ph

vv 25b –26
Jacob asks Laban‘s permission to leave

vv 27 –28
Laban stalls and asks Jacob to name his pay

vv 29 –30
Jacob reminds Laban how he has prospered thanks to Jacob‘s efforts

v 31a
Laban again asks Jacob to name his pay

vv 31b –33
Jacob asks for nothing but unborn abnormal animals

v 34
Laban agrees

vv 35 –36
Laban removes all the abnormal animals so that Jacob has none

This arrangement into six speeches is frequent in Hebrew, and the quotation formulae
used at the beginning of each speech are appropriate.
Having been tricked out of any pay, in the second scene Jacob is portrayed turning the
tables on Laban by contriving to breed strong healthy bicolored flocks from those
monochrome animals left in his care by Laban.

vv 37 –40
How Jacob produced bicolored animals

vv 41 –42
How Jacob acquired strong animals

v 43–31:1
Conclusion and preview

This episode is an integral part of the Laban -Jacob cycle. So much is presupposed about
their previous relationship that it is impossible to envisage it ever having existed
independently: Jacob‘s serving Laban as a shepherd, his marriage to Laban‘s daughters, his
own lack of resources, and Laban‘s trickery. Likewise, it relates back to Jacob‘s earlier
existence in Canaan; he wants to return to his home and country (v 26; cf. 27:44 –45). It also
looks forward to his eventual return (chaps. 31 –33). The mention of the LORD‘s blessing of
Laban as a result of Jacob (vv 27, 30) links this episode to the many others in Genesis,
where this key term appears (e.g., 1:28; 12:2; 17:16; 22:17; 24:1; 26:12; 27:4, 7, 10, 19, 23,
25, 27, 29 –31, 33 –34, 38, 41; 28:1, 3, 6; 32:1, 27, 30). Other key items are ―serve, service‖
(vv 26, 29; cf. 25:23; 27:29, 40; 29:15, 18, 20, 25, 27, 30; 31:6, 41) and ―wages‖ (vv 28, 32,
33; cf. 29:15; 30:16, 18; 31:7, 8, 41), and the list of the persons and animals acquired by
Jacob (v 43) resembles 12:16. It is therefore clear that this ep isode cannot be divorced from
its present setting; it is integral to the total plot of Genesis. It shows Jacob, so long
exploited by his father -in-law, Laban, at last turning the tables and preparing to return to
the land of promise.
According to some trad itional source critics, the two sources J and E are to be distingushed
in this episode, though they often admit some uncertainty about parts of the analysis, but
others (e.g., Delitzsch, Speiser, Vawter) believe it derives almost entirely from J. Those who
maintain the presence of J and E in this passage divide it as follows: vv 25, 27, 29 –31, 32a
(part), 35 –43 J; vv 26 , 28, 32a(part)b, 33 –34 E. It was argued that the duplication within the
narrative, vv 25//26a; 26b//29a; 28//31a, ―And he said‖ (vv 27, 28), ―you do know‖ (vv 26,
29), shows two sources must be present. Since vv 27, 30 mention ―the LORD,‖ this must
repres ent the J source, so the other sour
However, Volz ( Der Elohist , 88) observed that ―no one would have come up with a
source division here, unless the theory was already in existence.‖ He showed that the

supposed doublets were not doublets and that the narra tive could be read as a coherent
whole. And his view has convinced most modern commentators (e.g., Speiser, Vawter,
Coats). Westermann believes that this section is a substantial unity from J, because it
corresponds in form to Babylonian dialogue contracts and also to Gen 23. He does,
however, find expansions in vv 32 –33, 35, 40, where the narrator goes into long specific
detail about excluding ―every dark one among the sheep and the spotted and speckled
among the goats.‖ We stermann regards these remarks as too prolix for the style of the
passage, though they do express J‘s understanding quite well. These grounds seem
somewhat slight for postulating two layers of material. With Blum ( Die Komposition ,
114–16) I accept the cohe rence of this narrative; the elaborations are necessary in a story of
tricky business dealing and ingenious stockbreeding.
Comment
25a This opening sentence both introduces the new episode and links it back to the
preceding. The birth of a boy to Rachel, Jacob‘s first love, is the turning point in the cycle.
As soon as it occurs, Jacob plans to go home. In fact, it is a little difficult to squeeze the
birth of six sons and one daughter to Leah described in 29:31 –30:21 and a period of
barrenness into the space of just seven years, as 29:20, 27; 31:38 imply, but it may be that
these figures are supposed to be taken as round numbers, not as an exact chronology (cf.
Introduction , ―The Chronology of the Patriarchs‖).
25b–26 In this first speech, Jacob demands permission from his father -in-law to return
home with his wives and children. He uses the straight imperative without even a ―please‖
(
) or any of the milder forms of request. The verbal forms suggest a somewhat
aggressive first move on Jacob‘s part, ―Let me go so that I may return.‖ Here Jacob echoes
the words of Abraham‘s servant (24:54, 56), who similarly asked lea ve of Laban to return
to Canaan. As on that occasion, Laban now does his best to delay the departure.
―To my home,‖ lit. ―to my place.‖ For this meaning of ―place,‖ cf. 18:33; 32:1(31:55).
―My land‖; cf. 12:1. On the face of it, Jacob is simply expressing a wish to return to the
land of his birth, but there could be another dimension to his description of it as ― my land.‖
The land is his by promise (28:4, 13), so he must go back to claim his inheritance .
26 According to Exod 21:3 –6, a slave who is given a wife by his master must leave her and
any children behind when after six years he leaves his master‘s service. If the slave did not
wish to be parted from his wife and children, he had to remain a slave . It is not clear
whether the law of Exodus was thought to apply in Jacob‘s case. Despite Jacob describing
himself three times as Laban‘s slave, ―I served you,‖ ―all the service I did for you‖ (the
word serve/service could as well be translated ―slave‖), 2 9:15 makes us tend not to view
Jacob as a slave, because he was Laban‘s nephew, who was offered wages. But there does
not appear to be any reason why a poor man should not indenture himself to a wealthy
relative; because he was his kinsman it was hoped he would treat his slave more kindly (cf.
Lev 25:35 –36). Certainly 31:43 could imply that Laban looked on Jacob more as a slave
than as a son -in-law. But whatever Jacob‘s legal situation, he wants to have his cake and eat
it too; he wants his own freedom and to keep his wives and children. He reminds Laban of
―all the service I did for you.‖
27–28 Laban‘s response is a model of oriental courtesy and cunning. He very politely

rejects Jacob‘s request to be allowed to leave, at least for the p resent. ―If it pleases you‖ is
an obsequious way of addressing a superior (e.g., 18:3; 19:19; 33:10; 47:29; 50:4), but here
he uses it to butter up his enslaved nephew.
―I have grown rich.‖ With Finkelstein ( JAOS 88 [1968] 34, n. 19), this seems more
probable than the traditional interpretation ―I have learned by divination‖ (cf. 44:5), for it is
unlikely that Laban would have resorted to div ination when he was prospering.
―The LORD has blessed me.‖ That all the families of the earth will be blessed through
Abraham and his offspring is central to the patriarchal promises (e.g., 12:3; 22:18; 28:14),
and this is one of several incidents where outsiders admit that God‘s blessing very
apparently rests on Abraham‘s family and those associated with them (14:19 –20; 21:22 –23;
26:12 –16, 28 –29; 39:5, 23).
But for Laban, far from this being a reason to accede to Jacob‘s re quest, it is an excuse
to detain him. How can he afford to lose a man who brings him such wealth? He puts it
diplomatically, though. ―He said‖ without any further elaboration suggests the following is
said politely (Longacre, Joseph ,177). ―Name your wages which I owe that I may give them
to you.‖ According to the wedding agreement (29:18, 27) Laban owed Jacob nothing,
because he already had two wives promised in exchange for his fourteen years of labor.
This he had only just completed, so he could not deman d anything more at this stage.
Therefore, if Jacob wants to go with anything more than Leah and Rachel, he will have to
work longer. A neat reply.
29–30 Unabashed, Jacob continues to press very courteously for more than permission
to leave empty -handed (cf. Deut 15:12 –18). You, Laban, admit that you have prospered
greatly since my arrival (v 29), but to say merely that ―the LORD has blessed me because of
you‖ (v 27) is an understatement. ―The few that you had … have teemed and increased, and
the LORD has blessed you wherever I have gone‖ (v 30). Here Jacob alludes to the promise
made to him in 28:14 that his descendants would ―spread‖ or ―teem‖ (  31a Laban‘s
question, ―What shall I give you?‖ sounds reasonable and open, but in fact he h as already
indicated that he will not give Jacob a farewell present.
31b–33 Jacob therefore makes a very modest suggestion that the mean Laban can
hardly refuse. In a flock of sheep and goats, the sheep are mostly all white, the goats all
black or dark brown. Multicolored sheep and goats are much rarer. Jacob suggests that all
the multicolored animals be his wage and that the pure whi te sheep and the dark goats be
Laban‘s. What is more, Laban may remove all the multicolored animals to start with, so
that Jacob will have only the white sheep and the dark goats to care for, and these will be
Laban‘s. Any multicolored lambs or kids subseq uently born in that flock Jacob will have as
his own.
As Jacob describes the arrangement, it does indeed look as though he is asking for nothing.
Laban might well think that if he removes all the multicolored sheep and goats to start with,
few multicolored lambs or kids would be born in the flock. Laban will be able to check
easily Jacob‘s honesty in keeping the agreement. Any white sheep or black goats in his
flock will be Laban‘s; the multicolored will be Jacob‘s.
34 Not surprisingly, Laban accepts this v ery favorable deal; he did not anticipate Jacob
making much out of it, certainly much less than the typical 20 percent of newborn lambs or
kids that ancient shepherds usually received as their wages (Finkelstein, JAOS 88 [1968]
33–35). The commentator Jacob regards Laban‘s remarks as somewhat more equivocal, but
despite the unusual use of 35–36 Jacob‘s remark, ―They shall be my payment‖ (v 32),

could be t aken to mean that the multicolored animals in the flock at the moment were to be
his. Indeed, he had volunteered to sort the animals himself, but Laban takes no chances. A
cheat himself, he fears Jacob may pull a fast one on him. So Laban separates the ani mals
himself, and to make doubly sure that Jacob cannot acquire any multicolored animals, he
separates them by a three days‘ journey from the pure white sheep and black goats that
Jacob has offered to look after. This precaution rebounds on Laban, for it e nables Jacob to
indulge in selective breeding to his own advantage and later to slip away from Laban‘s
clutches (chap. 31).
37–42 Some of the details of Jacob‘s methods are obscure, but two principles are clear.
First, the coloring of lambs and kids is det ermined by what their parents see during
intercourse. If they look at multicolored posts when they mate, their young will be
multicolored. If this seems an odd belief in the light of modern genetics, the second
principle is not, namely, that strong animals are liable to produce sturdy offspring and vice
versa (vv 41 –42). Sarna (212) suggests that the production of the multicolored sheep and
goats may also be scientifically explicable. The vigorous animals were hybrids, whose
recessive coloring genes emerged when they were bred together. By this means, Jacob
secured for himself large flocks of healthy multicolored sheep and goats, whereas Laban‘s
animals were weak and either pure black or white.
This passage is characterized by the use of a large number of te rms relating to animals,
whose precise meaning has not always been grasped by commentators, leading them to
conclude that the passage is composite or glossed. But this seems unlikely. We list the
terms in order of increasing precision:

―animals, flock‖
vv 31 –32, 36, 38 –41
i.e., sheep or goats

―animal‖
vv 32, 35
i.e., one sheep or goats

―sheep‖
vv 32, 33, 40
[
―(she) -goat‖
vv 32, 33, 35

―he-goat‖
v 35

It is difficult to be precise about the terms here translated ―striped, spotted, speckled.‖
The important point to grasp is that sheep are normally white, whereas goats are normally
black. The terms ―striped, spotted, speckled‖ refer to animals, sheep or g oats, that are not
all one color.

With this analysis of the vocabulary, it is hoped that the translation of vv 32 –42 becomes easier to
follow. However, there are some points that require further comment; see Fokkelman, Narrative
Art, 145 –50; Blum, Die Komp osition , 114 –16 for a fuller disc
37 It is unclear why Jacob should have chosen poplar, almond, and plane branches from
which to strip the bark. On these trees, see M. Zohary, Plants of the Bible , 66–67, 129, 132.
Many trees are white under the bark, so pr esumably would have served equally well.
―Poplar‖ (
) sounds similar to ―white‖ ( 
), which is also Laban‘s name (cf. above on 24:29). It is possible that there is a play on
his name here, as well as on Jacob‘s; the word translate d ―striped‖ ([
, vv 35, 39) contains two consonants and two vowels that also appear in ―Jacob‖ (Strus,
Nomen -Omen , 134 –35).
39 The successful climax of Jacob‘s endeavors. The animals breed, producing ―striped,
speckled, and spotted‖ young. Note the full list of adjectives here as befits the episode
climax.
40 ―Striped, speckled, and spotted‖ could be construed as simply referring to the goats,
so Blum ( Die Komposition ). This verse makes it clear that Jacob also managed to make
white sheep produce colored lambs. ―The sheep Jacob separated.‖ The next clause is
awkward, and various suggestions have been made about emending it or reinterpreting it.
Jacob reviews various interpretations and says, ―A very difficult verse. We know no
satisfactory explanation‖ (60 8). Two possibilities seem worthy of consideration.
Fokkelman explains v 40 as follows: ―In the same way Jacob separated the sheep [into
white ones for Laban and colored ones for himself]. He gave the best position among the
flock to the striped goats‖ he had bred and every dark sheep among Laban‘s flock. In this
way he made separate flocks for himself apart from Laban‘s (Fokkelman, Narrative Art ,
148). As Fokkelman himself points out, the chief difficulty with his view is that he renders
 The o ther suggestion of Speiser, Westermann, and Blum ( Die Komposition ),
following an earlier suggestion of Rashbam, is that when the white sheep mated they did so
looking at Laban‘s dark goats. This produced dark lambs, just as mating the goats in front
of the stripped branches produced spotted and speckled goats. It may be recalled that Laban
had left a flock of black goats and white sheep for Jacob to care for. So Jacob found a
means not just of making black goats produce spotted kids but of inducing white sh eep to
give birth to dark lambs. This solution seems simpler than Fokkelman‘s. The only difficulty
is why the ―striped‖ are mentioned along with the ―dark‖ as part of Jacob‘s procedure. But
if Jewish tradition (Jacob, 603) is correct in understanding [
―striped‖ as ―flecked in the feet,‖ perhaps with the ankles of different color so that it
appears to wear a fetter (so Even -Shoshan, Lexicon ), it could denote a predominantly dark
animal with light stripes.
But whatever the correct interpretation, one thin g is clear: Jacob comprehensively outwitted
Laban and succeeded in breeding multicolored sheep and goats from monochrome stock
and so transferred them into his ownership. What is more, he ensured that the strong kids
and lambs were his, and the feeble Laba n‘s (vv 41 –42).
43 ―So the man teemed abundantly.‖ Here the editor himself draws attention to the
fulfillment of the promise made to Jacob in 28:14 (cf. 30:30). Indeed, the phraseology here
closely echoes 12:16, ―Abram … acquired sheep , cattle, donkeys, slaves, slave -girls,
she-asses, and camels.‖ Jacob became as rich in exile in Paddan -Aram as his grandfather

Abraham had become in Egypt. Now that Jacob has made his fortune, he is in a much better
position to leave than he was at the be ginning of the episode. Thus, as often in Genesis, the
conclusion of one section prepares the way for the next.
31:1 The narrator‘s detached summary of Jacob‘s wealth is followed by the very personal
perspective of his brothers -in-law. Jacob‘s success is t heir loss: ―Jacob has taken away all
that belonged to our father and from what belonged to our father has made all this wealth.‖

―wealth‖ is usually translated ―glory,‖ but cf. 45:13; 13:2. Even more clearly than in 30:41,
the next episode is adumbrated: trouble is brewing between Jacob and Laban‘s family, and
a difficult parting is in the offing. But as elsewhere in Genesis, there is a repeating pattern:
Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph all find themselves wealthy as a result of leaving Canaan and
sojourning in foreign lands.
Explanation
With the birth of a child to Rachel, all Jacob‘s yearnings for home were reawakened.
The positive purpose of his sojourn in Paddan -Aram was now fulfilled. As his father had
directed, he had taken a wif e from Laban‘s daughters, and she had borne a son as promised
(28:2 –3). Now the time was ripe to return to the land promised as an inheritance to him and
to his descendants (28:4, 13 –16). Since the LORD had fulfilled the other promises by
protecting him an d giving him children, Jacob now looks for the land promise to be
redeemed. To describe it as my land (v 25) doubtless represents his recollection of the
promise as much as the fact that he was born there.
But returning is more difficult than leaving. He l eft single; he now has wives and
children. Indeed his father -in-law Laban regards him as part of his clan, for Jacob has
worked for him for fourteen years and married two of his daughters. So Jacob asks
permission to leave. He reminds Laban of the valuable service he has performed for him
and that if he is fair and generous, he will let him go (v 26). But Laban, as earlier episodes
have made clear (chaps. 24, 29), is both tricky and grasping, and he has no intention of
letting such a valuable asset as Jacob leave. But he couches his refusal in a polite, even
flattering, way. ―If it pleases you … the LORD has blessed me because of you‖ (v 27).
Though Laban is boss, he addresses Jacob as though Jacob is. His comment on the LORD‘s
blessing is a backhanded way o f saying he cannot afford to let Jacob go.
But he continues, ―Name your wages that I owe‖ (v 28). This sounds like a reasonable,
open -handed offer, but addressed to Jacob it offers him precisely nothing. For Jacob had
contracted to serve Laban fourteen yea rs so that he could marry Rachel. Now having served
just these years, Laban and Jacob were even; Laban owed Jacob nothing. He could take his
wives but nothing else, for Laban, unlike Deut 15:13 –14, did not propose to give his
son-in-law a golden handshake for his fourteen years of loyal service.
Jacob remonstrates that this is unfair. ―You admit that everything I have touched,
particularly your flocks, have flourished as a result of my work. Surely I ought to do
something for my household (v 30). After all, Laban, they are your daughters and
grandchildren.‖
At this Laban appears to relent. ―What shall I give you?‖ he replies. But Jacob knows
his mean father -in-law too well. He would never give him anything worthwhile. So he
apparently withdraws his request f or anything substantial at all. He asks simply for a future

share of the kids and lambs born in Laban‘s flocks. Since he only asks for ―the spotted and
speckled ones,‖ when goats are usually all black and sheep all white, this does not seem
likely to amoun t to much, especially as Jacob says that all existing ―spotted and speckled‖
animals may be removed from the flock to start with. This modest request pleases Laban,
since he calculates that Jacob is likely to profit very little by this request and that in the
meantime he will keep his excellent shepherd. Indeed, Jacob may take so long to breed a
decent flock of his own that he may never leave. So the deal is done (vv 31 –34).
But to make sure Jacob does not cheat, Laban himself sorts the flock, removes all t he
spotted and speckled animals to a safe distance, and leaves Jacob with a flock consisting
only of pure white sheep and pure black goats, which under the agreement are Laban‘s (vv
35–36). So if Jacob is to acquire any flock of his own, he must discover a way of breeding
multicolored animals from monochrome ones. Laban evidently believed it could not be
done, at least in any big way, or he would not have consented to Jacob‘s proposal.
Yet, this is just what Jacob does. He discovers that putting partially s tripped tree
branches in front of the goats as they mate leads to them giving birth to spotted offspring,
which under the agreement are his (vv 37 –39). Likewise, putting a black goat in front of
white sheep when they mate produces dark -colored lambs, which again belong to Jacob (v
40). However, Jacob did not adopt these procedures indiscriminately; he reserved them for
the strongest and healthiest animals in the flock. This ensured that the spotted kids and
black lambs were healthier than the black kids and white lambs. Thus his flock of
multicolored sheep and goats was not only numerous but also more vigorous than Laban‘s
flock of white sheep and black goats. ―So the man teemed abundantly, and he acquired
many flocks, slave -girls and slaves, camels and donk eys‖ (v 43).
This story has always given listeners and readers a great sense of satisfaction. The mean old
cheat Laban at last meets his comeuppance at the hands of his nephew Jacob, whom he had
so unkindly cheated out of Rachel on his wedding day. This ha d led to seven years of
family strife and sorrow. Laban refuses to compensate Jacob for his sterling service that has
been so profitable for him. But, nonetheless, Jacob outmaneuvers Laban, not by trickery but
simply by keeping to the terms of an agreement freely negotiated between them. In this
world where trickery is prevalent, justice —divine justice —will prevail at last. ―He makes a
pit … and falls into the hole which he has made,‖ says Ps 7:15.
But this story is more than an illustration of the principl e that the LORD takes the wise
in their own craftiness (Job 5:13; 1 Cor 3:19). It is part of the ongoing account of the
fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham and renewed to Isaac and indeed to Jacob just
before he left the land of Canaan. All the pat riarchs were promised offspring, the land, a
covenant relationship, and that through them blessing would come to the nations. With the
birth of the ancestors of the twelve tribes in 29:31 –30:24, Jacob had seen the promise of
offspring abundantly fulfilled. In this story there is again emphasis on God‘s blessing of
Jacob, a blessing so evident that Laban acknowledges it (v 27) and Jacob himself refers to
it. The unusual word ―teem,‖ used twice (vv 30, 43), harks back to the specific promise
made to Jacob in 28:14; it is found in the Pentateuch only in these three passages in Genesis
and in Exod 1:12. As Abraham before him (12:16) and his descendants after him in Egypt,
so Jacob flourished in a foreign land because God was with him as had been promised
(28:15; cf. 39:3–5, 21, 23). And through Jacob, blessing came to Laban and his household
(vv 27, 30), showing again that ―all the families of the earth shall find blessing in you and
in your descendants (28:14; cf. 12:3; 22 :18; 26:4). In all these respects, the story shows the
promises being amply fulfilled; only the promise of the land is absent.

But it is precisely the land, called by Jacob ―my land,‖ that gives the dynamic to the
story. It is Jacob‘s desire to return ther e that prompts him to ask Laban to leave (v 25), and
it is this that Laban wants to stop, for Jacob is too useful to him. Later, the Egyptians were
reluctant to release their slaves, for they too found their ―service with which they served‖ (v
26; cf. Exod 1:14) too much of an asset to forfeit freely. It was the heaven -sent plagues that
led to the release of the Israelite slaves from Egypt; here it was the miraculous method of
breeding that enabled Jacob to break free of the shackles of his father -in-law and be in a
position to return to the land of promise.
Thus, both in itself and as part of the larger patriarchal story, this narrative makes points
that were ever relevant in the life of the nation: that God is not frustrated by the chea t, that
justice will finally be seen to be done, and that his promises to his people, here personified
in Jacob, of land, protection, and blessing to the nations will, despite all opposition,
eventually triumph.
Jacob Leaves Laban (31:2 –32:3[2])
Bibliography
Ashbel, D. ―Striped, Spotted, and Speckled.‖ (Heb.) BMik 10 (1965) 48 –52. Briend, J. ―Gen
31:43 –54: Traditions et rédaction.‖ In De la Tôrah au Messie: Études d‘exégèse et d‘hermeneutique
bibliques offertes à H. Caz elles, ed. M. Carrez, J. Doré, and P. Grelot. Paris: Desclée, 1981. 107 –12.
Finkelscherer, B. ―Der Gilead -Vertrag.‖ MGWJ 82 (1938) 22 –46. Finkelstein, J. J. ―An Old
Babylonian Herding Contract and Gen 31:38f.‖ JAOS 88 (1968) 30 –36. Fuchs, E. ―‗For I Have the
Way of Women‘: Deception, Gender, and Ideology in Biblical Narrative.‖ Semeia 42 (1988) 68 –83.
Garcia -Treto, F. O. ―Gen 31:44 and ‗Gilead.‘‖ ZAW 79 (1967) 13 –17. Good, E. M. ―Deception
and Women: A Response.‖ Semeia 42 (1988) 117 –32. Greenberg, M. ―Another Look at Rachel‘s
Theft of the Teraphim. ‖ JBL 81 (1962) 239 –48. Greenfield, J. C. ―Aramaic Studies and the Bible.‖
VTSup 32 (1981) 129. Hillers, D. R. ―Pahiad Yisihiaµq. ‖ JBL 91 (1972) 90 –92. Hoffner, H. A.
―Hittite TARPISð and Hebrew TERA÷PHIïM .‖ JNES 27 (1968) 61 –68. Houtman, C. ―Jacob at
Mahanaim: Some Remarks on Gen 32: 2 –3.‖ VT 28 (1978) 37 –44. Huehnergard, J. ―Biblical Notes
on Some New Akkadian Texts from Emar (Syria).‖ CBQ 47 (1985) 428 –34. Koch, K. ―Pahiad
jisihiaq —eine Gottesbezeichnung? ‖ In Werden und Wirken des ATs: FS C. Westermann, ed. R.
Albe rtz, H. -P. Müller, H. W. Wolff, and W. Zimmerli. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980.
107–15. Kogut, S. ―The Biblical Phrase  
: On the Interpretations and Development of a Mistake.‖ Tarbiz 57 (1987/88) 435 –44. Kutler, L. B.
―Features of the Battle Challenge in Biblical Hebrew, Akkadian, and Ugaritic.‖ UF 19 (1987) 95 –99.
Loretz, O. ―Hebräisch hwt ‗Bezahlen, erstatten ‘ in Gen 31:39.‖ ZAW 87 (19 75) 207 –8.
Loewenstamm, S. E. ― 
.‖ ZAW 90 (1978) 410. Mabee, C. ―Jacob and Laban: The Structure of Judicial Proceedings (Gen
31:25 –42).‖ VT 30 (1980) 192 –207. Malul, M. ―More on pahiad Yisihiaq (Gen 31:42,53) and the
Oath by the Thigh.‖ VT 35 (1985) 192 –200. McCarthy, D. J. ―Three Covenants in Genesis.‖ CBQ
26 (1964) 179 –89. Ottoson, M. Gilead: Tradition and History. ConBOT 3. Lund: Gleerup, 1969.
Paul, S. M. ―Two Cognate Semitic Terms for Mating and Copulation.‖ VT 32 (1982) 492 –94.
Puech, E. ―‗La crainte d‘ Isaac‘ en Gen 31:42 et 53.‖ VT 34 (1984 ) 356 –61. Seebass, H. ―LXX und
MT in Gen 31:44 –53.‖ BN 34 (1986) 30 –38. Snaith, N. H. ―Gen 31:50.‖ VT 14 (1964) 373.

Steinberg, N. ―Israelite Tricksters: Their Analogues and Cross -Cultural Study.‖ Semeia 42 (1988)
1–13. Toorn, K. van der. ―The Nature of the Biblical Teraphim in the Light of the Cuneiform
Evidence.‖ CBQ 52 (1990) 203 –22. Utzschneider, H. ―Patrilinearität im alten Israel: Eine Studie
zur Familie und ihrer Religion.‖ BN 56 (1991) 60 –97. Watson, W. G. E. ―Reclustering Hebrew
l>lyd .‖ Bib 58 (1977) 213 –15.
Translation
2Jacob noticed thata Laban was not b regarding him as he hadb previously. 3 The
LORD said to Jacob, ―Returna to the land of your fathers and to your clan that I may be
with you.‖
4Jacob therefore sent and summoned Rachel and Leah intoa the countryside to his
flock, 5 and he said to them, ―I have been noticing that your father has not been
regarding me as he did previously; however, the God of my father has been with me. 6
Youa do know that b with all my strengthb I have served yo ur father. 7 But your father
has madea a fool of me and has changedb my pay ten times, but Godc has not allowedd
him to harme me. 8a If he said, ‗The speckled shallb be your pay,‘ all the floc k gave birth
to speckled; and if he said, ‗the striped will beb your pay,‘ all the flock bore striped.a 9
Goda rescuedb the animals of yourc father and gave them to me. 10 At the time the flock
bred, I raiseda my eyes and sawb in a dream the he -goats mounting the flock of striped,
speckled, and spotted. 11 The angel of God said to me in the dream, ‗Jacob.‘ So I said,
‗Here I am.‘a 12 He said, ‗Looka up and see that all the he -goats mounting the flock are
striped, speckled, and spotted, for I have seen all tha t Laban is doing to you. 13a I am
theb God of Bethel, where you anointed a standing stone whenc you made a vow to me
there. Arised and leavee this country and return to the land of your clan.‘‖
14Rachel and Leah answereda and said t o him, ―Do we still have any share or
inheritance in our father‘s house? 15 Are we not counteda as foreigners byb him,
because he has sold us and he has also wasted, yes wasted,c our money. 16a For the
wealth that Godb has rescued from our father belongs to us and to our children.a Now
do c all that God has told you.‖c
17So Jacob arose, put his sonsa and wivesa on camels, 18 and drove all his herds and all the
propertya he had acquired in Paddan -Aram to go to his father Isaac in the land of Canaan.
19a Now Laban had gone to shear his fl ock,a and Rachel stole her father‘s teraphim. 20 And
Jacob deceived Laban the Aramean a by nota tellingb him that c he was running away.c 21 He
ran away and all who were with him. He set out, crossed the river, and set out toward the
hills of Gilead.
22It was tolda Laban on the third day that Jacob had run away. 23 So he took his
relatives with him, pursued after him for seven days, and drewa close to him in the hills
of Gilead. 24 God came to Laban the Aramean in a dr eam by night and said to him,
―Takea care lest you contradict Jacob b in any way.‖b
25Laban caughta up with Jacob, when Jacob had pitched his tent in the hills,b and
Laban pitched camp with his relativesc in the hills of Gilead. 26 Laban said to Jacob,a
―What have you b done? You c have deceived me, and driven my daughters away like
captives of war.d 27 Why did you conceal your departure and deceive me, and why did
not you tella me? I could have givenb you a joyful send -off with singing, tambourines,
and harp. 28 And why did you not allow me to kiss my children and my daughters? Now

you have made a fool of yourself actinga like this.29 It is in my powera to harm you,a but
the Godc of yourb father said to me yesterday, ‗Take care notd to contradict Jacob at
all.‘ 30 But now you have actuallya gone because you yearnedb so mucha for your
father‘s house, why did you steal my gods?‖
31Jacob retorted to Laban, a ―Because I was afraid,a for I thought you might rob me
of your daughters. 32 Whoevera you find has your gods shall not live. In the presence of
our relatives identifyb for yourselfc what I have and take it for yourself.‖ But Jacob did
not know that Rachel had stolend them.
33So Laban entereda Jacob‘s tent, and Leah‘ s tent, and the tent of the two
slave -wives, and he did not find them. He came out of Leah‘s tent and entered Rachel‘s.
34a Now Rachel had taken the teraphima and putb them in the saddle pouch of the camel
and satc on them. d So Laban rummaged through all the tent an d did not find them.d 35
She said to her father, ―May it not offenda my lord that I cannot get up for you because
the way of women is on me.‖ b So he searchedb but did not find the teraphim.
36Jacob became angrya and argu edb with Laban. Jacob answered Laban, ―What is
my crime? Whatc is my sin that you have so hotly pursued after me? 37 You have indeed
rummaged through all my things. What have you found that belonged to your
household? Place it here before my relatives and yours, so they may judgea between us
two. 38 Twenty yearsa nowb I have been with you. c Your ewes and she -goatsc have not
miscarried. I have not eaten d the rams of your flock.d 39a The torn beasta I have not
broughtb to you. I had to makec up the loss of it myself. d Whether it was stolene by day
or night, you used to requiref it g from my hand.dg 40 It was Ia who sufferedb from the heat
in the day and the cold at night and was deprivedc of sleep. 41a Yes for me it‘s b twenty
yearsa I have been a slave in your household, c fourteen for your two daughters and six
for your flock,c and you have changed my pay ten times. 42 If the God of my father
Abraham and the fear of Isaac had not been with me, you would certainlya have now
sent me away empty -handed,b but my oppression and the toil of my handsc was seen by
God and he vindicatedd me last night.‖
43Laban replied to Jacob, ―The daughters are my daughters.a The children are my
children.a The flock is my flock.a Indeed everything you see belongs to me and my
daughters. What can I do for them today or for their children which they have borne? 44
Now then come,a let us make a covenant, you and me,b and it shall be a witness betwee n
you and me.‖c
45So Jacob took a stone and erecteda it as a pillar. 46 Jacoba said to his relatives,
―Collect stones.‖ So they tookb them and made a cairn, and they ate there beside the
cairn.c 47a Laban called the cairn ―Yegar sahadutha,‖ and Jacob called it ―Cairn of
witness.‖a 48 Laban said, ―This cairn is a witness between you and me today.‖ That is
why it is called ―Cairn of witness.‖ 49 It is the Mispah ,a as it is said, ―May the LORDb
keep watchc between me and you even when we are hiddend from each other. 50a You
must not oppress my daughters or take any extra wives besides my daughters. Even
when there is no one else with us, look,b God is a witness between you and me.‖
51Laban said, ―See this pile and this pillar which Ia have erected between me and
you. 52This pile is witness and the pill ar is a witness, that aI myself shall nota go bbeyond
this pileb toward you, and that you yourself will not go beyond this pile and this pillar
toward me with evil intent. 53aLet the godb of Abraham and the godb of Nahora judgeb
betwe en us, cthe godb of their father.‖c So Jacob swore an oath by the fear of his father

Isaac. 54Jacob offered a sacri fice in the hills and summoned his relatives to eat, and
they spent the night in the hills.
32:1Earlya in the morning, Laban kissed his grandsons and his daughters and blessed
them, and Laban went and returned home.
2aBut Jacob went on his way,a and angels of God met him. 3So Jacob said when he saw
athem, ―This is an encampment of God.‖ So he named the place Mahanaim.
Notes
2.a. 
―that,‖ ―behold‖ following the verb ―see‖ shows a scene from the participant‘s
perspective ( SBH, 95).
2.b-b. lit. ―the face of Laban, he not [ 
] with him.‖ Since ―face‖ is a pl. noun, SamPent reads  3.a. Note the sequence of
tenses ―return‖ ( 
) impv followed by simple waw + impf. (
) ―that I may be with you‖ giving a final or consecutive sense ( GKC, 108d). Note the
same sequence in 12:1 –2.
4.a. Cf. n. 27:3.c.*.
6.a. The use of the personal pronoun ―you‖ with finite verb ―you know‖ ―may be
viewed as motivated by the desire to call special attent ion to the addressed, especially when
the speaker requests something on the basis of the knowledge of the addressed or seeks his
agreement‖ (EWAS, 53; cf. GKC, 135a, Gen 30:26, 29).
6.b-b. Placing this adverbial phrase first in the sentence gives it special emphasis
(EWAS, 43).
7.a. 3 masc. sg pf hiph 
. On pointing, see GKC, 67.
7.b. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg pf hiph 
. Frequentative use of waw consec + pf (GKC, 112h); SamPent has impf. But WOC, 540,
regards it as hendiadys: ―he has made a fool of me by changing my pay.‖
7.c. SamPent ―the LORD.‖
7.d. 3 masc. sg pf 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
7.e. 

+ inf constr hiph [[8.a-a. On sentence structure, see GKC, 159r,s.
8.b. sg verb with pl. subj, ―spotted, striped,‖ because of sg predicate ―pay‖ ( GKC, 145u;
Joüon, 150m).
9.a. SamPent ―the LORD‖ as in v 7.
9.b. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. hiph 9.c. 2 fem. pl. suffix often displaced by 2
masc. pl. suffix ( GKC, 135o; Joüon, 149b). But SamPent corrects to  10.a. Waw consec
+ 1 sg impf. qal 10.b. Waw consec + 1 sg impf. (apoc) qal  11.a. Cf. n. 22:1.c.*
12.a. Cf. n. 13:14.c.*
13.a. Putting the pronominal subj before the predicate shows that there is ―emphasis or
stress placed upon the subject‖ (EWAS, 12).
13.b. This use of the def art with noun 
in constr is unexpected, but see GKC, 127f. G, Tg. gloss ―the god, who appeared to you
in Bethel.‖ This looks lik e an interpretative attempt to avoid speaking of a localized God of
Bethel. MT is supported by SamPent.
13.c. SamPent, G, smooth the asyndetic construction by adding ―and. ‖
13.d. Cf. n. 13:17.a.*
13.e. 2 masc. sg impv 
.
14.a. Waw consec + 2 fem. sg impf. qal [
. Note sg verb though composite subj, ―Rachel and Leah,‖ follows, but ―said‖ is pl. verb.
Where verb comes before composite subj, it may be sg, but where it follows, it must be pl.
(GKC, 146g,h; Joüon, 150p,q).
15.a. 1 pl. pf niph  15.b. 
for the agent of a pass verb (Joüon, 132f; WOC, 210).
15.c. For this emphatic use of inf abs, see EWAS, 88; WOC, 586.
16.a-a. The word order in this clause emphasizes the predicate. lit. ―Ours is the wealth
… ‖ (EWAS, 17, 75).
16.b. SamPent ―the LORD.‖
16.c-c. The obj in preverbal position as here is emphatic (EWAS, 38).
17.a. SamPent, G, reverse the order: ―wives, … sons.‖

18.a. Though, according to BHS, G has omitted the difficult  
, this is dubious since it adds after Mesopotamia ―and all that he had‖ (cf. Gispen
3:109).
19.a-a. Episode -initial circumstantial clause, so verb translated by a pluperfect ( GKC,
106f; SBH, 80).
20.a-a. On this unusual conj, see GKC, 152t; 158b; pace BHS, no need to emend.
20.b. Cf. n. 3:11.a.*
20.c-c. On the word order in this clause, see EWAS, 27.
22.a. Cf. n. 22:20.a.*
23.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. hiph  24.a. Cf. n. 24:6.a.*
24.b-b. G, Vg translate the sense of the phrase ―Do not speak evil‖ or ―do not speak
against‖ rather than literally reading ―either good or evil.‖
25.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. hiph 25.b. BHS inserts ―of Mispah‖ without
textual support.
25.c. BHS reads ―his tent‖ instead of ―with his relatives‖ without textual support.
26.a. On the string of questions in vv 26 –28, see SBH, 114 –15.
26.b. S reads ―What have I done to y ou‖; MT more likely (cf., e.g., 4:10; 12:18).
26.c. On use of waw + impf. here, see WOC, 552.
26.d. 
+ fem. pl. pass ptcp qal  27.a. Cf. n. 12:18.b.*
27.b. Waw consec + 1 masc. sg impf. piel 
+ 2 masc. sg suffix. Here waw consec + impf. has consecutive s ense, ―so that I could
have … ‖ ( GKC, 111m; Joüon, 118h).
28.a. Inf constr [
. On this, see GKC, 75n. SamPent substitutes the more usual form [29.a. Watson, Bib
58 (1977) 213 –15, suggests redividing 
, understanding 
as noun ―power.‖ R. Frankena, OTS 17 (1972) 61, thinks the phrase means ―my
protective deity.‖
29.b. G, SamPent read sg

29.c. It is unusual for the subj to precede the verb. EWAS, 35, notes that this is a feature
of sentences with God as subj in Genesis (cf. 28:3; 31:53; 43:14, 29; 44:16; 48:3, 16).
29.d. 
+ inf constr piel 
. Here 
+ inf is equivalent to negative final clause ( GKC, 165c).
30.a. Note the use of the inf abs to show speaker‘s interest in ver bal idea (EWAS, 88;
GKC, 113p).
30.b. Inf abs niph + 2 masc. sg pf niph  31.a-a. G omits ―Because I was afraid … ‖ and
adds at the end ―and all that is mine.‖
32.a. Putting the prep [
before the pronoun 
is unusual. More typical word order occurs in 44:9 ( GKC, 138f; Joüon, 158m). 
rarely used as indefinite (WOC, 334, n. 13).
32.b. 2 masc. sg impv hiph 32.c. Note the use of the ethical dative emphasizing ―the
significance of the occurrence in question for a particular subject‖ ( GKC, 110o; cf. 37:32;
48:25; EWAS, 122).
32.d. 3 fem. sg pf 
+ 3 masc. pl. suffix.
33.a. SamPent, G add ―and searched.‖ G also rearranges the order of searches.
34.a-a. Circumstantial clause giving back ground information, hence waw + subj + verb
(pf) with pf translated by pluperfect ( SBH, 85; Joüon, 118d).
34.b. Waw consec + 3 fem. sg impf. qal 
+ 3 masc. pl. suffix. Here waw consec carries on pluperfect sense ( GKC, 111q; WOC,
556).
34.c. Cf. n. 21:16.a.*
34.d-d. Omitted in G, but cf. n. 35.b-b.
35.a. Cf. n. 18:30.a.*
35.b-b. G reads ―So Laban searched the whole house,‖ paraphrasing the omitted v 34b.
36.a. Cf. n. 4:5.b.*

36.b. waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. 36.c. Pace BHS and versions, no need to add
―and.‖ On clauses in apposition, cf. SBH, 38.
37.a. Waw + 3 masc. pl. juss hiph 
with final sense ( GKC, 109f).
38.a. Putting adverbial phrase ―twenty years‖ first in sentence emphasizes it (EWAS,
43).
38.b. 
―now,‖ lit. ―this,‖ often with numerals as a virtual enclitic ( GKC, 136d).
38.c-c. Subj before verb for emphasis (EWAS, 33).
38.d-d. Obj before verb for emphasis (EWAS, 38).
39.a-a. Cf. previous note 31:38.d -d.
39.b. 1 sg pf hiph 39.c. Usually supposed to be 1 sg impf. piel 
(On sense, see WOC, 509; on the elision of 
, see GKC, 23f; 74k) + 3 fem. sg suffix. But Loretz, ZAW 87 (1975) 207 –8, and
Loewenstamm, ZAW 90 (1978) 410, suggest 1 sg impf. qal of 
or 39.d-d. Second half of verse in apposition to first. First gives Jacob‘s
perspective; second, Laban‘s ( SBH 44).
39.e. Fem. sg ptcp pass qal 
. On the final 
, see GKC, 90k,l; WOC, 127–28.
39.f. 2 masc. sg impf. piel 
+ 3 fem. sg suffix.
39.g-g. This phrase in the Heb. occurs at the beginning of the clause for emphasis; cf. n.
31:38.a.
40.a. lit. ―I was.‖ On this unusual construction, see GKC, 143a, n. 2.
40.b. lit. ―it ate me.‖
40.c. Waw consec + 3 fem. sg impf. qal 41.a-a. Fronting of adverbial p hrase for
emphasis (cf. n. 31:38.a.).
41.b. Enclitic use of 

(GKC, 136d; cf. n. 31:38.b.)
41.c-c. Two conjoined clauses in apposition explaining how twenty years are made up
(SBH, 50).
42.a. ―The absolute certainty with which a result is to be expected is frequently
emphasized by the insertion of 
‖ (GKC, 159ee).
42.b. Cf. n. 31:38.a.*
42.c. Cf. n. 31:38.d -d.* To bring out the emphasis on ―my poverty … ,‖ I have put the
sentence into the pass in English.
42.d. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. hiph 43.a. The word order emphasizes the
predicate in each clause (EWAS, 17, 75; cf. n. 31:16.a -a.).
44.a. On use of 
as exhortation, cf. Joüon, 105e; SBH, 56.
44.b. Many commentators conjecturally insert ―let us make a heap‖ to provide a masc.
subj for ―it shall be a witness.‖
44.c. G adds ―And he said to him, ‗Behold no one is with us , behold God is witness
between me and you.‘‖ BHS favors following G.
45.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. hiph 
+ 3 fem. sg suffix.
46.a. Old Latin reads ―Laban.‖
46.b. G ―collected‖ could suggest 
(so BHS); but it may just reflect translator‘s freedom.
46.c. G here inserts ―Laban said to him, ‗This heap shall be a witness between you and
me today.‘‖ Cf. MT v 48.
47.a-a. Note chiasmus ―called … Laban … Jacob … called.‖
49.a. SamPent 
―pillar‖ misses the play on the verb  49.b. G ―God.‖
49.c. 3 masc. sg juss  49.d. 1 pl. impf. niph  50.a. On 
to introduce an oath, see GKC, 149a.
50.b. Westermann‘s repointing of 

as ptcp ―seeing‖ is unlikely, since it goes with what follows, not with the preceding
clause. Cf. Joüon, 105d.
51.a. SamPent ―you.‖
52.a-a. 
normally introduces a positive oath. So here the translation would be ―I myself (you
yourself) will go. … ‖ For this reason, BHS would omit 
as in v 50. Preferable is the understanding of GKC, 167b; 149c. This is a case of
anako louthon. Laban begins with the oath formula 
and then switches to the usual strong prohibition 
+ impf..
52.b-b. Omitted in G.
53.a-a. On word order with subj before verb, cf. n. 31:29.b.
53.b. It is not clear whether 
should be translated sg or pl.. The verb ―judge‖ here is pl., suggesting Laban was
polytheistic. For obvious reasons G, SamPent, Vg, S prefer the sg verb. But elsewhere in
conversations with fore igners, gods are spoken of in the pl., e.g., 20:13; GKC, 145i.
53.c-c. Omitted in G, SamPent ―God of Abraham.‖
32:1.a. Cf. n. 19:27.a.*
2.a-a. Pace SBH, 80–81, this seems more likely to be an episode -final than a n
episode -initial circumstantial clause.
3.a. 3 masc. sg pf 
+ 3 masc. pl. suffix.
Form/Structure/Setting
The majority of commentators accept that chapter 31:1 –32:1(31:55) constitutes a
distinct section and that 32:2 –3(1–2) either constitutes a separate episode or the start of a
new section, 32:2 –33. But in the previous ( Form/Structure/Setting , it was argued that the
previous episode ends with 31:1, not 30:43. So here I shall focus on the terminus of this
section. Is it 31:54 (Keil; Volz, Der Elohist ; Speiser; Westermann), 32:1 (Delitzsch; Driver;
Gunkel; Skinner; von Rad; Fokkelman, Narrative Art ; Coats; Gispen), 32:2a (Blum), or
32:2 (Dillmann, Jacob, Sarna, Vaw ter)?
This diversity of opinion shows that it is not easy to determine where this episode ends.
Since a night separates 31:54 and 32:1(31:55), 32:1(31:55) must constitute a new scene, but
not necessarily a new episode. But without 32:1(31:55), the previous section is incomplete;
it tells of the flight of Jacob and his pursuit by Laban, and some reference to Laban‘s return
home is surely to be expected. Thus 32:1(31:55) makes a more apt conclusion to this

episode than does 31:54.
But since Jacob is the chief actor in this episode, a mention of him right at the end
might well be expected. Indeed, the chiasmus between 32:1, ―went … Laban,‖ and 32:2,
―But Jacob went,‖ ties these two verses very closely together. This prompts Blum ( Die
Komposition ) to make 32:2a the conclusion of the episode. However, 32:2b, ―and angels of
God met him,‖ hardly sounds like the start of a new episode. For although it contains an
explicit noun subject, ―angels of God,‖ ―him‖ refers back to the previous clause. And v 2b
clearly belong s with v 3. The main reason for supposing that vv 2b –3, despite grammatical
indications to the contrary, do not belong with the preceding episode, is that their content
recounting Jacob‘s meeting angels has nothing apparently to do with his flight from Lab an.
Indeed, the phraseology of 32:2b –3 seems to anticipate the rest of chap. 32 in various
respects. Jacob sends out messengers ( 
; vv 4, 7, which is the word translated angels in v 2). He divides his party into two
camps (32:8, 9, 11, 22; 33:8), the l iteral meaning of Mahanaim (32:3), and of course, he
himself wrestles with a supernatural ―man‖ near the Yabbok (32:23 –33).
Now these points of connection could argue for a new episode beginning in 32:2.
However, they could equally be cited as an example o f Genesis‘ technique of ending one
section with a trailer for the next. There are many examples of this in the primeval history,
in the Joseph story, and in the immediately adjacent episodes (31:43 –31:1 previews
31:2–32:3; 33:18 –19 previews chap. 34). It i s also typical for a section to conclude with
some vocal comment as here, ―This is an encampment of God‖ (cf. 30:24; 31:1; 34:31). For
these reasons, I follow Dillmann, Jacob, Sarna, and Vawter in making this episode end at
32:3(32:2).
The episode falls into seven scenes, reaching its climax in the confrontation between
Jacob and Laban, seen by some commentators as the peak of the Jacob cycle (vv 25 –44).
Introduction: Jacob notes change in Laban‘s attitude (2)
Scene 1:
The LORD tells Jac ob to return home (3)
Scene 2:
Jacob obtains wives‘ agreement to leave (4 –16)

Jacob‘s speech (5 –13)

Rachel and Leah‘s reply (14 –16)
Scene 3:
Departure (17 –21)
Scene 4:
Laban‘s pursuit (22 –24)
Scene 5:
Confrontation between Jacob and Laban (25 –44)

Tents pitched (25)

Laban‘s accusations (26 –30)

Jacob‘s reply (31 –32)

Tents searched (33 –35)

Jacob‘s protests (36 –42)

Laban‘s reply (43 –44)

Oath between Laban and Jacob (45 –54)

Jacob erects pillar (45)

Jacob proposes heap be built (46a)

Heap built, meal eaten (46b)

Laban and Jacob name heap (47)

Laban specifies content of oath (48 –53)

Jacob assents, sacrifice and meal (53 –54)
Scene 6:
Laban returns home (32:1)
Scene 7:
Conclusion and Preview: Jacob goes on and meets angels (32:2 –3)

This episode is an integral part of the story of Laban and Jacob. On the one hand, it cannot
be understood on its own, for at nearly every point it presupposes what has been told
before, e.g., Jacob‘s marriage to Leah and R achel (vv 4 –17, 26 –50), his service to Laban
(vv 6 –13, 37 –42), his distance from home (vv 3, 18, 30, 49, 52 –32:2). On the other hand, it
cannot be excised without leaving the earlier story prematurely truncated. It is part and
parcel of the Jacob -Laban sto ry; indeed, in the palistrophic arrangement of the narrative,
this episode describing Jacob‘s departure from Laban‘s household matches the description
of his arrival in chap. 29. ―The incident of deception found in Genesis 29, during Jacob‘s
early settleme nt in Aram, is balanced by those presented in Genesis 31. … Not only does
Jacob refer to Laban‘s earlier deceits (stem: talal; v 7), but the departure is itself redolent
with new acts of deceit underscored by the dense repetition of the stem ganab ‗to stea l,‘ in
its several nuances‖ (vv 19, 26, 27, 30, 39; cf. v 31; Fishbane, Text and Texture , 55–56).
Other key words in both chapters include ―kiss‖ (29:11, 13; 31:28; 32:1) and ―wages‖
(29:15; 31:7, 41). In both chapters, stones are import ant. In 29:3, 8, 10, Jacob rolls ( 
) a stone. In 31:45 –46, he erects a stone as a pillar and makes others into a mound ( 
), and this mound he calls Galed, ―mound of witness‖ (vv 47 –48). In the overall
palistrophic arrangement of the Jacob cycle, the i ncident at Mahanaim (32:2 –3, where
Jacob meets angels of God, declares that this is an encampment of God, and names the
place) parallels his experience at Bethel (cf.

But though this chapter primarily relates to the Jacob -Laban cycle, i t looks beyond;
there are clear cross -references to the Jacob -Esau saga. Most obviously v 13, ―I am the God

of Bethel, where you anointed a standing stone when you made a vow to me,‖ refers back
to 28:10 –22. But the repeated comments that ―God has been wit h him‖ hark back to this,
too, for that is the distinctive feature of the promise to Jacob (vv 3, 5, 29, 42, 53; cf. 28:15,
20). Furthermore, the whole narrative is based on the premise that Jacob is returning to his
homeland and to his father Isaac (vv 3, 18, 30, 49, 52 –32:2). This invites the comparison of
this episode with chap. 27. ―Both Jacob and Rachel deceive their fathers and flee from
home. Rachel deceives Laban by misappropriating his household gods, which represent the
patriar chal blessing and inheritance. She also lies to him when, having caught up to her, he
―felt‖ (stem: mashash ; vv 34, 37) for them like a blind man. It will be recalled that
precisely the same verb is used in 27:22, when Isaac felt Jacob‘s hands during the l atter‘s
attempt to misappropriate the patriarchal blessing‖ (Fishbane, Text and Texture , 56).
Finally, this chapter also relates to the wider context of the patriarchal narratives. In
Paddan-Aram, in roughly the same region as Harran, Jacob receives a call somewhat like
his grandfather‘s, ―Return to the country of your fathers and to your clan that I may be with
you.‖ Syntactically his call resembles Abraham‘s, it is an imperative followed by a final
clause, and the terms used within it too are similar: ―Go … from your country , your clan,
and your father‘s house to the country that I shall show you.‖ The major difference, of
course, is that for Jacob it was a return, but for Abraham it was a step into the unknown.
This chapter also invites comparison with chap. 24, when Rebekah left her father Bethuel
and her brother Laban to go and live in Canaan. In both situations, Laban did his best to
prevent his womenfolk leaving. This is the last stor y in which Laban appears in Genesis,
and from his first appearance in chap. 24 to this his last he is portrayed as a man governed
by financial considerations. But in the repeated insistence in this chapter that God has been
with Jacob in his time abroad (v v 5, 9, 42), there is a refrain that is later taken up in the
Joseph story (39:2, 21, 23). And the search for Laban‘s teraphim has similarities with the
search for Joseph‘s cup (44:1 –3). In all these respects, 31:2 –32:3 is perfectly at home in the
patriarc hal narratives.
Traditional source critics ascribe most of the material to E, with a few insertions from J,
and one (v 18) from P, but there are wide differences of opinion as to how much should be
ascribed to J, especially in the latter part of the chapte r. The grounds for supposing the main
source to be E are: the term 
―God‖ (vv 7, 9, 11, 16, 24, 19, 42; 32:2, 3), the revelation through dreams (vv 10, 11, 24),
and the reference to the vow at Bethel (v 13; cf. 28:18, 20 –22). That J is also present is
supported by the use of the divine name ―the LORD‖ in vv 3, 49 and some repetition and
redundancy that allow the latter part of the story (vv 44 –54) to be split into two. However,
within this broad approach, there are several variatio ns. Driver and Speiser ascribe only
31:3, 46 –50 to J and nearly everything else to E. At the other extreme, Gunkel and Skinner
ascribe considerably more to J (i.e., 31:3, 19a, 21, 25, 27, 31, 36a, 38 –40, 44, 46, 48,
51–53a), and Vawter includes even more, adding vv 17, 22 –23, 30, 47 to J and omitting vv
21, 44. Whereas most commentators suppose that v 49 belongs to J because it mentions
―the LORD,‖ the last three commentators adopt the LXX reading ―God‖ and maintain that it
is part of E.
However, more recent tradition critics, following Volz ( Der Elohist ), have argued that
chap. 31 is an integral part of J. All the references back to earlier chapters of Genesis (see
above), which are predom inantly J, make this position much more plausible than to suppose
it is E. The different emphasis within this chapter, e.g., on God‘s part in Jacob‘s enrichment

as opposed to Jacob‘s intelligence bei ng the source of his wealth, may be explained by the
different perspective of the chapter. The fullness of the narrative style in this chapter
reflects the drama of the occasion, not the presence of multiple sources, and the use of God
as opposed to ―the LORD‖ in the conversations within the narrative reflects the fact that
Jacob‘s wives come from a pagan environment.
Thus Westermann holds that ―the narrator here is the Yahwist … there is no Elohistic
source to be found in Gen 31‖ (2:490). He believes there are certain expansions discernible
in vv 4 –16 and 43 –54, for the Yahwist does not tend to such prolixity. This, however,
rather begs the question. It is characteristic of Hebrew narrative style to be expansive at
points of high drama (e.g., Gen 7, 17, 24; 1 Sam 17), and this chapter is generally regarded
as the climax of the Jacob story (cf. Longacre, Joseph , 34). Coats is more circumspect than
Westermann: he too regards Gen 31 as essentially J with a fe w minor expansions, which he
does not identify (Coats, 221). Blum ( Die Komposition ) likewise dismisses the idea that
two sources are present in chap. 31. Laying heavy emphasis on the interconnections
between chap. 31 and the preceding chapters, he insists that this shows that the editor of
chap. 31 was fully aware of the preceding material and that it cannot come from an
independent source. Rather, vv 1 –44 represent later reflection on the story of Jacob‘s craft
in chap. 30, explaining his success in terms of divine blessing rather than human skill. The
account of the covenant -making (31:45 –32:2) he regards as representing an earlier stage in
the tradition. While Blum is right in regarding 31:2 –44 as a sort of commentary on the
preceding episode, this does n ot necessarily show that it comes from a different hand; the
writer may have seen both accounts as complementing each other. And the whole set of
stories would end rather lamely if the account of Jacob‘s flight, Laban‘s pursuit, and the
subsequent row were omitted. vv 2 –44 should therefore be regarded as an integral part of
the Jacob -Laban cycle.
Comment
2 The previous verse gave a glimpse of the trouble brewing for Jacob: ―Laban‘s sons were
saying, ‗Jacob has taken away all that belonged to our father.‘‖ T his comment put all
Jacob‘s success as a sheepbreeder under a cloud, but the full consequences were not drawn
out. Now Jacob realizes that the remarks of his brothers -in-law are indeed having an effect
on his father -in-law, Laban —not surprising in that fro m first to last Laban is portrayed as a
man governed by avarice. Again, the narrator does not spell out exactly the effect of
Jacob‘s wealth, leaving it to our imagination to fill in the details. The important thing is that
―Jacob noticed‖ it: 
―that‖ shows us the situation through Jacob‘s eyes. He realized he was persona non grata
with both his father -in-law and his brothers -in-law, and with no member of his own family
nearby to support him, he senses his exposure and weakness.
3 But as earlier in his career, when on the run from Esau (chap. 28), the LORD appears
to him. Perhaps his own awareness of need made him receptive to God‘s voice. Certainly
there is no need to postulate a change of source between vv 2 and 3 as traditional critics do.
Syntactical ly and lexically (see Form/Structure/Setting ), ―Return to the land of your
father and to your clan that I may be with you‖ closely resembles God‘s first word to
Abraham, ―Go to the country … I will make you‖ (12:1 –2). In both instances, the command
is foll owed by a promise. This promise of God‘s presence was given to Jacob years earlier
at Bethel (28:15). Here it is reaffirmed on condition that Jacob obey by returning home.

This pattern of promise -command -renewed promise is characteristic of biblical theolo gy.
Grace responded to in obedience leads to more grace (cf. G. J. Wenham, ―Grace and Law in
the Old Testament,‖ in Law, Morality and the Bible , ed. B. N. Kaye and G. J. Wenham
[Leicester: IVP, 1978] 5 –7).
4–16 The second scene consists of dialogue between Jacob and his wives; their
speeches are long by biblical standards, indicating the great importance of this discussion.
With Laban‘ s family ganging up against him, Jacob must be sure that his wives will side
with him, not with their father. So here in a long and detailed speech he does his utmost to
persuade them to support him. At various points, his account of his actions and motive s
differs from what has been said earlier. Is he merely supplementing earlier summary
statements or is he giving a distorted picture in order to win over his wives to his point of
view? Jacob must convince his wives of the justice of his case if he is to p ersuade them to
leave and go to Canaan, from which he had fled some twenty years earlier in fear of his life.
No doubt they have learned the full story of that from Jacob himself; can he now persuade
them that to go there will not be jumping out of the fry ing pan into the fire? These are the
issues that Jacob is addressing here.
4 The setting of Jacob‘s discussion is unusual; ―the countryside‖ is probably chosen to
ensure secrecy. In the countryside, it would be much more difficult to eavesdrop on their
conversation (cf. Deut 22:25; cf. 23). Note here and in v 14 the order of names, ―Rachel and
Leah‖: Rachel is still first in Jacob‘s affection.
5–13 Jacob‘s address consists of comparing three times what Laban has done for him
with what God has done and then concluding with his description of what God has told him
today. Thus:
v 5
Laban‘s changed attitude
but God with Jacob
vv 6–7
Laban the unreliable
but God prevented him harming Jacob
vv 8–9
Laban‘s wages
but God gave herds to Jacob
vv 10 –13
Vision

5 Jacob starts by stating something that must have been as obvious to his wives as it
was to him: ―your father has not been regarding me as he did previously.‖ This could have
been Jacob‘s fault, so it was not necessarily a criticism of Laban. He then mentions that
―the God of my father has been with me,‖ which tends to suggest that Laban may indeed
bear some blame, but more importantly that God is on Jacob‘s side.
6 Having established common ground with his wiv es, Jacob now becomes more open in
criticizing his father -in-law. He appeals first though to their own experience, ―You (do)
know that with all my strength I have served your father.‖ Again he puts his own behavior
in the best possible light, before giving explicit critic
7 ―But your father has made a fool of me.‖ 
(hiphil) ―make a fool of‖ is a rare term. It involves deceiving someone so that their

public reputation suffers as a result (Exod 8:25 [29]; Judg 16:10, 13, 15). Here it refers to
Laban‘s hab it of making promises to Jacob and then reneging on them: ―he has changed my
pay ten times.‖ ―Pay‖ ( 
) is a key root in these stories about Jacob and Laban (29:15; 30:16, 32, 33; 31:7, 41).
―Ten times‖ is hyperbole for many times. Yet ―God has not allo wed him to harm me.‖ Note
how once again Jacob pits Laban against God.
8 Tactfully, Jacob does not mention the occasion on which Laban really made a fool of
him, at his wedding: he wants the support of both his wives now. So he concentrates on
Laban‘s most recent treachery. Here, though, his account of what happened is different
from that in 30:31 –42. There the Genesis narrator deals with both sheep and goats; here
Jacob mentions only goats. There the account only mentions what Jacob did; here Jacob
ascribe s the breeding entirely to God. The narrator in Gen 30 seems to envisage a single
agreement, that any multicolored animals bred by Jacob should be his; but here Jacob
mentions two agreements with Laban: first that Jacob should have the speckled, and then
that he should have the striped.
As Blum notes ( Die Komposition , 122), it would be difficult to follow the description of
Jacob‘s action and his agreement with Laban in 31:9 if we did not have the fuller account in
chap. 30. The writer here presupposes the previous story. This makes it less likely that a
different course of events is being described; rather, the same events are being viewed from
two different perspectives. There, it was the author‘s viewpoint; here, it is Jacob‘s perhaps
somewhat tendentious account designed to impress his wives that God is really with him.
This is why he emphasizes that however Laban switched the agreement, fate minutely
followed him: speckled and striped differ by only one letter in the Hebrew. No doubt there
would have bee n times in the six years that Jacob was stock -breeding for Laban to change
the agreement in the hope of doing better out of it. So it seems unlikely that the details here
are incompatible with the version in 30:25 –31:1.
9 The details in Jacob‘s story empha size that ―God rescued the animals of your father and
gave them to me.‖ Laban‘s sons had complained that ―Jacob had taken away what belongs
to our father.‖ Jacob uses the more colorful term ―rescue.‖ Apart from v 16, this verb
―rescue‖ (
) is used thre e times of saving someone from the danger of death (32:12 [11]; 37:21 –22). It
is used in Exodus of the deliverance from slavery (3:8; 5:23; 6:6). In other words, God has
not simply transferred the herds from Laban to Jacob; he has done them a favor, giving
them a much better life!
10–13 Jacob‘s description of his vision is fuller than the summary of its main point in v
2, ―Return to the land of your fathers and your clan that I may be with you,‖ and these
differences cause problems. Is this fuller account t rue, or does it represent embellishment
by Jacob in order to persuade his wives to go? And within the account of the vision, the
significance of the goats mounting the multicolored flock is not made clear. Finally, v 13,
the climax of the vision, where God introduces himself as God of Bethel, might be
expected to have come earlier. For these reasons, vv 10, 12 have often been thought to be
an expansion of an earlier narrative that consisted of vv 9, 11, 13. The expansions were
seen as developments within E, not an independent source. Westermann regards vv 10 –13
as a combination of originally independent accounts of two visions: vv 10 –12a and vv 11,
12b, 13.
However, these source -critical analyses serve merely to excise a difficulty; they do not

explain how t he editor of Genesis or an earlier source understood the material. With Blum
(Die Komposition ,120), it seems unnecessary to postulate sources or different layers of
tradition within this passage. The present arrangement of material corresponds to accounts
of other dreams that contain oracles, and it also serves to maximize the impact of the
command to leave for Canaan.
v 10
―saw in a dream and behold‖ ( cf. 28:12a
15:12a

vision (he -goats mounting)
28:12b –13a
15:12b, 17
vv 11 –12
Explanation of vision
28:13b –15
15:13, 15, 18 –21
v 13
Consequent command
cf. 28:20 –22

The parallel with Jacob‘s dream at Bethel is particularly striking; even the verb
―mounting‖/―going up‖ (28:12) is the same.
10 ―At the time the f lock bred‖ seems to put the dream back some years, whereas 31:3
puts the command to leave just before Jacob decided to speak to his wives. ―I raised my
eyes‖ is a cue in Genesis that what is about to be seen is very significant (cf. 22:4; 24:64).
According to the vision, multicolored he -goats (of which there were none in Jacob‘s flocks,
according to 30:35) were mounting the flocks.
11 ―The angel of God‖ also appears in 21:17; 28:12; 32:2. More frequently Genesis
speaks of ―The angel of t he LORD.‖
12 The angel‘s words simply repeat what Jacob has himself seen without explicitly
explaining what the vision means. But v 8 recorded that the flocks produced all speckled or
all striped goats; that Jacob saw this in a vision proves the point he m ade earlier (v 9), that
it was God who rescued the animals and made them his. ―Because I have seen all that
Laban is doing to you‖ sounds like a non sequitur . But when God sees his people
oppressed, he intervenes to save (16:13 –14; 29:32; 31:42; Exod 2:25; 3:7, 9, 16). So the
obscure vision shows that God is behind Jacob‘s selective breeding techniques.
13 At Bethel, Jacob had vowed that if the LORD protected him and brought him back to
his homeland, the LORD would be his God and he would worship there. Now out of the blue
he is reminded of his vow and commanded to return to his homeland. God has so obviously
protected him outside his homeland that to return is obligatory on one who has made such a
vow and has received a guarantee of even greater blessing in the future. With this powerful
argument, Jacob concludes his plea to his wives.
14–16 His appeal clearly moves them, for they respond with alacrity and vigor.
―Answered and said.‖ This apparently tautologous collocation often seems to precede a
significan t remark (e.g., 18:27; 23:5, 10, 14; 24:50; 27:37, 39; 40:18). Sometimes when

anger is mixed with the statement, it might be paraphrased ―retort‖ (31:31, 36, 43).
―Share or inheritance.‖ This phrase is a hendiadys and usually refers to the share of land
that belongs to every Israelite family except the Levites (cf. Deut 10:9; 12:12; cf. 2 Sam
20:1; 1 Kgs 12:16). Normally, daughters did not inherit pr operty from their fathers; it was
shared among the sons (cf. Num 27:1 –11). However, they did expect to receive a dowry
from their father when they marr
15 Here they seem to refer to the dowry given to daughters by rich fathers when they
married. Poor families might sell their daughters to be slave -wives (cf. Exod 21:7 –11), in
which case no dowry would be given. However, it is clear from the story that both Leah
and Rachel received handsome dowries, for they were given slave -girls on their marriage.
So what are they referring to when they insist, ―He has also wasted, yes wasted, our
money‖? Commentators often surmise that it was the marriage present given by the
bridegroom to the bride‘s father, which might later be pas sed on to the bride in her dowry.
But Jacob‘s marriage present was his fourteen years of service, so what they are referring to
is elusive. It seems, rather, that they are agreeing that their father has indeed cheated their
husband of his due and thereby h as cheated them.
16 So they agree with Jacob that God has rescued the money that belongs to them and
given it to Jacob.
17–21 Jacob‘ s flight from Laban is quickly told. We are not even told how long he
waited. The narrative gives the impression of haste. As soon as his wives said yes, he put
them and his children on camels and off they set.
18 This long catalogue of all his retinue, ho wever, slows the narrative down drastically.
It suddenly reminds us that this move was a major undertaking. Jacob had become very
wealthy, so fleeing from Laban was more difficult than fleeing from home. The
terminology used here, particularly ―property wh ich he had acquired,‖ reminds us of
Abraham‘s great move from Harran to Canaan (12:5). Later, the same term is used in
describing his move to Egypt (46:6) and the exodus (15:14). It was Isaac who had sent him
to Paddan -Aram; now as he returns home the same geographical term reappears. Because
these words are found in passages generally ascribed to P, v 18b is also often ascribed to P.
But Rendtorff ( Problem , 16–19) has shown the circularity of such arguments. Rather, it
seems sufficient explanation of the t erms used here to regard them as making a connection
with other significant journeys of the patriarchs.
19 This little aside explains how Jacob was able to escape without Laban knowing; he was
away shearing his sheep, a very busy time for sheep farmers. It also mentions Rachel‘s theft
of her father‘s teraphim, something that nearly costs her her life (vv 32 –35). What were the
teraphim, and why did Rachel steal them? The word ―teraphim‖ occurs fifteen times in the
OT and may come from the Hi ttite word tarpisû (Hoffner, JNES 27 [1968] 66 –67). It is
sometimes translated ―household gods‖; later in this chapter they are simply referred to as
―gods‖ (vv 30, 32). It is usually supposed that they were images of t he gods that protected a
family and were worshiped by its members. But van der Toorn ( CBQ 52 [1990] 203 –22)
plausibly suggests that they were images of the ancestors, whom the living were expected
to honor and consult. These images could be quite small, as here, small enough to be
hidden in a camel‘s pouch (v 34), or they could be about as large as a man (1 Sam 19:13,
16). In pagan societies, and evidently sometimes in Israel, family piety was centered on the
teraphim (cf. Greenberg, JBL 81 [1962] 239 –48), but in the OT they are frequently associated
with divination. Evidently they were regarded as capable of predicting the future.

But why should Rachel ha ve stolen the teraphim? A much -favored explanation relates it
to Nuzi practice, where according to some interpreters, ownership of the ancestors‘ images
involves inheritance rights (e.g., Speiser, 250 –51; cf. Huehnergard, CBQ 47 [1985] 428 –31).
However, even if this were the case, which is questionable (Greenberg, JBL 81 [1962]
239–48), it would not seem likely that stealing the symbol s of inheritance would actually
convey the property itself. Josephus (Ant. 18.9.5) mentions that ―it is the custom among all
the people of that country to have objects of worship in their house and to take them along
when going abroad.‖ Normally one must s uppose that a father would have supplied his
daughters with copies of the household gods to take with them, and according to Gen
35:2–4, others in Jacob‘s party had their own gods. But in this case, because of the hurried
departure, Rachel took Laban‘s ter aphim. But what was the point of taking them?
Greenberg suggests it was to ensure fertility ( JBL 81 [1962] 247). It might also be that she
was rather less confident about leaving home than she sounded (vv 14 –16). The tera phim
were thus a Saint Christopher for her.
20 ―Jacob deceived,‖ lit. ―stole the heart of.‖ This phrase occurs only here and in v 26.
In 29:25 the verb 
is used instead, a term that, Strus ( Nomen -Omen ), notes, is a play on ―the Aramean‖
used here and in v 24; 25:20; 28:5. The pun implies that Laban is the arch deceiver and
thief. The terminology here at the close of the Jacob -Laban struggle mirrors usage in the
opening scenes. This is reinforced by the use of the word ―run away‖ ( 
) in vv 21, 22, 27 and in 27:43.
21 ―The river‖ is the Euphrates. Harran and, presumably, Paddan -Aram lie north of the
Euphrates; Gilead to the south. ―Gilead‖ is the region east of the Jordan between the Sea of
Galilee and the Dead Sea.
22–24 Jacob has a thre e-day start on Laban. So it is ten days before Laban catches up
with him. ―Drew close‖ ( 
hiph) is used in other contexts of hostile pursuit (Judg 18:22; 20:42, 45; 1 Sam 14:22;
31:2; 2 Sam 1:6). From the Euphrates to Gilead is some three hundred miles, which would
be too far for herds to cover in ten days, so we must be dealing with rough approximations
here.
24 It seems high -handed of Westermann to dismiss this verse and v 29 as later additions
because he sees no function for them in the narrative. But as Gunkel observes, it is
precisely God‘s intervention that prompts Laban‘s leniency later on in the scene. It also fits
well with the earlier refrain in Jacob‘s speech that God has always protected him, especially
from Laban (vv 5, 7, 9). Here the narrative confirms that claim. ―Take care‖ (cf. Comment
on 24:6) ―lest you contradict Jacob in any way‖ (cf. Comment on 24:50). Despite this very
stern divine warning, the following diatribe is one of the fi ercest and longest in Genesis.
25–54 In the judicial dispute that constitutes the substance of this long scene, the
relative standing of Laban and Jacob changes fundamentally. At the outset, Laban as pater
familias arraigns Jacob, his nephew and son -in-law, who is under his authority (vv 26 –30).
At the end, Jacob and Laban make a treaty showing that they are now on a more equal
footing; Jacob is head of his own household (vv 45 –54).
26–30 The burden of Laban‘s compl aint is twofold: first, that Jacob has not observed the
proper formalities for leaving his father -in-law (vv 26 –30a) and second, that he has stolen
from him (vv 27a, 30b).
―This speech is a psychological portrait of thirteen sentences, in which rage and

resignation, castigation and sweetness contend for mastery and eventually achieve an
unstable equilibrium. Honest indignation here enframes the whole, v. 26 (first two words)
and 30b. But as early as v. 26a it passes into feigned indignation, which is more l ike anger
at having been taken in (26b, 27a). Laban continues with pure hypocrisy: he would have
loved to have given him a festive send -off with music, etc. (just as in Gen 24), 27b. In v.
28a, he mixes these sweet words with a reproach that would have bee n sincere from a
genuine father, ‗I could not kiss Rachel and Leah farewell.‘ Then, with a shake of his head,
he comes to a denunciation (‗you have done foolishly,‘ v. 28b), which inclines towards
anger: v. 29a is a threat which is undermined in the nick o f time by a report (29b) on the
Mighty One of Jacob, who calls things to a halt. Laban tries to resign himself to it and
forces himself (30a) for the first and last time to understanding; he ‗tries to realize‘ Jacob‘s
position. … ! Then he stops short with the perplexed reproach: ‗why have you stolen my
gods?‘ The accusation is genuine; that he is addressing the wrong person Laban cannot
possibly know.
―The inner contradiction of this speech can be indicated quite precisely on two points. It
is demonstrated by the reversal of sounds in Laban‘s third and fourth sentences: h -r-b
becomes b -r-h. First Jacob is accused of pursuing his own ends with the sword, and then he
appears to be a fugitive! The combination is absurd!
―This is proved simultaneously a second indication of the inner contradiction in Laban‘s
position, one of which hÃrb is a part. Laban accuses Jacob of carrying away ‗my daughters‘
(not ‗your wives‘ of course!) as prisoners by the sword (they are kisûbuµyoµt hareb ). But if
anyone, it was Laban hi mself who detained Leah and Rachel, as well as Jacob (29.25!),
who kept them for another six years and made jealousy and hatred wreak their devastating
effect upon their family -life. What Leah and Rachel think of this they have said
unambiguously in 31:14 –16; and in v. 31 Jacob returns the ball. In short, Laban commits
what might be termed a Freudian Fehlleistung, accusing Jacob of that which he himself
would love to, but is restricted from doing‖ (Fokkelman, Narrative Art , 166 –67).
26 ―What have you done?‖ often opens an accusation, where the accuser feels the
accused has acted quite unreasonably. Note the irony in that those were the very words
Jacob spoke to Laban the morning after his wedding (cf. 29:25; cf. 3:13; 4:10; 12:18; 20:9;
26:10). Westermann‘s suggested emendation to ―what have I done‖ is therefore unlikely.
―Captives of war‖ (cf. Deut 21:10 –14).
30 ―Yearn.‖ This strong term, used only in this form in Ps 84:3(2) apart from here, is
made even stronger by the use of the infinitive absolute.
―Why did you steal my gods?‖ The most serious charge of all. Whereas Laban‘s other
accusations amounted to lack of courtesy and respect, stealing household gods was an
aggravated form of theft.
31–32 Jacob‘s fierce reply heightens the tension. He does not contest that his flight was
a breach of etiquette but instead launches a counterattack. He accuses Laban of wanting to
rob him of his daughters. The verb 
―rob‖ means ―to steal using force‖ (cf. Comment on 21:25). And as for the charge that
he has stolen the household gods, he is so convinced of the innocence of all his party that
he pronounces the death penalty on anyone found guilty. In view of the seriousness of the
charge, Jac ob invites ―our relatives,‖ presumably those who had come with Laban (vv 23,
26), to ―identify,‖ used here and in 37:32 –23; 38:25 –26 in a judicial sense, the stolen
property. Whether under normal circumstances theft of the household gods warranted the

death penalty is doubtful, though the laws of Hammurabi (LH 6) do prescribe capital
punishment for stealing temple property. But what Jacob has unwittingly done is to pass a
death sentence on his favorite wife, and so for the reader who, unlike Jacob, knows th at
Rachel has the teraphim, the story reaches its dramatic high point.
33–35 Here at the peak of the story, the pace slows to increase suspense (cf. 7:18–24;
22:9–10; 44:12). ―The narrator is master of his trade. Quickly he has increase d the tension
with the statement, ‗Jacob did not know that Rachel had stolen them‘ nor does he let the
suspense fade away. On the contrary, he adeptly lets it grow, by gaining time and delaying
the solution as long as he can. With v. 33a he carries suspens e to extremes: first he has
Laban examine all those tents in which we know the terafim will not be found, so that
subsequently the fatal discovery seems inevitable. Trying our nerves the narrator says
threateningly, ‗then he entered Rachel‘s tent.‘ He has avoided telling us until the last
possible moment, that Rachel has made a provision against discovery. Now, v. 34a, he can
delay no longer. Suspense turns into malicious pleasure at the deadly fun made of the
terafim: they are only to be ‗saved‘ by a menst ruation. This means that they are as unclean
as can be, in this new position they come near functioning as … sanitary towels.
―What Laban does is ‗feel all things, one by one.‘ An effective choice of words, this
iterative pi>el of msûsû (vv 34, 37), becaus e the verb had already been used in Gen. 27.
There, Jacob‘s father was trying to learn the truth about his son by … feeling, but in vain
because of a trick of Jacoba‘s. Thus Jacob received the blessing; it could not be taken from
him anymore. Here Jacob‘s uncle is retrieving his own ‗truth,‘ feeling, frisking,
house -searching, and now a trick of Jacoba‘s renders this search vain. Thus Jacob can retain
the blessing and leave with his most precious ‗asset.‘
―Laban is the great loser, for he cuts a foolish fig ure. His rage seems ridiculous, now
that his only dangerous accusation ‗seems‘ to be utterly unfounded. Laban is perplexed, he
‗is nowhere.‘ The text indicates that with a three -fold loµmaµsaµ ‖ (he did not find)
(Fokkelman, Narrative Art , 170 –71).
36–42 Feeling completely vindicated, Jacob hits back at Laban with his own string of
grievances. He might have used them in his own defense in v 31, but he held back. At this
point in the dialogue they come over with much greater force and indignation. Indeed, her e
we have the climax of the whole Jacob -Laban story with v 42 being the authoritative word
about its significance: ―You would have sent me away empty -handed … but God
vindicated me.‖ His speech is replete with parallelism and balanced lines:
―What is my cr ime?
What is my sin … ?‖ (v 36)
―I have not eaten the rams of your flock.
The torn beast I have not brought to you.‖ (vv 38 –39)
This has led some commentators, most recently Fokkelman, to describe this speech as a
poem. But this is going too far. As J. L. Kugel ( The Idea of Biblical Poetry [New Haven:
Yale UP, 1981]) has insisted, parallelism is also a feature of Hebrew prose, especially
elevated rhetorical prose. And this seems to fit this situation. Here twenty year s of angry
frustration burst out in a diatribe of ferocious intensity.
36 ―Argued,‖ from the verb ―What is my crime? What is my sin?‖ The same pair of
words is used in 50:17 to describe the offense of Joseph‘s brothers in selling him into
slavery into E gypt. ―Crime‖ ( [

) refers in the first instance to property offenses (e.g., Exod 22:8 [9]), but it is also used
much more broadly of a variety of heinous offenses (e.g., Amos 1:3, 6, 9, 11 , 13) that no
civilized people should commit. Here and in Gen 50:17 it seems also to have strong
overtones. You must think I have done something dreadful to pursue after me in such hot
anger. 
elsewhere means ―to burn,‖ and in this sense ―hotly pursue‖ is used only in contexts of
soldiers pursuing their defeated enemies (1 Sam 17:53; Lam 4:19).
37 Not only have you, Laban, not found the household gods which you accused me of
stealing, but you have not found anything that belonged to you among my goods.
38 In fact, the more I think about it, the more you seem to be the one guilty of stealing
from me. For twenty years, your flocks have flourished under my management, as you
yourself admitted (30:27). Very few of the lambs or kids died at birth, and I have not eaten
the full -grown animals.
39 Under traditional ancient Near Eastern law, the shepherd was not held responsible
for any losses incurred from the attacks of wild beasts and in some cases of theft.
―If a visitation of god has occurred in a sheepfold o r a lion has made a kill, the shepherd
shall prove himself innocent in the presence of god‖ (LH 266). Similarly, Exod 22:12(13)
states, ―If (an animal) is torn by beasts, let (the herdsman) bring it as evidence; he shall not
make restitution.‖ Likewise Exo d 22:9 –11(10 –12) insists that a shepherd should not be held
liable for thefts from the flock, if he is prepared to swear he has not stolen the beasts
himself. Finkelstein ( JAOS 88 [1968] 36) speculates that in some places the shepherd might
be held liable for losses incurred during the day but not for those at night. But with Jacob
and Laban things were different. All losses incurred were footed by Jacob the shepherd;
Laban the owner suffered no loss at all. It is Jacob who has been cheated of his wages by
Laban, not vice versa.
40 This verse reflects accurately the difference between the baking day -time
temperatures and the cold of the night in Middle Eastern countries, especially away from
the moderating influe nce of the sea. When he was in love with Rachel, seven years seemed
but a few days (29:20), but they were tough times. And this verse makes us aware that
Jacob has been toughened up away from home. The soft homebound pet of Rebekah has
been hardened; the s mooth young man who fled from his hairy open -air brother is now
much more of a match for Esau.
41 Now Jacob makes the same charge to Laban‘s face as he had made behind his back in v
7. He has changed his pay ten times.
42 But here he fills out his earlier statement, ―But God has not allowed him to harm
me,‖ considerably. God saw Jacob‘s plight and ensured he was given a fair deal. The
phraseology used here has strong associations with other key episodes in Israel‘s history.
―Send away‖ ( 
piel) is the ve rb most often used to describe Pharaoh sending Israel away from Egypt
(e.g., Exod 3:20). Indeed, when the exodus was first promised, Moses was assured that
Israel would not leave ―empty -handed‖ (Exod 3:21). The same colloca tion of ―send away
… empty -handed‖ is found in Deut 15:13 –14, which insists that after six years‘ service a
slave shall not be sent away empty -handed, but ―you shall furnish him liberally out of your
flock … ; as the LORD your God has blessed you, you shal l give to him.‖ Here Jacob‘s
experience of release from slavery and divine bounty anticipates his descendants, who in
turn must imitate God by treating their slaves generously when they are released.

Phraseology anticipating the exodus pervades the next co mment, ―my oppression was
seen by God‖ (cf. Leah‘s comment in 29:32). But Exod 3:7 and Deut 26:7 are the only other
uses of this phrase in the Pentateuch, both of the Egyptian oppression (cf. Neh 9:9 ). It is, of
course, used in the psalms of an individual‘s plight (9:14 [13]; 25:18; 31:8 [7]; 119:153)
and in Lamentations of the fall of Jerusalem (1:9; 3:1, 19), but rarely in other contexts.
With this concentration of phraseology associated with the ex odus, and especially with
the call of Moses in Exod 3, the designations ―God of my father Abraham and the fear of
Isaac‖ seem particularly at home (cf. Exod 3:6, 15, 16; 4:5); and to suggest, as Westermann
does, that ―the God of Abraham , and the fear of Isaac‖ is a later addition seems misguided.
This combination of divine titles resembles 28:13, ―I am the LORD, the God of Abraham
your father and the God of Isaac,‖ used in his self -revelation at Bethel to Jacob fleei ng from
Esau. There he had promised, ―I am really with you and will guard you wherever you go.‖
Now Jacob himself uses the title as if he recalls the LORD‘s providential protection, not
least in the vision he gave to Laban the night before.
―The fear of Is aac.‖ This title of God occurs only here and in v 53. It has been the
subject of much discussion. Does 
really mean ―fear‖? Modern writers have proposed alternatives, such as ―kinsman of
Isaac‖ (W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity , 2nd e d. [Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins, 1957] 248) or ―thigh of Isaac‖ (Malul, VT 35 [1985] 192 –200). But the evidence
for this seems flimsy (see Hillers, JBL 91 [1972] 90 –92). Le ss difficult is Westermann‘s
suggestion, ―refuge of Isaac.‖ But on the whole the traditional rendering, ―fear, dread of
Isaac,‖ does not seem out of place here, for it is precisely his experience of this God that
has scared Laban and discouraged him from w reaking revenge on Laban. Pointing to names
like Zelophehad (Num 27:1), a thirteenth -century cup mentioning ypth˜d from Cyprus,
perhaps originating in Canaan, and similar glosses in the Amarna letters, Puech ( VT 34
[1984] 356 –61) argue s for the traditional meaning, ―fear of Isaac,‖ and its antiquity.
This last remark of Jacob‘s is much more than the decisive climax to his speech of
self-justification. It is the summary of the whole story of Jacob‘s life, at least in Harran. It
invites c omparison with 45:5, when at the peak of the Joseph story, Joseph himself explains
the meaning of his career: ―you sold me here; God sent me before you to preserve life‖ (cf.
45:7; 50:20). Here Jacob confesses that his preservation and his wealth are all due to God‘s
power overriding the meanness of his uncle Laban; the LORD is a God who enriches his
people even in their oppression.
43–44 ―Laban cannot reply. The fox is in the trap. He must let everything go, women,
children, flocks, alt hough it all belongs to him. These words, which must greatly amuse the
listeners, are not a snobbish outburst but, as what follows shows, a pitiful complaint. …
Laban‘s emotion is seen in the fourfold ‗my.‘ Particularly distressing to him is the thought
that he must surrender his daughters and their children into the hands of a foreigner, when
he does not know how he will treat them‖ (Gunkel, 350).
44 When foreigners seek to make covenants or oaths with the patriarchs, it is an
acknowledgment of the latters ‘ superiority. cf. 21:22 –24; 26:26 –31. Laban now feels he
must protect himself from the power and blessing that evidently rest on Jacob; hence, he
asks for a covenant. ―It shall be a witness between you and me.‖ The subject of this
sentence is unclear. To what does ―it/he‖ refer? It cannot be ―covenant,‖ for that is feminine
while the verb is masculine. So the subject may be ―God‖ (so Rashi), or the erection of the
stone (so Ramban), or it may be that something has been omitted such as ― let us make a

pillar or a heap‖ (so Dillmann and recently Westermann).
45–54 This description of a covenant -making ceremony is difficult. Its repetitiousness
has led many commentators to conclude that there is more than one source here, but there is
no con sensus on the division between the sources (see Form/Structure/Setting ). And
tradition -critical solutions are equally diverse. Westermann thinks an original account of a
family agreement between Jacob and Laban has been later expanded by the account of a
boundary agreement between Israel (Jacob) and Syria (Laban). But Blum ( Die
Komposition ) thinks that the border agreement is primary and the family agreement is
secondary. However, Hittite treaties sometimes contain stipulations both about treating the
king‘ s daughters (marriage between treaty partners was common; cf. 1 Kgs 9:16; Blum, Die
Komposition , 135) and about borders. So the combination of these elements need not
indicate a plurality of sources or editors. The erection of stone cai rns and their naming are
the more perplexing aspects of this narrative. With Fokkelman ( Narrative Art ),
Westermann, Koch (― Pah\ad jis \h\aq‖), and the oldest commentators, we shall endeavor to
make sense of the narrative as it stands, while recognizing that the text probably has a
complex and irrecoverable history.
45 Jacob had erected a stone as a pillar at Bethel (28:18) and would do so again there as a
memorial to Rachel (35:14, 20). The three great turning points in his life are marked by
these pillars. ―Pillar‖ (
) anticipates one of the key words in this section, ―Mispah‖ ( 
46 Elsewhere in OT, stone cairns are used to mark graves (Josh 7:26; 8:29; 2 Sam
18:17). Absalom was commemorated by a cairn and a pillar (2 Sam 18:18). It s eems
unnecessary to erect two witnesses to the proposed agreement, but this cairn is central to
the account, being mentioned eight times in total in vv 46 –52. The word ―cairn, heap‖ ( 
) is a play on the word Gilead, which is explained as meaning ―cairn o f witness‖ (vv 47,
48). The pillar and cairn are both witnesses in vv 51 –52. So we must ask why there are two.
Duplication and repetition of symbols, gestures, and words always indicate that something
is regarded as most important (cf. Gen 41:32). The OT insists that two witnesses are needed
for conviction (Deut 19:15). It is characteristic of ancient legal texts to summon a multitude
of witnesses, sun, moon, and gods, to witness treaties. So it is not inappropriate for Jacob to
want more than one witness of this important treaty. Laban was, after all, a somewhat
unreliable partner. The explicit mention of ―his relatives,‖ more likely Jacob‘s than
Laban‘s, shows that this agreement was not just between Jacob and Laban as individuals
but between their clans (cf. Lev 24:14, 16, 23; Deut 21:21). ―They ate there‖ probably
anticipates the sacrificial meal that concluded the covenant ceremony (v 54; cf. Exod
24:11).
47 This verse is an aside commenting on the Aramaic name Yegar saµhaduðthaµ ;
( 
) and the name ―Galed,‖ both of which mean ―cairn of witness.‖ The Syrians in whose
area Laban lived spoke Aramaic, and this is the clearest of several Aramaisms within this
chapter (for others see Greenfield, VTSup 32 [1982] 129), reflecting Laban‘s presumed
mother tongue.
48 This verse continues the main narrative. First, Laban explains the meaning of the
cairn: it is to serve as a witness between him and Jacob.
49 The SamPent reads, instead of ―The Mispah,‖ ―the watch post,‖ ―the Mas sebah,‖ i.e.,
―the pillar.‖ Since the text goes on to make a pun on Mispah, ―May the LORD keep watch‖

(
yis\ep), most commentators regard Mispah as original here and suppose that a place
name in northern Gilead is be ing explained. This may be so, but in context it is apparent
that Laban is referring to the stone erected as a pillar. Standing stones were sometimes
regarded as a dwelling place of the gods (cf. 28:17 –18 and Comment ). Here Laban plainl y
speaks of the LORD watching over their behavior.
50 ―Oppress‖; cf. 16:6; Exod 22:21 –22(22 –23) for the oppression of women. The same
root is found in v 42. Laban tries to throw Jacob‘s accusation back. There is an element of
irony in h is demand that Jacob should not take any extra wives besides his daughters. For
though this is a frequent stipulation in marriage contracts and in some treaties, it was Laban
who had forced bigamy upon Jacob in time past!! ―Do as I say, not as I did‖ is La ban‘s
advice.
―God is a witness.‖ That God protects the rights of the defenseless, especially women,
is often mentioned in the OT (cf. 16:7–14; 21:8 –21; Exod 22:22 –23 [23 –24]).
51 Here Laban mentions both pillar and cai rn as witnesses (cf. Comments above on v
46.) Laban says here that he erected it, showing that he agreed with Jacob‘s initiative in vv
45–46.
52 Now Laban mentions that the pillar and cairn are guarantors, not only of his daughters‘
safety but of his territorial integrity. ―I myself shall not go beyond this cairn … with evil
intent.‖ Grammatically, this formula is unexpected (see Notes ), but it may be translated as
we have. Another possibility is that 
could be understood ―in an evi l situation, i.e., in case help is needed‖ (so the old Jewish
commentators Chiskuni and Abrabanel, quoted by Jacob, 609). Then the oath would run
―You will pass this cairn toward me (in case of need), and I shall pass this cairn and th is
pillar to you in case of need.‖ This would constitute a real treaty offering mutual assistance.
However, there is no parallel to such a use of 
53 That Laban was a polytheist is suggested by his invocation of at least two gods, ―the
god(s) of Abraha m and the god(s) of Nahor,‖ which are followed by a plural verb, whereas
Jacob swears by just one: ―the fear of Isaac‖ (cf. Comment on v 42).
54 As was customary in the ancient world, the covenant was concluded by the offering
of sacrif ice and a communal meal (cf. Exod 24:5 –11; Deut 27:6 –7).
32:1(31:55) Reconciliation is followed by peace. The angry chase ended in a covenant
guaranteeing respect for each other‘ s family and territory in the future. Now there is an
amicable parting with the traditional kissing (cf. 31:28) and blessing (cf. 24:60; 28:1), and
Laban returns home.
2–3(1–2) This final scene shows Jacob pressing on toward Canaan. His experience at
Mahanaim both epitomizes his whole experience with Laban and anticipates his encounter
with Esau. Throughout this episode it has been stressed that God has been with Jacob (vv 3,
5, 9, 42). It begins with the LORD assuring Jacob that he would be with him; it ends with
him re -experiencing this in a new vision, similar in many ways to that at Bethel. Both speak
of meeting ( [
; 28:11) and of ―angels of God‖ (28:12). Both visions coinc ide with his entry to or
departure from Canaan. In both, the place is named because of the experience. ―Mahanaim‖
means ―two camps‖ and was, according to Josh 13:26; 21:38, a levitical city in Gad, later
the capital of Ishbosheth‘s kingdom (2 Sam 2:8 –9) an d the refuge of David during
Absalom‘s rebellion (2 Sam 17:24). Its location is uncertain. This passage and the others

cited require it to be a little north of the Yabbok river. Aharoni ( EM 4:805 –8) thinks western
Tulul edh -Dhahab i s the likeliest candidate.
Unlike his vision at Bethel, no divine word is recorded at Mahanaim, so what the
Mahanaim vision meant to Jacob is left obscure. ―Two camps‖ sounds military, and it may
be that Jacob saw armies of angels (2 Kgs 6:15 –17), but why two? And were they on
Jacob‘s side (cf. Josh 5:13 –15)? The most natural assumption is that they were friendly, so
that this experience encouraged Jacob just before he encountered Esau, but the failure to be
more precise leaves open the possibility that they might be hostile (32:23 –31). There is no
doubt, however, that Jacob is still being accompanied by God.
Explanation
Delay and disappointment dogged Jacob‘s stay in Paddan -Aram. He had planned to stay
―a few days‖ (27:44). These few day s had lengthened into seven years as he worked for
Rachel‘s hand in marriage. Then, cheated by his father -in-law, he had to work another
seven years until Rachel bore her first son, Joseph. As soon as this happened, Jacob again
requested permission to leav e, but Laban refused to give him the traditional golden
handshake due a faithful slave on his release. So Jacob had to work another six years to
acquire enough property of his own to make the break and return to his homeland.
Now twenty years after leaving home, he at last manages to set out. But it is not just his
heart that pulls him home. The jealousy of Laban and his sons at Jacob‘s successful
breeding of his own flocks and a divine call akin to grandfather Abraham‘s ―Return to the
land of your fathers and to your clan‖ prompt him to depart.
But would his wives agree? Maybe they would prefer to stay with their father,
especially Leah, whose marriage to Jacob was so unhappy. Discreetly ―in the country side,‖
i.e., out of earshot of ot her members of the household, he sounds them out. He reminds
them of his loyal service to their father and how he ―changed my pay ten times,‖ yet ―the
God of my father has been with me‖ (v 5). It was God who prevented Laban from harming
Jacob (v 7), who ―r escued the animals of your father‖ by showing Jacob how to breed them
selectively, who told Jacob to ―leave this country and return to the land of your clan.‖
In appealing to his wives, Jacob noticeably omits any mention of the most embarrassing
episode in his dealing with Laban, the substitution of Leah for Rachel on his wedding night,
or the reason he had fled from home, Esau‘s deadly hatred, for these points might have
discouraged Leah and Rachel from coming with him. Instead, he stresses God‘s overrulin g
protection of him and his interests. Though we may doubt the complete candor of Jacob‘s
apologia, the narrator certainly regarded it as a valid theological explanation, and his wives
were also convinced and agreed to go.
To escape Laban‘s clutches was an other matter. He had procrastinated when Abraham‘s
servant wanted to take Rebekah to Canaan. He had delayed Jacob‘s return home by nearly
twenty years. Doubtless had Jacob sought Laban‘s agreement to leave, he would have
found yet another sound reason for him to stay. So Jacob decided to abscond.
He chose the busiest time in the herdsman‘s calendar to quit, sheep -shearing, when all
Laban‘s men would have been working from dawn to dusk. This gave him a few days‘ lead
in fleeing from Laban. Eventually Laban c atches up with Jacob and in high dudgeon
berates him for his behavior. ―What have you done? You have … driven my daughters
away like captives of war … why did you steal my gods?‖ Tucked away in this angry tirade
is a little comment that ―the God of your fa ther said to me yesterday, ‗Take care not to

contradict Jacob‘‖ (v 29). Even Laban is forced to admit that God is ultimately on Jacob‘s
side and he cannot touch him.
Then the tables are turned. Laban‘s abortive attempt to discover his household gods,
related with more than a touch of humor, allows Jacob to go on the offensive and remind
Laban of all the wrongs he has suffered at his hands, concluding, ―If the God of my father
Abraham and the fear of Isaac had not been with me, you would certainly have now s ent
me away empty -handed‖ (v 42).
So with one last protest, ―The daughters are my daughters … the flock is my flock‖ (v 43),
Laban at last concedes Jacob the right to be treated as an equal: ―Come let us make a
covenant‖ (v 44). The covenant seems unnecess ary. That Laban should insist that Jacob
should not marry any extra wives is laughable, when he himself had inflicted bigamy on his
reluctant nephew. Nor had Jacob any intention of invading Laban‘s territory; he was intent
on returning to Canaan. But the c ovenant mollified Laban, so Jacob accepted it, and they
parted peaceably.
This story, like many in Genesis, illustrates God‘s sovereign protection of his chosen.
Despite Jacob‘s tactlessness and self -seeking, God has kept his promise made at Bethel that
he would be with Jacob and guard him wherever he went (28:15). Having reached Gilead,
Jacob was within sight of Canaan and must have wondered about his likely meeting with
Esau. Would he really succeed in returning to the land promised to him at Bethel? No
verbal reassurance was given him; instead, ―angels of God met him.‖ What they looked like
or did is not described, but they surely must have reminded Jacob of his Bethel experience
and given him the confidence to press on, knowing God was with him and prote cting him.
With his return to Canaan, another chapter in Jacob‘s life closed, a chapter in which
frustration and disappointment outweighed joy. But God was with Jacob even then, and he
persevered, so that eventually he saw the fulfillment of what had been promised him. He
returned with his wife and children to the land of promise. His escape from the clutches of
Laban, who had treated him more like a slave than a nephew or son -in-law, prefigured his
physical descendants‘ escape from Egypt. May his faith in the promises and his endurance
inspire his spiritual descendants to run ―with perseverance the race that is set before us‖
(Heb 12:1).
Jacob Returns Esau’s Blessing (32:4 –33:20)
Bibliography
Anbar, M. ―La ‗reprise.‘‖ VT 38 (1988) 385 –98. Loretz, O. ―Die Epitheta <l<lhj jsŒr<l (Gen
33:20) und <l<lhj<bjk (Gen 46:3).‖ UF 7 (1975) 583. Puech, E. ―Fragment d‘un rouleau de la
Genèse provenant du désert de Juda .‖ RevQ 10 (1980) 163 –66. Schenker, A. ―Koµper et
expiation.‖ Bib 63 (1982) 32 –46. Schreiner, J. ―Das Gebet Jakobs (Gen 32:10 –13).‖ In Die Väter
Israels: FS J. Scharbert, ed. M. Görg. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989. 287 –303. Wächter,
L. ―Salem bei Sic hem.‖ ZDPV 84 (1968) 63 –72. ——— . ―Zur Lokalisierung des sichemitischen
Baumheiligtums. ‖ ZDPV 103 (1987) 1 –12.
Translation
4Jacob sent messengers ahead to his brother Esau to the land of Seir, the country of

Edom. 5 He instructeda them as follows: ―You shall speak to my lord Esau. Your servant
Jacob says: ‗It is with Laban that I have been staying, and I have waitedb until now. 6 I
have acquireda cattle, donkeys, b flocks, slaves and slave -girls, so I have sentc to let you
knowd in order to find favor with you.‘‖ 7 The messengers returned to Jacob saying,
―We came to your brother Esau, and hea is coming to meet you, and there are four
hundred men with him.‖
8Then Jacob was very frightened and distressed.a So he splitb the people who were with him
and the flocks, herds, and camelsc into two groups. 9 He thought, ―If Esau comes to the
firsta group and killsb them, the surviving group may be able to escape.‖ 10 Jacob said, ―O
God of my father Abraham, and God of my father Isaac, O LORD, a who saida to me, ‗Return
to your country and to your clan, that b I may do goodb for you.‘ 11 I am not worthy of all
your mercies and faithfulness which you have shown your serva nt. For I crossed this
Jordan a just with a staff,a and now I have become two camps. 12 Please rescuea me from the
hand of my brother, from Esau, for I am afraid he will come and killb me, and the mother
withc her children. 13 It is youa who have said that b I shall indeed do goodb for you and
make your descendants as numerous as the sand of the sea, which cannot be counted.‖c
14So he stayeda there that night and took some of his income as a present for Esau
his brother, 15 two hundred she -goats and twenty he -goats, two hundred ewes and
twenty rams, 16 thirty milcha camels and theirb young, forty cows and ten bulls, twenty
she-asses and ten he -asses.c 17 He put each flocka separately in charge of his servants,
and he told his servants, ―Go over ahead of me, and put a space between each flock.‖
18 He instructed the first, ―When my brother Esau meetsa you, and asksb you, ‗Who do
you belong to and where are you going, and whose are these ahead of you?‘ 19 You
shall say, ‗To your servant Jacob. It is a present sent to my lord Esau. And he himselfa
is b on his wayb after us.‘‖ 20 He instructed the second group, also a third group, in fact
all those going with the animals, ―This is what you shall say to Esau, when you finda
him. 21 You must say too, ‗Your servant Jacob isa on his way after us,‘‖ for he thought,
―I shall mollifyb him with the present ahead of me, and then afterwards I shall see him
face to face. Perhaps he will accept me.‖ 22 So he made the present go ahead of him, a
while he spent that night in the camp.a
23He rose thata night, took his two wives, two slave -girls, and eleven sons and
crossed the ford of the b Yabbok. 24 He tooka them and made them cross the wadi, and
he sent over allb that belonged to him.
25And Jacob was lefta on his own, and a man struggledb with him till dawn broke.c 26
He realized that he could not win, so he toucheda his hip socket, and Jacob‘s hip was
dislocatedb as he struggledc with him. 27 He said, ―Let me go, for the dawn has broken.‖
He said, ―I shall not let you go, unlessa you bless me.‖ 28 He said t o him, ―What is your
name?‖ and he replied, ―Jacob.‖ 29 He said, ―You shall no longer be calleda Jacob,
butb Israel, for you have struggled with God and with men and ha ve overcome.‖c 30 So
Jacob asked, ―Tella meb please your name.‖ He said, ―Why do you ask my name?‖
Then he blessed him there. 31 So Jacob named that place Peniel, because ―I have seen
God face to face and yeta my life was rescued.‖b
32Then the sun rose as he passed on from Penuel, and he went limping on his thigh.
33 For this reason to this day Israelites do not eat the sinew of the thigh which is on the
hip socket, because he touched the socket of Jacob‘s hip on the sinew of the thigh.
33:1Then Jacob raiseda his eyes and saw Esau coming and with him four hundred

men. So he dividedb the children among Leah, Rachel, and the slave -girls. 2 He put the
slave -girls with their children at the front, Leah and her children next,a and Rachel and
Joseph at the back. 3 He himself went on ahead of them and bowed downa seven times
until he reachedb his brother.
4Then Esau rana to meet him, hugged him , fell on his neck, kissedb him, and theyc wept. 5
Then he ra ised his eyes and saw the women and children, and he said, ―Who are these with
you?‖ He said, ―The children with whom God has favored your servant.‖ 6 Then the
slave -girls drewa near, they and their children, a nd they prostratedb themselves. 7 Then
Leah and her children also approached,a and th ey prostrated themselves. Afterwards
Joseph and Rachel approachedb and prostrated themselves. 8 He said, ―Whata is all this
camp that I have encountered?‖ He said, ―To find favor with my lord.‖ 9 Esau replied, ―I
have plenty, my brother. Let yours remain yours.‖ 10 But Jacob said, ―Please, no. If I have
found favor with you, you shall take my present from me, fora I have seen your face, which
is like seeing the face of God, and you have accepted me. 11 Please take my blessing which
was broughta for you, because God has been good to me and because I have all I need.‖ So
he pressed him and he took it.
12He said, ―Let us travel and go, so I may go in front of you.‖ 13 He said to him,
―My lord knows that the children are weak and the herds and flocks are givinga suck, so
that if b they are drivenb hard for just one day all the flock will die. 14a Let my lord go on
ahead of your servant, and I shall journeyb ona slowly at the pace of the property ahead
of me and at the pace of the children, until I come to my l ord in Seir.‖ 15 So Esau said,
―Please let me stationa with you some of the people who are with me.‖ He replied,
―Whyb should it be? Let me find f avor with my lord!‖
16So that day Esau returned his own way to Seir. 17 But Jacob journeyed on to
Succoth and built himself a house and made booths for the animals. That is why the
place is called Succoth.
18Then Jacob came to Salema to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan. When
he came from Paddan -Aram, he encampedb facing the city. 19 He boughta ab plot of ground
where he had pitched his tent from the sons of Hamor, father of Shechem, for a hundred
qesita. 20 There he erecteda an altarb and called it, ― El, God of Israel.‖
Notes
5.a. Cf. n. 2:16.a.*
5.b. Waw consec + 1 sg impf. qal  6.a. lit. ―it was to me.‖ On the pl. subj (―cattle,‖etc.)
with sg verb, see GKC, 145o.
6.b. SamPent adds ―and.‖
6.c. Waw consec + 1 sg coh qal 
. On the use of the coh here, see GKC, 49e.
6.d. 
+ inf constr hiph 7.a. On the omission of the pronoun, see GKC, 116s.

8.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. qal  8.b. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. (apoc) qal
 8.c. To omit ―and camels‖ with G, so BHS and Westermann, seems unnecessary.
9.a. SamPent reads masc. 
. MT probably aural error.
9.b. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg pf hiph 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
10.a-a. On the use of the ptcp to describe past actions, see GKC, 116o.
10.b-b. Waw consec + 1 sg coh hiph 
. On the sequence impv + coh ―in order that,‖ see GKC, 108d.
11.a-a. In the Heb. this phrase stands first to contrast his present prosperity with his
former poverty ( EWAS, 43).
12.a. 2 masc. sg impv hiph 
+ 1 sg suffix.
12.b. Waw consec + 3 mas c. sg pf hiph 
+ 1 sg suffix.
12.c. GKC, 119aa, n. 2, suggests th is phrase is proverbial.
13.a. Independent personal pronoun for emphasis ( GKC, 142a1 cf. EWAS, 47–59).
13.b-b. Inf abs + 1 sg impf. hiph 13.c. Cf. n. 16:10.b.*; GKC, 107w.
14.a. Cf. n. 28:11.b.*
16.a. Fem pl. ptcp hiph 16.b. Though fem. pl. suffix might be expected (cf. BHS), the
masc. often does duty for the fem. (GKC, 135o ).
16.c. On the pointing of this word, see GKC, 28b.
17.a. On this construction, see GKC, 123d.
18.a. On the pronunciation of this word, see GKC, 9v, 10g.
18.b. On this form, see GKC, 64f.
19.a. For this nuance of 
, see SBH, 166.
19.b-b. 

often stress es the immediacy and present reality; cf. Lambdin, 169.
20.a. 
+ inf constr 
+ 2 masc. pl. suffix. On the unusual punctuation, cf. GKC, 74h, 93q.
21.a. SamPent, G, Tg. Onq. Neof. insert ―coming.‖ This is a correct interpretation of the
text, but it is unnecessary to suppose MT has omitted 
, for the clause is a variant of v 19d, which also lacks a verb ( SBH, 96).
21.b. 1 sg coh piel 
. Coh for self -encouragement ( GKC, 108b).
22.a-a. Episode -final circumstantial clause ( SBH, 81).
23.a. On the absence of 
(def art) on 
, cf. n. 19:33.b.
23.b. SamPent has def art before Yabbok.
24.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. 
+ 3 masc. pl. suffix.
24.b. With SamPent and versions, read 
―all that.‖ MT ―what.‖
25.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. niph 25.b. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. niph
 25.c. Inf constr qal [26.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. qal [26.b. Waw consec + 3
fem. sg impf. qal [26.c. 
+ inf constr niph 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
27.a. On this construction, see GKC, 163c.
29.a. Cf. n. 10:9.a.*
29.b. 
for a marked antithesis (Joüon, 172c; SBH, 184).
29.c. Waw consec + 2 masc. sg impf. 30.a. 2 masc. sg impv hiph 30.b. ―Me‖ must

be understood, as G, S, Vg do. But this does not mean 
was in the Heb.; there are other examples of ―tell‖ not being followed by an indirect obj
(e.g., Job 38:4, 18).
31.a. The waw consec here marks a weak contrast ( GKC, 111e).
31.b. Waw consec + 3 fem. sg impf. niph 33:1.a. Cf. n. 13:10.a.*
1.b. Cf. n. 32:8.b.*
2.a. BHS conjecturally emends ―after them.‖
3.a. Cf. n. 18:2.d.*
3.b. Inf constr 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
4.a. Cf. n. 18:2.b.*
4.b. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. qal 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix. The dots around the word are ―extraordinary points‖ (see GKC, 5n).
4.c. BHS gratuitously emends the text to the sg ―he wept.‖
6.a. Waw consec + 3 fem. pl. impf. qal 6.b. Waw consec + 3 fem. pl. impf. hishtaphel
of 
(cf. n. 18:2.d.).
7.a. On sg verb with pl. subj (Leah and her children), see GKC, 146g.
7.b. 3 masc. sg pf niph 
. The use of the masc. sg for the verb with composite masc. and fem. subj suggests the
word order of MT, SamPent, Vg, ―Joseph and Rachel,‖ is to be preferred to G, S, ―Rachel
and Joseph,‖ which is an assimilation to 33:2 ( GKC, 146f).
8.a. lit. ―who?‖ (
) is used occasionally for ―what‖ ―when the idea of a person is implied‖ ( GKC 37a,
137a).
10.a. On this conj, see GKC, 158b1.
11.a. 3 fem. sg pf hoph 
. SamPent and versions read  13.a. Fem pl. qal ptcp [13.b-b. Waw consec + 3
masc. pl. pf qal 

+ 3 masc. pl. suffix (on the masc. instead of fem. suffix, see GKC, 60h), lit. ―they will
drive them.‖ Here ―they‖ is used impersonally. SamPent and versions rephrase ―and I shall
drive them.‖
14.a-a. Chiasmus linking clauses ―go ahead, my lord: I, journey on‖ minimizes contrast
between their different actions ( SBH, 134).
14.b. 1 sg coh hithp 15.a. 1 sg coh hiph 15.b. The enclitic 
makes the interrogative ―why‖ more lively (EWAS, 134–36).
18.a. SamPent reads  18.b. Cf. n. 26:17.a.*
19.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. apoc qal 19.b. On the use of the def art here, see
GKC, 127e.
20.a. Cf. n. 21:28.a.*
20.b. BHS‘s restoration, ―pillar,‖ is conjectural.
Form/Structure/Setting
It is difficu lt to be sure exactly where this section begins and where it ends. In the
preceding Form/Structure/Setting , we gave reasons for believing that the new section
begins at 32:4(3) not 32:1(31:55), the most commonly accepted alternative. Here I
concentrate on determining the close of the section. Gunkel takes 33:16 as the close and
makes 33:17 –20 a separate unit. But this is improbable, since v 17 clearly goes with v 16:
Jacob‘s coming to Succoth balances Esau‘s arrival in Seir. For this reason, other
commentat ors either regard v 17 (so Dillmann, Delitzsch, Vawter, Westermann, Coats,
Blum [ Die Komposition ]) or v 20 as the close (Driver, Skinner, Jacob, Speiser, von Rad,
Fokkelman [ Narrative Art ]).
The heart of the problem is thus vv 18 –20. Do they constitute the conclusion of the
previous episode, or do they open a new episode centered on Shechem? v 18 is formally
part of an itinerary, with vv 19 –20 constituting an expansion typical of an itinerary (cf.
12:6–9; 35:16 –22). Now while vv 18 –20 ar e transitional and certainly set the scene for
chap. 34, they do seem to make an odd beginning to a new episode. As in 12:6 –9 and
35:16 –22, this note does bring Jacob back to the promised land of Canaan, the goal of his
wanderings (27:45; 30:25; 31:3, 13), Salem being clearly within Canaan and Succoth
probably outside. It also brings him back to Canaan in peace, something for which he had
prayed in his vow at Bethel (28:21). To leave him outside the land of promise at Succoth is
in the theological geography of Genesis somewhat anticlimactic. But that his return is
momentous is indicated by his building an altar and praying, something that Abraham had
done as soon as he arrived in Canaan (cf. 12:5–9; 13:3 –4). Similarly, his purchase of
Canaanite real estate seems to echo Abraham‘s purchase of a burial ground for Sarah (chap.
23). Understood this way, these three apparently unexciting verses (vv 18 –20) make a
fitting and impressive conclusion to the story of Jacob‘s return to his homeland. T hat they
also anticipate the next episode set in Shechem is no ground for making them the start of
that episode, for as we have frequently observed, it is characteristic of Genesis to have a
trailer for what follows at the close of the previous section (e. g., 4:25–26; 9:18 –29; 32:2 –3

[1–2]).
These chapters fall into seven scenes:
Scene 1:
Jacob‘s embassy to Esau (32:4 –7)
Scene 2:
Jacob prepares to meet Esau (8 –22)

Jacob‘s fears (8 –9)

Jacob‘s prayer (10 –13)

Jacob‘ s gifts (14 –22)
Scene 3:
Jacob and wives cross Yabbok (23 –24)
Scene 4:
Jacob wrestles with a ―man‖ (25 –33)
Scene 5:
Jacob and Esau reunited (33:1 –15)

Jacob approaches (1 –3)

Greetings exchanged (4 –11)

Esau‘s invitation turned down (12 –15)
Scene 6:
Jacob and Esau part (16 –17)
Scene 7:
Conclusion and Preview: Jacob settles in Canaan (18 –20)

This sevenfold scenic division is very similar to that of the previous section:

Chapter 31
Chapters 32 –33
Scene 1:
Instructions to leave
Planning to meet Esau
Scene 2:
Preparations to leave
Preparations to meet Esau
Scene 3:
Departure and Crossing of Euphrates
Crossing of Yabbok
Scene 4:
Pursuit by Laban
Struggle with man

Scene 5:
Confrontation
Confrontation
Scene 6:
Parting of Laban and Jacob
Parting of Esau an d Jacob
Scene 7:
Conclusion/Preview
Conclusion/Preview

Though the parallels between scenes 1 and 2 are not very clear, those between scenes 3 –7
in both episodes are striking. Note particularly how the climax to each episode occurs in
scene 5.
It is not just in arrangement that chaps. 32 –33 cohere well with the preceding material; in
theme and content there are close links as well. 32:4 mentions ―Esau his brother,‖
presupposing the earlier story in chaps. 25 and 27, and 32:5 presupposes his long sojourn
with Laban, the subject matter of chaps. 29 –31. v 6 is an even more explicit reminder of the
wealth Jacob acquired while away from home. vv 7 –9, describing Jacob‘s terror at the news
of Esau‘s coming with four hundred men, presupposes Esau‘s inten tion of killing Jacob
(27:41 –45). v 10 recalls God‘s command to return to Canaan (31:4, 13; cf. 28:13 –15), v 11
his original poverty (chap. 28) and his subsequent prosperity (chaps. 30 –31), and v 13 the
Bethel promise (28:13 –14) and pos sibly Isaac‘s blessing (28:3 –4) as well. The elaborate
preparation of large presents for Esau to ―mollify him‖ (vv 14 –22) shows the magnitude of
the offense for which he is trying to atone (cf. chap. 27). 32:23 and 33:2 –3, with their li sting
of Jacob‘s wives and children, refer back to 29:15 –30:24, while the prostration of Jacob
before his brother is an allusion to 27:29, ―may your mother‘s sons bow down before you.‖
Here, in fact, Israel‘s blessing of Jacob apparently works for Esau; in deed, all through this
episode Jacob describes himself as Esau‘s servant, whereas Isaac had said ―May peoples
serve you . … Be lord over your brothers‖ (27:29). In wrestling with the angel, Jacob
shows himself still very anxious to obtain blessing (32:27, 30), but when he speaks to Esau,
he describes his present as ―my blessing which was brought for you‖ (33:11). With a slip of
the tongue, Jacob attempts to return the blessing out of which he had cheated his brother
twenty years earlier (27:35). The use of the term Seir in 33:16 echoes 27:11, 23, where
Esau is described as ―hairy‖ ( 
sŒaµ>ir ) and anticipates 36:8 –9, where he is said to live in Seir. Canaan and
Paddan -Aram (33:18) look back to Isaac‘s farewell to Jacob in 28:2, 5 –7 and recall his
motive for returning (31:18) and look forward to 35:6, 9. 33:20 anticipates 35:1, 3, 7, where
at Bethel he builds and names another altar. All these cross -linkages show that with this
episode the end of the Jacob story has been virtually r eached; there are just a few
Within these chapters there are also many overt and hidden plays on key words. This is
a frequent enough device in Hebrew prose, but the phenomenon is here more conspicuous
than usual. The proper names Jacob, Peniel, Yabbok, a ll are the subject of punning. Jacob
(
y>qb ) struggles (
<bq, 32:25 –26) near the river Yabbok ( 
ybq, 32:23). There his name was changed to Israel, ―because you have struggled [ 

sŒaµraµh ] with God‖ (32:29). Peniel means literally ―face of G od‖ (32:31 –32), and
since Esau‘s face is compared to God‘s in 33:10, presumably 32:21 anticipates Peniel too.
It is also likely that Jacob‘s frequent description of himself as ―your servant‖ is a play on
his own name (32:5, 11, 19, 21; 33:5, 14; Strus, Nom en-Omen , 135). Another key word in
the whole episode is ―grace,‖ ―favor‖ ( 
h\n; 32:6; 33:8, 10, 15) and the associated verb ―be gracious‖ ( 
h\nn; 33:5, 11) and the noun ―present‖ ( 
mnh\h; 32:14, 19, 21, 22; 33:10), of which ―camp,‖ ―group‖ ( 
mh\nh; 32:8, 9, 11, 22; 33:8) is an anagram.
As already noted in the palistrophic arrangement of the Jacob story, chaps. 32 –33,
recounting the reconciliation of Jacob and Esau, correspond to chap. 27, the account of
their quarrel. Fishbane ( Text and Tex ture) and Rendsburg ( Redaction ) have drawn attention
to other reversals in chaps. 32 –33 of motifs in chap. 27. In 27:19 –29 Jacob cheats Esau of
his blessing; in 33:11 he offers it back to Esau. In 27:29 Isaac predicts that Jacob‘s brothers
will fall down b efore him; in 33:3 it is Jacob who prostrates himself before Esau. Often it is
suggested that Jacob‘s dream at Bethel (28:11 –22) matches his struggle with the angel at
Peniel (32:23 –33), but as already pointed out, there are closer verbal links between the
Mahanaim incident (32:2 –3) and the Bethel incident than between Mahanaim and Peniel.
Besides the obvious inversions already mentioned, there are numerous verbal links between
chaps. 27 and 32 –33 (see Rendsburg, Redaction , 59–63, and our Comment below) tha t
show the careful integration of these chapters with the preceding material.
According to the oldest source critics, e.g., Driver and Wellhausen, the great bulk of
32:4–33:20 derived from J. Driver assigned only 33:18 –20 to other sources, mostly E,
while Wellhausen ( Komposition 46) also ascribed 32:14b –22 to E. Subsequent source
critics tended to find somewhat more E in these chapters. The references to ―God‖ in 33:5,
10, 11 suggest that 33:1 –17 might have been expanded by E. But Skinner (412) admits
―The documents are so deftly interwoven that it is scarcely possible to detect a flaw in the
continuity of the narrative.‖ Similarly, 32:31 led many to argue that 32:23 –33 was
composed of E and J, though different analyses w ere offered, even by the same
commentator in different editions. More recently the fashion has swung back to regarding
32:4–33:17 as all from the hand of J (so Volz, Der Elohist ; Elliger, ZTK 48 [1951] 1 –31;
Speiser ; Westermann, who allows for a few post -J expansions in 32:23 –32; and Coats).
Among older commentators there was at least a broad consensus that vv 18 –20 were not
from the hand of J. It was held that they must be mostly the work of E, for 35:1 –5 (E)
presup poses Jacob‘s presence in Shechem, while the reference to arriving in Canaan from
Paddan -Aram in 33:18 came from P. However, once it is allowed that the term ―God‖ is not
necessarily restricted to the sources E or P, it is no longer obvious that 35:1 –5 bel ongs to E,
so it may well be that 33:18 –20 do not belong to it either. Hence Westermann regards these
verses as mostly old independent fragments, whereas Volz ( Der Elohist ), de Pury
(Promesse divine ), and Coats more parsimoniously ascribe them to J. Certai nly the
phraseology of ―camping,‖ ―building altars,‖ and ―naming‖ in the context of itineraries is
quite typical of J (cf. 12:7, 8; 13:18; 22:9; 26:17, 20 –22, 25). Also, the way in which these
verses serve as both conclusion and review is typical of the redactor‘s method in Genesis
and reinforces the supposition that they belong to J. The clause often ascribed to P in 33:18,
―which is in the land of Canaan when he came from Paddan -Aram,‖ is so short that we
concur with Rendtorff ( Problem ) that it is high -handed to ascribe it to a different source.

Further, to omit it is to diminish the vital theological point that Jacob has now arrived back
in Canaan.
Comment
4–7 The first scene tells of Jacob‘s first attempt to make contact with his brot her.
4 On Seir, see 14:6; EM 8:323 –25.
5 Note the very deferential language used by Jacob in addressing Esau: ―my lord …
your servant.‖ Even oriental courtesy would not lead to such extravagant humility toward a
twin brother. Jacob‘ s opening words thus hint at his fearfulness and guilty conscience, or at
least constitute an attempt to reverse the relationship in which Esau would be Jacob‘s
servant (25:23; 27:40).
6 The list of Jacob‘s acquisitions resembles 12:16; 30:43. He is not bo asting but seeking
to impress his brother, ―in order to find favor with you.‖ Here the key word ―favor,‖
―grace‖ (
) makes its first appearance in this episode (33:8, 10, 15; cf. the associated verb ―grant‖
―be gracious,‖ 33:5, 11). Jacob‘s great desire is to make peace with his brother, and the
narrative keeps us in suspense waiting to see whether his hopes will be fulfilled.
7 The messengers‘ return is eerie, for they bring no reply from Esau but simply report
that he is on his way with four hundred men. The brevity makes for ambiguity. Is Esau
coming to wage war or to receive his brother royally? If he is planning an attack, why allow
the messengers to return unharmed, allowing Jacob to prepare himself? Or does Esau feel
so superior that he is prolonging Jacob‘s agony before striking the final blow? The
suspense is heightened.
8–21 The second scene shows Jacob fearing the worst and making every effort to avert
catastrophe and win his brother over. He first takes defensive measures (vv 8 –9), then prays
(vv 10 –13), and finally sends the most lavish series of presents to appease his brother (vv
14–22).
8–9 The Bible more often allows human feelings to be surmised than described. Here
reticence is thrown aside as Jacob‘s react ions are portrayed: ―Jacob was very frightened and
distressed.‖ This last phrase is unusual and is used for people in dire straits, e.g., when
facing defeat (Judg 2:15; 10:9; 1 Sam 30:6; cf. 2 Sam 13:2). But fear does not paralyze
Jacob; he acts decisively in an attempt at least to salvage something should Esau attack.
Splitting his party into two camps may at least allow the rear one to escape. But the
mention of two camps recalls the place he has just b een to, ―Mahanaim,‖ lit. ―two camps‖
(32:2 –3 [1–2]). There he had met angels evidently accompanying him. And the word
―camp‖ (
) contains the consonants h•n that spell ―grace, favor‖ ( 
10–13 Jacob‘s prayer. In prayer the worshiper‘s de epest feelings are revealed, so these
verses are rightly regarded as most important for the understanding of this narrative.
Indeed, Westermann regards it as the climax of Gen 31 –33, even though he holds that it is
largely a late insertion into the story. He finds the oldest part of the prayer in v 12 and
considers vv 10 –11, 13 to be expansions. However, his arguments for distinguishing older
and later elements are not irresistible. He regards ―Jacob said‖ as a poor introduction to a
prayer and therefore re dactional. But as Longacre ( Joseph , 181 –82) points out, this sort of
quotation formula often introduces an emotional outburst, such as this prayer. Nor do the

references to the promises in vv 10, 13 suggest they are from a later hand than the main
editor, for the promises are integral to the main theme of Genesis.
10 Jacob‘s earnestness is shown in his address to God. He invokes the ―God of my
father Abraham, and God of my father Isaac, O LORD,‖ almost the same as the LORD‘s
self-disclosure at Bethel (28:13). But usually such lengthy titles are avoided in human
speech about God (cf. 28:20). By using this full title, Jacob seeks to recall all that God has
done for his father and grandfather. Then he remind s the LORD that his present predicament
is the result of obeying the divine command. ―Return to your country and your clan‖ is an
almost exact quote from 31:3 with the final clause ―that I may be with you‖ paraphrased as
―that I may do good for you.‖
11 Having implicitly recalled God‘s goodness to Abraham and Isaac, he now explicitly
mentions what the LORD has done for him personally. Setting out with nothing, ―just a
staff,‖ he has now become a very wealthy man having ―two camps.‖ ―I am not worthy of all
your mercies and faithfulness.‖ The sentiments are characteristic of OT prayer (cf. 2 Sam
7:19; Gen 19:19; 24:12, 14; frequently in the Psalms).
12 If God has given Jacob so many good things in life to enjoy, are they no w to be
brought to nothing by the loss of life itself? So the heart of his petition is ―Please rescue
me‖ (on this term, see Comment on 31:9) ―from my brother.‖ The idea that brother should
kill brother should fill God with horror (cf. 4:2–14), and even more so that defenseless
women and children should suffer (a perennial concern of the law and the prophets: Exod
22:21 [22]; Deut 14:29; Hos 10:14; Mal 3:5). To allow such slaughter would be
incompatible with God‘s moral character.
13 But even more pertinent is that for God to allow it would be to renege on his
promises. God has not simply promised to be with Jacob but to make his descendants very
numerous (28:14). Indeed, Jacob harks back to the occasion when the LORD intervened to
save I saac‘s life and guaranteed that his descendants would be as numerous ―as the sand of
the sea‖ (22:17).
To regard this final plea of Jacob as an anticlimactic afterthought (so Westermann) is,
as Delitzsch said, to misunderstand the nature of prayer. ―To kee p to His word the God who
keeps His word is the way of all true prayer. Upon what else can Jacob rely but upon the
promise of God, and how else can he do so but by praying?‖ (Delitzsch, 2:202).
14–22 These verses describe the urgent steps that Jacob took, apparently during the
night (cf. vv 14, 22 ), to send a series of presents for Esau. Quite how his action is to be
interpreted is unclear. To send a present to a great man before meeting him was a
conventional courtesy in the ancient Orient (cf. 43:11). It could be that Jacob wa s, through
this gesture, declaring himself Esau‘s vassal (cf. 2 Kgs 17:3; Hos 10:6; so Jacob), or even
that he was symbolically returning the blessing he had stolen from Esau (cf. 33:11; cf. Josh
15:19; Judg 1:15). But whatever the symbolism, Jacob‘s motive was quite clear: ―to mollify
him . … Perhaps he will accept me‖ (v 21).
How does this frenetic activity square with his very pious prayer? Does it show he has little
faith in God‘s power to save , or is it, as Calvin argues, a sign of his faith that Jacob did not
sit back and do nothing (cf. Deut 20:3 –4). The narrative leaves the question unanswered,
allowing the possibility that Jacob‘s emotions were a mixture of faith, fear, and doubt. Cf.
Comment on 22:5.
14 Jacob calls his gift a ―present‖ ( 
). That this word contains the consonants 

―favor, grace‖ has already been noted. In secular contexts, a present is often a ―gift that
ingratiates,‖ ―a sweeten er‖ (cf., e.g., 43:11; Judg 3:15), and, as Jacob says, he was aiming to
find favor with his brother (32:6; 33:8, 10). But 
is also the term for a sacrifice, usually translated ―the cereal offering‖ (Lev 2:1 –14; cf.
G. J. Wenham, Leviticus [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979] 67 –71). And it is noticeable here
that Jacob speaks in quasi -sacral terms of this present. It is designed to ―mollify‖ ―make
atonement‖ ( 
) for him, so that he may be ―accepted‖ ( 
; v 22), which are both key terms in sacrificial texts (e.g., Lev 1:4). Finally, Jacob
comments, ―I have seen your face which is like seeing the face of God.‖ Clearly, for Jacob
to make peace with his brother is to make peace with God (cf. Matt 5:24; 1 John 4:20).
15–16 Jacob made five herds of goats, sheep, camels, cattle, and donkeys —in total, 550
animals, a princely present.
17–20 Each herd of animals is entrusted to servants. An d each group of servants is
given the same message: that they are a present ―from your servant Jacob … to my lord
Esau.‖ Evidently, Jacob hoped that after Esau had heard this message five times, he might
feel more kindly disposed toward him!
21 The sacrifi cial overtones of ―mollify‖ and ―accept‖ have already been noted. Their
exact meaning in sacrificial texts has been much discussed and is not of great moment here.
Probably ―mollify‖ (piel of 
) is related to the noun ―ransom‖ from the same root. In OT law, some capital crimes
could be commuted by payment of a ransom (e.g., Exod 21:30). So the implication here
may be that Esau‘s deadly anger will be turned away by the payment of this handsome
ransom. (For discussion of the term 
, see THWAT 1:842 –57; TWAT 4:303 –18; Wenham, Leviticus , 57–61; B. Janowski,
Sühne als Heilsgeschehen [Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1982]; N. Kiuchi, The Purification
Offering in the Priestly Literature , JSOTSup 56 [Sheffield: JSOT, 1987] 87 –109).
22 This scene ends with another mention of the ―present‖ ( 
) and the ―camp‖ ( 
) with which it opened, vv 8 –9, 14. Will it be peace or war? The very words convey the
uncert ainty with which Jacob went to sleep.
23–24 This short scene describes how Jacob brought all his family across the Yabbok
(Arabic ez-Zerqa ), a fast -flowing tributary of the Jordan, which flows westward to join the
Jordan about twenty -five miles north of th e Dead Sea. Evidently, the herds had already
crossed; only Jacob and his wives and children were left.
Two things are puzzling about this episode. Why did Jacob rise in the night and cross
the river at night? It would surely have been more sensible to do i t by day. And why,
having taken his wives and children over, did he apparently return to the other side, which
seems to be implied by v 25, ―And Jacob was left on his own‖? In the absence of any
explanation in the text, we are left to conjecture. It may be that his irrational actions
represent his disturbed state of mind: he was too worried to sleep, so he just decided to
press on.
Sub-Bibliography on 32:25 –33
Anderson, B. W. ―An Exposition of Gen 32:22 –32.‖ AusBR 17 (1969) 21–26. Barthes, R. ―La lutte
avec l‘ange: analyse textuelle de Gen 32:23 –33.‖ In Analyse structurale et exégèse biblique, ed. R.

Barthes, F. Bovon, et al. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1971. 27 –39. Bauer, J. B. ―Jakobs
Kampf mit dem Dämon (Gen 32:23 –33).‖ In Die Väter Israels: FS J. Scharbert, ed. M. Görg.
Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989. 17 –22. Blum, E. ―Die Komplexität der Überlieferung: Zur
diachronen und synchronen Auslegung von Gen 32: 23 –33.‖ DBAT 15 (1980) 2 –55. Bodéüs, R.
―Parallèle pour l‘interprétation du ‗combat de Jacob.‘‖ OLP 4 (1973) 135 –40. Brodie, L. T.
―Jacob‘s Travail (Jer 30:1 –13) and Jacob‘s Strug gle (Gen 32: 22 –32): A Test Case for Measuring
the Influence of the Book of Jeremiah on the Present Text of Genesis.‖ JSOT 19 (1981) 31 –60.
Butterweck, A. Jacobs Ringkampf amJabbok, Gen 32:24 f in der jüdischen Tradition bis zum
Frühmittelalter . Frankfurt: Lang, 1981. Coote, R. ―The Meaning of the Name Israel .‖ HTR 65
(1972) 137 –46. Couffignal, R. ―Jacob lutte au Jabboq: Approches nouvelles de Gen 32:23 –33.‖
RevTh om 75 (1975) 582 –97. Curtis, E. M. ―Structure, Style and Context as a Key to Interpreting
Jacob‘s Encounter at Peniel.‖ JETS 30 (1987) 129 –37. Diebner, B. ―Das Interesse der Überlie ferung
an Gen 32:23 –33.‖ DBAT 13 (1978) 14 –52. Dommershausen, W. ―Israel: Gott kämpft . Ein neuer
Deutungsversuch zu Gen 32:21 –33.‖ TTZ 78 (1969) 321 –34. Durand, X. ―Le combat de Jacob (Gen
32:23 –33): pour un bon usage des modèles narratifs .‖ Le point théologique 24 (1977) 99 –115.
Eissfeldt, O. ―Non dimittam te, nisi benedixeris mihi .‖ KS 3. 412 –16. Elliger, K. ―Der Jakobskampf
am Jabbok: Gen 32:33ff. als hermeneutisches Problem.‖ ZTK 48 (1951) 1 –31. Eslinger, L. M. ―Hos
12:5a and Gen 32:29: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis.‖ JSOT 18 (1980) 91 –99. ——— . ―The
Case of an Immodest Lady Wrestler in Deut 25:11 –12.‖ VT 31 (1981) 269 –81. Fass, D. E. ―Jacob‘s
Limp?‖ Judaism 38 (1989) 143 –50. Floss, J. P. ―Wer s chlägt wen? Textanalytische Interpretation
von Gen 32:23 –33.‖ BN 20 (1983) 92 –132; 21 (1983) 66 –100. Geller, S. A. ―The Struggle at the
Jabbok: The Uses of Enigma in a Biblical Narrative.‖ JANESCU 14 (1982) 37 –60. Gevirtz, S. ―Of
Patriarchs and Puns: Joseph at the Fountain, Jacob at the Ford.‖ HUCA 46 (1975) 33 –54.
Hermisson, H. -J. ―Jakobs Kampf am Jabbok (Gen 32:23 –33).‖ ZTK 71 (1974) 239 –61. Holmgren,
F. C. ―Holding Your Own against God! Gen 32:22 –32 (In the Context of Gen 31 –33).‖ Int 44
(1990) 5 –17. Kodell, J. ―Jacob Wrestles with Esau (Gen 32:23 –32).‖ BTB 10 (1980) 65 –70. Lund,
J. A. ―On the Interpretation of the Palestinian Targumic Reading wqht in Gen 32:25.‖ JBL 105
(1986) 99 –103. McKay, H. A. ―Jacob Makes It across th e Jabbok: An Attempt to Solve the
Success/Failure Ambivalence in Israel‘s Self -Consciousness.‖ JSOT 38 (1987) 3 –13. McKenzie, J.
L. ―Jacob at Peniel: Gen 32:24 –32.‖ CBQ 25 (1963) 71 –76. McKenzie, S. ―‗You Have Prevailed‘:
The Function of Jacob‘s Encounter at Peniel in the Jacob Cycle.‖ ResQ 23 (1980) 225 –31.
Martin -Achard, R. ―Un exégète devant Gen 32:23 –33.‖ In Analyse struct urale et exégèse biblique,
ed. R. Barthes, F. Bovon, et al. Neuchàtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1971. 41 –62. Meier, S. A. The
Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World. HSM 45. Atlanta: Scholars, 1988. Pury, A. de. ―Jacob am
Jabbok, Gen 32:32 –33, im Licht einer alt -irischen Erzählung .‖ TZ 35 (1979) 18 –34. Ross, A. P.
―Jacob at the Jabbok, Israel at Peniel.‖ BSac 142 (198 5) 338 –54. Roth, W. ―Structural
Interpretations of ‗Jacob at the Jabbok.‘‖ BR 22 (1977) 51 –62. Shearman, S. L., and Curtis, J. B.
―Divine -Human Conflicts in the OT.” JNES 28 (1969) 231–42. Tsevat, M. ―Two OT Stories and
Their Hittite Analogues.‖ JAOS 103 (1983) 321 –26. Utzschneider, H. ―Das hermeneutische
Problem der Uneindeutigkeit biblischer Texte —dargestellt an Text un d Rezeption der Erzählung
von Jakob am Jabbok (Gen 32:23 –33).‖ EvT 48 (1988) 182 –98. Weber, B. ―Nomen est Omen:
Einige Erwägungen zu Gen 32:23 –33 und seinem Kontext.‖ BN 61 (1992) 76 –83. Weimar, P.
―Beobachtungen zur Analyse von Gen 32:23 –33.‖ BN 49 (1989) 53 –81; 50 (1989) 58 –94. ——— .
―‗O Israel, Erstling im Morgengrauenkampf‘ (Nelly Sachs): Zu Funktion und Theologie der
Gotteskampfepisode Gen 32:23 –33.‖ MTZ 40 (1989) 79 –113. Weis, R. D. ―Lessons on Wrestling
with the Unseen: Jacob at the Jabbok.‖ Reformed Review 42 (1989) 96 –112.
Form/Structure/Setting on 32:25 –33

32:25 –33 constitutes the fourth, and therefore the central, scene in the sequence of
seven that describe the return of Jacob to Canaan. Its mysteriousness and the critical
problems it poses have led to much discussion.
First, it should be noted with, most recent ly, Geller ( JANESCU 14 [1982] 37 –60), Blum
(Die Komposition ), Coats, and Westermann that this episode is an integral part of J‘s
account of Jacob. It includes the key words ―cross‖ ([
) and ―face‖ ( 
), which appear frequently in this context (32:17, 21 –24, 31 –32; 33:3, 10, 14). The
theme of blessing (32:27, 30) is another key word of the Jacob cycle. In chap. 27 , Jacob
obtains a blessing from his father; here, it comes from God himself. Also, as already noted,
the encounter with the ―man‖ (i.e., God) anticipates Jacob‘s meeting with Esau (―I have
seen your face which is like seeing the face o f God,‖ 33:10; cf. 32:31). And the
transformation of Jacob into Israel, the father of the nation, that takes place here is
momentous. The man who cheated his brother out of his blessing is now concerned that he
is about to meet that bro ther again and prays to God not to leave him in the lurch. ―The
night attack, the life and death struggle, and finally the unexpected conclusion, the gracious
blessing and bestowal of a new name, that is … God‘s answer to the deceiver Jacob … ,
whereby God ‘s sovereignty and faithfulness to his promise despite all human unworthiness
is demonstrated. Jacob is no longer the strong victorious controller of the divine but Israel
who is totally dependent on God‘s grace and lame‖ (de Pury, TZ 35 [1979] 18).
Contrary to many earlier critics who attempted to distinguish two sources, it is now
recognized following the work of Barthes that the tale is a substantial unity conforming to
the outline of many folk tales, with perhaps a few later additions.
Barthes (―La lutte,‖ 35) points out that the central part of the scene consists of a
dialogue in which new names are given:
v 28, God asks Jacob‘s name —Jacob‘s reply —v 29, Name changed
v 30, Jacob asks God‘s name —Indirect reply —v 31, Place name changed to Peniel
Furthermore, Barthes (38) observed that the whole story contains many of the features
of the typical folk tale as distinguished by Propp:
Move to new place
cf. 31:17, Jacob moved from Paddan -Aram
Struggle between hero and antagonist
cf. 32:25 –28
Hero receives bodily wound
cf. 32:26 –33, Jacob‘s limp
Victory of hero
cf. 32:27
End of bad luck or need
cf. 32:32, Jacob passe s Peniel and reaches

Shechem in Canaan (33:18)

De Pury ( TZ 35 [1979] 18 –34) has noted how many of the features of this story
correspond to an old Irish (pre -Christian) story, which make it plausible to suppose the

substantial integrity of 32:25 –33, and that any later additions must be quite minor. A
similar suggestion has been made about a Hittite text by Tsevat ( JAOS 103 [1983] 321 –22).
The scene falls into three parts:

vv 25–26
Description of the fight

vv 27 –31
Dialogue

Naming Israel (27 –29)

Naming of Peniel (30 –31)

vv 32 –33
Departure and Etiological comment (33)

This analysis shows that the emphasis of the story is on the names Israel and Peniel.
Much speculation has been devoted to reconstructing earlier forms of the tradition. Parallels
with other tales of night attacks by river demons are often cited to explain the origin of the
story. But as Eissfeldt ( KS 3, 414 –16) has pointed out, Jacob does not encounter a localized
deity but El, supreme creator God in the Semitic pantheon (32:31; 33:20). Nor is the nature
of Jacob‘s experience very cle ar. It does not seem to have been just a dream, nor can it be
spiritualized into wrestling in prayer; it does appear that a real fight was involved, for Jacob
went on his way limping (32:32). But having said that, the nature of the experience still
remains mysterious, as all encounters with God must nece
Comment
25–26 The brief account of the fight is tantalizingly obscure, raising as many questions
as it answers.
―Jacob was left alone.‖ It is not clear why Jacob should have brought his family across
the Yabbok and then returned to the northern side alone. Was it duty, or anxiety, or simply
to inform us that there was none of his party with him when he was attacked?
―A man struggled with him‖ describes the attack from Jacob‘s point of view; he is
assaulted by an unidentifiable male and has to fight for his life. The verb ―he struggled‖
(
) occurs only here and in v 26 and is clearly a play on the name Yabbok ( 
), and probably Jacob too (
). So we could paraphrase it ―he Yabboked him‖ or ―he Jacobed him‖! The form the
struggle took is left unspecified. 
is often said to be a by -form of 
―to embrace‖ (cf. 29:13; 33:4 ), a friendly gesture, but there is nothing friendly about
this encounter.
Gunkel, von Rad, and Westermann are among those who suggest that originally this was an

account of Jacob‘s encounter with a Canaanite river god. And this they hold is confirmed
by the ―man‘s‖ desire to depart before dawn, a regular feature of folk tale. However, as
Eissfeldt ( KS 3, 412 –16) observed, the story actually identifie s the opponent as El, the
supreme Canaanite creator god, while in other dangerous encounters with the divine (by
Moses, Exod 4:24 –26; Balaam, Num 22:22 –35; Josh 5:13 –16), the unrecognized foe is the
LORD or his angel, and often in Genesis the LORD is equat ed with El (See Introduction ,
―The Religion of the Patriarchs‖). The reference to dawn indicates first that the struggle
continued a good while, and second explains why Jacob was unaware of his foe‘s identity
and indeed took him on. Had he realized that hi s enemy was divine, he would never have
engaged him in a fight.
26 The absence of explicit subjects and objects has confused some readers, but this
verse may be expanded as follows: ―The man realized that he could not win, so he touched
Jacob‘s hip socket. ‖ For the Israelite reader knowing the man‘s identity, the first clause, ―he
could not win,‖ must have sounded astonishing. For Jacob, it was amazing that his
opponent merely by touching his hip could dislocate it, or numb it. Lund ( JBL 105 [1986]
99–103) notes ―numb‖ is the translation preferred by the versions. Westermann regards the
clause ―and Jacob‘s hip was dislocated … ‖ as a later addition. But there are no grounds for
the supposition, save that Jacob continues to fight in the next verse. Rather, this clause
gives an insight into Jacob‘s situation. A touch that dislocates indicates an opponent with
superhuman power (cf. Isa 6:7). But that apparently gives Jacob yet more determination to
fight on; indeed, he forces his opponent into speaking and disclosing something of his
identity.
27 Why did the ―man‖ demand to be let go before dawn broke? The midrash says the
angel wished to keep his appointment to sing in the heavenly choir. Modern commentators
generally note the similar request made by Jupiter: ―Why do you hold me? It is time. I want
to get out of the city before daybreak‖ (Plautus, Amphitryon 532–33). Both these ideas
seem to read too much into the words, while the commentator Jacob (following Rashbam,
Hiskuni, and Abrabanel) seems to see too little when he paraphrases, ―Let me go, for it is
time for you to give up.‖ Rather, it indicates a desire to continue to hide his identity. It may
also hint at the idea that no man can see God and live (cf. v 31; Exod 33:20). At any rate, it
is another hint to Jacob of the supernatural character of his opponent. So as always, Jacob,
the man supremely interested in blessing, demands one here; otherwise, he will not let go.
28 To bestow a blessing, the blesser must know who he is blessing. But for an angel to
ask Jacob‘s name is superfluous. However, by divulging his name, Jacob also discloses his
character. It is here a confession of guilt; as Jeremiah puts it, ―Every brother Jacobs [ RSV, is
a supplanter]‖ (Jer 9:3 [4]). In uttering his name, Jacob admits he has cheated his brother;
cf. ―Is he not rightly called Jacob? He has tricked me these two times‖ (27:36).
29 But instead of merely blessing him, his opponent changes Jacob‘s name, thus
announcing Jacob‘s new character and destiny. Similarly, Abram‘s name was changed to
Abraham and Sarai‘s to Sarah to presage the long -awaited fulfillment of the promise of the
birth of a son (17:5, 15). Here Jacob‘s rebaptism as Israel is equally significant, for Israel is
of course the name of the nation, and in granting it, Jacob‘s opponent reveals the true
import of the encounter, ―for you have struggled with God and with men and have
overcome.‖
The etymology of Israel offered by the text relates 
―Israel‖ to the verb 

―to struggle, fight.‖ So the word literally means ―El (God) fights.‖ This is not exactly
the same as ―you have struggled with God,‖ but it should be remembered that popular
etymologies in the Bible generally ta ke the form of a play on a name rather than a precise
historical etymology. It has also been thought that the notion of ―God fighting‖ is
incompatible with Israelite theology, so that the real meaning of Israel must be different. So
Geller ( JANESCU 14 [1982] 53), following the Greek translators (LXX, Aquila, Symmachus)
and the Vulgate, relates it to 
―to rule, be strong,‖ and E. Jacob ( Theology of the OT, 203) links Israel with 
―just, right,‖ comparing the other ancient poetic name Jeshurun (Deut 32:15; 33:5, 26).
Albright ( JBL 46 [1927] 159) suggested it was related to Ethiopic and Arabic stems
meaning ―to heal‖; hence the word means ―God heals.‖ R. B. Coote ( HTR 65 [1972] 140)
relates it to the noun 
, usually translated ―government‖ (e.g., Isa 9:6 [5]); hence he explains the name as ―El
judges,‖ which is very similar to M. Noth‘s earlier suggestion ( Personennamen , 208),
―May God rule.‖
But as Ross observes, ―these other suggestions are no more compelling than the popular
etymology given in the text of Genesis . … The concept of God‘s fighting with someone is
certainly no more of a problem than the passage itself. And the reversal of the emphasis
(from ‗God fights‘ to ‗fight with God‘) in the explanation is because of the nature of
popular etymologies , which are satisfied with a wordplay on the sound or meaning of the
name to express its significance‖ ( BSac 142 [1985] 348 –49).
His old name, Jacob, recalled his past underhand dealings; his new name, Israel,
recalled this incident in which he wrestled with God and prevailed. ―Thus his renaming as
Israel is not merely an honourable accolade, it is itself a valuable gift, a blessing ‖
(Dillmann, 357). Whenever his descendants heard this name, or used it to describe
themselves, they were reminded of its origin and of its meaning, that as their father had
triumphed in his struggle with men (i.e., Esau and Laban) and with God, so they too could
eventually hope to triumph. Within this episode, of course, his new name is a guarantee of a
successful meeting with his brother Esau.
30 The encounter ends as mysteriously as it began. The ―man‖ now implicitly identified
with God (cf. v 29) refuses to give his name, lest it be abused (cf. Judg 13:17 –18; Exod
20:7), and then he blesses Jacob. Then he disappears in the dark as suddenly as he came.
31 Elsewhere (v 32; Judg 8:8 –9, 17; 1 Kgs 1 2:25) Peniel is called Penuel. The form
Peniel may be used here because it sounds more like ―face of God.‖ Its location is
uncertain, save that it lies close to the southern bank of the Yabbok somewhere between
Mahanaim and Succoth. That it lies between th ese other towns is confirmed by the passages
in Judges and by Shishak‘s list of conquered towns. In Jeroboam I‘s time it was an
important administrative center. The likeliest candidate for Penuel is Tel edh -Dhahab a
Shaki (B. Oded, EM 6:509 –11), which stands on the bank of the Yabbok opposite western
Tel edh -Dhahab (= Mahanaim) (cf. Lemaire, VT 31 [1981] 50 –52).
But for Jacob the most important aspect of the encounter is that ―I have seen God face
to face, and yet my life was rescued.‖ Seeing God puts man in mortal danger (cf. Exod
33:20; Isa 6:5). The phrase ―was rescued‖ harks back to v 12, and so Jacob confesses that
his prayer for deliverance from Esau is answered. If he has survived meeting God, he will
survive his meeting with Esau.
32 The rising of the sun (cf. vv 25, 27) marks the passing of the time and the dawn of a new

era in Jacob‘s career. But he limps past Penuel, witnessing to the reality of his nocturnal
encounter and showing that although in one sense he was victorious, God had left his mark
on him. He was not totally self -sufficient.
33 Nowhere else in the OT is this custom of not eating the sciatic nerve ( nervus
ischiadic us) mentioned. Nor does it feature in later Jewish law, so Westermann‘s
contention that it is a late insertion into the story is unlikely. But like the rite of
circumcision, instituted when Abram‘s name was changed, and the other food laws (see G.
J. Wenha m, Leviticus, 170), this custom was a reminder of the nation‘s election. By
refraining from eating this sinew, the Israelites were constantly reminded of Jacob‘s
meeting with God and the promise of ultimate victory and blessing he wrung from God
then.
1–15 This great scene describes the long -dreaded meeting of Jacob and Esau. As befits
the peak of the story, there is retardation with repetitious detail in vv 1 –3 before the sudden
rush of verbs describing Esau‘s warm greeting of his brother in v 4. Then come s a rather
stilted discussion between the brothers, reflecting Jacob‘s uncertainty that he has really
been accepted by Esau and his consequent reluctance to trust him entirely (vv 5 –15).
1 At last Jacob sees Esau. Note how the narrator signals the momentou sness by saying
―Jacob raised his eyes and saw‖ (cf. 22:4, 13; 24:64). ―With four hundred men‖ as already
so ominously reported in 32:7. ―So he divided the children,‖ the same word, 
―split,‖ as in 32:8. Is Jacob still acting out of craven fear?
2 Is he arranging his family in this order so that those whom he loves most, Rachel and
Joseph, may stand the best chance of escape, with himself last of all in the procession so
that he can head the flight? This was clearly his motive in 32: 8–22. Or is he arranging his
family in order of precedence, so that they may be presented to prince Esau in the correct
way? We are left to wonder.
3 But ―he himself went on ahead of them‖ shows us the new Israel triumphing over the
old fear -dominated Jaco b. What is more, ―he bowed down seven times until he reached his
brother.‖ Sevenfold bowing was the proper act of respect of a vassal to his overlord, as the
Amarna letters show (e.g., 137, 244, 250; ANET 483–85). The term ―prostrate‖ occurs
frequently in Genesis as the proper gesture toward high officials (23:7, 12; 42:6; 43:26, 28;
cf. 37:7, 9, 10) and toward God or his angels (18:2; 19:1; 22:5). But here it seems to echo
Isaac‘s blessing of Jacob (27:29), which Isaac meant for Esau.
―May … nations bow down before you.
… may your mother‘s sons bow down before you. ‖
In bowing down before his brother, Jacob is doing more than acknowledging Esau‘s
lordship; he is trying to undo the great act of deception whereby he cheated Esau of his
blessing. Throughout this scene, he insists on making presents to Esau in an attempt t o
return to him the blessing (cf. 33:11) that should have been his.
4 And how warmly Esau responds. Now there is no hint of the murderous bitterness
with which they parted (27:41 –42). Instead, he greets Jacob with all the warmth of a
long-lost brother. The terms used here, ―running‖ (24:17; 29:12, 13), ―embracing‖ (29:13;
48:10), falling ―on the neck‖ (45:14), and ―weeping‖ (29:11; 45:14, 15; 46:29), are the
normal ways of greeting relatives in the Bible. But note here ―and they wept.‖ W hen Jacob
joins in weeping with Esau, the ice is broken; the brothers are reconciled, and verbal
communication can begin.

5–7 Esau opens the conversation as befits the superior party by asking about Jacob‘s wives
and children. And despite the fact that the y are brothers, Jacob maintains his deferential
posture by constantly referring to himself as ―your servant‖ and to Esau as ―my lord‖ (vv 5,
8, 13, 14, 15). He introduces his family in groups, who in turn prostrate themselves, thereby
once again reversing the blessing of 27:29.
But most striking of all is Jacob‘s first reply to Esau: ―The children with whom God has
favored your servant.‖ Here a key word ―favor‖ ( 
, verb), 
in this narrative, appears for the second time (cf. 32:6; 3 3:8, 10, 11, 15). It is striking
that a third of the seventeen references in Genesis to this term occur in these two chapters
on the lips of Jacob. It might rather have been expected that Jacob would have said ―the
children with whom God has blessed me.‖ N ot only is the root ―to bless‖ much more
common (88x) in Genesis, but Jacob is preeminently the man who seeks blessing (cf. chap.
27 and 32:27). Yet here he avoids using the word ―bless.‖ Westermann suggests that Jacob
uses the word ―fa vor‖ here rather than ―bless‖ because it includes the idea of forgiveness,
which is absent from bless. But it may also well be that he wants to avoid any reference to
that unhappy day when he cheated Esau out of his blessing. By word and gesture,
prostrati ng himself and giving gifts, he is trying to undo his sins of many years earlier.
8–11 The conversation continues with Esau in jovial mood, whereas Jacob is earnestly
deferential. Esau jocularly puns, ―What is all this camp ( 
mh\nh) that I have encoun tered?‖ Doubtless he realized Jacob was sending him a
present (
mnh\h; cf. 32:14, 19, 21; 33:10), for Jacob had told his servants to explain that they
were a gift (32:19). But the pun touched Jacob, for originally he had divided hi s
possessions into ―camps‖ so that they could escape, should Esau attack (32:8, 9, 11).
So Jacob quietly explains again ―to find favor [ 9–10 Now the exchange becomes
more heated; note the introductions, Esau said/ Jacob said. Jacob finally persuades Esau to
accept, because as he says, ―I have seen your face which is like seeing the face of God, and
you have accepted me.‖ The verb ―accept‖ ( 
) is an important sacrificial term used to describe God‘s receiving of sacrifice (e.g., Lev
1:4; 7:18; 19:7). Jacob‘s argument is that since you have received me with forgiveness as
God has, so you must accept my ―present,‖ a term also used for sacrifice (e.g., 4:3–5; Lev
2:1, 3 –7), as God would.
11 Indeed you must receive back the blessing that I stole from you, because God has
given me more than enough.
This was too much for Esau, but Jacob insists, for doubtless he felt he could not be sure
of Esau‘s forgiveness if he refused his attempt to make a mends. ―He pressed him‖ is a very
strong term, as its use elsewhere (19:3, 9; Judg 19:7; 2 Kgs 2:17; 5:16) shows. But
eventually Esau gave in: ―he took it.‖
12–15 Esau responds to Jacob‘s gift of herds by offering him land, by inviting him to come
with him to the land of Seir (v 12). But Jacob courteously, note ―my lord‖ (vv 13 –15),
rejects the offer, ostensibly because his group of children and animals could not keep up
with Esau‘s band of warriors (v 13). But is that his only motive? His refusal, accordin g to
von Rad, shows ―the mistrust of one who himself has often deceived‖ (328). Calvin
suggests that perhaps Esau‘s charity would not last, and ere long some new cause of

conflict might arise between them. There could be a theological reason too; Jacob is
returning at the LORD‘s instruction to his homeland of Canaan, which does not include Seir
(cf. 31:3, 13; 32:10). These different motives are not mutually exclusive, and the
uncertainty in which the narrative leaves us is no doubt delib erate. Relations between Israel
and Edom were uncertain at the best of times.
14 In the light of Jacob‘s actual journey, this remark seems somewhat disingenuous. It
is clearly a very polite way of saying he is not coming to Esau‘s place now; ―until I come to
my lord in Seir‖ leaves his time of arrival quite indeterminate. Indeed, the use of singular
―I‖ could be construed as implying that not all the party will come there anyway.
15 Even Esau‘s offer of a bodyguard is politely turned down, whether out of fe ar or
faith (God had often promised to be with Jacob, e.g., 31:3; 32:10) being again left open.
What matters is that he has found ―favor.‖
16–17 On this very positive note, they go their own ways (cf. 32:1–2). Seir is the
traditional homeland of the Edomites (cf. 36:8 and Comment on 14:6).
17 According to the Jerusalem Talmud ( t. Sðeb . 9.2), Succoth is to be identified with
Tell Deir<Alla. An alternative is Tell Ekhsas, which literally means ―booths.‖ Both sites
are in the eastern Jordan valley and just over a mile apart, north of the Yabbok. This is
perhaps surprising in that the text says nothing about Jacob recrossing the Yabbok, so it
could be that neither of the sites is correct (c f. Jacob). However, it is said that Jacob built a
house there, which may suggest that he spent a good while there (certainly by chap. 34 his
children have grown up), so the itinerary may be rather compressed. Succoth is also
mentioned i n Josh 13:27; Judg 8:5 –6, 8, 14 –16; Pss 60:8(6); 108:8(7). Here the main point
of the comment is etiological, to explain the origin of the name Succoth and to note its
connection with the patriarch.
18–20 As already noted in Form/Structure/Setting , these v erses form both the
conclusion to chaps. 32 –33 and a prelude to chap. 34. They constitute an expanded
itinerary, as in 12:5 –9; 13:1 –4; 26:22 –25. And though the comments seem mundane, they
are of immense significance, for they record that eventually Jacob d id reach Canaan after
returning from Paddan -Aram. He also bought land there and built an altar. Throughout the
whole Jacob cycle, the return to Canaan from Paddan -Aram has always been the goal; now
it has been reached, so the promises have been fulfilled —a most fitting end to his
wanderings (28:2, 5 –6, 15; 30:25; 31:3, 13, 18; 32:10 [9]). But as the mention of Shechem
hints, things are not to work out quite as smoothly as he might have hoped.
18 ―Then Jacob came to Salem, the city of Shechem.‖ Here Shechem is to be understood as
a personal name, not the city called Shechem mentioned elsewhere (e.g., 12:6; 35:4).
However, many commentators following the Samaritan Pentateuch translate this sentence
―Then Jacob came in peace to the city called Shechem,‖ seeing this as the fulfillment of
Jacob‘s prayer in 28:21. Now while Hebrew 
―to Salem‖ could be translated ―in peace,‖ nowhere else in the OT is it used in this way as
an adverb qualifying a verb. And elsewhere in the phrase ―the city of X,‖ X is usually the
name of someone who lives in the city, such as its king, rather than the name of the city
itself (e.g., 24:10; Num 21:26 –27; 22:36; 1 Sam 15:5). Finally, the ancient versions all
regard ―Sa lem‖ as a place name, and it may be identified with the modern village of
―Salim‖ about three miles east of Tel Balata (biblical Shechem). Nevertheless, in that
Genesis often plays on proper names, there may be a hint of irony in this comment. The
city cal led ―peaceful‖ was to be the scene of the bitterest strife in the patriarchal narrative

(34:30; cf. a similar irony in Noah‘s name, 5:29; 6:6 –8, and see Comments ).
19 This verse reinforces the atmosphere of peaceful security suggested b y the name
―Salem.‖ Whereas Abraham bought land from the ―sons of Heth‖ only after tense
negotiations for humanitarian purposes, the burial of his wife, Jacob bought land (the same
root 
in 25:10; 49:30; 50:13) just to camp on, not for four hundred she kels (23:15) but for
one hundred qesita from the ―sons of Hamor.‖ These points of similarity and difference are
significant. They do suggest good relations between Jacob and the sons of Hamor.
Unfortunately, we do not know the relative worth of the shekel and qesita. If the qesita was
smaller than the shekel, it would suggest greater generosity on the part of the Hamorites. If,
on the other hand, it was worth considerably more, and Job 42:11 may support this, it
would show the greater wealth of Jacob and im ply he acquired even more land from the
Canaanites than his grandfather had.
20 At any rate, his arrival in the promised land and his purchase of substantial real
estate there prompted him to worship just as his forefathers had done (12:7 –8; 13:18;
26:25; 35:7).
―He erected an altar.‖ Elsewhere the verb usually used of altar construction is 
―to build,‖ whereas the word used here, 
―erect,‖ is twice used in Genesis of setting up sacred pillars (e.g., 35:14, 20). Thi s
hardly proves ( pace Westermann) that the text originally spoke of Jacob erecting a pillar,
for this verb is also used of erecting a pile of stones (2 Sam 18:17), but it may allude to
those other great moments in his career when Jacob did erect such stand ing stones (cf.
28:18; 35:14, 20).
In calling the altar ―El, the God of Israel,‖ Jacob acknowledges that the creator God who
had changed his name at the Yabbok to Israel was now his God, and by implication his
descendants‘ God too. He had vowed at Bethel that if the LORD brought him back to his
father‘s house in peace, ―the LORD will be my God‖ (28:21). He has yet to reach Bethel,
where he will fulfill the rest of the vow, but by naming this altar he is reaffirming his
allegiance to El and declaring that El is Israel‘s God.
Explanation
This account of Jacob and Esau‘s reconciliation is another high point in Genesis. It is
tense and dramatic; it is also puzzling and enigmatic. It apparently brings the sad story of
fraternal strife to a happy and joyful resolution. It brings the exiled Jacob back to his
homeland, the promised land of Canaan. Jacob‘s new name Is rael presages a new character
at peace with God and man. But as the closing scenes suggest, his relations with Esau
remain uneasy, and the friendly Canaanites will soon prove to be the cause of Jacob‘s
greatest shame. As often in Genesis, the narrative ill ustrates the triumph of the divine
promises despite human folly and fallibility.
The first scene (vv 4 –7) shows Jacob attempting for the first time in twenty years to make
contact with his brother Esau, now living in Seir, in southern Transjordan. His mess age,
couched in excessively deferential language, ―my lord Esau, your servant Jacob,‖ suggests
a guilty conscience and his fear of possible revenge. He deliberately omits any reference to
the reason for his long sojourn with Laban, simply suggesting that i t was because he was
doing so well in business there. Now, after his absence, he wishes to find favor with Esau.

But the embassy returns with no certainty about Esau‘s intentions, simply that he has four
hundred men with him.
Realizing that mere words may not be enough to mollify his brother, Jacob now adopts
desperate measures to win him over. The second scene (32:8 –21) shows Jacob in a panic,
first taking immediate defensive measures to protect his party (vv 8 –10), then praying
earnestly (vv 10 –13), and f inally sending a series of generous presents to Esau (vv 14 –22)
to appease him. Jacob‘s prayer, one of the longest in Genesis, highlights many of the
theological emphases that recur in the book. It is God who has put him in his present
predicament, ―who sa id to me, ‗Return to your country,‘‖ and promised to care for him
―that I may do good for you.‖ He recalls the LORD‘s past goodness both by calling him ―the
God of my father Abraham‖ and by listing the ways he has flourished and prospered since
he left hom e. But now everything could come to a sorry end, so he pleads, ―Please rescue
me from the hand of my brother‖ —do not let him kill me as Cain murdered Abel or even
worse ―kill the mother with the children‖ (v 12). Thus Jacob appeals to God‘s compassion,
but finally he reverts to God‘s promise, for ―it is you who have said that I shall indeed do
good for you and make your descendants as numerous as the sand of the sea.‖ Jacob‘s
prayer, with its appeal to God‘s mercy and promises, is typical of prayers in Scri pture
(Exod 32:11 –13; Josh 7:6 –9; Neh 1:5 –11; 9:6 –37), not least in the so -called psalms of
lament (e.g., Pss 7, 17, 22, 26).
Neither paralyzed by fear nor made complacent by faith, Jacob now acts decisively to
appease his brother‘s wrath. He sends five different herds or flocks ahead as gifts to his
brother. He describes them in religious terms, as ―a present‖ (a type of sacrifice) designed
to ―mollify‖ Esau so that ―he will accept me‖; the use of these key terms drawn from the
language of sacrificial worship shows Jacob‘s keenness to make peace with his brother and
to atone for his past misdeeds (vv 14 –22).
But will his prayers be answered or his presents accepted? Jacob‘s great anxiety is
hinted at by the comment in the ne xt short scene (vv 23 –24), ―he rose that night.‖ Before
the age of artificial lighting, it was extraordinary to undertake something as risky as a river
crossing by night. But Jacob does; he cannot bear the strain of waiting any longer. He must
press on to meet his brother. He crosses the Yabbok.
Then the unexpected strikes. Having safely brought his family across the fast -flowing
Yabbok, he finds himself alone struggling single -handedly with an unknown man. The
darkness of the scene is matched by the opacit y of the narrative. The reader is allowed to
see no more than Jacob. The identity of Jacob‘s unknown opponent is as obscure to modern
readers as it was to Jacob. At first he just thought he was fighting a man, for he seemed to
be winning. But when the man touched his hip socket and dislocated it, Jacob began to
wonder. Despite his injury or because of it, he determined to fight on, even when his
strange opponent asked to be let go, ―for the dawn has broken.‖ Jacob, as quick as ever to
make spiritual profit out of other people‘s difficulty (or was it because he sensed his
adversary‘s supernatural power?), insists on receiving a blessing before he will let his
enemy go. Throughout his career, Jacob had been determined to acquire blessing by fair
means or foul; he had deprived his brother Esau of both his birthright and his blessing. And
now on the eve of his first meeting with Esau since that fateful episode (chap. 27), Jacob is
portrayed as still anxious to acquire blessing: he does not seem to have changed.
But instead of simply acceding to his demand, the adversary asks his name. ―Jacob‖ he
replies, thereby admitting his grimy past. From the womb he clutched his brother‘s heel
(25:26). And later Esau ruefully commented, ―Is he not rightly called Jacob? He has

cheated me these two times. My right as the firstborn he took away and just now he has
taken away my blessing‖ (27:36). Now, instead of Jacob, he is renamed Israel, ―God fights‖
or ―God rules,‖ ―for you have struggled with God and with men and have overco me.‖
Names throughout Scripture are significant, but changes of name in midlife are specially so
(cf. Abram/Abraham and Sarai/Sarah in 17:5, 15). Here Jacob‘s new name was to become
the nation‘s name, and it is fraught with significance .
As often in the Bible, the historical etymology of a name does not exactly match the
significance assigned it by the biblical writers. Israel, ―God fights or rules,‖ is here
reinterpreted as a reference to Jacob‘s struggle with God . Yet this reinterpreta tion captures
the paradox of Jacob‘s struggle precisely. For while Jacob struggled with God, it was God
who allowed Jacob to triumph in the fight. In a similar way, the LORD tested Abraham yet
provided a ram for the burnt offering (22:1 –14). Later, Moses‘ deadly encounter with the
LORD prefigured the divine deliverance from Egypt (Exod 4:24 –26). Jacob‘s experience at
the Yabbok, wrestling with God and yet surviving, was in later times seen as prefiguring
the national experience (Hos 12:5). Running through t he psalms of national lament there is
a similar conviction that the nation‘s trials are heaven -sent; yet only from heaven can they
look for deliverance (e.g., Pss 74, 79, 80, 83). So this story of Jacob‘s struggle with God
summed up for Israel their national destiny. Among all their trials and perplexities in which
God seemed to be fighting against them, he was ultimately on their side; indeed, he would
triumph, and in his victory, Israel would triumph too.
The church, too, faces testing and struggle. Indeed, we pray, ―Lead us not into
temptation, but deliver us from evil,‖ thereby acknowledging that God may allow us to be
put in testing situations, but through his grace we may overcome them. So Calvin (2:196)
aptly comments on the parallels between our experience and Jacob‘s: ―What was once
exhibited under a visible form to our father Jacob is daily fulfilled in the individual
members of the church, namely in their temptations it is necessary for them to wrestle with
God. He is said, indeed, to tempt us in a different manner from Satan; but because he alone
is the Author of our crosses and afflictions, … he is said to tempt us when he makes trial of
our faith . … He having challenged us to this contest at the same time furnish es us with
means of resistance, so that he both fights against us and for us. In short, such is his
apportioning of this conflict that while he assails us with one hand, he defends us with the
other; yea, in as much as he supplies us with more strength to resist than he employs in
opposing us, we may truly and properly say, that he fights against us with his left hand, and
for us with his right hand. For while he lightly opposes us, he supplies invincible strength
whereby we overcome.‖
The stranger‘s explan ation of the name Israel, ―you have struggled with God and with men
and have overcome,‖ prompts Jacob to inquire about his identity. But he refuses to disclose
it. Instead, he blesses Jacob. Then Jacob realizes that he has been wrestling with God, and
his demanding pushiness turns to awe, ―I have seen God face to face and yet my life was
rescued‖ (v 31). Earlier he had prayed to be rescued from his brother Esau (v 12); now he
gives thanks that he has survived the much more dangerous encounter with God, for as the
OT repeatedly shows, meeting God unprepared is often fatal (Lev 10; 2 Sam 6). And as
perpetual reminders of his experience, Jacob names the place Peniel, ―face of God,‖ and
decrees that from henceforth his descendants should not eat the sciatic nerve.
The Peniel episode has delayed the climax of the narrative, the reunion of the brothers,
but has at the same time prepared the way for it. Jacob is now a new man, Israel; his
encounter with God has prepared him to meet Esau, as Jacob hi mself stresses by comparing

Esau to God (vv 10 –11). The new character of Israel is soon apparent. Courage replaces
cowardice as Jacob himself strides ahead of his family to meet Esau (v 3). Humility takes
the place of arrogance as he bows down seven times before his brother (v 3). And penitence
prompts him to attempt to give back the blessing out of which he had cheated Esau (vv
10–11). Through his Peniel experience, Jacob has been reborn as Israel.
Esau, too, has changed. When last heard of, he had been wa iting for his father to die, so
that he could take his revenge on Jacob and kill him. But here, completely unexpectedly,
―he ran to meet Jacob, embraced him, fell on his neck, kissed him and they wept‖ (v 4). He
is most reluctant to accept Jacob‘s gifts, a rguing that he has more than enough to keep him
happy (v 9). He warmly invites Jacob to come and live with him in Seir (vv 12, 14 –15).
Such warmth after so many years of hatred makes this scene one of the most beautiful in
Scripture. The full and free forg iveness that Esau displays toward his deceitful brother is, as
Jacob himself recognizes, a model of divine love, ―for I have seen your face, which is like
seeing the face of God, and you have accepted me‖ (v 10). Indeed, Jesus seems to allude to
this scene when he describes the father of the prodigal son greeting his return, ―his father
ran and embraced him and kissed him‖ (Luke 15:20), a theme taken up by Paul in
commenting on God‘s work of reconciliation in Christ (2 Cor 5:16 –21). And, of course, the
duty of making peace with your brother is stressed throughout Scripture (Lev 19:17 –18; Ps
133; Prov 17:9, 17; Matt 5:21 –26; 1 John 4:12 –21).
But his new birth at Peniel did not obliterate the past or completely change Jacob‘s
character; the new Israe l still had features of the old Jacob. He does not seem entirely to
trust Esau‘s warmth; the old fears and suspicions still lurk there, as he refuses to
accompany him immediately to Seir. More charitably, one may surmise that in obedience to
God Jacob may have felt obliged to return to Canaan (cf. 31:3; 32:10), but the way he
justifies his refusal (vv 13 –15) suggests his motives are not entirely pure. But, for whatever
reasons, Jacob returns to Canaan, makes his home there, buys land, and worships El, the
God of Israel. At last, he and the narrative have reached their destination; Israel has settled
in Canaan, the land promised to his forefather Abraham. This seems the right place to end
the story of Jacob, but as so often in Genesis, what promises to be the ultimate resolution
proves to be the making of another crisis.
Dinah and the Hivites (34:1 -31)
Bibliography
Caspi, M. M. ―‗And his soul clave unto Dinah‘ (Gen 34): The Story of the Rape of Dinah, the
Narrator and the Reader.‖ AJBI 11 (1985) 16 –53. ——— . ―The Story of the Rape of Dinah: The
Narrator and the Reader.‖ HS 26 (1985) 25 –45. Collins, J. J. ―The Epic of Theodotus and the
Hellenism of the Hasmoneans.‖ HTR 73 (1980) 91 –104. Diebner, B. J. ―Gen 34 und Dinas Rolle
bei der Definition ‗Israels.‘‖ DBAT 19 (1984) 59 –76. Fensham, F. C. ―Gen 34 and Mari.‖ JNSL 4
(1975) 87 –90. Fewell, D. N., and Gunn, D. M. ―Tipping the Balance: Sternberg‘s Reader and the
Rape of Dinah.‖ JBL 110 (1991) 193 –211. Fischer, G. ―Die Redewendung  
im AT: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis von Jes 40:2.‖ Bib 65 (1984) 244 –50. Geller, S. A. ―The Sack
of Shechem: The Use of Typology in Biblical Covenant Religion.‖ Prooftexts 10 (1990) 1–15.
Kass, L. R. ―Regarding Daughters and Sisters: The Rape of Dinah.‖ Commentary 93 (1992) 29 –38.

Kessler, M. ―Gen 34: An Interpretation.‖ Reformed Review 19 (1965/66) 3 –8. Kevers, P. ―Étude
littéraire de Gen 34.‖ RB 87 (1980) 38 –86. Klein, H. ―Natur und Recht: Israels Umgang mit dem
Hochzeitsbrauchtum seiner Umwelt.‖ TZ 37 (1981) 3 –18. Pummer, R. ―Gen 34 in Jewish Writings
of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods.‖ HTR 75 (1 982) 177 –88. Pury, A. de. ―Gen 34 et l‘histoire.‖
RB 76 (1969) 5 –49. Reviv, H. ―Early Elements and Late Terminology in the Descriptions of
Non-Israelite Cities in the Bible.‖ IEJ 27 (1977) 189 –96. Salkin, J. K. ―Dinah, the Torah‘s
Forgott en Woman.‖ Judaism 35 (1986) 284 –89. Schmitt, G. ―Der Ursprung des Levitentums.‖
ZAW94 (1982) 575 –99. Segal, N. Review of The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, by M. Sternberg. VT
38 (1988) 243 –49. Smitten, W. H. in der. ―Gen 34: Ausdruck der Volksmeinung?‖ BO 30 (1973)
7–9. Speiser, E. A. ―The Verb shr in Genesis and Early Hebrew Movements.‖ BASOR 164 (1961)
23–28. Sternberg, M. ―Biblical Poetics and Sexual Politics: From Reading to Counter -Reading.‖
JBL 111 (1992) 463 –88. ——— . Poetics. 445–75. Wyatt, N. ―The Story of Dinah and Shechem.‖
UF 22 (1990) 433 –58.
Translation
1Dinah, the daughter Leah had borne to Jacob, went out to visit the girls of the region.
2Shechem, the son of Hamor, the Hivite,a the prince of the region, saw her, took her, laid
her,b and shamedc her. 3 He became very attacheda to Dinah, Jacob‘s daughter; he loveda
the girlb and spokea reassuringly to her. 4So Shechem said to his father Hamor, ―Get this
child for me to marry.‖
5a Now Jacob had heard that his daughter Dinah had been defiled, when his sons
were out in the countryside with the flocks, and he had remainedabsilent until they
returned.c 6 Then Hamor, Shechem‘s father , came to Jacob to discuss with him. 7
Meanwhile, Jacob‘s sonsa had returned from the countryside as soon as they had
heard,b and the men we re indignant and very angryc because a disgrace had been done
in Israel by lying with Jacob‘s daughter, which oughtd never to be done. 8 So Hamor
spoke with them as follows: ―You know my son Shechem;a he has fallen in love with
your daughter. Please let him marry her. 9 You shall intermarrya withb us; you can givec
your daughters to us, and you may take our daughters for yourselves. 10 You may live
with us; the land is yours, stay here, travela freely in it, and acquire possessionsb in it.‖
11 Shechem said to her father and brothers, ―Let me be favoreda by you, and I shall give
whatever you say to me. 12 Imposea on me a very large marriage present and gift, and I
shall give as muchb as you say to me. But let me have the girl to marry.‖ 13 Then the
sons of Jacob responded deceitfullya to Shechem and his father Hamor as they
discussed, becauseb he had defiled Dinah their sister. 14 Theya said to them, ―We cannot
do this to allow our sister to marry a man who is uncircumcised, for that would be a
disgrace to us. 15 Only on this conditiona will we consentb to you, if you will become like
us and let all your males be circumcised.c 16 Then we shall give our daughters to you,
and we shall marry your daughters; we shall live with you and become one people. 17
But if you do not agree with us to be circumcised, we shall take our daughter and be
off.‖
18Their reply seemed very good to Hamor and to Shechem, Hamor‘s son. 19 So he
did not delaya accepting this idea, because he was infatuated with Jacob‘s daughter,
and he was the most important in his father‘s household.
20Hamo r and his son Shechem camea to the gate of their city and discussed with the
men of their town as follows. 21 ―These men are peaceably disposed toward us. Let

them livea in the land, travel freely in it. Look, the land is big enough for them. Then we
shall marry their daughters,b and we shall give our daug htersb to them. 22But only on
this condition will the men consent to live with us and become one people, when all our
males are circumciseda as th ey are. 23 Their flocks, their possessions, and all their
herds, will they not be ours? Let us just agree with them and let them live with us.‖
24All those who came to the city gate agreed with Hamor and his son Shechem, a
and every male among all those who came to the city gate was circumcised.a
25On the third day, when they werea still sore, two sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi,
brothers of Dinah, each took a sword, entered the city which felt s ecure, and killed all
the males. 26 They evena slew Hamor and his son Shechem with the sword, took Dinah
from Shech em‘s house and left. 27a The sons of Jacob entered over the slain,b plunderedc
the city because their sister had been defiled.d 28a They took their flocks and cattle and
their donkeys, whatever was in the town and in the countryside.a 29 They took captive
their wealth, all their yo ung children, and their wives, and they plundered everything in
their houses.
30Jacob said to Simeon and Levi: ―You have brought ruin on me by making me stinka
among the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites and the Perizzites. Ib am just a small
group, but they will bandc together, attackd me, and destroy me, both me and my
household.‖ 31 But they said, ―Shoulda he treat our sister b like a prostitute?‖b
Notes
2.a. G has ―Horite‖ instead of Hivite.
2.b. BHS points 
―with her‖ instead of 
―her‖ following G, S. However, this is unwarranted; 
followed by direct object, e.g., ―her,‖ often imp lies forcible illegitimate intercourse
(Num 5:13, 19; Ezek 23:8; cf. Gen 34:7; 19:34; 26:10).
2.c. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. piel [
+ 3 fem. sg suffix.
3.a. Note three consecutive verbs describing the intensity of Shechem‘s passion ( SBH,
42).
3.b. On spelling of 
, cf. n. 24:14.a.
5.a-a. On th e string of circumstantial clauses beginning an episode, cf. SBH, 79, 87.
5.b. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg pf hiph 
. Though waw + pf is unusual here, it is not unparalleled (cf. GKC, 112ss; Joüon, 119z) and

does not warrant BHS‘s proposed emendation.
5.c. Inf constr 
+ 3 masc. pl. suffix.
7.a. On the preverbal position of the subject, see EWAS, 36.
7.b. 
+ inf constr [
+ 3 masc. pl. suffix.
7.c. Cf. n. 6:6.b.*
7.d. Cf. n. 29:26.a.*
8.a. On the use of casus pendens , here highlighting the subj of the sentence, Shechem,
see EWAS, 93–95; Joüon, 156b; 157d, n.
9.a. Waw + 2 masc. pl. impv hithp 9.b. GKC 117w, BHS would repoint 
instead of MT 
―us.‖ It is certainly unusual for a hithp to be followed by a direct obj.
9.c. 2 masc. pl. impf. qal 10.a. Waw + 2 masc. pl. impv qal 
+ 3 fem. sg suffix.
10.b. Waw + 2 masc. pl. impv niph 
. SamPent has qal.
11.a. Coh in mood though not in form (so Joüon, 114b, n.).
12.a. 2 masc. pl. impv hiph  12.b. On this use of 
, cf. Joüon, 174a.
13.a. MT’s word order makes 
―deceitfully‖ modify ―responded,‖ but BHS, following S, would place it after
―discussed.‖
13.b. On this meaning of 
, see GKC, 158b.
14.a. G inserts ―Simeon and Levi, the brothers of Dinah, the sons of Leah.‖
15.a. On this use of beth pretii , see GKC, 119p.

15.b. 1 pl. impf. qal (so GKC, 72h) niph (BDB, KB) 15.c. 
+ inf constr niph 19.a. 3 masc. sg pf piel  20.a. Sg verb with composite pl. subj
(GKC, 146f).
21.a. SamPent omits waw
smoothing the syntax (cf. EWAS, 75, n. 27).
21.b. Preverbal position of the object ―daughters‖ serves to contrast them.
22.a. Masc pl. ptcp niph 24.a. To avoid the repetition with the first part of the verse,
G rewords ―and they were circumcised in the flesh of their foreskin, every male.‖
25.a. Cf. n. 4:8.b.*
26.a. The preverbal position of the obj, ―Hamor and … Shechem,‖ suggests emphasis on
them, hence the tra nslation ―even‖ (cf. EWAS, 38–40).
27.a. SamPent, S, (G?) read 27.b. BHS, Gunkel, and Westermann propose
 27.c. Waw consec + 3 masc. pl. impf. 27.d. Here 3 pl. ―they had defiled‖ used
impersonally for a pass ( GKC, 144g).
28.a-a. Chiastic apposition between vv 27 and 28 is characteristic of epic style
according to SBH, 40.
30.a. 
+ inf constr hiph 
+ 1 sg suffix.
30.b. Word order puts a slight emphasis on pronominal subj ―I‖ (EWAS, 11).
30.c. Waw consec + 3 pl. pf niph  30.d. Waw consec + 3 pl. pf hiph 
+ 1 sg suffix.
31.a. On this n uance of the impf., see Joüon, 113m; WOC, 509.
31.b-b. In the sentence this phrase comes first, giving it unmistakable emphasis (EWAS, 43).
Form/Structure/Setting
Though some scholars have argued that this episode begins in 33:18, we have already
accepted the view that 33:18 –20 is the close of the preceding episode, which at the same
time anticipates chap. 34 Form/Structure/Setting on 32:4 –33:20). 34:31, with its powerful
rhetorical question ―Should he treat our sister like a prostitute?‖ makes a fitting close to the
story (for similar dramatic closures, cf. 27:45; 29:14; 30:24; 37:35; 42:38; 45:28). 35:5
clearly looks back to chap. 34, but this is not sufficient warrant to make 35:5 the close of
the narrative as Westerm ann does.

The chapter falls into four scenes:

Scene 1:
Shechem rapes Dinah and seeks to marry her (1 –4)

Speech to father: ―Get this child for me to marry‖ (4)

Scene 2:
Hamor and Shechem propose a marriage alliance with Jacob‘s family (5 –19)

Hamor‘s speech (8 –10)

Shechem‘s speech (11 –12)

Jacob‘s sons‘ speech (14 –17)

Hamor and Shechem consent (18 –19)

Scene 3:
Hamor and Shechem put terms for marriage alliance to townsfolk (20 –24)

Hamor and Shechem speak (21 –23)

Townsfolk consent (24)

Scene 4:
Jacob‘s sons rape the town

Speech to father: ―Should he treat our sister as a prostitute?‖ (31)

Sternberg ( Poetics ) and Kevers ( RB 87 [1980] 38 –86)have already noted how the
terminology used toward the end of the narrative echoes that used at the beginning, e.g., ―go
out‖ (
; vv 1, 26); ―take‖ ( 
; vv 2, 4, 25, 26, 28). But the above scenic analysis makes the symmetry of the story
even more striking. Scene s 1 and 4 are both largely narrative. Scene 1 describes the rape of
Dinah and her subsequent detention by Shechem and then concludes with Shechem
demanding that his father arrange a marriage with her (v 4). Scene 4 describes the slaughter
of the men of She chem by Jacob‘s sons and their capture of the women, children, and
flocks of the town and concludes with a brusque justification of their action to their father
Jacob (v 31). Scenes 2 and 3 are both largely dialogues about the terms on which the
Shechemite s will marry the Israelites. Here the parallels are verbal as well as ideological.
Both scenes conclude with the listeners accepting the terms of the intermarriage agreement
(vv 18 –19, 24).
Though chap. 34 is well constructed in itself, it is not immediate ly apparent why it
should be included in the Jacob cycle at all; it does not seem to relate to the theme of

Genesis. By 33:20, Jacob has been reconciled to Esau and has returned to Canaan. 35:1 –16
recounts how he finally reaches Bethel, the starting point of his journey. But chap. 34
seems to be a digression, contributing very little to the plot. What is its place and function
within the Jacob cycle?
Before discussing how chap. 34 relates to the theme of Genesis in general, and the Jacob
story in particular , its inseparability from its context needs to be pointed out. It is no stray
boulder that just happens to have come to rest here, but it presupposes what precedes and is
assumed in the material that follows. Its geographic setting in Canaan presupposes Ja cob‘s
return there. The family relationship of Jacob marrying Leah who bore him six sons and a
daughter is obviously assumed. Less obvious, but even more significant for understanding
the emotions of the actors in the story, is the fact that Jacob was neve r very fond of Leah
and her children. Jacob‘s indifference to his daughter‘s humiliation here stands in sharp
contrast to his passionate attachment to Joseph and Benjamin, the sons of Rachel his
favorite wife, displayed in the Joseph story. And it seems li kely that it is Jacob‘s
indifference to Dinah‘s plight that prompts the violent overreaction of her brothers in this
story. Central too to this narrative is the necessity of circumcision for inclusion within the
Israelite community, a principle spelled out in chap. 17. Indeed, the phraseology of 34:15,
―let all your males be circumcised,‖ seems to be a direct quote from 17:10, and the other
passages about circumcising the males in 34:17, 22, 24 also seem to echo 1
These general observations show that chap. 34 presupposes the earlier narratives in
Genesis, but there are also explicit links within the surrounding material that show that the
editor viewed this narrative as integral to Genesis. In 30:21, the birth of Dinah is
mentioned, the only daughter of Jaco b to have her arrival recorded. Usually the birth of
girls is not recorded, since the family line was traced through the sons, who inherited the
family land. The birth of a daughter is mentioned only if she is to figure prominently in the
subsequent narrat ive. In this respect, 30:21 parallels 22:23, where Rebekah is the only girl
in an otherwise all -male genealogy. 22:23 thus anticipates chap. 24 just as 30:21 anticipates
chap. 34. Similarly, it is customary in Genesis for the end of one episode to include a trailer
for the next one. This is exactly what is found here. 33:18 –19 records Jacob‘s arrival at
Salem, the city of Shechem, and his purchase of land from the sons of Hamor. This sets the
scene for the events of chap. 34. Then Jacob‘s fearful see commen t in 34:30, ―You have
brought ruin on me … they will band together, attack me, and destroy me,‖ anticipates his
journey on to Bethel recorded in 35:1 –5, especially 35:5, ―Divine terror fell on the
surrounding towns so that they did not pursue the sons of J acob.‖ Finally, Jacob condemns
Simeon and Levi‘s slaughter of the Shechemites in his farewell speech, usually called the
blessing of Jacob (49:5 –7). These points all indicate that as far as the final editor of Genesis
was concerned, chap. 34 is integral to the plot and must somehow relate to the theme. But
most studies fail to address this problem.
Fishbane ( Text and Texture ), Fokkelman ( Narrative Art ), and Rendsburg ( Redaction )
have all noted that there is a certain correspondence between chap. 26 and chap . 34 within
the Jacob cycle. On first sight, neither chapter relates very closely to the surrounding
material or to the theme of Genesis. Both chapters involve dealings with the inhabitants of
the land: the Philistines in chap. 26, the Shechemites in chap. 34. In 26:7 –11, Rebekah is
nearly taken by the Philistine king; in 34:1 –26, Shechem actually takes Dinah. In both
cases the patriarch shows little courage in protecting his wife or daughter, but ultimately he
escapes unharmed and not a little richer (26:3 1, 13; 34:28 –29; 35:5). This too had been
Abraham‘s experience on two occasions (12:10 –20; 20:1 –18). For further verbal links

between chaps. 26 and 34, see Form/Structure/Setting on chap. 26.
The ideological parallels between chaps. 26 and 34 probably give the clue to the editor‘s
purpose in including chap. 34 in the Jacob cycle. Its program is summed up in 28:13 –15,
which reaffirms the familiar Abrahamic promises of land and descendants but adds, ―I am
really with you and will guard you wherever you go and bring you back to this land,
because I shall not leave you until I have done for you what I have promised you‖ (28:15).
Then Jacob made a vow that if God would do this and bring him back ―in peace to my
father‘s house, the LORD will be my God‖ (28:20 –21). By the end of chap. 33, Jacob has
enjoyed divine protection in Mesopotamia, gained descendants, and bought land in Canaan,
but has not quite reached his destination in Bethel. Here, on the verge of the total
fulfillment of the promise and his vow, Canaani te lust, his own cowardice, and his sons‘
folly all combine to destroy the prospect of Jacob‘s return to his father‘s house in peace.
Yet he does make it; as often in Genesis, the invincibility of the promises is once again
demonstrated. Divine grace trium phs despite human sin.
Source critics have found this a tricky section to handle; indeed, Meyer (quoted by
Volz, Der Elohist , 124) described it as ―possibly the most difficult in the whole hexateuch.‖
The starting point of the analysis was the awkward transition between v 26 and v 27, and
the observation that at some points Hamor spoke, at others Shechem, and that in some
passages it was Jacob, at others his sons, and yet others Simeon and Levi who rea ct to the
Shechemites. Hence, two main sources were distinguished, source A (1 –2a, 4, 6, 8 –10,
13–18, 20 –25, 27 –29) as the Hamor source and J (2b –3, 5, 7, 11 –12, 19, 26, 30 –31) as the
Shechem source. Though there was general agreement between early critica l commentators
about the analysis, there were very different opinions about the attribution of source A,
which is clearly the major source into which elements of J have been worked. Delitzsch,
Dillmann, Driver, and Procksch identified source A with P, beca use of its clear affinities
with P. 34:15, 22 quotes 17:10, 34:24 echoes 23:10, 18, and other terms are typically P.
However, Wellhausen ( Komposition , 49), Gunkel, Skinner, and others reluctant to concede
that P antedates J tended, with very little evidenc e, to ascribe source A to E. For the same
reason, Noth ( History of Pentateuchal Traditions , 30) proposed that the J material had been
expanded by later additions, which he identified as vv 4, 6, 8 –10, 15 –17, 20 –23, 27 as well
as the mention of Hamor in vv 13a, 18, 24, 26. Later writers have tended to simplify Noth‘s
traditio -historical approach, giving more to J and less to the later expander (e.g., de Pury, RB
76 [1969] 5 –49; Kevers, RB 87 [1980] 38 –86; Blum, Die Komposition ). Speiser and Coats
indeed ascribe the whole episode to J. Westermann has reverted to a two -source hypothesis,
like that of Dillmann and Driver, but he does not think either is to be identified with J or P.
The variety of views propounded shows the uncertain basis on which the analysis rests.
Radday‘s statistical tests ( Genesis ) give no support for distinguishing this material from J.
The kinship of this material with P material in chaps. 17 and 23 could be explained by
supposing either that these chapters are by J or that J is a later source or editorial layer than
P (see Form/Structure/Setting on chaps. 17, 23). But our scenic analysis cuts across all the
suggested source divisions in chap. 34, making it simplest to su ppose that there is but one
source here, which, in view of its connections with the main plot of the Jacob cycle, should
presumably be identified with J.
Comment
1–4 Though the whole chapter is often subtitled the Rape of Dinah, this topic only

constitutes scene 1, which gives the background to the vengeance wrought by her brothers
on her attacker.
1 ―Dinah, the daughter Leah had borne to Jacob.‖ This long definition of Dinah‘s
relationship to her parents is unusual and probably indicates the emotional dyna mics of the
situation. She is daughter of Jacob‘s unloved wife Leah, hence Jacob‘s relative unconcern
at her disgrace. She is also the full sister of Simeon and Levi, who, as the result of their
father‘s apathy, take the law into their own hands. However, Genesis Rabbah sees the
comment about her being Leah‘s daughter as being condemnatory. Leah ―went out‖ to
allure Jacob (30:16), and here Dinah is copying her mother‘s example. Though ―went out to
visit the girls of the land‖ sounds perfectly innocent, the terms used may suggest Dinah‘s
imprudence, if not impropriety. In LH 141 the cognate Akkadian verb was\uÆ; describes a
housewife who conducts herself improperly outside her home, and the targums translate
―cult prostitute‖ as ― one who goes out in the countryside.‖ Furthermore, Genesis regularly
condemns all intermarriage with women of the land (Gen 24:3, 37; 27:46; 28:1, 6, 8), so it
may be doubted whether it totally approves of Dinah meeting the girls of the land, for they
migh t have introduced her to one of the boys. Dinah was at least sailing close to the wind!
2 On ―Hivite,‖ cf. see Comment on 10:17. On ―prince,‖ cf. see Comment on 17:20.
Reviv ( IEJ 27 [19 77] 192 –93) sees it as the title of a hereditary ruler of a Canaanite city.
―Laid her‖ instead of the more usual ―lay with her‖ implies forcible illegitimate intercourse
(cf. n. 34:2.b.). ―Shamed her‖ is another term always used to describe intercourse without
marriage (e.g., Deut 21:14; 22:29; 2 Sam 13:12). The duplication of very negative terms
shows the author‘s strong disapproval of Shechem‘s behavior. Had the law of Deut
22:28 –29 been applica ble, Shechem would have been compelled to marry Dinah and pay
fifty shekels, an unusually large marriage present, to her father.
3 However brutal the act, at least Shechem did not treat Dinah as Amnon did Tamar
after raping her, who ―hated her with very gr eat hatred‖ and expelled her from his room (2
Sam 13:15 –17). Instead, ―he became very attached‖ to Dinah, lit. ―his soul stuck to Dinah,‖
precisely the right bond between a married couple (cf. 2:24); he ― loved the girl, and spoke
reassuringly to her.‖ For the idea of reassurance in this phrase, lit. ―to speak over the heart,‖
cf. 50:21; Judg 19:3; 2 Sam 19:7; 2 Chr 30:22; Isa 40:2. So having unequivocally
condemned Sheche m for assaulting Dinah, the narrator now reveals other facets of his
behavior that evoke much more sympathy for him. He evidently did want to marry her
properly.
4 Having seen Shechem at his most charming in v 3, we now see another aspect of his
character, as he brusquely demands of his father, ―Get this child for me.‖ Not only does he
use the bluntest form of imperative without even a ―please,‖ but he describes Dinah rather
disparagingly as ―this child.‖
5–19 This, the longest scene, is almost entirely dia logue and relates the negotiations
between the Shechemites and the Israelites. As befits diplomatic negotiation, everything on
the surface is very polite, but to appreciate what is really going on, two things must be
understood: first, that the Israelites spoke deceitfully (v 13) and, secondly, that the
Shechemites held Dinah —she had not returned home (vv 17, 26).
5 This verse sets the scene by giving an insight into Jacob‘s attitude. ―Now Jacob had
heard that his daughter Dinah had been defiled.‖ Note how the narrative stresses the
relationship between Jacob and Dinah, she was ―his daughter,‖ and the seriousness of her
treatment, ―had been defiled.‖ This leads us to expect a fierce reaction on Jacob‘s part, like

David who on hearing of Tamar‘s rap e was ―very angry‖ (2 Sam 13:21). Instead, he does
nothing about it till his sons‘ return; indeed ―he remained silent‖ (cf. 24:21; Num 30:5 [4]).
Though silence may be right in some circumstances, the observation of the narrator here
reflects badly on Jacob. He does not seem to care about his daughter‘s honor.
6 Meanwhile, Shechem and Hamor arrive to discuss matters with him, but at this stage only
Hamor is mentioned, as if to contrast the two fathers. Hamor does all he can to forward hi s
son‘s suit, whereas, until others came to him, Jacob kept quiet about his daughter‘s plight.
7 How differently Dinah‘s brothers react. They are outraged by the events. For the term
―indignant‖ ( [
), cf. see Comment on 6:6. They rush home ―as soon as they heard.‖ This reading may at
least suggest Jacob sent word to them about it. But the syntax is ambiguous, and it may be
that Jacob never bothered to let them know. They only discover what has happened when
they arrive home. This is to take ―as soon as they heard‖ not with ―returned‖ but with ―they
were indignant.‖ The sentence would then be translated, ―Now the sons of Jacob had
returned from the countryside. As soon as they heard, the men were indignant.‖ Whichever
way the sentence is read, it puts the sons in a much more favorable light than the father.
―Because a disgrace had been done in Israel by lying with Jacob‘s daughter, which ought
never to be done.‖ It is not clear whether this is the sons‘ opinion, or the narrator‘s, or both .
With Sternberg ( Poetics ) it seems likely that the last is the most likely option. Narrator,
reader, and sons are expected to agree that Shechem‘s act is a ―disgrace‖ (a term used
elsewhere of crimes warranting the death penalty; Deut 22:21; Josh 7:15; Ju dg 19:23 –24;
20:6; 1 Sam 25:25; 2 Sam 13:12). ―In Israel … Jacob‘s daughter‘s.‖ This combination of
Jacob‘s old and new names heightens our surprise that Jacob is so passive and suggests that
his sons are as much concerned for his honor as for their sister ‘s. The use of ―in Israel‖
surely suggests that the brothers‘ view of what is right and proper has abiding validity in
national life. Such a thing ―ought never to be done.‖
8 Hamor addresses Jacob courteously, but without apology. There is no mention of
what Shechem has done to Dinah, or to the fact that she is still in Shechem‘s house; he
simply asks for her hand in marriage. ―He has fallen in love‖ is a similar but rarer
expression than that used in v 3, ―became very attached to,‖ suggesting Shechem‘s free
choice of Dinah (cf. Deut 7:7; 10:15; 21:11).
9 Hamor goes even further, proposing full intermarriage between the Israelites and
Shechemites. It sounds a generous proposal, but it is just such an arrangement that Deut 7:3
prohibits: ―You shall not make marriages with them, giving your daughters to their sons or
taking their daughters for your sons,‖ a stance later endorsed by Josh 23:12; Ezra 9:14.
10 Ham or urges them to consider the economic advantages of such an arrangement.
―Travel freely in it‖ seems to be the basic sense of 
(cf. 34:21; 42:34; Jer 14:18; Speiser, BASOR 164 [1961] 23 –28), though the participle
usually has the more specialized sense of ―trader‖ (cf. 23:16; 37:28). ―Acquire possessions
in it‖ (cf. 47:27; Num 32:30; Josh 22:9, 19) is the verb from the noun 
used in the divine promise of the land in 17:8; 48:4. Hamor, in effect, offers what God
has promised.
―These overtures sound conciliatory and appealing, nor can they be dismissed as insincere
… [but] the soft -spoken Hivites negotiate from a strong position unfa irly obtained. Another
of the things unsaid by the two is the crucial fact discovered by the reader only in
retrospect, after the massacre, but obvious to the parties concerned: that they have detained

Dinah in their house. No explicit mention need ruffle the smoothness of their approach,
since the leverage given by the possession of the bride is clear to all‖ (Sternberg, Poetics ,
456). In fact, we do not know whether Dinah was detained or staying voluntarily with
Shechem, but doubtless her brothers assumed the worst: that Shechem was keeping her
against her will.
11–12 Hamor‘s proposals of intermarriage and settlement are major issues and deserve
long discussion, but Shechem is impatient, and he brings them back to the main point with
an impassioned outburs t, inviting Jacob and his sons to suggest whatever figure they like so
that he can marry Dinah. Marriage was always preceded by betrothal, in which the
bridegroom‘s family paid a 
―marriage present‖ to the bride‘s family (1 Sam 18:25). In cases of prem arital
intercourse, this still had to be paid to legitimize the union, and the girl‘s father was
allowed to fix the size of the marriage present (Exod 22:15 –16 [16 –17]; limited by Deut
22:29 to a maximum of fifty shekels). So Shechem invites them to name t heir price for the
marriage present and ―gift.‖ The nature of the gift is obscure. Upon marriage, a bride
received a dowry from her father. In Mesopotamia, she might also receive an endowment
from her new husband ( nudunnûm , LH 171–72) to support her in case she were ever
widowed or divorced. Gen 25:6 speaks of ―gifts‖ in this sense, but Jacob (653) on the basis
of 24:53 suggests the ―gift‖ was given not to Dinah but to her family. Here it seems likely
that Shechem is offering both a ―ma rriage present‖ to Jacob and ―a gift‖ to Dinah.
13 Shechem‘s passionate intervention prompts Jacob‘s sons to ―respond‖ vigorously
(on this nuance of [
, see 31:14), indeed ―deceitfully‖ (cf. 27:35), but it is not immediately clear in what way
their words were deceitful; that emerges later. However, this comment ―deceitfully‖ does
signal that their words do not mean quite what they seem and serves to mitigate a little the
reader‘s sense of sho ck at the massacre they perpetrate. We have been warned that Dinah‘s
brothers will not play fair.
―Because he had defiled Dinah their sister.‖ Given the position of this clause in the
sentence, it seems best to translate the conjunction 
as ―because.‖ However, it could be translated by the relative pronoun, ―who had
defiled Dinah their sister,‖ referring back to Shechem. Whichever way the clause is taken,
it helps to soften the impact of ―deceitfully.‖ The man is being addressed deceitfully
because he i s the one who has defiled Dinah. Note that she is here called ― their sister,‖
emphasizing why they have a particular reason to deceive him.
15–17 Whereas Hamor stressed the economic advantages of intermarriage, the brothers
emphasize the religious impedime nts to marriage. To marry an uncircumcised man would
be a ―disgrace‖ ( 
), i.e., something that would make one the butt of adverse comment and ridicule (e.g.,
childlessness, 30:23; slavery, Josh 5:9; military weakness, 1 Sam 17:26; adultery, Prov
6:33; cf. TDOT 5:203 –15).
15 They then cite the key stipulation of the Abrahamic covenant: ―all your males must
be circumcised‖ (17:10).
16 Only then will intermarriage be possible, leading to Israelite settlement in the land
and thei r union with the Shechemites so that they become ―one people‖ (cf. v 22). ―People‖
([

), as opposed to nation, is a group that sees itself primarily in terms of common descent,
a super tribe or overgrown family (cf. see Comment on 11:6; 12:2). In other words, Jacob‘s
sons insist that money has nothing to do with marriage; it is a question of religious identity.
If the Shechemites satisfy them on this ground, there will be no problem about full union
between them.
17 But if they do not comply, then the position will be very different: ―we shall take,‖
probably implying forcible seizure of Dinah (cf. v 2), and ―be off.‖ With this veiled threat,
there is a hint of the brothers‘ true feelings and a hin t of what may happen eventually.
18–19 It is not clear whether Jacob‘s sons expected Hamor and Shechem to accept their
terms; they may well have expected them to balk at such uncomfortable conditions (cf. 1
Sam 18:25), which would have given them grounds for using force. But Hamor and
Shechem willingly comply, ―because he was infatuated with Jacob‘s daughter.‖ 
suggests a more intense degree of attachment than ―attached,‖ ―loved‖ (v 2), ―fallen in
love‖ (v 4), as is apparent from oth er passages where this term is used of love between the
sexes (Deut 21:14; 25:7 –8; Esth 2:14; TDOT 5:95–96). ―For he was the most important man
in his father‘s house‖ explains why his view would carry so much weight in the
community.
20–25 The third scene, like the second, vv 5 –19, is essentially dialogue in w hich Hamor
and Shechem present the terms for an alliance between them and the Israelites. However,
though they go over much the same ground as in the dialogue with Jacob‘s sons, the subject
is presented quite differently in order to persuade them to accept the plan.
20 Hamor, the ruler of the city, raises the issue in the public area just inside the city
gate, the typical place for meetings in Bible times (cf. Deut 22:15, 24; Jer 7:2; Amos 5:10,
12). Here he addresses his remarks to the ―men of their town.‖ This, according to Reviv ( IEJ
27 [1977] 192), corresponds to ―the popular assembly of the free and permanent members
of the city,‖ a body mentioned in many Mesopotamian and Canaanite (i.e., from Ugarit and
El-Amarna) documents of the second millennium B.C. This was a broader body than the
elders of the city, since the granting of land rights was ―a matter of wide public interest that
necessitated the gathering of the people of the land .‖
21–23 A comparison of this speech with those in vv 9 –12, 14 –17 is revealing. In
addressing their fellow townsmen, Hamor and Shechem adopt a quite different line from
that taken in earlier negotiations. They say nothing about their own personal involveme nt in
the matter, that Shechem wants to marry Dinah; rather they begin by insisting on the
advantages of intermarriage for the whole town (v 21). Then they mention the need for
circumcision (v 22), and finally they return to the economic advantages of inte rmarriage.
Whereas they had promised to the Israelites that ―they could acquire possessions in it‖ (v
10), they say nothing about that to their own people; instead they say ―their flocks, their
possessions, and all their herds, will they not be ours?‖ Hamo r and Shechem also fail to
mention the threat to seize Dinah with which Jacob‘s sons ended their negotiations.
Now some of these changes could be construed as merely diplomatic, for Hamor had to
emphasize the economic advantages for the Shechemites if they were ever to be persuaded
of the value of circumcision. Nevertheless, failing to mention the land concession and
claiming that the Israelite animals would be theirs verges on deceit. They are either tricking
their townsmen, or if they are being frank with them, they must have been dishonest in their
negotiations with Jacob and his sons. Calvin comments with typical trenchancy, ―[Hamor
and Shechem] then enumerate other advantages; meanwhile, they cunningly conceal the

private and real cause of their request . Whence it follows that all these pretexts are
fallacious. But it is a very common disease, that men of rank who have great authority,
while making all things subservient to their own private ends, feign themselves to be
considerate for the common good, a nd pretend a desire for the public advantage‖ (2:224).
Certainly this disclosure of Hamor and Shechem‘s double -dealing and the avarice of
their fellow citizens tends to reduce our shock at the fate that is about to overtake them.
Indeed, there is an elemen t of dramatic irony in their words. They describe the Israelites as
―peaceably disposed toward us‖ (v 21), little suspecting what they were planning. They ask,
―Their flocks, their possessions … will they not be ours?‖ (v 23). But in a few days the
situati on will be reversed, with the Israelites plundering all their possessions (vv 28 –29).
24 But whatever their true motives, the townsfolk agree to circumcision as readily as
Hamor and Shechem had (vv 18 –19).
25–31 The final scene matches the first formally i n being mainly narrative and in
concluding with a word from the sons to their father (cf. v 4 and v 31), and it matches it in
content by portraying an act of revenge wrought by Dinah‘ s brothers on her ravisher and
his associates. The idea of talionic retribution (―eye for an eye‖) is hinted at in the words
used. Simeon and Levi ―took‖ a sword, just as Shechem ―took‖ Dinah. Dinah ―went out‖ in
the first scene to the girls of the region, in the last scene from the house of her captivity.
But though there is an element of justice in their revenge, it is clearly disproportionate, as
the narrative makes clear. No one in this tale escapes the narrator‘s implied censure.
25 The Shechemites had submitted to circumcision to become ―one people‖ with Israel.
For the latter to attack when they were still suffering the after -effects of the operation was
treacherous, as the little comment ―which felt secure‖ underlines. For this sense of 
―feeling secure,‖ see Deut 33:28; Judg 8:11; cf. Judg 18:7. Even if the Shechemites had
not shown such trust in Israel, biblical law gives no warrant for such a terrible act of
vengeance. A massacre of all the men of the city for one man ‘s sin was as shocking to the
narrator as it is to modern ears. Yet, he does subtly draw attention to the motives of Simeon
and Levi, by noting that they are not just Jacob‘s sons but ―brothers of Dinah.‖ It was
Jacob‘s failure to act that provoked them to behave in such an extreme way. He had not
loved Leah, or her daughter Dinah, but they did.
26 The narrator also reveals another fact, just at the moment we are most shocked by
Simeon and Levi‘s behavior, that all this time Dinah had been staying, perhaps held
hostage, in Shechem‘s house. They ―took Dinah from Shechem‘s house and left.‖ Clearly
her detention was known to all the actors in the story throughout the action, but now it is
revealed to the reader for the first time. And this puts a different comp lexion on the affair.
Jacob‘s sons had felt all along that they had been negotiating under duress.
[The Hivites] have largely brought down that violence on themselves by seeking to impose their
will on Jacob‘s family. With Dinah in Shechem‘s hands, the opt ion of polite declining is closed to
her guardians. And once the brothers refused to submit to the Hivite version of a shotgun wedding,
they were left no avenue to the retrieval of their sister except force. Hence also the need for
―deceit.‖ Considering th e numerical superiority of the troops behind the ‗prince of the land‘ —‗two
of Jacob‘s sons‘ faced a whole city —no wonder the brothers resorted to trickery to make odds more
even. And the order of presentation supports the reading of the slaughter as an act enforced and
purposive rather than expressing blind fury. First comes the attack on the townsmen, next the killing
of Hamor and Shechem, and only then the extrication of Dinah: to rescue their sister, this orderly
movement implies, they had to deal with a ll possible resistance, let alone future retaliation.
(Sternberg, Poetics , 468).

27–29 If Simeon and Levi‘s motives can at least be construed as honorable, though
their actions were reprehensible, no such considerations can excuse Jacob‘s other sons‘
pillaging the dead. According to Sternberg, opportunistic greed motivates them. It is true
that the phraseology here, ―plunder‖ ( 
), ―took captive‖ ( 
), is the language of war (cf. Num 31:9; Deut 2:35; Josh 8:2, 27; Gen 31:26; 1 Sam
30:2). And it could be that the back reference ―because their sister had been defiled‖ is
ironic, contrasting ―the brothers‘ fine words and their ugly deeds, between idealistic facade
and materialistic reality, between deceit as sacred rage and as unholy cal culation‖
(Sternberg, Poetics , 472). On the other hand, it is noticeable that many of the same terms
are found in the account of the Israelites‘ revenge on Midian in Num 31. The Midianites
had seduced the Israelites, and Phineas, son of Aaron of the tribe of Levi, had killed the
guilty man and woman (Num 25). Later, vengeance is wreaked on all the Midianites as
directed in 25:17 by all the tribes of Israel. They slew every male (Num 31:7; cf. Gen
34:25); then they slew the Midianite king s (Num 31:8; cf. Gen 34:26; Hamor was prince,
i.e., local king, according to Gen 34:2). Then Num 31:9 repeats Gen 34:29 almost
word -for-word in reverse order.
These parallels between Gen 34:25 –29 and Num 25 and 31:1 –9 show, first, that the
postulated source division of 34:25 –29 (see above on Form/Structure/Setting ) is unlikely.
In Num 25 vengeance is first taken by Phineas the Levite, then by all Israel (25:17; 31:4 –7),
just as Levi‘s action here (34:26) is followed by his brothers (34:27 –29). Second, these
parallels suggest that the brothers‘ action here is not viewed as unequivocally evil, for the
later action of Phineas is seen as extremely meritorious, and the follow -up attack by all
Israel is expressly commanded by God. As Jacob‘s sons here foreshadow the actions of
their descendants, this seems to imply the narrator‘s qualified approval. ―Because they had
defiled their sister‖ is thus another reminder that it was primarily the sexual offenses of
Canaan that were to lead to its conquest by Israel (cf. Gen 19; Lev 18:3; 20:23).
28 This list of booty is similar to 12:16, another occasion on which a patriarch was
enriched despite his own sin.
30–31 This heated exchange between Jacob and his sons br ings the scene and episode to a
dramatic close. He accuses them of ―bringing ruin.‖ [
―bring ruin‖ always seems to involve personal or national disaster. The traditional
translation, ―trouble,‖ is too weak (Josh 7:25; Judg 11:35; 1 Sam 14:29; Prov 11:17 , 29;
15:27). ―Made me stink‖ (cf. Exod 5:21; 1 Sam 27:12). His strong rebuke springs from a
faint heart; he fears that ―the Canaanites will … attack me and destroy me.‖ He had said
much the same in 32:12(11). ―Esau … will kill me.‖ Her e, despite his experiences at the
Yabbok and his successful reunion with Esau, he is showing the same abject fear as before.
Of course, fear is natural in such a situation, but the reasons Jacob gives for damning his
sons betray him. He does not condemn th em for the massacre, for abusing the rite of
circumcision, or even for breach of contract. Rather, he protests that the consequences of
their action have made him unpopular. Nor does he seem worried by his daughter‘s rape or
the prospect of intermarriage w ith the Canaanites. He is only concerned for his own skin.
Whatever its force elsewhere, therefore, Jacob‘s argument sounds shabby in the Bible‘s
court of conscience. The ending rubs in the point by having his wordy and terror -driven
onslaught countered by Simeon and Levi‘s proud and epigrammatic ―Should he treat our
sister like a harlot?‖ The voice of egocentricity and self -preservation finds itself opposed by

the voice of idealism. Damn the consequence, they say, and their response vibrates with the
sense of injury that drove them to seek redress in the sword. Shechem treated Dinah like a
whore not only by his cavalier way with her virtue but also by his subsequent offer of
―gifts‖ to her protectors. (Sternberg, Poetics , 474)
Note how Simeon and Levi refer to Dinah as ―our sister,‖ once again reminding us of the
tensions within the family. They do not speak of her as ―your daughter,‖ as would be
appropriate in addressing Jacob. ―They in effect wrest her out of the father‘s guardianship:
she may not be your daughter, but she certainly is ‗our sister‘ and no one will treat her like
a whore‖ (Sternberg, Poetics , 474 –75). Indeed, their remark ―Should he treat her like a
prostitute?‖ could be referring not just to Shechem‘s treatment of Dinah, but also to
Jacob‘s . It may have been said in private afterwards. To do nothing about the rape and then
to be willing to accept gifts after the event is to act like a pimp. These two readings of the
brother‘s reply are not mutually exclusive; it may well be that this last wo rd is intended to
be read as a condemnation of both Shechem and Jacob.
Explanation
The account of Dinah‘ s rape and of the terrible revenge exacted by her brothers on the
rapist and his town is one of the most dramatic and disturbing in Genesis. It is also
remarkable for the subtlety with which it handles character and motivation. Within a firm
moral framewor k sure of what constitutes right and wrong, the narrative hints at the
multidimensional aspects of conduct, at the mixed motives that make it impossible either to
condemn any of the actors absolutely or to exonerate them entirely.
―Dinah went out to visit the girls of the region‖ sounds on the face of it entirely
innocent. Had we been told she had visited the boys of the area, her action would certainly
have been condemned, for intermarriage with Canaanites was always regarded as wrong.
But for women to ―go out‖ is in the world of the Bible a little less than proper, and who is
to say that one of the girls of the land might not have introduced her to one of the boys? So
already the story has suggested that if her actions were innocuous, her motives may have
been suspect.
However, Shechem was quite wrong to rape her. The verbs used to describe his action,
―took, laid, shamed,‖ bespeak the narrative‘s unequivocal condemnation of his action, an
offense that in OT law would have been punished at least by the payment of large damages
and possibly by forced marriage as well. Yet we learn that Shechem was not your callous
anonymous rapist, so dreaded in modern society, but an affectionate young man, who
―loved the girl and spoke reassuringly to her.‖ Indeed, he insisted that his father obtain
Jacob‘s consent to their marriage.
Now the other members of Dinah‘s family appear on the scene, and we are immediately
made aware of the tensions within the family. Jacob was never fond of his first wife, Leah,
and it seems that his coldness spilled over to her six sons and her daughter Dinah. So he
took no action about her rape and abduction, whereas her brothers were incensed by it.
Thus when Hamor and Shechem arrive to negotiate marriage between Dinah and Shech em,
they start by addressing Jacob, but ere long they find that they must really deal with his
sons, for it is they who object to the proposed match.
The negotiations apparently proceed smoothly, with Hamor and Shechem ready to grant
full intermarriage bet ween them and the Israelites, the right to free movement and to

acquire land. Shechem offers to pay whatever marriage present and endowment they see fit
to ask. In return, Jacob‘s sons insist that there is only one obstacle to this arrangement, the
Shechem ites‘ failure to practice circumcision. This, the narrator advises, was deceitful, for
they had more serious objections to intermarriage than they had intimated. Nevertheless,
Hamor and Shechem surprised them by agreeing to the condition. Thus the Hivites appear
to be very obliging, reasonable men.
But as the story unfolds we realize this is not the whole truth. Hamor and Shechem had
been negotiating from a position of strength, since Dinah was in their house, and, as they
reveal in persuading their fellow citizens to accept the arrangement, they hoped to profit
financially from the arrangement: ―Their flocks, their possessions, and all their herds, will
they not be ours?‖ (v 23).
Three days later the real intentions of Dinah‘s brothers are unmasked as they attack the
unsuspecting Shechemites laid low by the rite of circumcision. All the men of the city,
including Hamor and Shechem, are killed, Dinah is rescued, and the women, children, and
animals are taken captive. The rape of Dinah has led to war. Jacob is dismayed, but again it
is not because of what his sons have done, or what has been done to his daughter, but
because of the dangerous consequences: he fears he too may now suffer revenge at the
hands of the Canaanites. But when he rebukes his sons, they r etort in fierce moral tones:
―Should he treat our sister like a prostitute?‖ (v 31). The family tragedy has not led to
reconciliation but to a deepening of the rift between Jacob and his sons.
In this perspective, chap. 34 makes an interesting and instruct ive sequel to chaps.
32–33. There we learned how the fearful and alienated Jacob was changed into the new
Israel, who boldly returned to Canaan and made peace with his brother Esau, whom he had
struggled with and cheated since birth. But this story shows J acob‘s old nature reasserting
itself, a man whose moral principles are weak, who is fearful of standing up for right when
it may cost him dearly, who doubts God‘s power to protect, and who allows hatred to
divide him from his children just as it had divide d him from his brother.
Looking ahead, this story provides an interesting backdrop to the story of Joseph and
his brothers. There the same underlying division between Leah and her sons on the one side
and Jacob and Rachel and her sons, Joseph and Benjamin, on the other is both the starting
point and the conclusion of the story. It is Leah‘s sons‘ hatred of Joseph that leads them to
sell him into Egyptian slavery. This almost breaks Jacob‘s heart, whereas Dinah‘s rape
seems to have left him unmoved. And the Joseph story goes on to tell how this great gulf
within Jacob‘s family is eventually spanned. As Jacob and Esau were eventually reconciled,
so Joseph and his brothers eventually forgive each other.
But that is to look ahead. Here we see that despite Jacob‘ s lack of affection, moral
principle, and courage, he survives. Indeed, he prospers in an unexpected way from his
sons‘ fierce anger. He is greatly enriched by the seizure of the Shechemites‘ flocks, herds,
wives, and other properties. His grandfather, Abr aham, and his father, Isaac, had both failed
to protect their womenfolk because they feared for their own skin (12:10 –20; 20; 26:6 –14),
yet they had prospered greatly.Here Jacob has a similar experience. The promise made to
Abraham, that ―he who disdains y ou I shall curse,‖ is once again demonstrated despite fear
and unbelief. And the next episode will show the specific promise to Jacob that he would
return to his father‘s house in peace (28:15, 21) also being fulfilled. The covenant promises
come true desp ite human frailty.
Undoubtedly, the heroes of this story, though they are the villains of the Joseph story,
are Dinah‘s brothers, particularly Simeon and Levi. Here they are portrayed as fiercely

opposing intermarriage with the Canaanites of the land and t aking up the sword to avenge
sexual misconduct. Num 25 shows Phineas, a descendant of Levi, acting similarly by
killing a Midianite princess and a Simeonite having intercourse together. Later all the tribes
join in a war against Midian, killing the males a nd taking the women, children, and herds
captive (Num 31:1 –12). Throughout the OT, intermarriage with non -Israelites is looked on
with disfavor and often banned altogether (Gen 24:3; 27:46; Deut 7:3; 1 Kgs 11:1 –3; Neh
13:23 –27), for it is seen as likely to lead to apostasy from the LORD (Deut 7:4; 1 Kgs
11:4–5). For a similar reason, the NT discourages believers from marrying pagans (2 Cor
6:14–18). Gen 34 traces this concern for purity of line back to Simeon and Levi, fore father
of the Israelite priestly tribe.
Journey’s End for Jacob and Isaac (35:1 –29)
Bibliography
Burchard, C. ―Gen 35:6 –10 und 36:5 –12 MT aus der Wüste Juda.‖ ZAW 78 (1986) 71 –75.
Eissfeldt, O. ―Jakob -Lea und Jakob -Rahel.‖ KS 4 (1968) 170 –75. Keel, O. ―Das Vergraben der
‗fremden Götter ‘ in Gen 35: 4b.‖ VT 23 (1973) 305 –36. Klein, M. L. ―‗Not to be translated in
public.‘‖ JJS 39 (1988) 80 –91. Lombardi, G. ―H\ Faµraµh —W. Faµraµh presso AnaµtoÆt e la
questione della tomba di Rahel .‖ Studii Biblici Franciscani: Liber Annus 20 (1970) 299 –352. Nicol,
C. G. ―Gen 29:32 and 35:22a: Reuben‘s Reversal.‖ JTS 31 (1980) 536 –39. Rendsburg, G. A.
―Notes on Gen 35.‖ VT 34 (1984) 361 –66. Shaanan, J. ―‗And His Father Called Him Benjamin (or
Benjamim)?‘‖ BMik 24 (1978/79) 106. Soggin, J. A. ―Die Geburt Benjamins, Gen 35:16 –20(21).‖
VT 11 (1961) 432 –40. ——— . ―Zwei umstrittene Stellen aus dem Überlieferu ngskreis um
Schechem .‖ ZAW 73 (1961) 78 –87. Vogt, E. ―Benjamin geboren ‗eine Meile‘ von Ephrata.‖ Bib 56
(1975) 30 –36. Zakovitch, Y. ―The Tendenz of the Incident of Hiding the Idols in Shechem (Gen
35: 2, 4).‖ (Heb.) BMik 25 (1979/80) 30 –37.
Translation
1God said to Jacob, ―Up,a go up to b Bethel and stay there; make an altar there to
the God who c appearedc to you when you fledd from your brother Esau.‖ 2 So Jacob
said to his household and to all those who were with him, ―Puta away the foreign gods
that are with you, purif yb yourselves, and changec your outer garments, 3 so that we
may rise up, go up to Bethel and make an altar there to the God a who answered me in
my time of crisis and has been with meb on the journey I have undertaken.‖ 4 So they
gave Jacob all the foreign gods which they possessed and the earrings in their ears,
and Jacob hid them under the terebinth which is near Shechem.a 5 Then they journeyed,a
and a divine terror fellb on the surrounding towns, so that theyc did not pursue the sons
of Jacob.
6So a Jacob and all the people with him camea to Luz (that is Bethel), which is in the
land of Canaan. 7 There he built an altar, a nd he called the place, a El of Beth -El,a for
there God had revealedb himself to him when he fled from his brother. 8 Then Deborah,
Rebekah‘s nursemaid,a died,b and she was buriedc below Bethel, under and oak, so ite
was called ―Oak of weeping.‖
9God had appeareda to Jacob again, when he was returning from Paddan -Aram,

and heb had blessed him. 10 God had said, ―Your name is Jacob, but it shall not be
called Jacob any more, but your name shall be Israel.‖ So he was named Israel. 11 God
said to him, ―I am God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply, and may a nation and a
multitude of nations come from you and kings come out of your loins. 12 The landa
which I gave to Abraham and Isaac I shall gi veb to you, and to your descendants after
you I shall give the land.‖
13Then God went away from him a at the place where he had spoken to him.a 14 So
Jacob erecteda a pillar in the place where he had spoken to him. It was a pillar of stone,
and he had pouredb over it a libation and pouredc oil on it. 15 Then Jacob named th e
place where God had spoken to him Beth -el.
16They then journeyed from Bethel, and when they were still about two hours‘
distance from Ephrata, Rachel went into labor, and it became difficult.ab 17 When her
labor was at its hardest,a the midwifeb said to her, ―Don‘ t be afraid, for this is another
son for you.‖ 18 And as her soul was goinga out of her, for she was dying,b she named
him Ben -Oni, but his father called him Benjamin. 19 So Rachel died and was buried on
the way to Ephrata, which is Bethlehem. 20 Then Jacob erected a pillar over her grave:
it is the pil lar at Rachel‘s tomb until the present day.
21Israel then journeyed and pitched hisa tent farther on toward Migdal -Eder. 22
While he was staying in that area, a Reuben went and lay with Bilhah, his father‘s
concub ine,a and Israel heard about it.b
Now there were twelve sons of Jacob. 23 The sons of Leah: Reuben, Jacob‘s
firstborn, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulon. 24a The sons of Rachel: Joseph
and Benjamin. 25 The sons of Bilhah, Rachel‘s slave -girl: Dan and Naphtali. 26 The sons
of Zilpah, Leah‘s slave -girl: Gad and Asher. These are the sons of Jacob, who were
borna to him in Paddan -Aram.
27Jacob came to Isaac his father in Mamre, in a Kiryat -Arbaa (which is Hebron), where
Abraham and Isaac had been immigrants. 28 Isaac lived a hundred and eighty years. 29
Isaac expired and died and was gathered to his relations, old and full of years. And his
sons Esau and Jacob buried him.
Notes
1.a. On the use of 
as introductory exclamation, see SBH, 56–57.
1.b. G adds ―to the place of.‖
1.c-c. On the use of ptcp for relative clause in past time, see GKC, 116o.
1.d. 
+ inf constr qal 
+ 2 masc. sg suffix.
2.a. 2 masc. pl. impv hiph 2.b. Waw + 2 masc. pl. impv hithp  2.c. Waw + 2 masc.
pl. impv hiph  3.a-a. Note how the ptcp (―answered―) in the relative clause is continued

by finite verb (―has been―) ( GKC, 116o,x; WOC, 561, 631).
4.a. G adds ―and he destroyed them unto this day.‖
5.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. pl. impf. qal [5.b. Masc verb with fem. subj (―fear‖); cf.
GKC, 145o -q.
5.c. Indefinite subj (GKC, 144f).
6.a-a. On this construction, see EWAS, 63.
7.a-a. G, S, Vg read simply ―Beth -El.‖
7.b. 3 masc. pl. pf niph 
. SamPent has sg 
. Though the versions also have a sg verb, the Vorlage of their reading is uncertain. On
the use of the pl. verb after ―God,‖ cf. 20:13 and GKC, 145i.
8.a. Fem sg hiph ptcp 8.b. Cf. n. 23:2.a.*
8.c. Waw consec + 3 fem. sg impf. niph  8.d. On the use of def art, see GKC, 126d.
8.e. 3 sg masc. used for indefinite subj (GKC, 144d).
9.a. Cf. n. 12:7.a.*
9.b. SamPent, G read ―God.‖
12.a. Cf. n. 13:15.a -a.*
12.b. Cf. n. 13:15.b.*
13.a-a. Untranslated by Vg.
14.a. Cf. n. 21:28.a.*
14.b. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. hiph 14.c. Cf. n. 28:18.a.*
16.a. Waw consec + 3 fem. sg impf. (apoc) piel  16.b. 
+ inf constr qal 
+ 3 fem. sg suffix.
17.a. 
+ inf constr hiph 
+ 3 fem. sg suffix.
17.b. Def art + fem. sg piel ptcp 18.a. 

+ inf constr 18.b. As pointed with stress on first syllable, 3 fem. sg pf qal 
―she died,‖ but BHS prefers stress on second syllable to make it ptcp ―dying.‖
21.a. Old orthography of 3 masc. sg suffix 
instead of 
(Joüon, 94h).
22.a-a. The double set of accents on this part of the verse, ―intended for public reading,
aims at uniting vv 22 and 23 into one, so as to pass rapidly over the unpleasant statement in
v 22‖ (GKC, 15p).
22.b. G adds ―and it seemed evil to him.‖
24.a. SamPent, G, S have ―And‖ as in vv 25, 26.
26.a. 3 masc. sg qal pass 
. Here the pass is construed impersonally; hence, conco rd between sg verb and pl. ―sons‖
is unnecessary ( GKC, 121ab), though SamPent has pl. verb.
27.a-a. BHS redivides word ―toward Kiryat -Arba.‖
Form/Structure/Setting
After the full, dramatic, and well -integrated narratives that make up the rest of the Jacob
cycle, the miscellaneous collection of very diverse materials in this chapter comes as a
surprise to the reader. On first reading it is hard to see how they fit together or much reason
for their inclusion. They all relate apparently to Jacob‘s final steps back to Canaan, shortly
before the death of his father Isaac. But first impressions may be misleadin g. After
outlining the contents of this chapter, I shall endeavor to show that its arrangement is
consonant with patterns of editorial method discernible elsewhere in Genesis.

v 1
Divine call to go to Bethel

vv 2–8
Jacob‘s obedience

vv 9–12
Reaffirmation of the promises

vv 13 –15
Jacob‘s worship at Bethel

vv 16 –20
Birth of Benjamin: Death and burial of Rachel

vv 21 –22a
Reuben‘s shameful act

vv 22b –26
Jacob‘s sons

vv 27 –29
Death and burial of Isaac by his two sons

Throughout this section there are numerous references to earlier parts of the Jacob story
(vv 1, 3 refer to chap. 28; vv 2, 4 to 31:19, 34 –35; v 5 to 34:30 –31; v 7 to 28:11 –22; v 8 to
24:59; v 9 to 33:18; v 10 to 32:25 –33; vv 11 –12 to 28:3 –4, 13 –15, 20 –21; v 14 to 28:18,
22; v 15 to 28:17; v 16 to chaps. 29 –30; v 17 to 30:22 –24; v 18 to 30:1; v 21 to 33:19; v 22
to 29:32; 30:3 –8; vv 22b –26 to 29:31 –30:24; v 27 to chap. 23; vv 28 –29 to 25:7 –10). It is
clear that this chapter presupposes most, if not all, of the other Jacob stories contained in
Genesis, and this is significant for the interpretation of the chapter.
The backbone of Genesis consists of three long cycles about Abraham, Jacob, and
Joseph. Each begins with a heading ―This is the family history of X ‖ (11:27; 25:19; 37:2)
and closes with a description of the death and burial of X and/or X‘s son by his sons
(25:7 –10; 35:28 –29; 49:33 –50:26). Westermann has observed that itineraries and
genealogical details seem to cluster toward the beginnings and ends of these cycles, e.g.,
11:27 –12:9; 25:1 –11; 37:2 –36; 46:1 –50:14. Indeed, chap. 35 could be described as an
expanded itinerary. Jacob moves progressively southward, from Shechem in the north to
Hebron in the south.

vv 1–4
Command to move

vv 5–6
Journey to Luz (Bethel)

v 16
Journey to Ephrata

v 21
Journey to Migdal -Eder

v 27
Journey to Hebron

For this reason, Westermann (2:549) affirms ―One cannot say with H. Gunkel and
others that Gen 35 is a heap of blocks. Rathe r it follows a carefully conceived plan.‖
But this chapter is more than an expanded itinerary, for the expansions within it follow
a sequence that is also found toward the ends of the Abraham and Joseph cycles. Most
obvious is the death and burial scene th at is to be found at the end of each cycle. But most

of the material in chap. 35 has parallels in the other two cycles in roughly the same
sequence:
Divine call to journey
22:1–2
35:1
46:2–3
Obedience
22:3–14
35:2–8
46:5–7
Divine promise reaffirmed
22:15 –18
35:9–14
48:4
Journey
22:19
35:16
48:5
Birth of sons
22:20 –24
35:17 –18
48:5–6
Death and burial of wife
23:1–20
35:18 –20
48:7
Son‘s marriage
24:1–67
35:21 –22
[48:8ff.] 49:3 –4
List of descendants
25:1–6
35:22 –26
49:3–28
Death and burial
25:7–10
35:27 –29
49:29 –50:14

These parallels suggest that the same editorial methods have been followed in the
composition of all three cycles. It underlines the similarity between the career of Abraham
and that of Jacob and the principle of typology apparent at other po ints in Genesis too. And
to appreciate the writer‘s intention fully requires that these parallels be borne in
Older source critics generally discerned the presence of the sources J, E, and P in this
chapter as well as the hand of the redactor. A typical ol der analysis by Skinner ascribed vv
1–8, 14, 16 –20 to E, 21 –22a to J, and the rest, vv 9 –13, 15, 22b –29, to P. Driver, however,

ascribed vv 14, 16 –20 to J instead of to E. Most modern critics find no E material at all.
Westermann ascribes vv 1 –7 to the red actor, vv 8, 14 –22a to J, and the rest, vv 9 –13,
22b–29, to P. Coats ascribes it all to J save for vv 9 –14, 22b –26 (P). This shows the wide
diversity of opinion among commentators. The only passages consistently ascribed to a
certain source are vv 9 –13, 22 b–26 to P and 21 –22a to J. But even here the arguments are
hardly decisive. It is strange, for example, that v 22 calls ―Bilhah‖ a concubine ( 
), whereas other passages call her a ―slave -girl‖ (
) if they are both from the same source, J. Converse ly, the list of Jacob‘s sons in 22b –26
is hardly unique to P. Certainly the promise terminology of v 11, ―God Almighty,‖
―fruitful,‖ ―multiply,‖ has parallels in other passages conventionally ascribed to P (e.g.,
17:1–6), b ut if any of the parallels is ascribed to another source, the argument for
identifying this passage with P would also fall. This means that identifying the sources used
by the editor is problematic. However, the heterogeneity of the material does make it l ikely
that he has utilized several sources here, but the close parallels in the arrangement of
material with 22:1 to 25:10 and 46:2 to 50:14 make it reasonable to hold that the final
editor has shaped it all into what he regarded as a coherent and intellig ible whole.
Comment
1–7 These verses tell how Jacob returned to Bethel, the place where God had appeared
to him when he was running away from his brother‘s sword. At Bethel he had made a vow,
promising in effect to return and worship God there. Now at last he fulfills his vow, and the
final stage of his journey back becomes a religious pilgrimage.
1 After tricking Esau, his mother and his father both told him to ―up and go‖ (27:43;
28:2) and indeed ―stay‖ with his uncle (cf. 27:44; 29:19), so the very terms used here echo
the beginning of the story as does the explicit reference to ―when you fled from Esau your
brother.‖ However, the verb ―go up‖ ( [
) is different from that used in earlier passages; it has overtones of pilg rimage. One
―went up‖ to the feasts at Jerusalem (Ps 24:3). So here Jacob is being reminded of his
religious obligations. ―Build an altar.‖ This is the first time a patriarch has been
commanded to build an altar, but its setting at this stage in Jacob‘s career invites
comparison with God‘s command to Abraham ―to offer a burnt offering‖ (22:2). That was a
great test of obedience. By comparison, Jacob‘s test was easy, yet if he was scared to travel
because of Canaanite hostility (cf. 34:30), it may have taken more courage than it seems.
2 But Jacob was as prompt as Abraham (cf. 22:3), and he immediately instructs them to
prepare for pilgrimage. Worship of other gods was always incompatible with serving the
God who said, ―You shall have no other gods before me‖ (Exod 20:3). Ps 24:3–4 asks,
―Who shall ascend the hill of the LORD?‖ and answers, ―He who has clean hands and a pure
heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false‖ (i.e., idols).
And other texts record the putting away of foreign gods in the context of renewed
devotion to God (Josh 24:14, 23 –24; Judg 10:16; 1 Sam 7:3 –4). Worship, which brings one
into the presence of a holy God, demands inward and outward purity, the latter being seen
as an expression of the former. Purification usually took the form of bathing the body,
washing the clothes, and shaving (Lev 14:8 –9; Num 8:7). Before the Sinai revelation, all
the people were told to wash their clothes and abstain from s exual intercourse (Exod
19:10 –15). Here Jacob insists that they change their ―outer garments,‖ the poncho -type

wrapper used as coat and blanket (Exod 22:25 –26 [26 –27]). Their change of clothes
represents a new and purified way of life (cf. 41:14). Elsewhere in the Pentateuch, sexual
intercourse and the spilling of blood in war are seen as polluting (Num 31:19; Lev 15:18;
18:24 –29). So this command to purify themselves probably looks back to the pollution
produced in chap. 34.
3 ―My time of crisis‖ is a common phrase, especially in the Psalms (e.g., 20:2 [1];
50:15). Here Jacob is harking back to his flight from Esau, as the reference to the vow he
made then, ―If God will be with me, guard me on the j ourney I am undertaking‖ (28:20),
makes clear. When the prayer offered as a vow was answered, the votary was duty bound to
fulfill the promise he had made. Now Jacob implies he is about to do that.
4 The family members respond as requested, putting away their foreign gods and also
their earrings. The significance of this last point is elusive. On two later occasions, earrings
were used to make objects of idolatrous worship, the golden calf and an epho d (Exod
32:2–4; Judg 8:24 –27). It could be that burying the earrings along with the foreign gods
expressed their complete determination to dispose of the idols and also any material that
could be used to replace them. A comparison with Num 31:48 –54 suggest s a quite different
possibility. After the battle with the Midianites, the Israelites had to purify themselves
(Num 31:19 –20). Part of their purification process included donating to the sanctuary booty
consisting of ―articles of gold, armlets and bracelet s, signet rings, earrings, and beads, to
make atonement for ourselves before the LORD‖ (Num 31:50). This suggests that the rings
removed by Jacob‘s sons may well have been part of the booty captured by them from the
Shechemites; indeed it is possible that the outer garments and the foreign gods (gold -plated
idols?) were part of the spoil (cf. Num 31:20; Josh 7:21; Deut 7:25). We have already noted
the close parallels between Gen 34 and Num 31:1 –9 (see Comment on 34:27 –29). These
further parallels strengthen the case for reading all of 35:1 –4, not merely v 5, in the light of
chap. 34. 35:5 is not a late gloss or extract from a different source, but it flows naturally out
of the preceding verses.
―Terebinth‖ ( 
): probably the Atlantic te rebinth according to M. Zohary ( Plants of the Bible, 110–11).
5 At last, Jacob steps out in obedience to God‘s call. He had stayed longer near Shechem
than he had intended because of the massacre perpetrated by his sons, which had made him
feel insecure (3 4:30). But his family‘s readiness to dedicate themselves solely to their
father‘s God is rewarded, and the divine promise of protection cited in v 2 is again
vindicated. Jacob may have had his fears, but ―divine terror‖ struck the surrounding cities
so the y did not pursue the Israelites. Once again, Jacob‘s experience anticipates that of his
descendants when they conquered the land (Exod 23:27; Deut 7:20 –24; Josh 2:9 –11; cf.
Exod 34:24). Confronting Jacob and Joshua, the Canaanites were paralyzed with fear.
6 The mention of Luz, the old name for Bethel, seems unnecessary here, since the
change of name has been already noted in 28:19. It parallels the second mention of the
change of Jacob‘s name to Israel in 35:10 and 32:28 –29(27 –28). Though postulating
multiple sources may partially explain the duplication of traditions, it does not explain why
the editor chose to include both. Repetition is used in Genesis to stress the impor tance or
certainty of events (e.g., the birth of Isaac, 17:19; 18:10, and the paired dreams in the Joseph
story, 37:6 –10; 40:5 –19; 41:1 –7, 32). Here, the narrative is emphasizing that the changed
name of Bethel shows that G od had revealed himself or spoken there (cf. vv 7, 13 –15).
7 This verse records the fulfillment of the command given in v 1. Whether Jacob

fulfilled his vow (28:20 –22) is not stated, but the ensuing divine revelation probably
implies he did keep his promise.
―El-Bethel.‖ It would be easier to accept the versions reading ―Bethel,‖ but a similar
title, ― Ilu-bayt-ilî,‖ is found in an Assyro -Tyrian treaty according to Speiser (244). Jacob‘s
paraphrase (662) ―El is in Bethel,‖ though attracti ve, is rather free.

―revealed himself‖ is a term associated with prophetic experience (cf. 1 Sam 3:7, 21),
perhaps suggesting that Jacob, like Abraham, was a sort of prophet.
8 This is the first of three deaths mentioned in this ch apter. This is the only time
Rebekah‘s nurse is named (cf. 24:59). It is strange that her death is recorded but Rebekah‘s
is not. Perhaps it is understood that Rebekah died when Jacob was in Paddan -Aram.
Despite her hopes, she never saw her favorite son again (27:45). Presumably ―the oak of
Deborah‖ was a well -known tree near Bethel. On the different varieties of Palestinian oak,
see M. Zohary ( Plants of the Bible , 108 –9).
9–12 Just as Abraham‘s three -day pilgrimage to sacrifice on Mount Moriah climaxed in
the most categorical reaffirmation of the promises in his career, so, too, Jacob‘s sacred
journey is crowned with the strongest statement of the promises that he ever heard,
summing up and adding to what had been said to him on earlier occasions. And it is to this
revelation that Jacob looked back at the end of his life when he blessed Ephraim and
Manasseh in 48:3 –4.
10 Jacob was given the new name of Israel after wrestling with God at the Yabbok
(32:29 [28]). The revelation begins by re affirming his new status embodied in the change of
name, but here there is no explanation of the change. That the new name is left unexplained
confirms that the reader is supposed to know the previous story: this is not an independent
account.
11 This vers e echoes both Isaac‘s blessing of Jacob in 28:3 –4 and the covenant
ratification with Abraham in chap. 17. Isaac said, ―May God Almighty bless you, make you
fruitful and multiply you.‖ Here God himself says, ―I am God Almighty. Be fruitful and
multiply‖ (cf. 17:1, 2, 6). ―May a nation‖ echoes the oracle before Jacob‘s birth, ―Two
nations are in your womb‖ (25:23), while ―a multitude of nations‖ echoes Isaac‘s prayer,
―so that you become a multitude of peoples‖ (28:3), and rather less closely 17:4, 5, 6. But
never before had Jacob been promised ―kings shall come out of your loins,‖ though
Abraham had been promised rather less vividly ―kings shall come out of you‖ (17:6).
Possibly, the phraseology here reflects J acob‘s experience at the Yabbok when his thigh
was touched.
12 Finally, the promises of land combine elements of Isaac‘s prayer (28:4) and Jacob‘s
dream at Bethel (28:13), and more loosely 17:8. ―The land which I gave to Abraham [cf.
28:4] and Isaac I shall give to you, and to your descendants‖ (cf. 28:13).
Thus, in a few short sentences all the long -range promises made to Jacob at various
points in his life are here summed up. Of course the short -term promises of pro tection and
return to the land (28:15, 20 –21) have already been fulfilled, so there is no point in
repeating them. But there is a new feature; the promise of royal descendants is here given
for the first time to Jacob, though such a promise had been made t o Abraham (cf. 17:6, 16).
13 For a similar close to a theophany, cf. 17:22.
14–15 If God‘ s first revelation of himself to Jacob at Bethel warranted such acts of
piety as erecting a pillar of stone, pouring a libation, and calling the place Bethel, house of

God, how much more did the reaffirmation of the promises. The place fully deserved to be
called Bethel (cf. 28:18 –20).
16–22 But spiritual elation is followed by family tragedy. First, Rachel, Jacob‘s favorite
wife, dies giving birth to a second son; then Jacob‘s eldest son, Reuben, dishonors both
Jacob his father and his father‘s wives by committing incest. Jacob‘s joy is turned to sorrow
and then to anger.
16 ―About two hours‘ distance.‖ This is a problematic phrase found only here and in
48:7; 2 Kgs 5:19. This translation of 
equates Hebrew 
with Akk. beµru , the distance traveled in two hours, roughly eleven kilometers or
seven miles (E. Vogt, Bib 56 [1975] 30 –36; EM 4:11–12). ―Ephrata‖ seems to be the name
of a region inhabited by Ephrathites, a Judean clan (1 Chr 2:19), of which Bethlehem and
Kiriath Jearim were the best -known villages (1 Chr 2:50 –52).
The story describes Jacob traveling southward along the main north -south route through
the hills from Bethel to Hebron. So this comment places the birthplace of Benjamin an d the
grave of Rachel somewhere north of Jerusalem. This fits in with Jer 31:15, 1 Sam 10:2, and
Josh 18:25, which imply Rachel wept for her children near Ramah in the territory of
Benjamin. This Ramah may be identified with Er -Ram about eight kilometers ( five miles)
north of Jerusalem. This would be, according to Vogt ( Bib 56 [1975] 36), about thirteen
kilometers from the valley of Ephrata around Bethlehem. The modern tomb of Rachel,
about a mile from the village of Bethlehem, presumably arises from a failure to understand
the phrase here translated ―about two hours‘ distance.‖ Already the LXX merely
transliterates, showing it does not understand the phrase. For Genesis it is doubtless
significant that Benjamin was born in what was subsequently land belonging to his tribe. It
gave him title to it.
17 ―Her labor was at its hardest.‖ Speiser (273) appropriately suggests that this is an elative
use of the hiphil. ―The midwife‖ here performs her traditi onal role of encouragement. Her
comment, ―Don‘t be afraid, for this is another son for you,‖ is conventional, doubtless
reflecting a preference for boys, for the midwife in 1 Sam 4:20 says the same. But in
Rachel‘s case the comment is peculiarly apt, for a t the birth of Joseph she had prayed,
―May the LORD add another son to me!‖ (30:24). Now in her dying moments she sees the
fulfillment of her prayers.
18 Death in childbirth was, till recently, tragically common, so doubtless Rachel‘s death
did not have qu ite the same pathos for the ancient reader as it does for us. Yet it was
undoubtedly tragic, for it was Rachel who had cried in desperation to Jacob, ―Give me
children, or I shall die‖ (30:1). It was ultimately the gift of children that killed her. And her
choice of name, Ben -Oni, ―son of sorrow‖ (cf. Ichabod in 1 Sam 4:21 –22), reflects this.

―sorrow‖ is used of mourning for the dead in Deut 26:14; Hos 9:4. But for Jacob, the
child was the son of his favorite wife, so he ―called hi m Benjamin,‖ son of the right, the
right -hand side being the favored lucky side (e.g., Deut 27:12 –13; Matt 25:33). The tribe of
Benjamin has often been associated with a tribe at Mari called the Dumu -yamina, ―sons of
the south,‖ especially when the logogram Dumu was read phonetically as banû, rather than
the more probable maµruµ . It is possible that Benjamin also means ―son of the south,‖ but
any direct connection between the Hebrew Benjaminites and the Mari ―sons of the south‖ is
unproven. However, Benjamin is known as a personal name at Mari, which demonstrates

the antiquity of the patriarch‘s name (cf. IDBS, 95–96; EM 2:263 –81; A. Malamat, Mari and
the Early Israelite Experien ce [Oxford/New York: Oxford UP, 1989] 31, 35).
For 
―soul‖ or ―life,‖ see Comment
19 ―Which is Bethlehem‖ identifies which part of Ephrata is meant. It is not saying that
Rachel‘s grave is in or even very near Bethlehem, simply that Jacob was traveling toward
Bethlehemite Ephrata when she died.
20 For fuller discussions of Rachel‘s grave and its location, cf. Vogt ( Bib 56 [1975]
30–36), Lombardi ( Studii Biblici Franciscani 20 [1970] 299 –52), and EM 7:360 –63. For the
custom of erecting tombstones, cf. 2 Sam 18:18. ―Until the present day,‖ i.e., that of the
writer. 1 Sam 10:2 and Jer 31:15 show that the site of her tomb was known as late as
Jeremiah‘s time.
21–22a The extreme brevity with which this episode is related reflects the writer‘s
horror at it (cf. see Comment on 9:21 ); while never glossing over wickedness, Scripture
does not pander to the prurient by going into sensational detail.
21 ―Migdal -Eder,‖ lit. ―tower of the flock.‖ The context here implies that Migdal -Eder
was a well -known place, but this pass age is the only one that gives any clear clues to its
location, somewhere between Bethel (v 16) and Hebron (v 27). If ―tower of the flock‖ in
Mic 4:8 is a proper name, it could be near Jerusalem. This would fit with locating Rachel‘s
grave north of Jerusal em at Er -Ram. Late Jewish tradition (e.g., m. Sðeqal. 7:4 and Tg.
Ps.-J. on this passage) states that the Messiah will reveal himself at Migdal -Eder. So it has
been sugge sted that Migdal -Eder could be Hurvat al -Bireh near the pools of Solomon about
three miles southwest of Bethlehem. Christian tradition (Jerome) located Migdal -Eder at
the Shepherds‘ Fields (Diyar el -Ghanam) a mile and a half east of Bethlehem ( EM 4:37).
22 It seems likely that Reuben‘s motives were more than sensual. By his act, he hoped to
prevent Rachel‘s maid succeeding Rachel as his father‘s favorite wife. Reuben resented that
Jacob did not honor his mother Leah. Also, it was a c laim to authority over his father (cf.
Abner lying with Saul‘s concubine, 2 Sam 3:7 –8); as firstborn he was asserting a claim to
his father‘s estate. But these motives do not mitigate Scripture‘s condemnation. This kind
of incest is cat egorically condemned in Lev 18:8, and according to Lev 20:11, it warrants
the death penalty and God‘s curse, according to Deut 27:20. Within Genesis, it evokes the
sins of Ham (9:22 –27) and Lot‘s daughters (19:33 –38), and outside Genesis it foreshadows
the ultimate act of hybris in Absalom‘s rebellion, when he went into his father‘s concubines
(2 Sam 16:21 –22). This act was a turning point in the rebellion; thereafter everything
started to go wrong for Absalom. Similarly, the legal texts show that such an a ct, which is
an offense against both filial piety and sexual propriety, cannot go unpunished. Yet here, as
in chap. 34, Jacob is strangely silent. He just ―heard about it‖ (cf. 34:5).
What does he think? By failing to report any reactio n on Jacob‘s part, the narrator has
left a gap that no one can miss. Is Jacob as indifferent to Bilhah‘s abuse as he was to
Dinah‘s, despite her being his dearest Rachel‘s maid? Or does he care but is now incapable
of exercising authority over his oldest s on? These great questions are posed just before the
Joseph story begins, and they are doubtless intended to color our reading of chaps. 37 –50.
This episode suggests that there is tension not only between Jacob and his sons descended
from Leah but also betw een the sons of Bilhah and Rachel on the one hand and the sons of
Leah on the other. Furthermore, though Reuben appears throughout the Joseph story in
quite a humane light, trying to rescue Joseph and so on, this episode shows the dark side of

his characte r. But not until 49:2 –3 does Jacob show his deep anger at Reuben‘s behavior,
when the firstborn‘s blessing turns into a curse.
22b–26 This list of Jacob‘s sons appears ―totally isolated in its context‖ (Coats, 243),
and to ascribe it to a different source from the preceding material does not explain why a
redactor should have put such a list here. Yet, as pointed out under Form/Structure/Setting ,
this arrangement of material has good parallels elsewhere in Genesis. Gen 24 tells of
Isaac‘s marriage (cf. 35:21 –22a), 25:1 –6 lists Abraham‘s sons (cf. 35:22b –26), and then
25:7–11 records Abraham‘s death and burial (cf. 35:27 –29). Similarly, the Joseph story
closes with a mention of Reuben‘s sin (49:4; cf. 35:21 –22a), lists all Jacob‘s sons
(49:3 –27), and recounts his death and burial (49:29 –50:14). So it could be that this list of
Jacob‘s sons in 35:22b –27 is, like the previous verses (21 –22a), preparing the way for the
Joseph story, r eminding us who they are and which side they are on by arranging them
strictly according to their mothers. The two other lists of Jacob‘s sons, 29:32 –30:24 and
49:2–27, do not follow a genealogical arrangement by mothers so strictly. If we are right to
see this list as in some sense anticipatory of what follows, this would fit in with Genesis‘
method elsewhere, for often the end of one section is a trailer for the next (e.g., 4:25–26 for
chap. 5; 9:20 –27 for chap. 10).
26 ―Who were born to him in Paddan -Aram.‖ In the light of vv 16 –19, this comment
does not cover Benjamin, the youngest son.
27–29 Eventually, Jacob reaches his father‘s house (cf. 28:21). Isaac has moved north
from Beersheba, where he was l ast heard of, to Mamre in Kiryat -Arba (which is Hebron).
On these terms, cf. see Comments on 13:18; 23:2. Such detailed specification, though
seemingly redundant, emphasizes the significance of the place, which was where some of
the gre atest promises had been made (13:14 –18; chaps. 15 –18) and where Abraham had
first purchased land in Canaan (chap. 23) even though he and Isaac had only been
immigrants.
28–29 These verses echo 25:7 –9 very closely. As the estranged brothers, Ishmael and Isa ac,
joined together to bury Abraham, so the reconciliation of Jacob and Esau (chap. 33) is
reaffirmed in this final act of jointly burying their father. The text implies that Isaac was
buried in the ancestral grave at Macpelah, but this is not made explici t until 49:29 –32.
Explanation
After the series of dramatic episodes that make up the Jacob cycle, this chapter comes
as rather an anticlimax. It appears to be a hodgepodge of biographical anecdotes thrown
together to round off the story of Jacob‘ s return to his home. But first impressions are
deceptive. Though these closing narratives are worded more briefly than most of the
preceding, they are not without theological depth, especially when they are set in context
and in relationship with each oth er.
Chap. 34 ended with Jacob paralyzed by the prospect of the vengeance the Canaanites
might try to wreak on him for the massacre perpetrated by his sons. Now God again speaks
to him, reminding him of the last time he fled to save his life, from his broth er Esau (v 1).
Jacob is told to go back to Bethel, where he had met God before, the God who had
promised to protect him and bring him back to his father‘s house in peace. It was at Bethel
that Jacob had vowed to worship the LORD when he returned to Canaan. So far, Jacob had
not fulfilled that vow, so he is told that notwithstanding his fears, he must ―go up to
Bethel,‖ go on pilgrimage to the town that was holy to him.

Without hesitation he complies, directing his household to prepare themselves to go on
pilgrimage. Encounter with God demands purity in the worshiper (cf. Lev 14; Deut 23:15
[14]; 26:14; Ps 24:3 –4), and the whole family is defiled both by Dinah‘s rape (34:5) and by
the massacre that ensued (34:25 –29; cf. Num 31:19 –24). So he directs them to ―put away
the foreign gods‖; we are not told whether these were recently acquired as booty or are
longer -term possessions (cf. 31:30 –35). He also tells them to ―purify themselves,‖ i.e., wash
and maybe shave, and ―change their outer garments,‖ because they had been polluted in the
battle or captured from the Shechemites. This, says Jacob, will enable me to return to
Bethel and worship the God who has protected me throughout my wanderings as he
promised (v 3; cf. 28:15, 20 –22). Just as promptly, his household obeys, and like their later
descendants (Num 31:50), they hand over their earrings as part of their purification. As
there was no approved priest to rece ive them in Jacob‘s time, they are simply hidden under
the terebinth near Shechem. It could be that this gesture is seen not merely as purificatory
or expiatory, as in Num 31:50, but as a fulfillment of Jacob‘s vow to give ―a full tenth‖ of
―everything you give me‖ (28:22).
Prompt obedience is promptly rewarded. As the later Israelites were to experience when
they entered Canaan to capture it (cf. Josh 2:9), ―a divine terror fell on the surrounding
towns‖ (v 5), so that Jacob proceeded t o Bethel unmolested, once again demonstrating that
―I am really with you and will guard you wherever you go.‖ In obedient gratitude, Jacob
builds an altar and once again calls the place ―El of Bethel.‖
In the story of Abraham, the journey to and sacrifice on Mount Moriah constitute the final
test of his faith. Because God revealed himself there, he called the place ―The LORD will
provide‖ (22:14). Similarly, for Jacob this risky journey to Bethel was a great test. He too
survived and, like Abraham (22:15 –18), subsequently received a powerful reaffirmation of
the promises (35:9 –12)—a revelation that was to uphold him to his dying day (48:3 –4).
Once again he was reminded of his new name, Israel, for yet again he had struggled with
God and had overcome (32:29 [ 28]). He was reassured that he would have a multitude of
descendants, some of whom would be kings, and that his land would be theirs for ever.
Here, more strongly than ever before, the great promises that have sustained Jacob
throughout his career are endo rsed and enlarged.
But as ever within the Pentateuch, the fulfillment of these promises is always partial.
Sorrow soon follows joy. Rachel had prayed, ―May the LORD add another son to me‖
(30:24). But when at last her prayer is answered, she dies giving bi rth, naming him ―Son of
sorrow.‖ Jacob more optimistically calls him ―Benjamin,‖ ―Son of the right,‖ ―Son of good
fortune.‖ But as the Joseph story will reveal, Rachel‘s name for Benjamin proves more apt
than Jacob hoped.
Even worse for Jacob is to follow. In complete contempt of his father, Reuben lies
incestuously with his father‘s concubine, Bilhah. The sons of Leah had protested strongly
enough about their sister‘s rape ―being a disgrace in Israel‖; now his firstborn commits an
even more shameful deed a gainst Israel himself. The self -righteous Reuben is exposed as a
hypocrite, and future relations between Jacob and his sons through Leah are overhung by a
dark cloud. The ominous comment ―Jacob heard about it‖ (v 22) leaves us in suspense,
wondering how an d when the storm will break. The list of Jacob‘s sons, arranged not
chronologically but by maternal descent, indicates the divisions within the family that will
prove to be so important in the story of Joseph.
Yet that same list of sons (vv 22 –26) is a rem inder that the promise of a multitude of

descendants (v 11) is being fulfilled. One day there will be a nation. One day there will be
kings (v 11; cf. 36:31). So, too, the burial of Isaac by his reconciled sons Jacob and Esau
has a hope ful side. Isaac is buried in the only real estate acquired by Abraham in Canaan, at
Mamre in Kiryat -Arba, a place where the promises to Abraham had been most fully
revealed. So the death and burial of Isaac in ripe old age in Mamre is a pledge of Israel‘s
ultimate possession of the land.
Throughout Genesis, the promises look beyond the patriarchal era for their fulfillment.
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob see them only partially fulfilled. And this is very true here too.
The only aspect of the promise to Jacob to tally fulfilled was the promise of divine
protection: after all the vicissitudes of his journey to Paddan -Aram and back, he arrives safe
and sound near Shechem. But the last stage from Shechem to Bethel is risky. Nevertheless,
he makes it, for the divine t error falls on the surrounding cities. But the longer -term hopes
of nationhood and settlement throughout Canaan are still far from realized.
Yet Jacob‘s experiences here do not just look back to Abraham‘s; they also look forward
and indeed anticipate his d escendants‘ actions. Chap. 34 showed his sons butchering the
Canaanites for their sins. Chap. 35 depicts them purifying themselves from the impurity
thereby contracted, laying aside the booty they had taken, and describes the divine terror
paralyzing their foes. In this way, they set a precedent later followed by the Israelites in
their wars of conquest (Num 31; Deut 7; Josh 7). For Jeremiah, Rachel could still be heard
weeping at Ramah, not over her own death, but over the death of her children (Jer 31:15) .
And Matthew develops this idea still further, applying it to the mourning of the mothers of
the Bethlehem region at the slaughter of their children (Matt 2:16 –18).
Thus, throughout this chapter, as elsewhere in the Jacob cycle, there is a tension
between the present reality and future hope. The partial fulfillment of the promises in the
patriarchal era makes the reader look beyond that era to his own time to see how much
more fully the promises had come true in his own time than then. ―These all died in f aith,
not having received what was promised, but having seen it and greeted it from afar, and
having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. … All these, though
well attested by their faith, did not receive what was promised, since G od had foreseen
something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect‖ (Heb 11:13,
39–40).
The Family History of Esau (36:1 –37:1)
Bibliography
Bartel, A. ―Studies in the Lists of Gen 36.‖ (Heb.) BMik 32 (1986/87) 364 –72. Bartlett, J. R. Edom
and the Edomites. JSOTSup 77. Sheffield: Academic, 1989. ——— . ―The Edomite King -List of
Gen 36:31 –39 and 1 Chron 1:43 –50.‖ JTS 16 (1965) 301 –14. Beeston, A. F. L. ―What Did Anah
See?‖ VT 24 (1974) 109 –10. Bennett, C. M. ―Excavations in Tawilan in Southern Jordan 1982.‖
Levant 16 (1984) 1 –23. Driver, G. R. ―Gen 36:24: Mules or Fishes?‖ VT 25 (1975) 109 –10.
Horwitz, W. J. ―Were There Twelve Horite Tribes?‖ CBQ 35 (1973) 69 –71. Kitchen, K. A. ―The
Egyptian Evidence on Ancient Jordan.‖ In Early Edom and Moab: The Beginning of the Iron Age in

Southern Jordan, ed. P. Bienkowski. Merseyside: Collis, 1992. 21 –34. Knauf, E. A. ―Alter und
Herkunft der edomitischen Königsliste Gen 36:31 –39.‖ ZAW 97 (1985) 245 –53. ——— .
―Supplementa Ismaelitica.‖ BN 38–39 (1987) 44 –49. Kornfeld, W. ―Die Edomiterlisten (Gen 36; 1
Chron 1) im Lichte des altarabischen Namensmateriales.‖ In Mélanges bibliques et orientaux: FS
M. Delcor, ed. A. Caquot, S. Légasse, and M. Tardieu. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1985. 231 –36.
Luria, B. Z. ―He Is the Anah Who Found the yemim in the Wilderness (Gen 36:24).‖ (Heb.) BMik
30 (1984/85) 262 –68. Prewitt, T. J. ―Kinship Structures and the Genesis Genealogies.‖ JNES 40
(1981) 87 –98. Renaud, B. ―Les généalogies et la structure de l‘histoire sacerdotale dans le livre de
la Genèse .‖ RB 97 (1990) 5 –30. Wilson, R. R. Genealogy and History in the Biblical World. New
Haven: Yale UP, 1977. 167 –83. Zeron, A. ―The Swan Song of Edom.‖ JJS 31(1980) 190 –98.
Zwickel, W. ―Rehobot -Nahar‖ BN 29 (1985) 28 –34.
Translation
1This is the family history of Esau, that is Edom.
2Esau married Canaanite wives, Adah, the daughter of Elon the Hittite,
Oholibamah, the daughter of Anah, daughtera of Zibeon the Hivite,b 3Basemat,a the
daughter of Ishmael, the sister of Nebaiot. 4Adah gave birth to Eliphaz for Esau, and
Basemat gave birth to Reuel. 5 Oholibamah gave birth to Yeush,a Yalam, and Korach.
These are Esau‘s sons, who were bornb to him in the land of Canaan.
6Esau took his wives, sons, and dau ghters, all the persons that belonged to his
household, his livestock, all his herds, and all his property which he had acquired in the
land of Canaan and went a out to a landa away from his brother Jacob, 7because their
possess ions were too numerous for them to dwella together. For the land to which they
had migrated was unable to sustainb them because of their livestock. 8So Esau settled in
the mountain of Seir. Now Esau is Edom.
9This is the family history of Esau, the father of Edom, in the hill country of Seir.
10Thesea are the names of Esau‘s sons. Eliphaz, the son of Adah, Esau‘s wife. Reu el, son of
Basemat, Esau‘s wife. 11Eliphaz‘s sons were Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, and Kenaz.
12Now Timna was a concubine of Eliphaz, the son of Esau, and she gave birth to Amalek for
Eliphaz. These are the sons of Adah, Esau‘s wife. 13These are the sons of Reuel, Nahat,
Zerach, Shammah, and Mizzah. These were the descendants of Basemat, Esau‘s wife.
14These are the sons of Oholibamah, daughter of Anah, daughtera of Zibeon, wife of Esau.
And she gave birth to Yeush,b Yalam, and Korach for Esau.
15These are the chiefs of Esau‘s sons; the sons of Eliphaz, Esau‘s firstborn, chief
Teman, chief Omar, chief Zepho, chief Kenaz, 16a chief Korach,a chief Gatam, chief
Amalek. These are the chiefs of Eliphaz in the land of Edom. These are the sons of
Adah. 17These are the sons of Reuel, Esau‘s son: chief Nachat, chief Zerach, chief
Shammah, chief Mizzah. These are the chiefs of Reuel in the land of Edom. These are
the sons of Basemat, Esau‘s wife. 18Now these are the sons of Oholibamah, Esau‘s wife:
chief Yeush, chief Yalam, chief Korach. These are the chiefs of Oholibamah, the
daughter of Anah, Esau‘s wife. 19These are the sons of Esau. These are their chiefs, that
is Edom .
20These are the sons of Seir the Horite, the inhabitants of the land: Lotan, Shobal,
Zibeon, Anah, 21 Dishon, Etzer, and Dishan. These are the chiefs of the Horites, the
sons of Seir in the land of Edom. 22The sons of Lotan were Hori and Heman, and the
sister of Lotan was Timna. 23These are the sons of Shobal: Alvan, Manahat, Ebal,

Shepho, and Onam. 24These are the sons of Zibeon: a Ayyah and Anah. It was Anah who
found the springsb in the wilderness when he was looking after the donkeys for Zibeon,
his father. 25 These are the sons of Anah: Dishon and Oholibamah, she was Anah‘s
daughter. 26These are the sons of Dishon:a Hemdan, Eshban, Yitran, and Keran. 27
These are the sons of Etzer: Bilhan, Zaavan, and Akan. 28These are the sons of Dishan:
Utz and Aran.
29These are the chiefs of the Horites: chief Lotan, chief Shobal, chief Zibeon, chief
Anah, 30chief Dishon, chief Eser, chief Dishan. These are the chiefs of the Horites by
their chieftainshipsa in the land of Seir.
31These are the kings who re igned in Edom before there were kings for the
Israelites.a 32Bela, son of Beor, reigned in Edom, and his town was called Dinhabah.
33Bela died and Yobab, son of Zerach, from Bozrah reigned instead of him. 34Yobab
died, and Husham from the land of Teman reigned instead of him. 35 Husham died, and
Hadad, son of Bedad, who defeateda Midian in the area of Moab, reigned inst ead of
him. His town was called Avit. 36Hadad died, and Samlah from Masreqah reigned
instead of him. 37Samlah died, and Shaul from Rehobot -Hannahar reigned instead of
him. 38 Shaul died, and Baal -Hanan, son of Akbor, reigned instead of him.
39Baal -Hanan, s on of Akbor, died, and Hadada reigned instead of him. His town was
called Pau, and his wife was Mehetabel; she was the daughter of Matred, the daughterb
of Mezahab .
40These are the names of the chiefs of Esau by their clans, areas, and names: chief
Timna, chief Alva, chief Yetet,a 41chief Oholibamah, chief Elah, chief Pinon, 42chief
Kenaz, chief Teman, chief M ibsar, 43chief Magdiel, chief Iram. These are the chiefs of
Edom by their settlements,a in the land of their possession, that is Esau, father of Edom.
37:1 Now Jacob settled in the land to which his father had migrated in the land of Canaan.
Notes
2.a. SamPent, G, S read ―son of.‖
2.b. BHS conjecturally emends to ―the Horite‖ to match v 20.
3.a. Here and in vv 4, 10, 13, 17 SamPent has Mahalat instead of Basemat to harmonize
with 28:9.
5.a. 
with Qere, SamPent, and versions and MT v 18.
5.b. 3 pl. pf qal pass 
(cf. 6:1).
6.a-a. This expression is unusual. S ―to the land of Seir‖ and Tg. Onq. Neof. , Vg ―to
another land‖ are simply smoothing the MT. SamPent, G ―out of the land of Canaan‖ could
be a similar attempt at smoothing, but the antiquity of this reading gives it a strong claim.
7.a. 

+ inf constr qal 7.b. 
+ inf constr qal 10.a. SamPent G, S, Vg ―And these.‖
14.a. Cf. n. 36:2.a.*
14.b. Cf. n. 36:5.a.*
16.a-a. Not in SamPent.
24.a. Omitting the 
with SamPent and most versions.
24.b. On this word, see Comment .
26.a. 1 Chr 1:41, SamPent, G, S read ―Dishon.‖ MT ―Dishan.‖
30.a. This is the sense of the passage (cf. G). Pace BHS, this does not warrant repointing
MT.
31.a. G paraphrases ―in Israel.‖
35.a. Def art + masc. sg hiph ptcp 
. For use of ptcp to express past, see GKC, 116o.
39.a. SamPent, G, S, Vg, 1 Chr 1:50, 51 read ― Hadad.‖ MT ―Hadar.‖
39.b. G, S read ―son.‖
40.a. G reads ―Yether,‖ but other versions support MT.
43.a. SamPent ―clans.‖
Form/Structure/Setting
This section has a clear title in v 1, ―This is the family history of Esau, that is Edom.‖
Each major section of Genesis has this type of heading (e.g., 2:4; 11:27; 25:12, 19; 37:2).
The repetition of almost the same title in 36:9 is unparalleled, though, and requires
explanation. The next major heading, ―This i s the family history of Jacob,‖ comes in 37:2,
which makes it likely that 37:1, ―Jacob settled in the land … of Canaan,‖ is the conclusion
of this section. Indeed, it echoes 36:8, ―So Esau settled in the mountain of Seir,‖ the two
comments balancing each o ther.
The section falls into the following subsections:

v 1
Title

vv 2–5
Esau‘s marriages

vv 6–8
Esau‘s move to Seir

vv 9–14
Esau‘s sons and grandsons

vv 15 –19
Chiefs descended from Esau

vv 20 –28
Descendants of Seir the Horite

vv 29 –30
Chiefs descended from Seir

vv 31 –39
List of Edomite kings

vv 40 –43
List of chiefs

37:1
Note about Jacob

Within this chapter there is both diversity and repetition of material. vv 2 –5 tell of
Esau‘s three wives and five sons. vv 9 –14 go over the sam e ground but add the birth of
grandsons to his first two sons. vv 15 –19 say the same but describe Esau‘s grandsons and
his sons by his third wife as ―chiefs.‖ vv 20 –28 list the seven sons and twenty
grandchildren of Seir, vv 29 –30 the chiefs of Seir. As in the previous section, the sons of
Seir are now called ―chiefs.‖ vv 31 –39 list eight Edomite kings, and vv 40 –43 eleven chiefs
of Esau.
It is difficult to see the rationale for this collection of materials about Edom, save that
Edom was viewed as Israel‘s closest neighbor and was for a while under Israelite rule.
However, within the schema of Genesis, ―a family history of Esau‖ is certainly expected at
this point. ―A family history of Ishmael,‖ Abraham‘s older but non -elect son (25:12 –18),
precedes the much longer ―family history of Isaac,‖ the chosen younger son (25:19 –35:29).
So here a fairly brief history of Esau, the non -elect elder twin, precedes the ―family history
of Jacob,‖ the elect younger twin (37:2 –50:26). Thus a section such as chap. 36 is certa inly
appropr
The diversity of materials makes it probable that a variety of sources have been drawn
on for the chapter, but it is not clear at what stage they have been brought together, nor
whether what appears to the modern reader as incompatibilities wi thin the material would
have been so perceived by ancient authors and readers. R. R. Wilson has suggested that
Gen 36 represents ―the Edomite lineages functioning in different spheres.‖ If this correct, it
has the following consequences. ―First, the differ ent versions of Edomite genealogy need
not have come from different historical periods. … The genealogies would not have been

considered contradictory by the people who used them, for they would have recognized that
each genealogy was accurate when it was functioning in its own particular sphere. Second,
we need not assign the contradictory genealogies to different literary sources or even to
different oral traditions. Because the genealogies may have been in use during the same
historical period, they may have been preserved in the same oral or written source‖ (R. R.
Wilson, Genealogy and History , 180 –81).
These important caveats need to be borne in mind when the questions of source
criticism are discussed. Headings, such as ―This is the family history of,‖ lists, and
genealogies are generally assigned to P. The diversity of the material has deterred critics
from assigning the whole chapter to P without qualification, for not only is it not
homogeneous in itself, but Esau‘s wives have different names in 26:3 4 and 28:9, passages
which are also usually assigned to P. So two main solutions to these problems have been
advanced: either that 36:9 –43 reflects sources used by P or that these verses represent a
later (post -P) addition to the book. It is not easy to de cide between these options, because
there are no obvious divisions within the material. Wilson ( Genealogy and History , 175)
argues that vv 9 –43 represent a later editorial attempt to harmonize 36:9 –43 with 26:34 and
28:9. The editor of vv 1 –5 took the name s of Esau‘s wives, Adah, Basemat, and
Oholibamah, from vv 10 –18. He then took the gentilic epithets ―The Hittite‖ from 26:34
and ―daughter of Ishmael‖ from 28:9 and permuted the names and epithets to produce
36:2–3, ―Adah, the daughter of Elon the Hittite, Oholibamah, the daughter of Anah,
daughter of Zibeon the Hivite , Basemat, the daughter of Ishmael.‖ It is possible that a
redactor worked in such a muddled way as Wilson proposes, but it would be simpler to
accept that chap. 36 and 26:34; 28:9 represent d ifferent traditions of Esau‘s marriages.
Furthermore, it does look as though 36:9 –43 is an insertion into a discrete section (36:1 –8;
37:1), for 37:1, ―Jacob settled in the land to which his father had migrated in the land of
Canaan,‖ matches and echoes 36 :7–8 so clearly. Thus almost all commentators conclude
that at an earlier stage in the history of the book, 37:1 followed immediately after 36:8.
That 36:9 –43 is a secondary insertion into the book seems to be confirmed by the second
title, ―This is the fa mily history of Esau,‖ which is without analogy in the rest of the book.
Each of the other nine formulae, ―This is the family history of,‖ occurs but once, suggesting
that the reduplication here represents an addition to the book, which once had only ten s uch
titles. In this case, 36:9 –43 would represent the last part of Genesis to be written.
Westermann (2:561) has suggested that these verses came from the royal archives of
Edom, which were taken over by Israel when David subdued the Edomites and
incorpora ted their territory into his empire. Such a hypothesis is speculative, but Knauf‘s
arguments ( ZAW 97 [1985] 245 –53) for a later date are even flimsier. The generally positive
attitude toward Esau and t he Edomites throughout Genesis fits a period long before the
exile, when relations between Israel and Edom became very bitter (cf. Obad; Ps 137:7 –9).
Finally, it should be noted that vv 9 –43 appear to be a carefully redacted u nit in its own
right.
Title
―This is the family history of Esau, the father of Edom‖
v 9
Subtitle
―These are the names of Esau‘s sons‖ (List A)
vv 10 –14

Subtitle
―These are the chiefs of Esau‘s sons‖ (List A)
vv 15 –18
Colophon
―These are the sons of Esau. These are their chiefs, that is Edom‖
v 19
Subtitle
―These are the sons of Seir the Horite, the inhabitants of the land‖
v 20

(List B)
vv 20 –21
Colophon
―These are the chiefs of the Horites, the sons of Seir in the land of Edom‖
v 21
Sub-subtitles
―These are the sons … ‖ (List B )
vv 22 –28
Subtitle
―These are the chiefs of the Horites‖
v 29

List B (chiefs)
vv 29 –30
Colophon
―These are the chiefs of the Horites by their chieftainships in the land of Seir‖
v 30
Subtitle
―These are the kings who reign ed in Edom‖
v 31

List of kings
vv 32 –39
Subtitle
―These are the names of the chiefs of Esau‖
v 40

List of chiefs
vv 41 –43
Colophon
―These are the chiefs of Edom by their settlements, in the land of their possession, that is
Esau, father of Edom.‖
v 43

Thus this section falls into three parts, each consisting of a list of sons (or kings) followed
by a list of chiefs: vv 10 –14//15 –18; vv 20 –28//29 –30; vv 32 –39//41 –43. And the opening
title, ―the family history of Esau, the father of Edom‖ (v 9), is resu med in the final

colophon, ―in the land of their possession, that is Esau, father of Edom‖ (v 43). These
redactional features do not prove that the whole section has been lifted as it stands from the
Edomite archives, which is what Westermann (2:561) sugge sts. But they do at least make it
likely that vv 9 –43 were added to Genesis all at once and not in a serie
Comment
1 This is the standard title for the major sections of Genesis (cf. 6:9; 11:27; 25:12, 19 ).
On the identification of Esau and Edom (cf. Jacob and Israel), see 25:25.
2–5 This brief genealogy lists Esau‘s three wives and five grandsons born to him in
Canaan from Canaanite wives.
As already noted, this list does not match tha t in 26:34 and 28:9. There, Basemat is called
the daughter of Elon the Hittite. Here, Adah is said to be his daughter and Basemat the
daughter of Ishmael, whereas in 28:9 Mahalat is Ishmael‘s daughter. Oholibamah is
mentioned here, but Judith in 26:34. Tha t these represent different traditions is obvious, but
it is not clear how they are to be related. Possibly Esau had more than three wives, or his
wives‘ names changed.
2 ―Adah‖; cf. seeComment on 4:19. ―Elon‖ = ―Oak‖ (cf. 35:8). ―Oholibamah‖ is of
uncertain meaning, possibly a Hurrian name (cf. EM 1:126 –27). ―Anah‖ is an element found
in various names from Cappadocia (Puzur -Ana) to Tel -Amarna (Bin -Ana). It could be the
name of an Anatolian deity ( EM 6:307 –8). ―Daughter of,‖ unless the variant ―son‖ is
followed, here has the sense of ―granddaughter.‖ ―Zibeon‖ = ―Hyena.‖ ―The Hivite‖; cf. see
Comment on 10:17. Since Adah and Zibeon a re termed Horites in v 20, it is possible that
―Hivite‖ is a textual error for ―Horite‖ here.
3 ―Basemat‖; cf. see Comment on 36:34. ―Nebaiot‖; cf. see Comment on 25:13.
4 ―Eliphaz‖ possibly means ―the god El conquer s,‖ ―my god is Paz,‖ or ―the god is
strong.‖ ―Eliphaz,‖ Job‘s comforter (Job 2:11), is described as a Temanite. Teman is both a
place name and Eliphaz‘s firstborn according to 36:11. ―Reuel‖ means ―friend of El (God)‖
or ―El is a friend‖ and was a name als o used by Israelites (Num 2:14: 1 Chr 9:8).
5 ―Yeush‖ is usually understood as ―may (God) help.‖ For other suggestions, see EM
3:709. It is also an Israelite name (1 Chr 7:10; 8:39). ―Yalam‖ is of uncertain meaning,
perhaps related to [
―youth‖ or  
―mountain goat.‖ ―Korach‖ is usually supposed to mean ―Baldhead,‖ but this is
doubted by EM 7:255. Other Korachs are mentioned in Num 16:1; 1 Chr 2:43; Ps 42:1.
6–8 These verses terminate the story of Esau‘s life by describing his move from Canaan
to Seir. The vocabulary used here is typical of passages describing major moves of clans,
especially of clans splitting up (e.g., 12:5 [Abram from Terah]; 13:5 –6 [Lot from Abram];
31:18 [Jacob from Laban]). Note particularly v 7, ―because their possessions were too
numerous for them to dwell together. For the land … was unable to sustain them,‖ echoes
13:6, ―[T]he land would not sust ain them, dwelling together, because their possessions
were too numerous for them to dwell together.‖ Yet in 34:21 Hamor had said, ―Let them
live in the land … look the land is big enough for them,‖ which suggests that however
much property Esau really had , there would have been enough room for both Jacob and
Esau. But like Lot before him, Esau moves out of the land of promise and out of the record
of saving history. Probably 37:1 originally followed 36:8, deliberately contrasting Esau‘s

exit from Canaan wi th Jacob‘s staying put and thereby inheriting the promise.
8 ―The mountain of Seir‖; cf. 33:14, 16; see Comment on 14:6.
9 This heading, virtually repeating 36:1, betrays what follows as a later insertion into
Genesis (see above, Form/S tructure/Setting ).
10–14 These verses fill out the genealogy of vv 2 –5 by including Esau‘s grandsons.
Wilson suggests that vv 10 –14 give a clue to the different social standings of the Edomite
clans. He thinks Amalek, Yeush, Yalam, and Korach were less est eemed than the other
clans; Amalek, because his mother is said to be a concubine, and Yeush, Yalam, and
Korach, because their mother Oholibamah was probably of Horite descent (cf. see
Comment on v 2). ―This fact might also indicate that Horites who had been incorporated
into the Edomite social structure were assigned an inferior status‖ (R. R. Wilson,
Genealogy and History , 181).
11 ―Teman‖ (―South‖) is described elsewhere as a district of Edom (Jer 49:20; Ezek 25:13),
as famed for its w isdom (Jer 49:7), and as the home of Eliphaz, Job‘s comforter. On its
location, see EM 8:524 –25. ―Omar‖ perhaps means ―eloquent‖ (BDB), or ―lamb‖ (KB).
―Zepho‖ possibly means ―view,‖ ―fortune, ‖ or ―ram.‖―Gatam‖ may mean ―thin.‖ ―Kenaz‖:
whether this group is related to the Kenizzites mentioned in 15:19 or the Judean clan of
Num 32:12 is uncertain.
12 Amalek is well known as one of Israel‘s most bitter foes, but usually it is not viewed
as part of Edom (e.g., Exod 17:8 –15; Num 24:20). That this text traces Amalek‘s ancestry to
Esau through a concubine rather than through a full wife may indicate that Amalek joined
the Edomite league relatively late and was despise d by the Israelites (cf. the unsavory story
of Moab and Ammon‘s origins in 19:32 –38).
13 ―Nachat,‖ possibly ―pure‖ (Noth, Personennamen , 228) or ―rest‖ (KB), is also an
Israelite name (1 Chr 6:11 [26]; 2 Chr 31:13). ―Zerach‖ may be a shortened theophoric
name, ―God has shone,‖ or it may mean ―brightness, dawn.‖ It is also a common Israelite
name (38:30; Josh 7:1; Neh 11:24; EM 2:941 –42). ―Shammah‖ is a shortened theophoric
name, ―(God) has heard‖ (Noth, Personennamen , 39, 185). The meaning of ―Mizzah‖ is
obscure.
15–19 This list of Edomite chiefs is almost identical to the list of the sons of Esau in vv
10–14. 
―chief‖ occurs forty -two times in this chapter and fourteen times in the parallel in 1
Chr 1:51 –54, but elsewhere only four times. Exod 15:15, ―Now are the chiefs of Edom
dismayed,‖ suggests that ―chief‖ is an Edomite term. In Zech 9:7; 12:5 –6, it is use d in an
archaizing way of Judeans. Jacob and some commentators translate 
―clan.‖ Though this translation is contextually possible, the fact that a similar term ulp
is found with the meaning ―leader‖ at Ugarit ( UT, 359) and its consistent translation by the
versions as ―leader‖ make this interpretation unlikely. It seems that 
is the ―chief‖ of an 
―thousand, clan.‖ It is hard to be sure why this list of chiefs is included next to the list
of Esau‘s sons. Wilson ( Genealogy and History , 179) suggests that ―the genealogy in
36:15 –19 would represent the configuration of the political lineages functioning in the
politica l sphere.‖
16 ―Korach‖ is the only addition to the names in vv 10 –14. SamPent omits it here, so it
could be a scribal e rror or a gloss saying that the Korach of v 18 really counted as a son of
Eliphaz. As Dillmann (380) observes, it is certain that two tribes did not have the same

name.
20–30 As the previous section, vv 9 –19, falls into two repeating sections —a list of son s
and grandsons, vv 9 –14, and a list of chiefs —so does this: vv 20 –28 list sons and
grandsons; vv 29 –30 list chiefs. But whereas vv 9 –19 deal with Esau‘s sons, this section
deals with ―the sons of Seir the Horite.‖ Here Seir is both the name of the area in habited by
the Edomites and the eponymous ancestor of its former inhabitants. According to Deut
2:12, ―the Horites also lived in Seir formerly, but the sons of Esau dispossessed them, and
destroyed them from before them.‖ To judge from Gen 36, Deut 2:12 ha s somewhat
simplified the historical picture. When the Edomites entered Seir, not all the Horites were
destroyed; several clans survived and indeed intermarried with the Edomites. Whereas vv
9–19 list the predominantly Edomite clans, vv 20 –30 list the pred ominantly Horite clans.
20 ―Horite.‖ These Horites are not to be identified with the well -known Hurrians, for these
Horites have Semitic names (cf. see Comment on 14:6). Speiser and Westermann favor the
old etymological explanation of H orite as ―cave -dweller,‖ but this is uncertain.
―Lotan‖ may a longer form of the name Lot. Noth ( Personennamen , 226) rather
improbably suggests that ―Shobal‖ means ―basket.‖ It was also a Judean name (1 Chr 2:50,
52; 4:1 –2). For ―Zibeon‖ and ―Anah,‖ see v 2.
21 ―Dishon‖ is a kind of antelope (Deut 14:5; RSV ―ibex‖), possibly Addax
nasomaculata (EM 2:655). The meanings of ―Etzer‖ and ―Dishan‖ are unknown.
22 The meaning of ―Heman‖ is uncertain. For ―Timna,‖ see v 12.
23 The meanings of ―Alvan‖ and ―Ebal‖ are uncertain. ―Manahat‖ possibly means
―resting place‖ (cf. 1 Chr 8:6). ―Ebal‖ is also the name of a mountain (Deut 27:13).
―Shepho‖ = ―bald‖ according to Gispen. ―Onam‖ may mean ―vigorous‖ (cf. the similar
―Onan‖ in 38:4).
24 ―Ayyah‖ is the name of an unclean bird of prey (Lev 11:14), possibly the kite (G.
Bare, Plants and Animals of the Bible , 36). ―Anah‖ is distinguished from his uncle of the
same name (vv 20, 25) by a comment. Similar comments are found in Gen 4 and 5 to
distinguish the two Lameks and two Enochs (4:17 –24: 5:21 –24, 28 –31). So probably not
too much should be read into ―who found the springs in the wilderness.‖ 
: ―springs‖ is the translation preferred by moder n commentators following the Vg ―hot
springs‖ (Luria, BMik 30 [1984/85] 266, ―geyser‖). But the term may be a simple
metathesis of 
―water‖ (cf. 26:19, 32). The main Jewish tradition is that it means ―mules,‖ but Tg.
Onq. suggests ―giants‖ (for fuller discussion, cf. Jacob, 685 –86; Beeston, VT 24 [1974]
109–10; and Driver, VT 25 [1975] 109 –10).
25 ―Dishon‖ is another grandson of Seir with the same name as his uncle (vv 21, 26).
―Oholibamah‖: this daughter is mentioned because she married Esau (vv 2, 14).
26 The meanings of ―Hemdan‖ and ―Eshban‖ are uncertain. ―Yitran.‖ The aµn ending
is characteristic of th is group of names, so it is possible that Yitran has the same meaning as
Yeter (―remainder,‖ according to Gispen). ―Keran‖ may mean ―vineyard‖ ( EM 4:329).
27 The meaning of ―Bilhan‖ is uncertain (cf. ―Bilhah,‖ 29:29). The meanings of
―Zaavan,‖ and ―Akan‖ are uncertain.
28 ―Utz‖; cf. 10:23. ―Aran‖: KB suggests ―ibex‖; cf. Syriac arhaµm and Akk. armuÆ ;
―gazelle.‖
29–30 This list of chiefs is the same as the list of Seir‘s sons in vv 20 –21. See
Form/Structure/Setting above.

31–39 The third major section of the Edomite insertion begins with a list of ―kings who
reigned in Edom before there were kings for the Israelites.‖ According to Num 20:14, there
were kings in Edom when the Israelites led by Moses passed through Transjordan, so this
list could be referring to pre -Mosaic kings of Edom, as Jacob argues. However, most
commenta tors, taking their cue from ―before there were kings for the Israelites,‖ argue that
the list comes from the period of the Israelite monarchy, possibly the time of David, who
conquered Edom (2 Sam 8:13 –14). The fact that the last Edomite king listed in Gen 36 may
be Hadad and that Hadad, an Edomite prince, led a revolt against Solomon (1 Kgs
11:14 –22) enhances the plausibility of this suggestion, although it is by no means proven.
But it is clear from this list that there was no dynastic succession in Edom in the period
to which it relates; there is no father -son succession, and the capital city changes with the
king. This arrangement invites comparison with the situation in the book of Judges, when
national rulers arose to lead the nation in the hour of cri sis. But this list gives too few
details to push the analogy with Israelite practice very far.
32 ―Bela‖ possibly means ―eloquent‖ or ―glutton‖ ( EM 2:133). The city of Zoar was also
once called ―Bela‖ (14:2), and it is als o the name of Benjamin‘s eldest son (46:21). His
patronymic, ―son of Beor,‖ is the same as Balaam‘s (Num 22:5), but this is insufficient to
prove their identity. ―Dinhabah‖ is otherwise unknown.
33 ―Yobab‖; cf. 10:29. ―Bozrah‖ is one of the Edomite towns most often referred to
(e.g., Isa 34:6; Amos 1:12) and is usually identified with Buseira. The absence of settlement
before the ninth century at Buseira does not prove the lateness of this king list ( pace Knauf,
ZAW 97 [1985] 245 –53, and Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites ), as this verse need not
presuppose permanent settlement at Bozrah.
34―Husham‖: KB compares Arabic ―broadnosed.‖ ―Teman‖: cf. v 11.
35 ―Hadad‖ is the name of the Semitic storm god. Hadad may be a shortened form of a
name such as ―Hadadezer,‖ ―Hadad is a helper.‖ ―Who d efeated Midian in the area of
Moab.‖ Some have speculated that this coincided with Gideon‘s defeat of the Midianites
(Judg 7), but this is without proof. This little historical detail may be included to distinguish
this Hadad from the one mentioned in v 39 (cf. see Comment on v 24). The location of
―Avit‖ is unknown.
36 ―Samlah‖ (KB; cf. Arabic ―protection‖). ― Masreqah‖ could be related to the noun

―vine,‖ and so it could be a vine -growing area. Gebel Mushraq, southwest of Maan, is
a possibility ( EM 5:641).
38 ―Shaul‖ (―requested‖), usually transliterated Saul in English, was also th e name of
Israel‘s first king. The location of ―Rehobot -hannahar‖ (―open spaces of the river‖) is
uncertain.
38 ―Baal -Hanan‖ means ―Baal is gracious‖; ―Akbor‖ means ―mouse.‖
39 ―Hadad‖; cf. n. 39.a. and see Comment on vv 31 –39. For ― Pau,‖ 1 Chr 1:50 has
―Pai,‖ which could point to Wadi Fai on the south bank of the Dead Sea. ―Mehetabel‖
means ―El does good.‖ ―Matred‖ perhaps is a shortened theophoric name, ―(God) expels
(his enemies).‖ ―Mezahab‖ means ―waters of gold.‖
40–43 A list of chiefs follows the king list, just as lists of chiefs (vv 15 –19, 29 –30)
follow the genealogies of Esau (vv 9 –14) and Seir (vv 20 –28). But whereas in the previous
cases the lists of chiefs were almost identical with the preceding lists of sons, this is not so
here. There is no apparent overlap of kings and chiefs. It has been suggested that this is a

list of the administrative districts of Edom, since some of the names are place names.
40 The meanings of ―Timna‖ (cf. vv 12, 22), ―Alvah‖ (cf. Alvan, v 23), and ―Yetet‖ are
all unclear.
41 ―Oholibamah‖; cf. v 2. ―Elah‖ means ―terebinth‖; any link with Elat, the port in
southern Edom, is unclear (cf. see Comment on 14:6). ―Pinon,‖ m eaning uncertain, may
possibly be identified with Punon (Num 33:42 –43), modern Feinan twenty miles south of
the Dead Sea ( EM 6:445 –46).
42 For ―Kenaz‖ and ―Teman,‖ see v 11. ―Mibsar‖ (―fortress‖) may be mentioned in Ps
108:11(10): ― Who will bring me to the fortified city [or the city of Mibsar]? Who will lead
me to Edom?‖ According to Eusebius ( Onomasticon , 124 20), Mabsara is near Petra. It
could be an alternative name for Bozrah (cf. v 33; EM 4:612).
43 ―Magdiel,‖ ―fruit (gift) of El‖ (KB) or ―El is excellence‖ (Fowler, Theophoric
Personal Names , 133), is also mentioned by Eusebius. It cou ld be near the village of
Majadil four miles (six kilometers) northeast of Tafileh (so EM 4:632 –33). The meaning of
―Iram‖ is uncertain.
37:1 This verse resumes and completes the ―family history of Edom‖ in 36:1 –8. See above
on Form/Structure/Setting and see Comment on 36:6 –8.
Explanation
Genealogies do not easily inspire theological reflection, but in Genesis they have a most
important function. Genesis is concerned with tracing Israel‘s ancestral line, and in their
neighbor Edo m, they saw their nearest relative, indeed Israel‘s twin brother Esau. But why
was Jacob chosen while Esau was passed over? Much earlier, the narrative reported the
antenatal oracle foretelling that ―two nations are in your womb … the older will be a slave
of the younger‖ (25:23). And when Isaac blessed Esau, he declared, ―You shall live by your
sword, and be subject to your brother‖ (27:40).
As is customary with the subordinate non -elect line in Genesis, Esau‘s ―family history‖
is given before Jacob‘s (37: 2–50:26) and much more briefly. The double title, ―This is the
family history of Esau‖ (36:1, 9), makes it probable that originally ―the family history of
Esau‖ consisted merely of 36:1 –8; 37:1. Later 36:9 –43 was inserted, giving a slightly
different slant on the fate of Esau.
36:1–8; 37:1 tell of Esau‘s marriage to Canaanite women (36:2 –5), which proved his
disrespect for the traditions of his forefathers, for both Abraham and Isaac were anxious
that their sons should marry within the lineage descended fro m Terah (24:3 –4; 28:2), a
principle later insisted on by the law (Deut 7:3). Esau‘s disregard for this principle marks
him as cutting himself off from the chosen people.
Not only did Esau forsake his family roots; he left the land of promise. Like Lot befo re
him, he decided that he could not live in Canaan with his brother Jacob, because ―their
possessions were too numerous for them‖ (36:7). As chap. 34 showed, there was plenty of
space in Canaan for Jacob and others to live together. But Esau felt otherwis e, and his
decision to leave Canaan could ultimately prove as calamitous as Lot‘s similar decision.
However, it did leave Jacob as the unique inheritor of the Abrahamic promise that his
descendants would inherit the land of Canaan, ―the land to which his f ather had migrated‖
(37:1).
Without the long insertion of 36:9 –43, this first ―family history of Esau‖ is comparable to

the ―family history of Ishmael‖ (25:12 –18), which likewise tells how Abraham‘ s first son
eventually established himself outside the land of promise, leaving Isaac with sole claim to
its possession. Both Ishmael and Edom are viewed without rancor as relatives who have
walked out of the line of promise.
But the long insertion of 36:9 –43 puts Esau and the Edomites in a different light. If it is
right to see this passage as a later addition to Genesis, possibly dating from the time of
David when Edom was conquered and incorporated into the Israelite empire, it may
represent the hope tha t the two brothers, Israel and Edom, would indeed be reconciled in
one nation. Certainly this long list of names, some of which were familiar Israelite names,
stresses the consanguinity and common tradition of the two nations. That Esau became a
nation rec alls the promise to Rebekah that she would mother two nations. That Edom
became part of the Davidic empire, though it was older, having kings before Israel, shows
that the older did serve the younger (25:23). So whenever it was written, 36:9 –43 does
reinfo rce the message that the promise was fulfilled, even its less important aspects
concerning other nations. So if these points came true, it is reasonable to expect the greater
promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to be fulfilled as well.
Later history tended to illustrate the divisions between Esau and Jacob rather than
reconciliation. Fierce wars between the two sides fed the fires of mutual hatred (2 Sam
8:13–14; 1 Kgs 11:15 –16; 2 Kgs 14:7; Amos 1:11 –12), culminating in some of the most
bitter prayer s of the old covenant (Obadiah; Lam 4:21 –22; Ps 137:7 –9) and summed up in
Malachi‘s pregnant phrase, ―I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau‖ (1:2 –3).
For Paul, the election of Jacob and the rejection of Esau is a great example of God‘s free
and unfette red choice (Rom 9:10 –12). Yet he too looks for a day of ultimate reconciliation,
when those who have long rejected the gospel will find mercy (Rom 11:25 –32), a day
when, as Rev 7:9 describes it, ―a great multitude which no man could number, from every
nation, from all tribes and peoples and tongues‖ will stand before the throne and the Lamb.
And it is these two themes, the present rejection of Esau and his ultimate reincorporation
into the people of God, that Gen 36 juxtaposes.
The Joseph Story (37:2 –50:26)
Bibliography
(See also the Bibliography forIntroduction, ―The Egyptian Background of the Joseph Story.‖)
Aberbach, M. ―Joseph and His Brothers —in the Light of the History of the Israelite Tribes.‖ (Heb.)
BMik 32 (1986/87) 114 –20. Ahuviah, A. ―On the Real Joseph.‖ (Heb.) BMik 31 (1985/86) 271 –80.
Coats, G. W. ―Another Formcritical Problem of the Hexateuch.‖ Semeia 46 (1989) 65 –73. ——— .
From Canaan to Egypt: Structural and Theological Context for the J oseph Story. CBQMS 4.
Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1976. ——— . ―The Joseph Story and Ancient Wisdom:
A Reappraisal.‖ CBQ 35 (1973) 285 –97. ——— ―Redactional Unity i n Genesis 37 –50.‖ JBL 93
(1974) 15 –21. Cooper, J. S. ―Sargon and Joseph: Dreams Come True.‖ In Biblical and Related
Studies: FS S. Iwry, ed. A. Kort and S. Morschauser. Winona Lake, IN: Eise nbrauns, 1985. 33 –39.
Dahlberg, B. T. ―On Recognizing the Unity of Genesis.‖ TD 24 (1976) 360 –67. Donner, H. Die

literarische Gestalt der alttestamentlichen Josephsgeschichte. Heidelberg: Winter, 1976. Engel, H.
Die Vorfahren Israels in Ägypten: Forschungsgeschichtliche Überblick über die Darstellungen seit
Richard Lepsius (1849). Frankfurter Theologische Studien 27. Frankfurt: Knecht, 1979. Fox, E.
―Can Genesis Be Read as a Book?‖ Semeia 46 (1989) 31 –40. Haag, H. ―Der Aufstieg Josef im
Haus des Ägypters.‖ In Fontes atque Pontes: FS H. Brunner, ed. M. Görg. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 1983. 205 –14. Hensell, G. ―The Joseph Story.‖ BiTod 66 (1973) 1201 –9. Hilgert, E.
―The Dual Image of Joseph in Hebrew and Early Jewish Literature.‖ BR 30 (1985) 5 –21.
Humphreys, W. L. ―Novella.‖ In Saga, Legend, Tale, Novella, Fable, ed. G. W. Coats. JSOTSup
35. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. 82 –96. Kaiser, O. ―Stammesgeschichtliche Hintergründe der
Josephsgeschichte: Erwägungen z ur Vor – und Frühgeschichte Israels.‖ VT 10 (1960) 1 –15. King, J.
R. ―The Joseph Story and Divine Politics: A Comparative Study of a Biographic Formula from the
Ancient Near East.‖ JBL 106 (1987) 577 –94. Knipping, B. R. ―Textwahrnehmung
‗häppchenweise‘: Bemerkungen zu H. Schweizers ‗Die Josefsgeschichte‘ und zu seiner
Literarkritik.‖ BN 62 (1992) 61 –95. Martin -Achard, R. ―Problèmes soulevés par l‘étude de
l‘histoire biblique de Jos eph (Genesis 37 –50).‖ RTP 105 (1972) 94 –102. Meinhold, A. ―Die
Gattung der Josephgeschichte und des Estherbuches: Diasporanovelle.‖ ZAW 87 (1975) 306 –24; 88
(1976) 72 –93. Naor, M. ―The Story of Joseph the Righteous (Gen 37:28 –45:4).‖ (Heb.) BMik 32
(1986/87) 224 –34. Osman, A. Stranger in the Valley of the Kings: The Identification of Yuya as the
Patriarch Joseph. London: Souvenir, 1987. Rad, G. von. ―Josephgeschichte und ältere Chokma.‖
VTSup 1 (1953) 121 –27. Ruppert, L. ―Die Aporie der gegenwärtigen Pentateuchdiskussion und die
Josefserzählung der Genesis.‖ BZ 29 (1985) 31 –48. ——— . Die Josepherzählung der Genesis .
Munich: Kösel, 1965. ——— . ―Zur neueren Diskussion um die Josefsgeschichte der Genesis.‖ BZ
33 (1989) 92 –97. Savage, M. ―Literary Criticism and Biblical Studies: A Rhetorical Analysis of the
Joseph Narrative.‖ In Scripture in Context, ed. C. D. Evans, W. W. Hallo, and J. B. White.
Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1980. 79 –100. Scharbert, J. Ich bin Josef euer Bruder . St. Ottilien: EOS,
1988. Schimmel, S. ―Joseph and His Brothers: A Paradigm for Repentance.‖ Judaism 37 (1988)
60–65. Schmidt, L. Literarische Studien zur Josephsgeschichte . BZAW 167. Berlin: de Gruyter,
1986. Schmitt, H. -C. ―Die Hintergründe der ‗neuesten Pentateuchkritik‘ und der literarische
Befund der Josefsgeschichte Gen 37 –50.‖ ZAW 97 (1985) 161 –79. ——— . Die nichtprieste rliche
Josephsgeschichte . BZAW 154. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980. Schweizer, H. Die Josefgeschichte . 2
vols. Tübingen: Francke, 1991. White, H. C. ―The Joseph Story: A Narrative Which ‗ Consumes‘
Its Content.‖ Sem. 31 (1985) 49 –69. ——— . Narration and Discourse in the Book of Genesis.
Cambridge: CUP, 1991. Whybray, R. N. ―The Joseph Story and Pentateuchal Criticism.‖ VT 18
(1968) 522 –28. Wright, G. R. H. ―Joseph‘s Grave under the Tree by the Omphalos at Shechem.‖
VT 22 (1972) 476 –86.
Form/Structure/Setting
The heading, ―This is the family history of Jacob‖ (37:2), and the end of the book
(50:26) define the limits of th is section most securely. By universal consent, the Joseph
story is the most closely integrated part of the patriarchal narrative, and it is often referred
to as a short story or, in German, Novelle .
It consists of the following episodes:
37:2–36
Joseph is sold into Egypt

38:1–30
Tamar and Judah

39:1–20
Joseph and Potiphar
A
39:21 –40:23
Joseph in Prison
B
41:1–57
Joseph in the Palace
C
42:1–38
First visit of Joseph‘s Family to Egypt
A´
43:1–45:28
Second visit of Joseph‘s Family to Egypt
B´
46:1–47:31
Third visit of Joseph‘s Family to Egypt
C´
48:1–50:26
The Last Days of Jacob and Joseph

The Joseph story, as already noted above, develops the theme of the Pentateuch by
showing the gradual fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham in 12:1 –3. In particular,
it shows how God blesses the nations through the descendants of Abraham. Joseph‘s
management of famine relief supplies in Egypt saved the lives of many people. This was
not due to chance or human wisdom, but God. As Joseph said to his bro thers, ―God planned
it for good … to keep many people alive‖ (50:20). Joseph‘s role is already foreshadowed at
the beginning of the story in the two dreams in which he sees his brothers and parents
bowing down to him. This is of course fulfilled in chaps. 42–47. So it is often held that the
Joseph story really ends in chap. 47 and that chaps. 38 and 48 –50 do not belong to the
story. This, though, represents a failure to grasp the author‘s understanding of his material.
The relationship between the dreams of chap. 37 and their fulfillment in chaps. 39 –47 is
plain. The first three episodes demonstrate how the LORD was with Joseph. In the first (A),
he rises to the post of Potiphar‘s assistant (39:1 –20). In the second (B), he becomes the
prison -governor‘s deput y (39:21 –40:23). In the third (C), he is appointed vizier of Ezgypt,
next in authority to the Pharaoh himself, and he is given responsibility for managing
Egypt‘s food supplies (41:1 –57). These episodes build to a climax in the third.
They are followed by another three episodes that again build to a peak. In the first (A‘), ten
of Joseph‘s brothers come to Egypt and, not recognizing him, bow down to him, thus
beginning to fulfill his dreams (42:1 –38). In the second (B‘), the brothers are joined by
their you ngest, Benjamin; they bow down, and in a dramatic denouement Joseph identifies
himself to his brothers. Finally, in the third episode (C‘), Jacob and all the family come
down to Egypt, and Joseph appears to them (46:1 –47:31). Thus if the fulfillment of
Joseph‘s dreams is the sole theme of the Joseph story, it is natural to suppose that it ends in
chap. 47 and that chaps. 38, 48 –50 are later a

However, this is not the author‘s understanding of these narratives. He entitles them
―The family history of Jacob ‖ (37:2). In other words, he is interested in all the sons of
Jacob, not simply Joseph. Similarly, the heading ―The family history of Isaac‖ (25:19)
indicates that he is interested in both sons of Isaac, i.e., Esau as well as Jacob. His broader
interests are most obvious in the Testament of Jacob (chap. 49), in which the dying Jacob
pronounces blessings on all his sons. This passage is correctly identified by Longacre
(Joseph , 54) as the peak of the Joseph stor y and of the whole book of Genesis. Here ―we
have a glimpse of the embryonic nation —with the Judah and Joseph tribes destined to have
preeminence in the south and the north respectively.‖
Thus it is not surprising to find one chapter (chap. 38) devoted ent irely to Judah before
the three chapters (39 –41) in which Joseph is the only son of Jacob on stage. Then in the
following chaps. 42 –46, the two leading actors are Judah and Joseph with Jacob, Reuben,
Simeon, and Benjamin in supporting roles. Throughout Gen 37–50 the author shows his
interest in the history of the whole family of Jacob, not just in Joseph.
The ―Joseph Story‖ is thus somewhat of a misnomer for these chapters. Earlier I
observed that Gen 25 –50 (omitting chap. 36) constitutes the biography of J acob: it begins
with his conception in 25:21 and ends with his burial in 50:14. It is a story told in two parts:
part 1, ―The family history of Isaac‖ (25:19 –35:29); part 2, ―The family history of Jacob‖
(37:2 –50:26). The cross -references between the two p arts suggest its unity. The comments
on Reuben in 49:3 –4 recall 35:22, and those on Simeon and Levi in 49:5 –7 recall 34:25 –31.
Indeed, the importance of the Testament of Jacob (chap. 49), with its vision of the tribes
settled in Canaan in the Joseph story, matches that of the narrative of their birth
(29:31 –30:24) in the Jacob story. Interestingly, just four of Jacob‘s sons‘ names are given
an explanation using the LORD‘s name in this birth narrative, Reuben, Simeon, Judah,
Joseph (29:32, 33, 35; 30:24), an d they are the leading actors in the Joseph story. The
tension between Leah and Rachel in Gen 29 –31 erupts into open warfare between Leah‘s
sons and Jacob in Gen 34 and 35:22. The rifts between the sons and the father and between
Joseph (Rachel‘s son) and his half brothers are deepened in chap. 37 when Joseph is sold to
slave -traders. The rest of Genesis relates the reconciliation between the brothers and their
father. Though this is apparently complete by 47:12, suspicions that Joseph may seek
revenge stil l linger in his brothers‘ minds after Jacob‘s death. Again Joseph allays their
fears (50:14 –21). Thus the whole of 25:19 –50:26 tells the story of the forefather of the
nation and the origin of the twelve tribes.
According to classical source criticism, the main sources are J and E in roughly equal
proportions, alternating in chapters 37 to 45. In later chapters, 46 –50, there is also some of
the P source. A variation (e.g., Redford, Biblical Story of Joseph ; Schmidt, Literari sche
Studien ) regards the J material as a Judah source that was supplemented later by a Reuben
source –E source. More recently, opinion has swung to seeing the core of the Joseph story
(37, 39 –45) as an essential unity (e.g., Coats; Westermann; Blum, Die Komposition ),
perhaps by J, with supplements in the later chapters introducing material from other
sources, principally drawn from P and the Jacob narrative (i.e., Gen 25 –35), which link the
Joseph story narrowly defined with the life of his father Jacob. For detailed discussion of
these proposals, see the Form/Structure/Setting of each chapter.

Joseph Is Sold into Egypt (37:2 –36)
Bibliography
Abramsky, S. ―Ishmaelites and Midianites.‖ (Heb.) EI 17 (1984) 128 –34. Anbar, M. ―Changement
des noms des tribus nomades dans la relation d‘un même événement .‖ Bib 49 (1968) 221 –32.
Becking, B. ―‗They hated him even more‘: Literary Technique in Gen 37: 1 –11.‖ BN 60 (1991)
40–47. Brueggemann, W. ―Life and Death in Tenth Century Israel.‖ JAAR 40 (1972) 96 –109.
Christensen, D. L. ―Anticipatory Paronomasia in Jonah 3:7 –8 and Gen 37:2.‖ RB 90 (1983)
261–63. Görg, M. ―Die Amtstitel des Potifar.‖ BN 53 (1990) 14 –20. Greger, B. ―Ein
Erklärungsversuch zu 
.‖ BN 45 (1988) 28 –39. Grintz, Y. M. ―Potifar —the Chief Cook.‖ (Heb.) Lesû 30 (1965/66) 12 –17.
Longacre, R. E. ―Who Sold Joseph into Egypt?‖ In Interpretation and History: FS A. A. Macrae,
ed. R. L. Harris, S. H. Quek, and R. Vannoy. Singapore: Christian Life, 1986. 75 –91. Peck, J.
―Note on Gen 37: 2 and Joseph‘s Character.‖ ExpTim 82 (1970/71) 342 –43. Plaut, W. G. ―Who Sold
to Whom?‖ Central Conference of American Rabbis Journal 15 (1968) 63 –67. Scharbert, J. ―Josef
als Sklave.‖ BN 37 (1987) 104 –28. Seebass, H. ―Der israelitische Name der Bucht von Beµsaµn und
der Name Beth Schean .‖ ZDPV 95 (1979) 166 –72. Ska, J. L. ―Sommaires proleptiques en Gen 27 et
dans l‘histoire de Joseph.‖ Bib 73 (1992) 518 –27. Sperber, D. ―A Note on Kommidion and the
Gum Trade.‖ Aegyptus 53 (1973) 22 –27. Wenham, G. J. ―Lev 27:2 –8 and the Price of Slaves.‖
ZAW90 (1978) 264 –65. White, H. C. ―Reuben and Judah : Duplicates or Complements?‖ In
Understanding the Word: FS B. W. Anderson, ed. J. T. Butler, E. W. Conrad, and B. C. Ollenburger.
JSOTSup 37. Sheffi eld: JSOT Press, 1985. 73 –97. Willmes, B. ―Objektive Ergebnisse bei
textinterner Literarkritik? Einige Anmerkungen zur Subjektivität literarkritischer Beobachtungen in
H. Schweizers Studie ‗D ie Josefgeschichte .‘‖ BN 67 (1993) 54 –86. Wright, G. R. H. ―An Egyptian
God at Shechem.‖ ZDPV 99 (1983) 95 –109.
Translation
2This is the family history of Jacob.
Joseph was seventeen years old, and he useda to be a shepherd with his brothers. He
had been a servant boy with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, his father‘s wives, and he
told talesb about them to their father. 3 Now Israel lo ved Joseph more than all his other
sons for he was the child of his old age, and he had madea for him a special tunic. 4 His
brothers realized that it was hea that their father loved more than all his brothers,b and
they hated him and were not able to speakc civilly to him.
5Joseph had a dream, tolda it to his brothers, and b they hated him even more.cb 6 He said to
them, ―Please listen to this dream which I have had. 7 Imagine, we were binding sheaves in
the countryside, and there, my sheaf rose up, yes stood up, and then, your sheaves
surroundeda my sheaf and bowedb down to it.‖ 8 Then his brothers said to him, ―Will you
reallya reign over us ? Or will you reallya rule over us?‖ So they hated him even more for
his dreams and for what he said.
9He dreamed again, and he rel ated the dream to hisa brothers and said, ―Look, I
have had another dream. I saw the sun, moon, and eleven stars bowingb down to me. 10a
And he related it to his father and brothers.a His father reprimanded him and said to
him, ―What is this dream that you have had? Shall I and your mother and your brothers
reallyb ourselves down to the ground before you?‖ 11 His brot hers were very jealous of
him, but his father held on to what had been said.

12His brothers went to shepherd a their father‘s flocks in Shechem. 13 Then Israel
said to Joseph, ―Aren‘t your brothers looking after the flocks in Shechem? Come, let
me send you to them.‖ He said to him, ―I am ready.‖ 14 He said to him, ―Please go and
see how your brothers are and how the flocks are, and bringa me word.‖ So he sent him
from the valley of Hebron, and he came to Shechem. 15 A man found him wandering in
the countryside, and the man asked, ―What are you looking for?‖ 16 He said, a ―It‘s my
brothers that I am looking for.a Please tellb me where they are shepherding.‖ 17 The
man said, ―They traveled from here, for I heard thema saying, ‗Let‘s go to Dothan.‘‖ So
Joseph went after his brothers and found them in Dothan.
18They saw him in the distance before he had come close to them, and they plotted
to put a him to d eath. 19 They said to each other, ―Look, thisa master dreamer is coming.
20 Now, come on, let‘s kill him, dump him in one of the pits, so we can say, ‗A wild
animal has eaten him.‘ Then we shall see what will happen to his dreams.‖ 21 Reubena
overheard this and rescuedb him from their clutches. He said, ―We must not takec his
life.‖ 22 Reuben said to them, ―Don‘t shed blood. Dump him in this pit in the
wilderness, but don‘t lay hands on him.‖ This was in order to rescuea him from their
hands and returnb him to his father.
23As soon as Joseph came to his brothers, they stripped off his tunic, a the s pecial
tunica which he was wearing. 24 They took him, dumped him in a pit. The pit was empty:
there was no water in it. 25 Then they sat down to eat food. They looked up and saw a
caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead. Their camels were carrying gums,
tragacanth, storax, and ladanum, bringing them down to Egypt. 26 Then Judah said to
his brothers, ―What‘s to be gained by killing our brother and covering up his blood? 27
Come, let‘s sell him to the a Ishmaelites. Let‘s not lay hands on him for he is our
brother, b our own blood.‖ And his brothers agreed. 28 Midianite traders passed by, so
they pulled up Joseph out of the pit and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty
shekels of silver, and they took Joseph to Egypt.
29Then Reuben came back to the pit and saw Joseph was not there. So he tore his clothes. 30
Then he came back to his brothers and said, ―The child‘sa gone! And I,b how can I go
home?‖ 31 So they took Joseph‘s coat, killed a kid, and dipped the coat in the blood. 32 They
sent the coat and brought it to their father and said, ―This is what we found. Please
identifya whetherb it is your son‘s tunic or not.‖ 33 He identifieda it. He said, ―It‘sb my son‘s
tunic. A wild animal has eaten him. Joseph has been torn to bits.‖c 34 Then Jacob tore hi s
clothes, put sackcloth on his loins, and mourned for his son many days. 35 All his sons and
his daughters did their best to console him, but he refused to be comforted. He said, ―I
shall indeed go down to Sheol in mourning.‖ So his father wepta for him. 36 Meanwhile, the
Midianitesa had sold him to the Egyptians, to Potiphar, an official of Pharaoh, captain of
the palace guards.
Notes
2.a. On the use of the verb 
―to be‖ with ptcp to describe frequentative actions in past time, see Joüon, 121f.
2.b. On the omission of the def art on 

, cf. GKC, 126z; Joüon, 126a.
3.a. Waw + pf would usually be understood ―and he used to make‖; cf. SamPent 
, G. But MT may be correct because the verb here is supplying background to ―and his
broth ers realized‖ (Longacre, Joseph , 75, 92 –93).
4.a. Preverbal position of obj pronoun emphasizes it ( GKC, 142f).
4.b. Though SamPent, G read ―his sons‖ instead of ―his brothers,‖ the latter emphasizes
the centrality of Joseph at this point in the narrative (cf. Longacre, Joseph , 144).
4.c. Inf constr piel 
+ 3 masc. suffix. This use of the obj pronoun is unusual but not unparalleled (cf. GKC,
115c).
5.a. cf. n. 9:22.a.*
5.b-b. Omitted by G.
5.c. Waw consec + 3 masc. pl. impf. hiph 7.a. 3 fem. pl. impf. qal  7.b. cf. n.
33:6.b.*
8.a. The use of the inf abs conveys the utter surprise of the brothers that young Joseph
should rule over them (EWAS, 88).
9.a. G adds ―his father and.‖
9.b. Masc. pl. ptcp hishtaphel 10.a-a. Omitted by G.
10.b. cf. n. 37:8.a.*
10.c. 
+ inf constr hishtaphel 12.a. 
has ―extraordinary point‖ because regarded as suspect by punctuators ( GKC, 5n).
14.a. Waw + 2 masc. sg impv hiph 
+ 1 sg suffix.
16.a-a. Note the unusual Heb. word order: object (―my brothers‖) -subject (―I‖) -verb
(―Looking for‖) in response to a question.
16.b. cf. n. 29:15.c.*
17.a. Note the omission of the direct obj (―them‖), not unusual ( GKC, 117f), but perhaps
read with SamPent  18.a. 
+ inf constr hiph 

+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
19.a. cf. n. 24:65.a.*
21.a. Pace BHS there is no textual warrant for reading ―Judah‖ (see Comment )
21.b. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. hiph 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
21.c. 1 pl. impf. hiph 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
22.a. Inf constr hiph 22.b. 
+ inf constr hiph 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
23.a-a. G, S seem to omit, but there is a similar construction in 44:2, ―my cup, my
silver,‖ and cf. 2 Kgs 25:30 (Joüon, 140b, n.).
27.a. G adds ―these.‖
27.b. SamPent, G, S, Vg add ―and.‖
30.a. Noun (―the child‖) preceding suffixed 
shows intense emotion (EWAS, 104).
30.b. On repeated subj (―I‖), see GKC, 143a.―Emphasis is evident‖ where extraposed
personal pronoun is used (EWAS, 95).
32.a. 2 masc. sg impv hiph 32.b. On pointing of 
interrogative, see GKC, 100l.
33.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. hiph 
+ 3 fem. sg suffix. On pointing, see GKC, 60d.
33.b. English requires a subj (cf. SamPent, G, S), ―it,‖ but this is unnecessary in Heb.
(EWAS, 20). ―Several short clauses in apposition create tension and sometimes mount to a
climax. Israel‘s terrible cry in Gen 37:33 consists of three such clauses in apposition. The
postponement of the name ‗Jose ph‘ heightens the effect‖ ( SBH, 45).
33.c. Inf abs + 3 masc. sg pf qal pass ( GKC, 113w; WOC, 375, n. 31)  35.a. cf. n.
27:38.b.*
36.a. Note different spelling from v 28 and the suggested correction in BHS.
Form/Structure/Setting

The story of Joseph opens with the title in 37:2, ―This is the family history of Jacob.‖ It
is usual in these titles (cf. 11:26; 25:19 ) for the father (Terah, Isaac) of the main character
(Abraham, Jacob, and here Joseph) to be named. These are the events that took place when
Jacob was head of the extended family. Many commentators regard 37:1 as the start of the
Joseph story, failing to realize that it is the close of the story of Esau in chap. 36 (see
Form/Structure/Setting on chap. 36), but Dillmann, Delitzsch, and Longacre ( Joseph )
correctly note that 37:2 is the start of a new section in Genesis, which closes at 50:26.
This last majo r section of Genesis is a closely integrated unit, but 37:2 –36 constitutes a
clear unit within it, since chap. 38 constitutes a distinct interlude between 37:36 and 39:1.
chap. 37 invites comparison with the opening to the story of Jacob, which as here rel ates
two background incidents illustrating the rivalry of brothers before describing more fully
the episode that parted them for twenty years in different countries.
Title: ―This is the family history … ‖
25:19
37:2
Age
25:20
37:2
First conflict (In womb/T ale bearing)
25:21 –26
37:2–4
Second conflict (Birthright/Dreams)
25:27 –34
37:5–11
Ultimate cause of division
27:1–45
37:12 –36

The threefold refrain, ―they hated him‖ (37:4, 5, 8), culminating in 37:11, ―his brothers
were very jealous of him,‖ sets the sc ene for the whole story.
37:12 –35 falls into the following scenes:
Scene 1
vv 12 –14
Joseph sent to find brothers

Jacob/Joseph dialogue
vv 13 –14
Scene 2
vv 15 –17
Joseph at Shechem

Joseph/man dialogue
vv 15 –17
Scene 3
vv 18 –20
Brothers‘ plot

Dialogue
vv 19 –20
Scene 4
vv 21 –22
Reuben‘s intervention

Plea
vv 21 –22
Scene 5
vv 23 –28
Joseph sold

Judah‘s comments
vv 26 –27
Scene 6
vv 29 –30
Reuben‘s return

His comment
v 30
Scene 7
vv 31 –33
Coat brought to Jacob

Dialogue
vv 32 –33
Scene 8
vv 34 –35
Jacob‘s mourning

His words
v 35

It could be argued that vv 12 –17 constitute a single scene, ―Joseph looking for his
brothers,‖ but the change of location may justify it being subdivided. Similarly, vv 18 –22
could constitute one scene, but the arrival of Reuben in v 21 (cf. v 29) argues in favor of
division. Note that each scene contains words of
According to traditional source critics, the sources J, E, and P are interwoven in this
chapter. According to Gunkel (slightly simplified), the sources are as follows: v 2, P; vv
3–4, J; vv 5 –11, E; vv 12 –13a, J; vv 13b –14a, E; vv 14b –17, J; v 18a, E; v 18b, J; vv
19–20, E; v 21, J; v 22, E; v 23, J; v 24, E; vv 25 –27, J; vv 28 –30, E; vv 31 –33a, J; vv
33b–34a, E; vv 34b –35a, J; vv 35b –36, E. Other older commentators offer similar, though
often simpler, analyses. In favor of this source -critical division, it is noted that there is
repetition within the narrative. Sometimes Joseph‘s father is called Israel (vv 3, 13), once
Jacob (v 34). Both Reuben (vv 21 –22, 29 –30) and Judah (v 26) intervene to rescue Joseph.
And Joseph is apparently sold both to Ishmaelites (vv 25, 28) and to Midianites (vv 28, 36).
However, since Whybray ( VT 18 [1968] 522 –28) and Coats ( From Canaan to Egypt )
argued for the intrinsic unity of the Joseph story, this analysis has been given up by most
writers. They argue that the narrative is too powerful to be explained as the product of an
amalgamation of sources, that the d ivisions are postulated in order to produce two sources,
and that the differences within the narrative can be explained exegetically. Schmitt
(Josephsgeschichte ) argued that the E source represents an expansion of the J material, but
Westermann, Coats, Whi te (―Reuben and Judah,‖ 73 –97), Humphreys ( Joseph and His
Family ), and Longacre ( Joseph ) all suppose that vv 3 –36 come from basically one source
with possibly a few glosses or expansions.
Their approach is supported by the scenic analysis given above. Each scene consists of
narrative and dialogue, but to split the material between two sources undermines the unity
of the scenes. Westermann holds that v 2 comes from P, a different source from the
following verses, but Coats and Humphreys are more cautious, ar guing that v 2 does make
a good introduction to the story. Westermann also argues that vv 3 –36 are not from J but
from another hand. This seems unlikely in that the whole passage, vv 2 –36, closely
parallels the arrangement of 25:19 to 27:45, which is mostl y J.
Comment
2–4 These verses describe two general grudges Joseph‘s brothers bore him.
2 ―This is the family history.‖ cf. Form/Structure/Setting . ―Seventeen years old‖ fits
with the price paid for him by the slave traders (see Comment on 37:28). ―Used to be a
shepherd,‖ but in v 12 he is at home while his brothers are away ―shepherding.‖ The reason
for this change is explained next. ―He had been a servant boy [for this nuance of 
, cf. 22:3] with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, … and he told tales about them to their
father.‖ chap. 34 showed that there was little love lost between Jacob and his sons
descended from Leah. Doubtless, he felt even less affection for the sons of his slave -wives,
Bilhah and Zilpah. It is not clear whether Joseph‘s report about his brothers was true or not,
but the term 

―tales‖ is always used elsewhere in a negative sense of an untrue report, and here it is
qualified by the adjective ―evil‖ (cf. Num 13:32; 14:36 –37). So it seems likely that Joseph
misrepresented his brothers to his father, his father believed him, and his brothers hated him
for his lies. If his account was true, it would doubtless have enraged his brothers, especially
since their father had never held them in high regard anyway.
3 ―Israel loved Joseph more than all his other sons.‖ Favoritism has a long pedigree in
Jacob‘s family. Isaac loved Esau more than Jacob, Rebekah loved Jacob more than Esau,
and most pertinently Ja cob loved Rachel more than Leah (25:28; 29:30). His old love for
Rachel is now transferred to Joseph, Rachel‘s son. It is therefore hardly surprising that
―they hated him,‖ but that it is said three times (vv 4, 5, 8) indicates the intensity of their
feelings. Once again, parental attitudes are emerging in the children. Leah is twice
described as ―hated,‖ so in turn her sons ―hate‖ (29:31, 33).
―Israel.‖ Though Jacob‘s name was changed to Israel at the Yabbok, both names
continued to be used thereafter, unl ike Abram/Abraham. The reason for the choice of one
name over another in a particular context is not always clear, but within the Joseph story
certain preferences are observable. First, Jacob is used more frequently (31x) than Israel
(20x). Since Jacob is the normal form, it is the exceptional appearance of Israel that needs
to be explained. Second, whereas in prose Jacob always refers to the historical individual,
Israel sometimes refers to the people (46:8; 47:27; 48:20). Third, when Israel is used of the
individual, it seems to allude to his position as clan head (43:6, 8, 11; 46:1; 48:2), whereas
Jacob seems to be used where his human weakness is most obvious (e.g., 37:34; 42:4, 36;
47:9: cf. Longacre, Joseph , 149 –51). This fits in with the etymology of the names (―Jacob‖
= ―struggler, deceiver‖ and ―Israel‖ = ―prevailer with God‖) given earlier in Genesis. So
Jacob turns into Israel when his strength revives (45:28; 48:2). Finally, in those scenes
wher e Joseph is present, Israel seems to be preferred (37:3, 13; 46:29, 30; 48:2, 8, 11, 14,
20, 21; 50:2).
―Old age‖; cf. 21:2, 7; 44:20.
―Special tunic.‖ On ―tunic,‖ cf. Comment on 3:21. What was ―special‖ about this tunic
is uncertain. Apart from this chapter, the term occurs only in 2 Sam 13:18 –19 as the robe of
a princess. ―Many -colored‖ goes back to the LXX and Vulgate translation. Another
possibility base d on the cognate Aramaic term 
―palm of hand or foot‖ is that it was a long garment reaching to the ankles or the
wrists, i.e., with sleeves. Speiser compares the Akkadian term kituµ pisûannu , a ceremonial
robe with gold ornamentati on. But whatever the tunic looked like, it marked Jacob‘s special
affection for Joseph and served as a perpetual reminder to his brothers.
4 Indeed, so deep was their hatred that they could not ―speak civilly to him.‖ ―Civilly‖
means lit. ―for peace.‖ This remark thus foreshadows the whole story of Joseph and the loss
of peace between the members of his family.
5–11 This is the first of three pairs of dreams that are found in the Joseph story (cf.
40:1–41:36), but the only pair that is dreamed by Joseph himself. Joseph‘s own dreams
foretell his own career and particularly look forward to his brothers‘ coming to Egypt to
buy food and their bowing down before the lord of the land, who, unknown to them, is their
brother Joseph (42:6; 44:14). Like Pharaoh‘s two dreams, which are said to be one (41:25),
it seems likely that both Joseph‘s dreams are making a single point, namely that his family
will one day bow down to him, not that they will do so on two occasions. The doubling o f
the dream suggests, rather, the certainty of fulfillment, that ―the thing is established by

God‖ (41:32). This is also suggested by the complementarity of the dreams: one is set on
earth (reaping in the fields), the other in heaven (sun, moon, and stars) .
However, while the later pairs of dreams are offically interpreted by Joseph with God‘s
help (40:8; 41:16, 25, 28), there is no mention of God in 37:5 –11. This makes it uncertain
whether Joseph‘s dreams are revelatory or merely the product of his own inf lated ego.
Clearly this is how his brothers viewed the dreams, so they simply served to fuel their
existing hatred of him.
5 ―They hated him even more‖ is one of several plays on Joseph‘s name in the story, lit.
―they added [  "
wayyoÆ sipuÆ ] to hate him still‖ (cf. v 8;  "
wayeásappeµr ―related,‖ vv 9 –10). By introducing and closing (v 8) the first dream with
this comment, the narrator underlines the impact it made on his brothers.
7 
―imagine‖ describes the dream through Joseph‘s eyes. ―Joseph describes the dream in
rhythmic, almost choreographic language, regulated by verbs and with a recurrent 
. He is full of his dream, which compels him to relate it to his brothers‖ (Westermann,
3:38). ―Binding sh eaves.‖ Though Jacob‘s family members were shepherds, this need not
rule out occasional sowing and harvesting (cf. 26:12). But since it is only a dream being
described, it is uncertain how far it represents their regular practice.
8 Each time Joseph relates a dream, he stirs up opposition —on this occasion from his
brothers, on the next from his father (v 10).
―The form of quotation formula used [noun (brothers) + pronoun (to him)] to introduce
their reply indicates rank -pulling. Who is t his younger brother to say such things, and isn‘t
it time to put him where he belongs? Their outraged reply employs infinitive absolutes +
finite verbs to convey their ironic disgust in terms of pseudo certainty‖; in addition, the use
―of a rhetorical ques tion … adds the sense of scolding‖ (Longacre, Joseph , 188).
―Will you really reign … rule over us?‖ Here ―reign‖ and ―rule‖ are used almost
synonymously. But despite his brothers‘ incredulity, their words predict exactly what was
to happen: Joseph became ― ruler of all Egypt‖ (45:8, 26) and next in power to the king
(41:38 –44).
9 The second dream uses astral images and has Joseph‘s parents as well as his eleven
brothers bowing down to him. ―Eleven stars.‖ While this could be a reference to the signs
of the Z odiac (the twelfth presumably being Joseph), it seems more likely just to be
ordinary stars.
―Sun, moon‖ is taken by Jacob to be ―I and your mother,‖ which raises the question as
to whether Rachel is still alive at this point in the story, even though her death was reported
in 35:19. It is clear that Genesis does not relate everything in strict chronological order,
especially deaths (cf. Comments on 11:32 and 24:65 –66; 25:1 –4). But the presence of
eleven stars seems to imply Benjamin‘ s existence, so it would seem more likely that Rachel
is assumed to have died and that the moon is included just to complete the picture of the
heavenly bodies (cf. Coats, Canaan to Egypt , 14).
10 His father, having been brought into th e dream, is moved to comment on it.
―Reprimanded‖ ( 
) is an uncommon word, especially in early prose. It refers most often to God‘s reaction
to the nations, the wicked, or the seas. It is an expression of great authority, often as here

tinged with anger (cf. Pss 9:6 [5]; 106:9; 119:21). Despite his deep affection for Joseph,
Jacob feels that this time he has gone much too far.
11 ―Very jealous‖ ( 
). In context, this seems to be a stronger and deeper passion than ―hatred‖ (vv 5, 8).
Indeed, in various passages it is a feeling that is liable to spill over into violent action (e.g.,
Num 25:11, 13), even with God (Exod 20:5). The ritual in Num 5:11 –31 is designed to
prevent a husband physically punishing his wife for suspected adultery, and Proverbs
cautions against allowing such jealousy free reign (14:30; 23:17; 24:1, 19). So the note that
―his brothers were very jealous‖ is ominous, suggesting that they may well seek revenge.
On the other hand, dreams were a recognized means of revelation, so that ―Jacob held on to
what had been said‖ just in case there was something in them. Perhaps this comment helps
to explain why he was prepared to send Joseph to visit his brothers despite their intense
hatred of hi m.
12–35 These verses describe in eight short scenes how the long simmering hatred at last
boiled over to rupture Jacob‘s family for at least another twenty years.
12 It begins quietly enough with Joseph‘s brothers traveling north from the Hebron area
nearly twenty miles south of Jerusalem to Shechem some thirty miles north. It was in the
Shechem area that Jacob‘s sons had massacred the sons of Hamor (34:24 –30), so it is
surprising that they ventured back there.
13–14 Why did not Joseph, a shepherd (v 2), go with his brothers on this occasion? Did
he choose not to go? Was his father afraid his brothers might harm him? Was Jacob afraid
that the area of Shechem might be dangerous? To judge from the conversation in v 13,
neither Joseph nor Jacob thought he was in danger from the brothers. Jacob was just
worried about how his sons and flocks were. Here the key word 
―peace‖ is used twice. Jacob, fearing attacks from outside the family, is apparently
blind to the lack of peace within. But the narrator, by re peatedly insisting that the brothers
hated (vv 4, 5, 8) and were very jealous of Joseph (v 11), has awakened great apprehension
in the reader, who cannot but fear for Joseph being sent so far from the range of paternal
protection.
15–17 This second short s cene reinforces the sense of Joseph‘s isolation and
vulnerability. He ―wanders‖ ( 
) like a lost sheep himself (Isa 53:6; also of Hagar in 21:14; of an ox in Exod 23:4 ) and
has to be redirected by an unidentified stranger to his brothers. He has to travel another
fourteen miles farther north to Dothan (Tel Dothan), even farther from home. Thus, this
short scene keeps us in suspense by delaying the confrontation of Josep h with his brothers
and by heightening our awareness of the danger he faces so far removed from his father
Jacob.
18–20 The scene now switches to the brothers‘ encampment. Through their eyes, we
see Joseph approaching in the distance, and we eavesdrop on t heir conversation.
18 ―They plotted,‖ a rare word, never used positively (cf. Ps 105:25). ―To put him to
death,‖ though often used of judicial execution (cf. 38:7, 10; Num 35:19, 21), is used here
for a neu tral objective statement of fact. ―Before he had come close‖ suggests that it did not
take them long to make up their minds. It also invites the query: how did they recognize
him in the distance? Was he wearing something distinctive?
19–20 ―This master -dreamer‖ is no doubt said sarcastically. They plan to prove his
dreams wrong by killing him. ―Then we shall see what happens to his dreams.‖ Their

animosity against Joseph emerges not merely in their sentiments but in their choice of
words. They go in for no euphemism; whereas the narrator speaks of ―putting him to
death,‖ they speak of ―killing‖; indeed as long as 
―kill‖ is not understood judicially, we might paraphrase their comment, ―let‘s murder
him,‖ for this verb is generally used of illicit taking of human life (Gen 4:8, 14; 12:12).
Indeed, this is what Esau planned to do to Jacob (27:41, 42). History repeats itself,
especially in Genesis.
―A wild animal has eaten him.‖ Already planning their cover story, they never use these
words themselves, but J acob does when they produce the blood -stained tunic (37:33).
21–22 This short scene describes Reuben‘s unexpected intervention. Clearly he turns up
after the plot to kill Joseph had been hatched, so that ―he rescued him‖ (on this term, cf.
Comment on 31:9). The past ―he rescued‖ summarizes the effect of his action, which is
more fully described next. Why Reuben should disagree with his brothers‘ decision remains
undisclosed. Was he just being the responsible elder brother? Was he trying to atone for his
misbehavior with Bilhah (cf. Sarna)? ―We must not take his life.‖ He first states a general
principle. 
―take life‖ is a quasi -judicial phrase often found in laws on homicide (cf. Num 35:11,
15, 30; Deut 19: 6, 11; 27:25).
22 ―Reuben said to them.‖ According to Longacre ( Joseph , 161), Reuben is mentioned
again here because Hebrew prose customarily mentions a character‘s name twice when first
introduced, but the quotation formula (p ersonal name + verb + pronoun) also emphasizes
Reuben‘s attempt to exert authority (cf. Longacre, Joseph , 167 –69). ―Don‘t shed blood.‖
Whereas in ―We must not take his life,‖ Reuben used the 
for an absolute prohibition (cf. the Decalogue), he now uses ―Lay hands on him‖ is
an idiom often implying a murderous assault (e.g., 1 Sam 22:17; 24:6; 26:23; cf. Gen
22:12). ―This was in order to rescue him . … ‖ The nar rator discloses Reuben‘s motives,
but he hid them from his brothers or else they would not have listened to him.
23–28 In this scene, the action reaches its climax as Joseph arrives, is stripped, is
thrown into a pit, and is sold to Ishmaelite traders. As in the previous scenes, descriptive
narrative is followed by direct speech, this time with Judah taking the lead.
23–24 The succession of verbs, ―stripped, took, dumped, sat down,‖ conveys the speed
and roughness of the brothers‘ assault on Joseph. ―They s tripped off [a term also used for
skinning animals, Lev 1:6] his tunic, the special tunic he was wearing.‖ This unexpected
expansiveness slows down the narrative for a moment and focuses on the piece of clothing
that was the mark of his father‘s affection and the occasion of his brothers‘ hatred. Now we
understand how they had recognized him in the distance and made up their minds so
quickly to kill him. It also hints at the grief that Jacob will suffer if Joseph does not return
home.
24 ―Dumped‖ (like a de ad body; cf. Comment on 21:15) in a ―pit‖ —probably a cistern
cut in the limestone and used for storing water. Such pits could be very muddy, as Jeremiah
found when he was imprisoned in one (Jer 38:6 –13). Without the comment that the pit was
dry, we might have wondered whether Joseph drowned.
The narrative is conspicuously silent about Joseph‘s reaction. It is left to the reader‘s
imagination. Not until 42:21 do we hear of his appeals for mercy, to whi ch his brothers
were deaf.
25 Instead, they callously sat down to eat, perhaps enjoying delicacies Joseph had

brought from their father (cf. 1 Sam 17:17 –18).
―Looked up‖ always signals that what is to be observed is of great significance (cf. 22:4).
―A caravan of Ishmaelites.‖ Dothan lies close to the main trade route through Palestine, the
Via Maris, which cuts across the plain of Jezreel from the Sea of Galilee to pass along the
coastal plain to Egypt (Y. Aharoni, Land of the Bible , 41–49). ―Coming from Gilead,‖ the
area east of the Sea of Galilee.
―Ishmaelites‖ are mentioned again in vv 27, 28, and 39:1, whereas vv 28, 36 call the
traders Midianites. The relationship between the Midianites and Ishmaelites in this story
has been much discussed, and a wide variety of critical theories, glosses, multiple sources,
and redactional changes have been invoked to explain the problem. However, White
(―Reuben an d Judah‖) has shown that these proposals all rest on unanalyzed assumptions of
the critics, and choosing one assumption rather than another is quite arbitrary. Rather, it
seems better to take Ishmaelites and Midianites as alternative designations of the sa me
group of traders. This must at least be the understanding of the editor of Genesis, as Gunkel
(409) pointed out, for 37:36 says the Midianites sold Joseph to Potiphar, whereas 39:1 says
Potiphar bought him from the Ishmaelites. And this is confirmed by Judg 8:24, which
explains that the Midianites had earrings ―because they were Ishmaelites.‖ Longacre
(Joseph ) argues that such an identification is also required on grounds of discourse analysis.
In Hebrew, a new actor is usually referred to by name twice before using a pronoun instead.
Here the new term Midianites (v 28) should be repeated in the later part of the verse, if they
were a group distinct from the Ishmaelites, so that it would have read ―and the Midianites
pulled up Joseph,‖ whereas ―they‖ impl ies the brothers pulled up Joseph.
Commentators identifying the Midianites with the Ishmaelites go back as far as Ibn
Ezra and most recently White (―Reuben and Judah‖), Humphreys (―Novella‖), Longacre
(Joseph ), and Sarna. The alternative possibility that t he Midianites pulled Joseph out of the
pit and then sold him to the Ishmaelites, though favored by many Jewish exegetes, seems
less probable.
It is not clear what is the exact difference between Ishmaelites and Midianites; it could
be that Ishmaelites is a general term meaning ―nomadic traders,‖ whereas ―Midianites‖ is a
more specific ethnic designation showing which tribe they belonged to (so Abramsky, EI 17
[1984] 128 –34; Longacre, Joseph ; Sarna). Alternatively, Ishmaelites may designate a
league of tribes, of which the Midianites constituted one element (cf. EM 3:902 –6). Such a
view is supported by 25:13 –17, which lists the sons of Ishmael, several of whom seem to
be desert tribes (cf. 17:20).
―Gums, tragacanth, storax, and ladanum.‖ These are rare terms, and the identity of the
substances being traded is uncertain, but I have followed the suggestions of M. Zohary,
Plants of the Bible :
―Tragacanth‖ gum ( 
), almost the same word as Arabic nakaath , is produced by making incisions on
Astragalus shrubs and letting the juice dry out. It has been ―used since ancient times in
medicine, industry and the manufacture of confections‖ (Zohary, Plants of the Bible , 195 ).
―Storax‖ gum ( 
) is a grayish -brown gum containing balsamic acids made by cutting the trunk of the
storax tree, Liquid ambar orientalis . It is valuable medicinally.
―Ladanum‖ ( 
) is a ―resinous substance obtained from some species of Cistus ‖ by scr aping the leaves

of this shrub. It has a strong balsamic smell, a bitter taste, and is used for cough medicine,
perfume, and incense (Zohary, Plants of the Bible , 194).
All the gums mentioned here seem to have been grown in Gilead. Jacob later sent the sam e
gums as part of his present to the as -yet-unrecognized Joseph in 43:11.
26–27 Reuben‘s scheme of just dumping Joseph in the pit left the problem unresolved.
Would they let him die there, or kill him later, or would he escape with the danger of his
report ing back to Jacob? Judah‘s suggestion of selling him avoids the danger of blood guilt;
a murdered man‘s blood cries to heaven for vengeance (4:10). It also offers a little financial
profit, and it is an acknowledgement that ―he is our brother, our own fles h‖ (on the
importance of these concepts for OT ethical thinking, cf. Comments on 2:23 –24; 4:9 –10), so
―the brothers agreed.‖
28 ―Midianites‖; cf. Comments on 25:2 –4; 37:25. ―Twenty shekels‖ was the t ypical
price of male slaves between five and twenty years old, both in the old Babylonian period
and in Israel according to Lev 27:5 (Wenham, ZAW 90 [1978] 264 –65). For shepherds who
might expect to earn, if employed by others, about eight shekels a year (cf. LH 261), the sale
of Joseph represented a handy bonus!
By selling Joseph into Egypt, his brothers have apparently disposed of him for good,
but unwittingly they have actually helped the fulfillment of his dreams.
29–30 Evidently, Reuben had wandered off again after dumping Joseph in the pit and
knew nothing of the sale. Now he returns, finds him gone, and reveals his deep affection for
Joseph and his father. His action, tearing his garment (a common sign of mourning; cf. Lev
10:6; 13:45; 21:10), and his cry foreshadow Jacob‘s reaction (vv 33 –34). ―The child‖ seems
to emphasize Joseph‘s youthful vulnerability (cf. 33:13; 42:22; 44:20). ―How can I go
home?‖ lit. ―where shall I come in?‖ It is the prospect of facing Jacob that alarms Reuben.
31–33 Having sold J oseph to the Ishmaelites, his brothers did not have to carry on with
their pretense (v 20) that he had been eaten alive. That they did so in spite of Reuben‘s
outburst suggests a callousness toward their father‘s feelings. There is of course an irony in
their choosing their brother‘s clothing and a kid to deceive their father, for it was with his
brother‘s clothes and a kid that Jacob had deceived his father Isaac (cf. 27:9–17).
32 ―They sent and brought‖ may imply that the brothers did not take the coat
themselves but sent it on ahead by messengers. This would imply that they fully realized
that Jacob would be very distressed at the news and wished to avoid experiencing it
themselves. Or it may be that they did bring the tunic themselves , in which case there is a
brazen effrontery about their action. Neither reading puts their feelings for their father in a
good light.
33 ―He identified it‖ ( 
) provides another link with 27:23, where Isaac failed to ―recognize‖ the disguised Jacob.
Once again, Jacob is finding the sins of his youth being visited on himself in his old age.
But whereas he told his father an outright lie, his sons let him come to his own conclusion,
―A wild animal has eaten him,‖ which was of course what they had intended (37:20).
Jacob‘s three short comments, ―It‘s my son‘s tunic. A wild animal has eaten him. He has
been torn to bits, Joseph!‖ convey the strength of Jacob‘s emotions, climaxing with the
mention of his favorite son‘s name. cf. David‘ s response to the news of Absalom‘s death (2
Sam 18:33).
34–35 The final scene describes Jacob‘s prolonged mourning for his departed son. The
mention of three aspects of his grief, tearing of clothes (cf. v 29), wearing of sackcloth (2

Sam 3:31; 1 Kgs 20:31 –32; Jon 3:5), and mourning ―many days,‖ underline the intensity of
his grief. 
―mourned‖ refers to the public display of grief after death. It is ―clearly a technical
term for all of these customs together that might be observed in case of a death‖ ( TDOT
1:45). It includes loud lame ntation (50:10; 2 Sam 19:1 –4; Esth 4:3), the wearing of
mourning clothes (2 Sam 14:2), and not wearing jewelry or cosmetics (Exod 33:4; Isa 61:3;
see further R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel , 59–61). Normally, such public grief lasted a week
(Gen 50:10) for a pa rent, or perhaps a month as in the case of Moses (Deut 34:8). But Jacob
refused to stop mourning for Joseph despite the entreaties of all his sons and daughters. He
would grieve publicly for Joseph until he died; he declares, ―I shall indeed go down to
Sheol in mourning.‖ Sheol is the place of the dead in the OT, where the spirits of the
departed continue in a shadowy and rather unhappy existence (cf. Isa 14:14 –20) and where
relatives could be reunited with each other (c f. 2 Sam 12:23). Though Sheol is not beyond
God‘s power (Amos 9:2), the psalmists pray for deliverance from Sheol, and it is possible
that the OT believer hoped for something better than life in Sheol in the world to co me (cf.
Pss 16:10; 30:4 [3]; 49:16 [15]). The catastrophe of losing Joseph may be seen by Jacob as
proof of divine judgment that will lead him to go down with the wicked to Sheol (cf. N. J.
Tromp, Primitive Conceptio ns of Death and the Nether World in the OT [Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute, 1969]; EM 4:754 –63; 7:454 –57).
36 Whereas Jacob had given up hope for Joseph, the narrative reminds us that he was in
fact beginning a new life in Egypt in the household of Potiphar, a royal official. Potiphar is
probably a shortened form of Potiphera, which means ―he whom Re (the sun -god) has
given‖ (Egyptian P<-di<-P<R> ). This form of the name cannot date from earlier than the
nineteenth dynasty (thirteenth century B.C.). Kitchen ( NBD, 951) suggests that Potiphera
―may be simply a modernization in Moses‘ time of the older form Di<di< -R>, with the
same meaning, of a name -pattern ( Di<di ->X), which is particularly common in the Middle
Kingdom and Hyksos periods … (c. 2100 –1600 B.C.).‖
―Captain of the palace guards.‖ The e xact function of this office is uncertain, but he was in
charge of the prison for royal officials (40:3 –4; 41:10, 12). Nebuzaradan, the Babylonian
general who sacked Jerusalem, was also dignified with this title (2 Kgs 25:8 –12; Jer
40:1–2). Vergote ( Joseph in Égypte , 35; cf. Kitchen, NBD, 658; Grintz, Lesû 30 [1965/66]
12–17) suggests that the term should be translated ―butler,‖ i.e., the head steward in charge
of household arrangements, including catering.
Explanation
Joseph is the patriarch with which modern readers can identify most easily. He is the
spoiled brat who through adversity develops into a mature and competent leader. He is the
unfairly persecuted boy who eventually becomes top man and shows magnanimity to his
persecutors. He is the one despised and rejected by his family who ultimately is the agent of
their salvation and countless others. More than that, the story of Joseph shows how God‘s
secret providence is behind the darkest deeds of men and works to th eir ultimate good. It is
thus both a very realistic story and also profoundly optimistic. It is little wonder that it has
delighted generations of hearers.
But certainly it was not included in the Pentateuch merely to entertain and encourage
ancient Israel ites. It has a most important theological message and, indeed, is integral to the

plot and theme of the Pentateuch. So before examining the specific contribution made by
chap. 37 to the Joseph story, we must look at its place within the whole Pentateuch.
First, the story of Joseph links the history of the patriarchs with their settlement in
Egypt. It explains how Jacob and his sons, who had been living in Canaan, came to settle in
Egypt, from where centuries later they left to go first to Sinai and then bac k to the land of
promise. Furthermore, the story of Joseph contributes to unfolding the theme of the
Pentateuch, which Clines has defined as ―the partial fulfillment, which also implies the
partial non -fulfillment, of the promise … to the patriarchs‖ (D. J . A. Clines, The Theme of
the Pentateuch , 29). In the Joseph story, the family of Israel grows from twelve to seventy,
and indeed in blessing his sons, Jacob sees each of them as great tribes. Abraham was
promised that he would become a ―great nation‖ (12: 2), but by the end of Genesis this has
not been fully realized. Closer to realization is the promise that his name would be great,
for Joseph rises to a position next to the Pharaoh of Egypt. Furthermore, Joseph
experiences the blessing of God: this is mos t evident after his promotion to power in Egypt,
for that an imprisoned slave can become lord of all Egypt is spectacular proof of divine
overruling. But in his darkest hour, when he was slave in Potiphar‘s house and then
imprisoned on a false charge, the narrative repeatedly comments that ―the LORD was with
Joseph‖ (39:2, 3, 21, 23).
Finally, through Joseph ―all the families of the earth‖ begin to ―find blessing.‖ This is
first apparent to Potiphar, who noticed that ―the LORD caused all that he did to pros per in
his hands‖ (39:3), but even more so when worldwide famine struck, for then ―all the earth
came to Egypt to buy grain.‖ Through Joseph‘s efforts, not only was his own family saved
from starvation, but also the Egyptians and many neighboring peoples w ere delivered. So
also in this respect the promise to Abraham was partially fulfilled.
But in one respect the story of Joseph marks a great set -back for the promise‘s
fulfillment, for the whole family has to move from Canaan to Egypt, from the land of
prom ise to the land of future oppression. And it is significant that just when Jacob and his
sons leave Canaan to settle in Egypt, God speaks for the only time in the Joseph story: ―Do
not be afraid to go down to Egypt, for I shall make you into a great nation there. I shall go
down with you, and it is I that shall surely bring you up again‖ (46:3 –4). Precisely because
moving to Egypt appears to be traveling contrary to the promises, Jacob has to be reassured
that God will be with him there and that he will ret urn. So on his death bed he insists that
he must be buried in the ancestral tomb at Macpelah (49:29 –30). Similarly, before Joseph
dies, he makes his brothers take an oath: ―God will definitely visit you, and you shall bring
my bones up from here‖ (50:25). So the book closes with a clear reaffirmation of the
promises on the lips of the patriarchs, but equally clearly these promises are far from
complete fulfillment. Genesis requires a sequel.
If the theme of partially fulfilled promises binds the Joseph stor y to the rest of the
Pentateuch, it is also true that it has a minor theme of its own. It is a story of divine
providence summed up in 50:20, ―You planned evil against me. It was God who planned it
for good … to keep many people alive.‖ Or as Brueggemann ( 293) puts it: ―The theme of
the Joseph narrative concerns God‘s hidden and decisive power which works in and
through but also against human forms of power. A ‗soft‘ word for that reality is providence.
A harder word for the same reality is predestination. Either way God is working out his
purpose through and in spite of Egypt, through and in spite of Joseph and his brothers.‖
These themes already come to expression in chap. 37.
If divine overruling is one theme of the Joseph story, human responsibility is i ts

counterpoint, for within the Bible it offers one of the most interesting analyses of the
dynamics of family life. Here we see the dire effects of sin on human behavior. Jacob‘s
favoritism turns normal sibling rivalry into deadly hatred, so that Joseph‘s brothers plot to
kill him. And Jacob is blind to the effects of his actions on his sons.
While fratricide is averted, the tragic effects of this hatred blight the life of Jacob‘s
family for more than twenty years. Not until circumstances contrive to make the brothers
repent of their mistakes are reconciliation and a new life together possible. At one level, the
story appears to lay most of the blame for the tragedy at Jacob‘s door, for had he not shown
such partiality to Joseph, would such animosity toward him have developed? But at another
level, the story suggests that Jacob was the victim of his own upbringing. chap. 37 makes
several allusions to chap. 27, the account of Jacob‘s deception of Isaac. chap. 37 shows
Jacob being deceived by his sons with a k id and their brother‘s garment, just as Jacob had
deceived. What is more, Isaac had shown partiality toward Esau his older son, whereas
Rebekah had favored Jacob the younger one. This had led to Esau planning to murder Jacob
and to the latter having to fle e for his life. Yet despite his past experience, Jacob does
something similar, blatantly favoring Joseph over his older brothers, leading them to want
to murder him.
The story opens with a brief mention of two things that led to tension within the family:
Joseph‘s indiscretion, if not downright lying, about some of his brothers and Jacob‘s
equally obvious partiality towards Joseph expressed through his gift of a handsome tunic,
which to judge from his journey to Dothan (vv 14 –17), he wore on any and every o ccasion.
So bad did things become that his brothers ―hated him and were not able to speak civilly to
him‖ (v 4).
Relationships seem to have sunk to rock bottom, but Joseph‘s dreams made them yet
worse. Throughout the ancient world, and Genesis is no except ion, dreams were viewed as
revelatory, as messages from God. So by sending dreams providence seems to be making a
bad situation worse, though doubtless Joseph‘s cockiness in relating them to his brothers
and father made their impact even worse than might o therwise have been the case.
Certainly the narrator saw these two dreams as prophetic; the sending of two dreams
guarantees their fulfillment (41:32). In the visions of the sheaves bowing down to Joseph,
and then the sun, moon, and stars bowing down to him , the apogee of Joseph‘s career is
announced when he will be lord over his brothers, indeed over all Israel. But the very
thought enraged them still further; twice it is said that ―they hated him even more‖ (vv 5,
8), and once that they were ―very jealous, ‖ on the brink of violent revenge (v 11).
Swiftly the story moves to its climax. Apparently oblivious to the danger confronting his
favorite son, Jacob sends him to visit his brothers shepherding their flocks, some fifty miles
from home. Tension rises as J oseph discovers that they have moved yet farther away to
Dothan, completely out of range of their father‘s control.
Then the perspective alters so that the action is described from the brothers‘ point of
view. They see him in the distance, recognize him by his hated tunic, and before he has
come close have planned to kill him and tell his father that a wild animal has eaten him.
However, before Joseph arrives, Reuben the eldest returns and persuades them simply to
dump him in an empty water cistern, for, as the narrative informs us, he hoped to return him
to his father.
So as soon as Joseph greets his brothers, he is pounced on, stripped of his tunic, and
thrown into a pit. Meanwhile Reuben wanders off again, and the other brothers sit down to
eat a good mea l. Then they note some Ishmaelite traders approaching, and Judah proposes

the idea of selling Joseph as a slave, for youthful slaves are valuable. This way they can be
rid of their hated brother, enrich themselves, and disprove his boastful dreams all in o ne fell
swoop.
When Reuben returns, he is deeply distressed, not apparently so much for Joseph, but
because he realizes the grief his apparent death will cause Jacob. But having set out on this
scheme, his brothers will not or cannot turn back and present Jacob with the alleged proof
of Joseph‘s death. Jacob, like his father Isaac many years before, was deceived by his sons‘
scheme. But this father is broken -hearted, so that all his sons‘ efforts to comfort him prove
fruitless. He insists he will mourn publ icly for Joseph until his dying day. The brothers may
have succeeded in removing the hated Joseph from their sight, but Jacob‘s gestures will
always remind them where his deepest affections lie.
Thus this first episode shows us Jacob‘s family rent from top to bottom by hatred and
grief. The rest of the story will tell of the resolution of this problem. Meanwhile, we are
told that Joseph did reach Egypt; he is still alive, so his dreams have not been killed, but it
is certainly very difficult to see any way in which they could be fulfilled.
This episode cannot be viewed in isolation. It shows great sympathy for Jacob and Joseph‘s
plight, though it hints that both men partly deserved what happened to them. However, the
dreams hint that there is more to it than meets the eye: divine purposes are at work in this
family‘s history. Ultimately it will be seen that ―in everything God works for good with
those who love him, who are called according to his purpose‖ (Rom 8:28). Christian
exegetes have often seen Joseph as a type of Christ, the innocent man who through his
suffering brings reconciliation to his human brethren and life to the world. It is possible to
go further and view him as a model for all believers, who like him must die to self, if they
are to make pe ace with their neighbor.
Tamar and Judah (38:1 –30)
Bibliography
Astour, M. C. ―Tamar the Hierodule: An Essay in the Method of Vestigial Motifs.‖ JBL 85 (1966)
185–96. Bal, M. ―Tricky Thematics.‖ Semeia 42 (1988) 133 –55. Banon, D. ―Exégèse biblique et
philosophie .‖ ETR 66 (1991) 489 –504. Ben-Reuven, S. ―‗I shall answer for it: you may require it
from my hand.‘‖ (Heb.) BMik 33 (1987/88) 337 –38. Bird, P. A. ―The Harlot as Heroine: Narrative
Art and Social Presupposition in Three OT Texts.‖ Semeia 46 (1989) 119 –39. ——— . ―‗To Play the
Harlot‘: An Enquiry into an OT Metaphor.‖ In Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel, ed. P. Day.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. 75 –94. Biton, G. ―Some Derivative Meanings of >ayin .‖ (Heb.) BMik
23 (1978) 478 –79. Bos, J. W. H. ―Out of the Shadows: Gen 38; Judg 4:17 –22; Ruth 3.‖ Semeia 42
(1988) 37 –67. Burden, J. J. ―‗n ‗Prostituut‘ doen reg: Die Juda -Tamar -verhaal (Gen 38).‖
Theologica Evangelica 13 (1980) 42 –52. Carmichael, C. M. ―A Ceremonial Crux: Removing a
Man‘s Sandal as a Female Gesture of Contempt.‖ JBL 96 (1977) 321 –36. ——— . ―Some Sayings in
Gen 49.‖ JBL 88 (1969) 435 –44. Cassuto, U. ―The Story of Tamar and Judah.‖ In Biblical and
Oriental Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973. 1:29 –40. Coats, G. W. ―Widow‘s Rights: A Cr ux in
the Structure of Gen 38.‖ CBQ 34 (1972) 461 –66. Emerton, J. A. ―An Examination of a Recent
Structuralist Interpretation of Gen 38.‖ VT 26 (1976) 79 –98. ——— . ―Judah and Tamar.‖ VT 29
(1979) 403 –15. ——— . ―Some Problems in Gen 38.‖ VT 25 (1975) 338 –61. Fisch, H. ―Ruth and
the Structure of Covenant History.‖ VT 32 (1982) 425 –37. Gilad, H. ―The Account of Judah and

Tamar.‖ (Heb.) BMik 21 (1975) 127 –38. Goldin, J. ―The Youngest Son or Where Does Gen 38
Belong?‖ JBL 96 (1977) 27 –44. Hallo, W. W. ―As the Seal upon Thy Heart.‖ Bible Review 1 (1985)
20–27. Luke, B. ―Judah and Tamar (Gen 38).‖ Scripture 17 (1965) 52 –61. ——— . ―Two Birth
Narratives in Genesis.‖ IndTS 17 (1980) 155 –80. Mathewson, S. D. ―An Exegetical Study of ‗Gen
38.‖ BSac 146 (1989) 373 –92. Niditch, S. ―The Wronged Wo man Righted: An Analysis of Gen
38.‖ HTR 72 (1979) 143 –49. O’Callaghan, M. ―The Structure and Meaning of Gen 38: Judah and
Tamar.‖ PIBA 5 (1981) 72 –88. Rendsburg, G. A. ―David and His Circle in Gen 38.‖ VT 36 (1986)
438–46. Robinson, I. ―bepetah \ >eÆnayim in Gen 38:14.‖ JBL 96 (1977) 569. Ska, J. L. ―L‘ironie
de Tamar (Gen 38).‖ ZAW 100 (1988) 261 –63. Wright, G. R. H. ―The Positioning of Gen 38.‖ ZAW
94 (1982) 523 –29.
Translation
1At that time Judah left his brothers and joineda up with a man from Adullam named
Hirah. 2 Judah saw there the daughter of a Canaanite nameda Shua, took her, and went
into her. 3 She conceived, bore a son, and hea called him Er. 4 She conceived again,
bore a son, and called him Onan. 5 Once againa she bore a son and called his name
Shelah. Heb was in Chezib when she borec him.
6Judah took a wife for Er, his firstborn, named Tamar. 7 Er, his firstborn, erred in
the LORD‘s eyes, so the LORD let him die.a 8 Judah said to Onan, ―Go into your
brother‘s wife, marrya her, and produceb descendants for your brother.‖ 9 Onan knew
that the descendants would not be his, and so whenevera he went into his brother‘s wife,
he used to ruin the ground, so as to avoid giving descendants to his brother. 10 What he
did offendeda the L ORD, and he let him dieb too. 11 So Judah said to Tamar his
daughter -in-law, ―Livea as a widow in your father‘s house, until Shelah my son grows
up,‖ for he thought, ― For fear he dies like his brothers.‖ So Tamar went and lived in
her father‘s house.
12Many days later Judah‘s wife, the daughter of Shua, died. Judah was consoled and went
up to his sheep -shearing at Timnah with his friend Hirah of Adullam. 13 It was tolda Tamar,
―Your father -in-law is justb on his way up to Timnah to shear his sheep.‖ 14 So she tooka off
her widow‘s clothes, coveredb herself with a veil, and wrapped herse lf up. Then she sat
down on the way into Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah, for she had noticed that
Shelah had grown up, but she had not been givenc to him.
15Judah saw her and thought she was a prostitute, for she had c overed her face. 16
So he turneda off the road to her and said, b ―Please let meb come into you,‖ for he did
not know that she was his daughter -in-law. So she said to him, ―What will you give mec
to come into me?‖ 17 He said, ―I shall send you a goat from the flock.‖ She said , a ―If
you give me a pledge,a until you return it.‖ 18 He said, ― What pledge shall I give you?‖
She said, ―Your seal, cord, and the staff which you are carrying.‖ So he gave it to her,
went into her, and she became pregnant fora him. 19 But she rose and went away, took
off her veil, an d wore her widow‘s clothes again.
20Judah sent a kid with his friend the Adullamite in order to take back the pledge
from the woman, but he could not find her. 21 He asked the men of hera area, ―Where is
theb ‗holy woman‘ in Enaim by the road?‖ They replied, ―There never was a ‗holy
woman‘ in this place.‖ 23 Judah said, ―Let her take it for herself lest we become a joke,
since I sent this kid but you could not find her.‖
24At the end of three months Judah was told, ―Your daughter -in-law Tamar has

been promiscuous, and she is now pregnant through her action.‖ So Judah said,
―Bringa her out tob burn her.‖ 25a While she was being broughtb out, she sent worda to
her father -in-law, ―I am preg nant by the man to whom these things belong.‖ She said,
―Please identifyc who this ring, these cords,d and this staff belong to.‖ 26 Judah
identified them and said, ―She is a in the right, not I,a because I did not give her to my
son Shelah.‖ But he did not have intercourseb with her again.
27When the time came for a her to give birth,a there were twins in her womb. 28 When she
was giving birth , onea put out a hand and the midwife tied a red cord on his hand saying,
―This one came out first.‖ 29 But a as he was pulling backa his hand, his brother came out,
and she said, ― Why have you burst upon you,a Peres.‖ So hec was called Peres. 30
Afterwards his brother came out with the red cord on his arm, and hea was called Zerah.
Notes
1.a. Cf. n. 12:8.c.*
2.a. G reads ―her name,‖ but MT ―his name.‖
3.a. SamPent, Tg. Ps. -J. ―she called.‖ MT ―he called‖ could be impersonal 3 sg, ―one
called.‖
5.a. cf. n. 4:2.a.*
5.b. G ―She was.‖
5.c. Cf. n. 35:16.b.*
7.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. hiph 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
8.a. Waw + 2 masc. sg impv piel 8.b. Waw + 2 masc. sg impv hiph 9.a. 
unusual to introduce temporal clause, but see GKC 164d. cf. GKC, 112ee, gg; WOC, 539
on frequentative.
10.a. cf. n. 21:11.a.*
10.b. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg hiph 11.a. 2 fem. sg impv 13.a. cf. n. 22:20.a.*
13.b. On this nuance of 
+ ptcp, see Lambdin, 168; WOC, 675.
14.a. Waw consec + 3 fem. sg impf. hiph 14.b. Waw consec + 3 fem. sg impf. (apoc)
piel 
. On reflexive meaning of piel, see Joüon, 61b. SamPent has hithp  14.c. 3 fem. sg
pf niph 16.a. cf. n. 38:1.a.*; 12:8.c.

16.b-b. On this sense of 
, see Joüon, 105e.
16.c. 
. The dagesh is a feature of Codex Leningrad. Other editions and MSs omit; cf. v 18 .
17.a-a. The main clause, ―you may come into me,‖ is understood; cf. GKC, 159; Joüon,
167r.
18.a. Joüon, 132fN, translates 21.a. SamPent, G, S, Tg. read ―the area‖ as MT does in v
22.
21.b. SamPent regularizes 
, but def art may be omitted from demonstrative ( GKC, 126y).
24.a. 2 masc. pl. impv hiph 
+ 3 fem. sg suffix.
24.b. Waw + 3 fem. sg impf. niph 
. Sequence impv + simple waw + impf. indicates purpose (Lambdin, 119).
25.a-a. On this construction, ptcp for ongoing action + pf for punctiliar action, see Joüon,
121f, 166f; WOC, 625.
25.b. Fem. sg ptcp hoph 25.c. Cf. n. 37:32.a.*
25.d. SamPent and versions have singular ―cord.‖
26.a-a. On this translation, see GKC, 138b2; WOC, 265.
26.b. 
+ inf constr [
+ 3 fem. sg suffix; expected pointing 27.a-a. Inf constr 
+ 3 fem. sg suffix.
28.a. On this construction, 3 masc. sg for impersonal ―one,‖ see GKC, 144d.
29.a-a. 
+ ptcp (hiph 
) is unusual, so BHS emends. However, there is a parallel in 40:10; cf. GKC, 164g.
29.b. SamPent reads ―us.‖

29.c. Impersonal 3 masc. sg ―he called,‖ but SamPent, S, Tg. Ps. -J. read ―she called.‖
30.a. cf. n. 38:29.c.*
Form/Structure/ Setting
chap. 38 is a clear unit within Genesis, with six scenes.

vv 1–5
Judah marries a Canaanite

vv 6–11
Tamar marries Judah‘s sons

vv 12 –19
Tamar traps Judah

vv 20 –23
Judah looks for Tamar

vv 24 –26
Tamar vindicated

vv 27 –30
Birth of twins to Tamar and Judah

At first blush, chap. 38 seems to have nothing to do with the Joseph story. If it were
omitted, the narrative would progress from 37:36 to 39:1 very smoothly. It does not appear
to be necessary for understanding chaps. 3 9–50. In a similar way chap. 49, the blessing of
Jacob, does not seem to be necessary to the flow of the narrative. But there is a similar
phenomenon in the Jacob story. chap. 26 toward the beginning and chap. 34 toward the end
do not seem immediately rele vant to the main plot of the narrative, yet on further
examination both chapters make a distinctive contribution to the theme. Can the same be
said of chap. 38?
Further considerations show that this episode of Judah and Tamar makes an important
contributio n to understanding the Joseph story. First, its positioning here creates suspense:
having told us that Joseph has been sold to Potiphar, the narrator breaks off with this
digression about his brother back in Canaan, leaving us wondering how Joseph is copin g in
a foreign land. chap. 38 also serves to show that Joseph was separated from his family a
long time; there is time for Judah to marry, for his sons to grow up, and for them to marry.
But it does more. As Humphreys ( Joseph and His Family , 37) notes: ―Th e unit provides a
counterpointing commentary on what we have witnessed of this family and a proleptic look
at what is yet to come. The effect for the sensitive reader is to bring to awareness certain
critical dimensions and themes in the larger novella (= the Joseph story), thereby to shape
perspectives for reading what is to c
The most obvious parallel between the stories of Tamar and Joseph is found in
38:25 –26, ―‗Please identify who this ring‘ … Judah identified them,‖ which precisely

echoes 37:32 –33, ―‗ Please identify whether it is your son‘s tunic or not.‘ He identified it.‖
Just as in the episode of Joseph‘s tunic, an element of divine justice is apparent. Jacob had
deceived his father Isaac. He in turn was deceived by his son Judah, and now Judah hims elf
is deceived by his daughter -in-law. In all three episodes, goats and items of dress are used
in the deception.
More generally, this story shows that injustice will be righted and that the perpetrator
will admit his errors. As Judah confesses here, ―She is in the right, not I‖ (38:26), so all
Joseph‘s brothers will one day acknowledge their sin against him. ―Truly, we are guilty
because of our brother, for we saw his distress, when he implored us and we did not listen‖
(42:21).
Another general principle of Genesis is God‘s preference for the younger child, Abel
not Cain, Jacob not Esau, Joseph not Reuben, Ephraim not Manasseh. This same idea
comes to expression twice in chap. 38: the two older sons of Judah, Er and Onan, die, but
Shelah survives (vv 3 –11), and at the end of the story though Zerah stuck his hand out first,
making him technically the firstborn, Peres actually arrives first (vv 27 –30). And it is Peres
who was the ancestor of David, who was of course the youngest of Jesse‘s sons. This
triumph -of-the-younger -son motif thus looks back to the struggle between Jacob and Esau,
but more immediately to Joseph‘s dreams, in which he saw his brothers bowing down to
him. The double reinforcement of this principle in chap. 38 is an assurance that Joseph‘s
dreams will ultimately be fulfilled.
Then there is a glaring contrast between Jacob‘s inconsolable grief over the ―death‖ of
Joseph, described at the end of chap. 37, and the absence of any mourning by Judah when
two of his sons died, as described in 38:7 –10. Judah seems to be a hard and callous man.
He was the one who had suggested selling Joseph into slavery to make money out of him.
Presumably, he thoroughly approved of the scheme to deceive Jacob despite Reuben‘s
appeals for consideration. In this story , he not only fails to mourn the death of his two sons
but he summarily orders his daughter -in-law to be burned. Yet what a different Judah we
meet in 44:18 –34. Here he appeals for Benjamin‘s release with great warmth and
tenderness, describing with great love his father‘s suffering since Joseph‘s disappearance
and foreseeing his sorrowful death if Benjamin is not allowed to return to Canaan. He
concludes by offering to stay as a slave in place of Benjamin. Clearly, Judah is a changed
man, and this story sh ows the beginning of the transformation when he admits ―She is in
the right, not I‖ (38:26). Without this account of Tamar putting her father -in-law to shame,
we should be hard pressed to explain the change in his character. And in its biographical
sketche s, character change is what Genesis is all about: Abram becomes Abraham; Jacob
becomes Israel. Particularly in Jacob‘s family we see examples of character change:
Reuben, violator of his father‘s concubine, later shows great concern for both Joseph and
his father, while the upstart cocky Joseph becomes the wise statesman who forgives his
brothers. Thus, this chapter has a most important role in clarifying the course of the
subsequent narrative; without it we should find its development inexplicable.
If scho lars had taken more seriously the editor‘s title in 37:2, ―This is the family history
of Jacob ,‖ they might not have been so wont to write off this chapter as irrelevant. chaps.
37–50 are not just the story of Joseph but the story of Jacob‘s family. Theref ore, to have
sections entirely devoted to other sons of Jacob should not be surprising.
Finally, the relationship of this episode to the theme of Genesis must be explored.
Again on first sight, this chapter apparently has nothing to do with the promises to
Abraham of land, nationhood, and blessing to the nations. But the central problem of chap.

38 is childlessness. Onan dies because he refuses to procreate. He did not want to produce
children for his brother, and by implication for his father and great -grandfather. In other
words, by his action Onan demonstrates his disregard for the patriarchal promises. On the
other hand, Tamar, a Canaanite girl, is most anxious to have children. Despite the deaths of
her first two husbands, she is anxious to marry Shelah . And when she is thwarted by her
father -in-law, she manages to find a way of having children through him. Such
determination to propagate descendants of Abraham, especially by a Canaanite woman, is
remarkable, and so despite her foreign background and irr egular behavior, Tamar emerges
as the heroine of this story. She is like Melchizedek (chap. 14) and Abimelek (chap. 26),
one of those foreigners who see God‘s hand at work in Abraham and his descendants and
therefore align themselves with Israel. In the li kes of Tamar the promise that ―all the
families of the earth will find blessing in you‖ starts to be fulfilled. She is the forerunner of
Ruth who said, ―[Y]our people shall be my people, and your God my God‖ (Ruth 1:16), as
well as being ancestor of Ruth‘s husband Boaz.
Most commentators, while acknowledging that this chapter may have an oral pre -history
different from the rest of the Joseph story, generally regard it as part of the main source J.
Though some commentators, including Westermann, have queried this, suggesting it is a
later addition to the main Joseph story, their grounds, as Emerton ( VT 25 [1975] 346 –52)
points out, are not strong. By failing to note the narrative and theological linkages between
this chapter and its neigh bors, they have come to the conclusion that it must be a later
addition. But chronologically this material could be included only at this point in the
narrative, and it does cohere well with its context, so I follow the consensus in ascribing it
to J.
Comm ent
1–5 These verses are little more than a genealogy sketching Judah‘s marriage to a
Canaanite and the subsequent birth of three sons. Though the narrative does not underline it
here, marrying Canaanites was hardly respectable in Israel. Abraham was most insistent
that Isaac should not marry a Canaanite (24:3), and Isaac and Rebekah strongly objected to
Esau‘s marriage with Canaanites and forbade Jacob to do so (27:46 –28:1). So it may be
presumed that Jacob felt similarly about his son‘s marriage. Yet know ing his father‘s
antipathy, Judah went ahead, showing once again his callous disregard for his father‘s
feelings. Simeon (46:10) also married a Canaanite, and Joseph an Egyptian (41:45), so by
marrying a foreigner, Judah anticipates his brothers‘ actions.
1 ―At that time‖; cf. 21:22, i.e., soon after Joseph‘s sale into Egypt. The events of chap.
38 must span at least twenty years, assuming Judah‘s sons married in their mid to late
teens. This means there is considera ble chronological overlap between this chapter and the
succeeding ones, but all the events described here could be fitted in before Joseph‘s
brothers discovered him in Egypt, some twenty -two years later according to 37:2;
41:46 –47; 45:6 (Cassuto, Biblical and Oriental Studies , 1:32). ―Went down.‖ Hebron
(37:14), 3040 feet above sea level, is one of the highest points in southern Canaan, so to go
to Adullam (usually identified with Tell esh -Sheikh Madkhur) in the Judean foothills
northwest of Hebron (cf. 1 Sam 22:1; Mic 1:15) would involve a descent. ―Joined up with‖
could be an abridged form of ―pitched his tent‖ (cf. 12:8), but here it seems to have the
same sense as ―turn aside‖ (38:16). O‘Callaghan ( PIBA 5 [1981] 23) thinks it has overtones
of impetuosity. ―Hirah,‖ possibly ―rock‖ (so EM 3:122), is presumably the friend in v 20

dispatched to find Tamar.
2 ―Judah saw … took her.‖ T hough ―take‖ is a perfectly proper term for marriage, the
combination of ―see‖ and ―take‖ has in Genesis overtones of illicit taking (cf. 3:6; 6:2;
12:15; 34:2; cf. Judg 14:1 –2), suggesting Judah‘s marriage may have been based on mere
lust. The fact that his wife‘s name is not mentioned, only her father‘s, ―Shua‖ (―ruler,‖ EM
7:568), may point in the same direction.
3–5 The rapid sequence of ―conceived,‖ ―bore,‖ ―called‖ suggests that the three boys
were born in quick succession. ―Er‖ perhaps means ―guard‖ (KB, 829) or ―watchful‖ (Noth,
Personennamen , 228). ―Onan‖ possibly means ―vigorous‖ (BDB, 206). The name is also
known at Mari (KB, 226). ―Shelah‖ may mean ―drawn out‖ (of the womb). ―Kezib‖ is the
same as Akzib (Josh 15:44: Mic 1:14), three miles west of Adullam ( EM 1:278). It wa s later
settled by some of the Shelanite clan (1 Chr 4:21 –22), which may explain the mention of
Judah going there in this passage.
6–11 These verses introduce the heroine of the story, Tamar (―palm tree‖), the wife of
the ill -fated Er. Nothing is said abou t her background, but she would appear to be a
Canaanite. After Er‘s death, Tamar was left a childless widow, and in Hebrew law she
could then expect to marry her brother -in-law. The purpose of this second marriage was to
produce a son for her dead husband , so that ―his name may not be blotted out‖ (Deut 25:6).
This custom of the Levirate is found in many traditional societies and among Israel‘s
neighbors, the Assyrians (Mal A30) and the Hittites (HL 193, 195), and at Nuzi and Ugarit.
The r esponsibility of marrying one‘s widowed sister -in-law was not always welcomed, and
Deut 25:5 –10 provides a ceremony whereby a man who refuses to marry his widowed
sister -in-law is put to public shame. But at least he was not obliged to marry her. It seems
that Gen 38 presupposes an earlier stricter stage in the law in which the obligation was
mandatory, and the responsibility for ensuring it was carried out rested with the widow‘s
father -in-law, in this case Judah (see R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 37–38).
7 ―Er erred,‖ lit. ―Er did evil.‖ ―Evil‖ is Er spelled backwards ( [
), and I have attempted to capture the pun by translating ―Er erred.‖ The nature of his sin is
not divulged, ―But the completely similar sentence and fate suggest a very simi lar sin‖ to
Onan‘s (Jacob, 712). Lev 20:10 –20 prescribes death or cutting off, i.e., death at God‘s hand,
for a variety of sexual offenses. The main point though is that Er deserved to die: it was not
Tamar‘s fault. Note that nothing i s said about Judah mourning the loss of his firstborn, in
contrast to Jacob (37:34 –35).
8 Judah acts promptly to fulfill the levirate obligation, to ―produce descendants [ [
] for your brother.‖ Hitherto in the patriarchal narratives the term ―descendants ‖ has
been used almost exclusively of the descendants promised to Abraham, who would become
a great nation and inherit the land. It seems likely that for the narrator ―descendants‖ has
the same connotations here.
9 Onan has to obey his father‘s injunction but is unwilling to give ―descendants to his
brother,‖ so he practices coitus interruptus whenever they come together. The Hebrew
emphasizes that Onan did this on every occasion of intercourse, not just once or twice.
10 ―What he did offended the LORD.‖ Th e terminology is very similar to v 7. Why was
God offended by Onan‘s contraceptive methods? In the light of passages such as 1:28;
8:17: 9:1, 7; Pss 127, 128, it seems unlikely that the OT would approve of systematic
contraception, for it frustrates God‘s purpose in creating mankind in two sexes. But in
Onan‘s case it is specially reprehensible, for God‘s repeated promise to the patriarchs was

that he would make them fruitful and multiply (17:6, 20; 28:3; 35:11; cf. 15:5; 22:17; 26:4;
32:13 [12]). Onan is thus deliberately frustrating the fulfillment of those promises. The
threefold reference to ―descendants‖ in 38:8 –9 must allude to these promises, and Onan‘s
action demonstrates his opposition to the divine agenda. For t his reason, the LORD ―let him
die‖ (cf. Num 14:27 –35).
11 Judah promises to give Tamar his next son but, as the narrator discloses, plans to do
nothing of the sort. That he had an obligation to give her Shelah is hinted at by calling
Tamar ―his daughter -in-law,‖ which is otherwise redundant. Again this tends to put Judah
in a bad light, though his fear that Shelah might also die mitigates this impression a little.
Nothing is said about Tamar‘s feelings; she is in no position to argue wit h her
father -in-law.
12–19 ―Until this point Tamar has been a passive object, acted upon —or, alas, not acted
upon —by Judah and his sons. The only verbs she was the subject of were the two verbs of
compliance and retreat, to go off and dwell, at the end of verse 11. Now, a clear perception
of injustice done her is ascribed to Tamar (verse 14), and she suddenly races in to rapid,
purposeful action, expressed in a detonating series of verbs: in verse 14 she quickly takes
off, covers, wraps herself, sits down at the strategic location … Judah takes the bait —his
sexual appetite will not tolerate postponement though he has be en content to let Tamar
languish as a childess widow indefinitely —and here we are given the only extended
dialogue in the story (verses 16 –18). It is a wonderfully businesslike exchange. Wasting no
time with preliminaries, Judah immediately tells her, ‗Let me lie with you‘ … to which
Tamar responds like a hard -headed businesswoman, finally exacting the rather serious
pledge of Judah‘s seal and cord and staff, which as the legal surrogate of the bearer would
have been a kind of ancient Near Eastern equivalen t of all of a person‘s credit cards.
―The agreement completed, the narrative proceeds in three quick verbs (the end of verse
18)—he gave, he lay, she conceived —to Tamar‘s single -minded purpose, which, from her
first marriage, has been to become the channel of the seed of Judah‖ (R. Alter, The Art of
Biblical Narrative , 8–9).
12 ―Many days later,‖ perhaps a year, at least a long enough period to show Judah had no
intention of allowing Shelah to marry Tamar. ―Consoled‖ again contrasts with Jacob, who
refused to be (37:35), and also with Tamar, who was still wearing her widow‘s garb (v 14).
―Sheep -shearing‖ was a lively festival (cf. 1 Sam 25:2 –37; 2 Sam 13:23 –28), when
wine was freely consumed. If Judah was already under the influence, it m ight help to
explain why he did not penetrate Tamar‘s disguise. ―Timnah‖ is a village in the Shephelah
on the border of the tribes of Judah and Dan (Josh 15:10), the scene of Samson‘s exploits
(Judg 14:1 –5). Z. Kallai identifies it with Tel el Batashi abou t four miles west -northwest of
Beth -Shemesh ( VT 8 [1958] 145; EM 8:598 –600). Some commentators hold that another
Timnah in the southern part of the tribal territory of Judah (Josh 15:57) is meant, but this
does not fit so well with the location of Enayim, here described as on the road to Timnah
(38:14), which is in the northern part of Judah‘s territory (Josh 15:34).
14 While not actually saying that Tamar dressed as a prostitute, the text implies that the
dress and posture she adopted made her easily taken for one (cf. v 16; Robinson JBL 96
[1977] 569). ―On the way into Enayim.‖ Enayim is usually identified with Enam,
mentioned in Josh 15:34 (cf. Comment on v 12). ―For she had noticed‖ reminds us why she
was stooping to this ruse: her father -in-law‘s duplicity had forced her to it.
16 ―For he did not know that she was his daughter -in-law.‖ Whereas consort ing with

prostitutes was regarded as very foolish (Prov 7), sexual intercourse with one‘s
daughter -in-law was punishable by death according to later law (Lev 20:12). This comment
shows that the narrator shares the moral standards expressed more explicitly elsewhere in
the OT.
18 ―Seal.‖ Judah, a rich man, would have owned his own personally engraved seal.
Both cylinder seals, which imprint by rolling, and stamp seals are known from this period
in Canaan. They were carried on a ―cord‖ thread ed through the middle. ―Staff‖ was a
symbol of authority (cf. Num 17:17 [2]; Ps 110:2) as well as being practically useful. It had
a carved top to mark ownership.
20–23 According to Gunkel and Westermann, one purpose of this episode is to ―portray
Judah as an honorable man‖ (Westermann, 3:53), but in reality it does the reverse. Whereas
he had reneged on his solemn promise to give his son Shelah to Tamar in marriage, he is
very anxious to pay the goat he had promised to a common prostitu te. And his concern here
seems to have no higher motive than the return of his pledges. Furthermore, the furtive way
in which he sends his friend to make the payment, rather than go himself, shows the
disreputable status of prostitution. Though not illegal , it is a shady world from which the
respectable citizen tries to keep aloof. Even Hirah uses a euphemism, ―holy woman,‖
―temple prostitute,‖ for the common prostitute he is seeking, for evidently prostitutes
attached to temples were more respectable than common whores in Canaanite culture.
Eventually Judah calls off the search, ―lest we become a joke‖ (v 23). 
―joke‖ is the contempt of the rich and arrogant for lesser mortals (cf. Ps 123:3 –4; cf.
Neh 3:36 [4:4]). Judah‘s fear was well founded, for if he was not already a joke, in three
months he certainly would be!
24–26 This is the dramatic climax to the story, as Tamar at the last minute forces Judah to
admit that he has wronged her.
24 ―Your daughter -in-law Tam ar has been promiscuous.‖ The noun 
means ―prostitute,‖ but the verb used here is broader in meaning and covers any illicit
sexual intercourse ( TDOT 4:100; cf. BDB, 275–76; KB, 263–64). To translate the verb here
―play the harlot‖ as RSv does, is to provide too precise a rendering of the information
conveyed to Judah. Since she was in effect betrothed to Shelah, she should have had
intercourse with no one else. But clearly she has had, so she is in effect guilty of adultery.
Hence Judah can legitimately, if in this case unfairly, deman d the death penalty (cf. Deut
22:23 –24). Deut 22:21 envisages stoning for adultery during betrothal in a case similar to
Tamar‘s. But to demand death by burning was extreme; that is reserved in Lev 21:9 for a
priest‘s daughter, because such behavior by her was particularly disgraceful.
25–26 But then Tamar plays her trump card, and the case against her collapses. Her
prosecutor acknowledges that he is the guilty party, not she. On the root 
, see Comment on 18:23 –25. In judicial conte xts it often has the sense of innocent (e.g.,
Exod 23:7; Deut 25:1), so here Judah declares her innocence and admits his own guilt.
27–30 This account of the birth of twins runs in parallel with 25:24 –26, the birth of Jacob
and Esau. In both cases the twins compete to be born first, and in both it is the older twin
who later has to take second place. Here Zerah stuck out his hand first, making him
technically the older, but somehow Peres emerged first, taking everyone by sur prise. His
name, ―Peres,‖ ―break through,‖ recalls the extraordinary circumstance of his birth. Zerah‘s
name, though not explained, means ―shining, brightness.‖

Explanation
The sudden switch of focus from Joseph on his way to Egypt (37:36) to Judah‘s marri age
(38:2) has thrown many readers, who see chap. 38 as an irrelevant digression. This is
because they have forgotten that chaps. 37 –50 are not headed ―This is the story of Joseph‖
but ―this is the family history of Jacob‖(37:2). Consequently, it is not su rprising that
occasionally sons of Jacob other than Joseph should sometimes occupy center stage. And
principles of divine providence that are illustrated on a grander scale elsewhere in Genesis,
e.g., justice for the deceiv ed, choice of the younger son, are here encapsulated in a short
narrative (for further discussion, see Form/Structure/Setting ). This short story then helps to
focus the leading ideas of the whole patriarchal narrative.
It begins rather inauspiciously with Judah leaving his brothers and seeing and taking a
Canaanite as a wife (phraseology suggestive of a union based on chemistry rather than
principle), who gives birth to three sons. When his eldest, Er, reaches the age for marriage,
probably in his late teen s, Judah finds a bride for him. Unfortunately he dies soon after
marriage for some unspecified sin. As Tamar is childless, it is her father -in-law‘s duty to
give his next son in marriage to her, to perpetuate the dead son‘s name. But his next son,
Onan, wh ile publicly marrying her, secretly contrives to ensure that no children will be
conceived. This is not merely an offense against the conventional morality of the day,
which insisted on the duty of Levirate marriage, but it disregards the fundamental duty of
husbands to father children (Gen 1:28) and shows scant respect for the promises to the
patriarchs that they should have descendants beyond counting. So Onan dies too. Once
again, since it was the husband who sinned, Tamar has a right to expect to marry the next of
Judah‘s sons. But Shelah, his third son, is too young, and though he promises to give him to
Tamar in due course, Judah decides not to give any more of his sons to Tamar. Tamar is
therefore left a widow, but technically betrothed to Shelah. Tim e passes and Judah‘s
faithlessness becomes evident, for Shelah has grown old enough to marry and yet he is not
given to Tamar.
Legal redress for a widow in Tamar‘s situation was impossible. So one day she seizes
the opportunity to produce a child for her d eparted husband Er. By dressing as a prostitute
she succeeds in having intercourse with her father -in-law, Judah, and immediately
conceives. By the standards of Leviticus, such an incestuous relationship merits the death
penalty (20:12). This is one of a n umber of sexual relationships banned by Leviticus that
occur in the patriarchal narratives, witnessing the different standards of that age. Evidently
Genesis regards Tamar‘s action as at least partially justified, because Judah had failed to let
his son ma rry her as promised.
Eventually, news of Tamar‘s pregnancy reaches Judah, who fiercely sentences her to
death for disregarding her betrothal vow. Infidelity during betrothal counted as adultery,
and therefore merited the death penalty (Deut 22:13 –21, 23 –24). Under OT law, if Tamar
was culpable, so was her partner. Consequently, if he but realized it, Judah in sentencing
her to death has also condemned himself to the same fate. At the last moment Tamar makes
her point, proving that Judah was indeed the father of the child. Judah admits his guilt, ―She
is in the right, not I‖ (38:26). She is innocent, he admits, because I forced her to take this
action by refusing to give my son Shelah to her in marriage. She, unlike me, was concerned
to perpe tuate the family line, to produce descendants for Abraham.
So the story closes with another remarkable twin birth, replacing, as it were, Judah‘s two
lost sons, Er and Onan, with Zerah and Peres. The younger, called Peres, headed the
Judahite clan from whi ch Boaz came, so that at his marriage to Ruth the elders prayed,

―may your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah, because of the
children that the LORD will give you by this young woman‖(Ruth 4:12). Boaz was the
ancestor of King David, who in turn was the forefather of ―Jesus … who is called Christ‖
(Matt 1:6, 16). So this story, which at first sight seems to be so marginal to biblical history,
records a vital link in saving history. Tamar, through her determination to have children,
secured for Judah the honor of fathering both David and the Savior of the world.
Joseph and Potiphar (39:1 –20)
Bibliography
Furman, N. ―His Story Versus Her Story: Male Genealogy and Female Strategy in the Jacob
Cycle.‖ Semeia 46 (1989) 141 –49. Gan, M. ―The Book of Esther in the Light of the Story of Joseph
in Egypt.‖ (Heb.) Tarbiz 31 (1961/62) 144 –49. Hollis, S. T. ―The Woman in Ancient Examples of
the Potiphar‘s Wife Motif, K2111.‖ In Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel, ed. P. Day.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. 28 –42. Jacobson, H. ―A Legal Note on Potiphar‘s Wife.‖ HTR 69
(1976) 177. Ringgren, H. ―Die Versuchung Josefs (Gen 39).‖ In Die Väter Israels: FS J. Scharbert,
ed. M. Görg. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989. 267 –70.
Translation
1aNow Joseph had been takenb down to Egypt,a and an Egyptian, Potiphar, an
official of Pharaoh, captain of the guards, had bought him from the Ishmaelites, who
had broughtc him down to Egypt. 2The LORD was with Joseph so thata he became
successful and stayed in the house of his Egyptian maste r. 3His master noticed that the
LORD was with him and that the LORD made everything that he did successful. 4Joseph
pleased his master and he served him, and he put him in charge of his household and
entrusted him with all thata he had. 5From the time that he put him in charge of his
household and all that he owned, the LORD blessed the house of the Egyptian because of
Joseph, and the LORD‘s blessing resteda on everything he had indoors and outdoors. 6So
he left everything in Joseph‘s care. He did not worry about anything except the food
which he used to eat.a bNow Joseph had a fine figure and a handsome face.b
7After these things his master‘s wife seta her eyes on Joseph and said, ―Lie with
me.‖ 8But he refused and said to his master‘s wife, ―See my master does not know what
I have, or whata is in theb house, and all that he owns he has entrusted to me. 9There is
no one in this house more responsible than I am, and he has not withheld anything from
me apart from you, becausea you are his wife. How can I do this great wrong and sin
against God?‖ 10But whenever she talked to Joseph day after day, he refused to lie
beside her, to be with her.
11But about this timea he entered the house to do his work, while there were no men
of the household there in the house. 12So she grabbed his garment saying, ―Lie with
me.‖ And he left his garment in her hand and fleda outside. 13As soon as she sawa that
he had left his garment in her hand and had fled outside, 14she called the men of her
household and said to them, ―Look, he broughta a Hebrew man into us to fool with us,
to lie with me. So I cried out in a loud voice. 15Then as soon as he heard me shouta and
cry out, he left his garment beside me and fled out side.‖ 16So she puta his garment aside

until his master came back home.
17She spoke to him about these things as follows: ―The Hebrew slave came into me,
the one you broughta in to us to fool with me. 18When I lifteda up my voice and shouted,
he left his garment with me and ran outside.‖ 19As soon as his master heard his wife‘s
words which she had spoken to him, ―This was the wa y in which your slave treateda
me,‖ he was furious.
20So Joseph‘s master puta him in the prison, the placeb where the royal prisoners were
imprisoned. And there he stayed in the prison.
Notes
1.a-a. Episode -initial circumstantial clause ( SBH, 80).
1.b. 3 masc. sg pf hoph 
. For pluperfect sense, see GKC, 142b.
1.c. 3 masc. pl. pf hiph 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
2.a. On this use of the waw -consec to express necessary consequence, see GKC, 111l;
WOC, 548.
4.a. Probably insert, with SamPent and Cairo fragment, 
; cf. v 5.
5.a. 
: 3 masc. sg verb with fem. subj ―blessing‖ is common with 
(GKC, 145q; Joüon, 150j).
6.a. Ptcp in past often has frequentative sense.
6.b-b. Closing sentence anticipating next episode (cf. Longacre, Joseph , 88).
7.a. cf. n. 21:16.f.*
8.a. SamPent (?G) reads 
―anything‖ (cf. v 6).
8.b. SamPent, G, S, Vg read ―his house.‖
9.a. On this meaning of 
, see Joüon, 170j.
11.a. The non -elision of the def art is unusual. For this translation, see GKC, 35n.

12.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. qal 13.a. 
+ inf constr 
+ 3 fem. sg suffix.
14.a. 3 masc. sg pf hiph 15.a. cf. n. 14:22.a -a.*
16.a. Waw consec + 3 fem. sg impf. hiph 17.a. cf. n. 20:9.c.*
18.a. 
+ inf constr hiph 
+ 1 sg suffix.
19.a. The dagesh in [20.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
20.b. Noun in constr before relative clause ( GKC 130c; WOC, 155–56, 645).
Form/Structure/Setting
Most commentators accept that the chapter division correctly defines the next section of
Genesis. This gives a nice symmetry to the chapter, with one of the darkest episodes in
Joseph‘s life being encased in the reas suring comment that the LORD was with Joseph
(39:2, 21). According to Longacre ( Joseph , 33), 39:21 –23 is a typical closing paragraph,
which both sums up what has gone before and anticipates the development in the next
episode. But Gunkel and Coats argue th at the chapter splits into two scenes in 39:20. Scene
1, Joseph in Potiphar‘s house, consists of exposition (39:1 –6) followed by a narration
(39:7 –20a); scene 2, Joseph in prison, consists of exposition (39:20b –23) followed by
narration (40:1 –23); and scen e 3 (41:1 –57) tells of Joseph in Pharaoh‘s court. The shift
from exposition to narration is in both cases marked by the phrase ―After these things‖
(39:7; 40:1). The third scene has no exposition but simply begins with the statement ―At the
end of two full years‖ (41:1).
Coats‘ analysis seems preferable to the standard view that chap. 39 defines the first unit, for
Hebrew writers enjoy telling stories in three episodes, or scenes; the first two are typically
quite alike, and then the third surprises by its differences (cf. Gen 14:1 –16; Lev 8 –10; Num
22–24). Here Joseph is said to experience God‘s presence and blessing: first, by being put
in charge of Potiphar‘s household (39:2 –6); second, by being put in charge of the royal
prison (39:21 –23). But in both cases his hopes are dashed: Potiphar throws him into prison
(39:20), and then the chief butler forgets Joseph and leaves him in prison (40:23). The third
act opens ominously for Joseph because unlike the previous two occasions there is no
exposition in which it is said that the LORD was with Joseph; here it plunges straight into
the narration. But on this occasion Joseph rises instead of falling, and instead of being put
in charge merely of a rich man‘s house, or of the royal prison, he is made vizier of all
Egypt, next in authority to the Pharaoh, who declares that the spirit of God is in Joseph
(41:38). The following exposition, therefore, broadly follows Coats. However, it seems

preferable (with Humphreys, Joseph and His Family , 59) to e nd the first section at 39:20b,
not 20a, for as Longacre observes of 39:20b: ―And there he stayed in prison‖ makes a good
close to an episode (Longacre, Joseph , 88). Lacking an explicit noun subject, this clause
would not make an appropriate start to a new episode, whereas ―The LORD was with
Joseph‖ (39:21) does.
The section divides as follows:
Recapitulation of Joseph‘s sale into Egypt (1)
Act 1: Prosperity in Potiphar‘s house (2 –6)
Act 2: Repeated Enticement (7 –10)

Potiphar‘s wife invites (7)

Joseph d eclines (8 –10)
Act 3: Joseph‘s Disgrace (11 –20)

Scene 1: Trapped by Potiphar‘s Wife (11 –12)

Scene 2: Denounced to Servants (13 –15)

Scene 3: Denounced to Potiphar (16 –20)

Note how the last three scenes each cont ain a description of the attempted seduction: first,
the narrator‘s account (v 12), second, the account of Potiphar‘s wife to the servants (vv
14–15), and finally, her account to her husband (vv 17 –18). These repetitions give an
insight into the mind of Po tiphar‘s wife.
According to most source critics, all of chap. 39 comes from J, because it begins and ends
with several references to the LORD. Westermann‘s reasons for dissenting from this view
have already been discussed and do not
Comment
1 This verse r eintroduces the main thread of the story by recapitulating 37:36,
―Meanwhile the Midianites had sold him to the Egyptians, to Potiphar … ,‖ but looks at the
events from a different perspective. Here Joseph is the subject of the sentence, indeed of a
passiv e verb, showing he is now to be the focus of interest. Potiphar is here called ―an
Egyptian,‖ a designation repeated in vv 2, 5, perhaps suggesting a parallel between
Joseph‘s slavery in Egypt and that of the Israelites some centuries later. On the other t erms,
cf. Comments on 37:25, 36.
2–6 These verses describe Joseph‘s rise in Potiphar‘s esteem. First, he was promoted to
work indoors, ―in the house of his Egyptian master‖ (v 2), instead of being sent into the
fields to work. Next, ― he pleased his master‖ and became his personal attendant (for this
sense of ―he served him,‖ see Comment on v 4). And ultimately, he was put in charge of his
household and was entrusted with all his possessions (vv 4 –5).
But this paragraph is not just abou t Joseph‘s success but also about the reason for that
success: because ―the LORD was with Joseph.‖ The use of the divine name ―the LORD,‖
―Yahweh,‖ is rare in the Joseph story. Apart from 38:7, 10 and 49:18, the name occurs only

in chap. 39 (vv 2, 3 [2x], 5 [2x], 21, 23 [2x]), all in passages where the narrator is speaking.
―With its theme of Yahweh -with-Joseph (vv 2, 3, 21, 23) it forms the theological entrance
piece to the Joseph story which finds its counterpart at the end with the concluding words
of Jo seph ‗God brought me here‘ (45:5 –8; 50:17 –21). Chs. 39 –41 are the story of a rise, but
a rise made possible because Yahweh was with Joseph. This is what the passages that frame
it, 39:1 –2 and 21 –23, intend to say, and it is to this that the concluding word s return
(45:5 –8; 50:17 –21). Ch. 39, then, is a constitutive part of the Joseph story and is in no wise
a later addition‖ (Westermann, 3:62).
2 ―The LORD was with Joseph.‖ It is a characteristic feature of the Jacob cycle that God
promised to be with Isaac and Jacob (26:3, 24, 28; 28:15, 20; 31:3). Now the same thing is
said about Joseph, twice here and twice in the introduction to the next section (39:21, 23).
These remarks help to put the unfortunate events into perspective. Despite all the setbacks
Josep h was about to face, God was on his side. For a while this was apparent, for he was
―successful,‖ a term earlier used to describe Abraham‘s servant‘s mission (24:21, 40, 42; cf.
THWAT, 2:551 –56).
3–4 Indeed, so obvious was Joseph‘s magic touch that his master realized God was with
him and promoted him from indoor worker to his personal assistant. 
―served‖ is close in meaning to [
―to work (for),‖ but whereas the latter term can be used for menial jobs often done by
slaves (29:15, 18, 20), the former term always implies personal service. Thus Joshua was
Moses‘ servant (Exod 24:13; Josh 1:1), Elisha was Elijah‘ s (1 Kgs 19:21), and prince
Amnon had servants (2 Sam 13:17) ( THWAT 2:1019 –22). ―Put him in charge of his
household,‖ i.e., he was appointed chief manager or steward of his household (cf. Luke
16:1). Such officials ( mer-per) are often mentioned in Egyptian texts. They were in charge
not ―just of the house but the whole estate and all the property‖ (Vergote, Joseph en Égypte ,
25).
5 Potiphar‘s trust in Joseph led to great blessing on him and his estate, because God was
with Joseph. Here the blessing that Joseph will bring to Egypt and the neighboring nations
when he is entrusted with governing all Egypt is evid ently being anticipated. On the word

―bless,‖ cf. Comment on 1:22; 12:2 –3. It is one of the key words of Genesis, so it is not
surprising to find it twice here, though it is rarely used in the Joseph story outside of chap.
49.
―39:2–6 shows particularly clearly the meaning of blessing in the OT. God‘s presence
and blessing belong together, though they are distinct. Blessing encompasses both men and
other creatures. So the narrator simply assumes that the blessing on the one whom the
LORD is with can overflow to a foreign people and adherents of a foreign religion because
of God‘s presence with that person‖ (Westermann, 3:59, ET 63). Thus in Joseph‘s
experience here we begin to see how all th e families of the earth are to find blessing (cf.
12:3) in Abraham‘s descendants.
6 ―He left everything in Joseph‘s care,‖ lit. ―in Joseph‘s hand.‖ This seems a stronger
expression than ―entrusted all that he had‖ (v 4); it implies that Potiphar abandoned his
interest in what Joseph was doing because he was so convinced that Joseph was doing the
best for him (cf. Neh 9:28; Ps 37:33). The phrase is used in a more literal sense in vv
12–13, when Joseph ―l eft his garment in her hand,‖ thus serving as an ominous
foreshadowing of the storm about to break.

―Except the food he ate.‖ This may be a euphemism for ―his wife‖ (cf. Prov 30:20), but
it seems more likely to be an idiom for ―his priv ate affairs.‖
―A fine figure and a handsome face.‖ Joseph‘s mother, Rachel, is also described as having a
lovely figure and a beautiful face (29:17). They are the only two people in the OT to be
awarded this double accolade. This last comm ent anticipates the next step in Joseph‘s
career; it is common in narrative for the end of one episode to serve as a trailer for the next.
Amid Joseph‘s many blessings, he suffers from one endowment too many, stunning beauty.
7–20 It is often asserted that this story of the attempted seduction of Joseph is based on
the thirteenth -century B.C. Egyptian Story of Two Brothers (see ANET, 23–25). This relates
how an Egyptian farmer was helped on his farm by his younger brother. One day the elder
brother‘s wife tried to persuade her brother -in-law to have intercourse with her. He
indignantly refused and promised never to tell his brother about his w ife‘s indiscretion.
However, the wife pretended she had been assaulted and persuaded her husband to ambush
his brother when he brought the cows in from the fields. However, the cows warned the
younger brother that he was about to be attacked, and he ran aw ay. As he was being chased
by his brother, a river full of crocodiles suddenly appeared between them. Shouting to each
other across this river, the younger brother convinced his brother of his innocence, so that
the older brother eventually went home and e xecuted his wife.
Apart from the motif of the unfaithful wife rejected by the faithful single man, there is
practically nothing in common between these stories. And despite claims to the contrary,
even the dialogue in the seduction scene is quite different . Gunkel pointed out that the motif
of the hero spurning a wife‘s advances is found in many ancient tales, so that dependency
of the Hebrew tale on the Egyptian story would only be proved if the two were particularly
close. ―But that does not seem to be th e case‖ (Gunkel, 422). Similarly, Redford ( Biblical
Story of Joseph , 93) concludes that direct borrowing ―seems rather unlikely‖ (also von Rad,
Sarna).
7–10 These verses seem to cover a prolonged period in which Potiphar‘s wife tries to
persuade the glamor ous Joseph to lie with her. Her raw lust and his sense of propriety and
loyalty are admirably captured by the dialogue. Her peremptory ―lie with me‖ is countered
by a long speech by Joseph, showing his own sense of moral shock at the suggestion.
7 ―Lie wit h me.‖ ―The brevity of the sexual proposition on the part of Potiphar‘s wife is
a brilliant stylization —for … she must have said more than that! —of the naked lust that
impels her, and perhaps also of the peremptory tone she feels she can assume toward her
Hebrew slave‖ (Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative , 73).
8–9 ―By contrast, Joseph‘s refusal is a voluble outpouring of language, full of
repetitions which are both dramatically appropriate —as a loyal servant, he is emphatically
protesting the moral scandal of the deed proposed —and thematically pointed‖ (Alter, Art of
Biblical Narrative , 109). Note how Joseph uses the key words ―all, anything‖ and ―hou se,
household,‖ already stressed in vv 3 –6. He gives three reasons that the suggestion must be
rejected: it is an abuse of the great trust placed in him (v 6); it is an offense against her
husband; and it is a great sin against God. Other biblical texts al so describe adultery as a
great sin (20:9; cf. Ps 51:4 [6]), but this attitude was widespread in the ancient Orient (cf.
Comment on 20:9). Notice that in talking to an Egyptian, Joseph speaks of ―God‖ rather
than ―th e LORD,‖ the uniquely Israelite name of God.
10 ―To lie beside her, to be with her.‖ Nowhere else is the preposition ―beside‖ used
with the verb ―lie.‖ This may suggest that Potiphar‘s wife was moderating her demands,
―let‘s just be on our own together for a little,‖ in the hope of making him take the first step.

11–20 But exasperated that he would not even make this concession, one day her patience
runs out. Within a single day he is plunged from trust and honor into the ignominy of
prison. The events are related in three short scenes.
11–12 First, the narrator tells what really happened. Joseph arrived in the house to do
his normal duty (Exod 20:9 –10). With no other men on the premises to act as witnesses,
she grabbed his garment. The verb 
―grab‖ impl ies violence (cf. Deut 9:17; 22:28; 1 Kgs 11:30). 
―garment‖ covers a variety of clothes. The main items of attire in patriarchal times
were mid -calf shorts and a tunic, a long T -shirt (cf. 3:21; 37:3; see EM 4:1035 –37). To pull
either of these garments off against the wearer‘s will must have involved surprise and
violence, perhaps suggesting that the woman was working according to a premeditated
plan. 
―fled‖ is most often used of running away after defeat in battle (14:10) to escape death
(e.g., Num 35:6, 11). Note that the narrator says nothing about her shouting at this stage.
13–15 Joseph‘s rapid exit could easily have comp romised the woman, had he used the
opportunity to explain matters to the rest of the household. So Potiphar‘s wife seizes the
initiative and gives an account that is a travesty of the facts, but so worded as to elicit
maximum sympathy among her slaves.
―Look,‖ she says, waving the garment before them, ―he,‖ Potiphar, your heartless boss,
deliberately brought a Hebrew man; note the appeal to xenophobia. ―Into us.‖ Here she
tactfully identifies herself with her slaves and their plight. ―To fool with us‖ is a nicely
ambiguous phrase used of sexual intimacy in 26:8 and of insulting behavior in 21:9. ―To lie
with me.‖ You may have had to endure his insults, but I have nearly been raped. But ―I
cried out in a loud voice. Then as soon as he heard me shout and cry o ut, he left his garment
beside me and fled outside.‖ ―Because she uses precisely the same series of phrases in her
speech (verses 14 –15) that had been used twice just before by the narrator (verses 12 –13)
but reverses their order, so that her calling out precedes Joseph‘s flight, the blatancy of her
lie is forcefully conveyed without commentary. That blatancy is even more sharply focused
through the change of a single word in one phrase she repeats from the preceding narration‖
(Alter, Art of Biblical Narra tive, 109). Instead of saying that Joseph left the garment ―in her
hand‖ (v 12), she says he left it ―beside her,‖ thus insinuating that he had ―disrobed quite
voluntarily as a preliminary to rape‖ (Alter, 110).
16–20 When her husband returns, she tells hi m the story, but once again it is adjusted to
make the maximum impact on him. ―The arousal of ethnic prejudice (‗the Hebrew‘) again
goes with social incitement, but in the reverse direction. With Potiphar now … addressee,
Joseph is no longer termed ‗man‘ b ut ‗slave‘ just as ‗us‘ shifts in reference (and solidarity)
from the household to the master and mistress. To sting her husband into action, she again
throws on him part of the blame, though by another clever adjustment of psychological
tactics, in a mann er less shrill and more cautious‖ (Sternberg, Poetics , 425). Whereas she
had provoked the slaves by saying ―He [i.e., Potiphar] brought a man into us to fool with
us,‖ she addresses Potiphar more circumspectly, so as not to insult him. ―The Hebrew slave
came into me‖ puts the blame fully on Joseph and at the same time reminds Potiphar that he
is a mere slave and a foreign one at that. ―Came into me‖ is deliberately ambiguous; it may
be taken literally, but it is also a euphemism for sex ual intercourse (16:2; 30:3; 38:8 –9).
Having first accused Joseph, she then implicates her husband, ―the one you brought in to
us.‖ Finally, she discloses what Joseph has been doing ―to fool with me.‖ This is subtly

different from v 14, where she had said ―to fool with us,‖ which could simply mean
―insult‖; here Joseph‘s purpose in coming in to her is said to be sexual intimacy. But the
clause could also be read as subordinate to ―the one you brought in,‖ in which case she is
not simply blaming her husband for acquiring a foreign slave but implying that Potiphar
had acquired him deliberately to harass his wife. ―The second reason obviously would be a
sharp rebuke to the husband, suggesting that he had perversely invited trouble by
introducing such a sexual m enace into the household, but the wife is cunning enough to
word the accusation in such a way that he will be left the choice of taking it as a direct
rebuke or only an implicit and mild one‖ (Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative , 10).
Her account has the desi red effect. Potiphar is furious, and Joseph is put in prison. This is a
somewhat unexpected punishment, because convicted rapists were executed when both
parties were free citizens (Deut 22:23 –27). A slave assaulting his master‘s wife would
certainly expec t no better fate. But for some reason Joseph escaped the death penalty.
Presumably his protestations of innocence, though unrecorded, were sufficient to convince
Potiphar that his wife might not be telling the whole truth, so Joseph was given a lighter
sentence. But the narrator is not interested in this point, only that Joseph was ―put in the
prison, the place where the royal prisoners were imprisoned,‖ because it was the contacts he
made in prison that led to his eventual promotion. 
―prison,‖ lit. ―house of roundness,‖ is found only in this section of Genesis (cf. 39:21 –23;
40:3, 5). The term suggests it was a fortress that also served as a prison, several of which
are known in Egypt (Vergote, Joseph en Égypte , 25–28). It seems to have been managed by
Potiphar (cf. 40:3, 7; 41:10).
Explanation
After the short digression about Judah‘s affairs, the main line of the story resumes with
an account of Joseph‘s first years in Egypt. Evidently he la nds on his feet, being bought as
slave by a high -ranking royal official named Potiphar. He soon recognizes Joseph‘s ability,
first letting him work indoors, the job of superior slaves, then making him his personal
assistant, and finally appointing him mana ger of his household, entrusting him with total
responsibility for all his business affairs. This rapid promotion, we are told, occurred
because the LORD was with Joseph. Indeed, God‘s presence with Joseph was even evident
to Potiphar, which was why he pro moted him, and he prospered greatly as a result: ―the
LORD‘s blessing rested on everything he had.‖
But Potiphar‘s wife was attracted by Joseph‘s stunning beauty; like his mother Rachel,
Joseph had ―a fine figure and handsome face.‖ So the mistress of the house determines to
have sex with him. Day after day she attempts to seduce him, but he repudiates her
advances with ethical and theological argument. One day, however, she catches him alone
in the house, pulls off his shirt, and runs outside calling to th e servants that Joseph has tried
to rape her. She repeats a similar tale to her husband, who thereupon throws his trusted
servant in jail.
The story of the spurned woman who takes her revenge on the upright male is doubtless
a universal one, because such s ituations recur in every generation in every society. But this
tale is no more included to applaud male propriety over female infidelity than the story of
Tamar and Judah is inserted to prove the reverse. Genesis is remarkably evenhanded in
describing the failings and the virtues of both sexes. Undoubtedly, Joseph is here portrayed

as a model, the wise man who fears God (Prov 1:7), who is totally loyal and dependable,
and who thus enjoys ―favor and good repute in the sight of God and man‖ (Prov 3:3 –4) and
is not seduced by ―the lips of the loose woman‖ (Prov 5:3), the ―adulteress [who] stalks a
man‘s very life‖ (Prov 6:26). In a similar way, Potiphar‘s wife is an example of the foreign
woman whose morals are suspect.
Similarly, Joseph‘s unfair dismissal and imprisonment may be seen as typical of the
sufferings the righteous often must endure. ―For a righteous man falls seven times, and rises
again‖ (Prov 24:16). Moses, Job, Jeremiah, and the suffering servant of Isa 53 are examples
of this career pattern in t he OT, while Jesus is the supreme model in the NT. And as Peter
says, Christians are called to ―follow in his steps‖ (1 Pet 2:21) and to ―[h]umble yourselves
… under the mighty hand of God, that in due time he may exalt yo u‖ (1 Pet 5:6). On a
national level, Joseph‘s slavery in Potiphar‘s house foreshadows Israel‘s Egyptian bondage,
an apparent setback to the people‘s fortunes that ultimately leads to the fulfillment of the
patriarchal promises.
And it is these promises tha t most illuminate this dark episode in Joseph‘s career. The
LORD had promised to be with his father and grandfather; he manifestly was with Joseph
(39:2, 3) so that the LORD‘s blessing rested on the house of the Egyptian. Here we have his
career epitomized : through his affliction, God was at work to preserve the life of many
people (50:20). Through him all the families of the world would begin to find blessing
(12:3). In managing Potiphar‘s house, he was being prepared to rule all Egypt. But had he
remained Potiphar‘s manager, he might never have met Pharaoh‘s cupbearer in the royal
prison and been elevated to the court. His present disgrace was a necessary preliminary to
his future glory.
Joseph in Prison (39:21 –40:23)
Bibliography
Anbar, M. ―<eresi >ibr÷m ‗le pays des Hébreux .―‖ Or 41 (1972) 383 –86. Dahood, M. ―Eblaite
ha-réŒ and Genesis hioµrið .‖ BN 13 (1980) 14 –16.Görg, M. ―Ein eblaitisches Wort in der
Josepherzählung ?‖ BN 13 (1980) 29 –31, 205 –14.Marcus, D. ―‗Lifting up the head‘: On the Trail of
a Word Play in Gen 40.‖ Prooftexts 10 (1990) 17 –27.Redford, D. B. ―The ‗Land of the Hebrews‘
in Gen 40:15.‖ VT 15 (1965) 529 –32.
Translation
21But the LORD was with Joseph and wasa loyal to him and gave him favorb in the eyes of
the prison governor. 22The prison governor entrusted Joseph with all the prisoners in the
prison, and for all that was done there he a was responsible.a 23The prison governor did not
have to worry about anything that he had entrusted him with, for the LORD was with him
and the LORD made everything he did successful.
40:1After these things athe cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypta sinned
against their lord, the king of Egypt. 2Pharaoh was enraged with his two officials, the
head cupbearer and the head baker. 3So he put th em in custody in the house of the
captain of the guard in the prison, the placea where Joseph was imprisoned. 4The head
of the guards appointed Joseph to be with them, and he served them, and they were a

long timea in custody.
5Both the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were detained in
prison, dreamed; each had a dream in one night, each with its own meaning. 6Joseph
came to them in the morning and noticed that they were looking ill. 7So he asked
Pharaoh‘s officials who were in custody with him in the house of his lord, ―Why are
you looking glum today?‖ 8They said to him, ―We have dreamed a dream, but athere is
no one to interpret it.‖a Joseph said to them, ―Don‘t interpretations belong to God?
Please tell it to me.‖
9So the head cupbearer related his d ream to Joseph and said to him, ―In my dream
I saw a vine in front of me. 10On the vine there were three stems. As it sprouted,a it
blossomed, and its clusters ripened in to grapes. 11I had Pharaoh‘s cup in my hand, so I
took the grapes, squeezed them into Pharaoh‘s cup, and handed the cup to Pharaoh.‖
12Then Joseph said: ―This is its interpretation. The three stems are three days. 13In
another three days Pharaoh will lifta up your head and restoreb you to your position,
and you shall hand Pharaoh his cup as you used to do when you were his cupbearer.
14aPromise thata you will remember me when you do well, and bplease do me this
kindness to mention meb to Pharaoh and bring me out of this house. 15For I was
kidnapped from the country of the Hebrews, and here I have not done anything that I
should have been put in the pit.‖
16The head baker saw that he had interpreted well, so he said to Joseph, ―I too saw
in my dream three baskets of white bread on my head. 17In the top basket there were
some of all the Pharaoh‘s foods, baked cakes, and the birds were eating them out of the
basket on my head.‖
18So Joseph answered and said, ―This is its interpretation. The three baskets are
three days. 19In another three days, Pharaoh will lift up your head from off you and
hang you on a tree, and the birds will eat the flesh off you.‖
20On the third day, it was Pharaoh‘s birthday,a and he made a banquet for all his servants,
and he lifted up the head cupbearer and the head baker among his servants. 21a He
restoredb the head cupbearer to his office, and he handed the cup to Pharaoh. 22But he
hanged the head baker, as Joseph had interpreted to them.a 23But the head cupbearer did
not remember Joseph and forgot him.
Notes
21.a. cf. n. 12:8.c.*
21.b. On the suffix on 
, see WOC, 303.
22.a-a. lit. ―was doing.‖ On the use of 
+ ptcp for repeated action in the past, see GKC 116r; Joüon, 121f.
1.a-a. lit. ―the cupbearer of the king of Egypt and the baker.‖ For this construction, see
Joüon, 129a. A more common construction would be ―the cupbeare r of the king of Egypt
and his baker.‖

3.a. cf. n. 40:20.b.*
4.a. GKC, 140h.
8.a-a. On this construction, ptcp + 
+ pronoun, see EWAS, 102 (cf. GKC, 152o; SBH, 83).
10.a. 
+ fem. sg ptcp qal 
. On this construction, see GKC 164g; n. 38:29.a –a.
13.a. 3 masc. sg impf. qal 13.b. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg pf hiph 
+ 2 masc. sg suffix.
14.a-a. According to GKC, 163d,  14.b-b. On this precative sense of waw + pf, see
WOC, 532–33.
20.a. 
inf constr hoph 
(GKC, 69w).
21.a-22.a. Chiastic linkage between sentences; cf. 14:16; SBH, 67.
21.b. cf. n. 14:16.b.*
Form/Structure/Setting
Though most commentators regard chap. 40 as constituting a discrete unit within the
Joseph story, in the previous Form/Structure/Setting I set out my reasons for concurring
with Humphreys ( Joseph and His Family ; cf. Gunkel and Coats) th at a new section starts
with 40:21. According to this reading, 40:2 –20 and 40:21 –40:23 run in parallel:
40:2–6
Divine blessing of Joseph
40:21 –23
40:7–19
Human maltreatment of Joseph
40:1–22
40:20
Joseph left in prison
40:23

More precisely, 40:21 –40:23 d ivides as follows:
40:21 –23

Joseph promoted in prison
40:1–4
Butler and baker imprisoned
vv 5–19
The morning after the dream

Opening dialogue (7 –8)

Cupbearer‘s dream related and interpreted (9 –15)

Baker‘s dream related and interpreted (16 –19)
vv 20 –22
Dream fulfilled
v 23
Joseph left in prison

As it stands, this episode is well integrated into the Joseph story. As a whole, it presupposes
40:20, ―Joseph‘s master put him in the prison, the place where the royal prisoners were
imprisoned.‖ The phraseo logy of 40:2 –6, ―The LORD was with Joseph‖ (40:2; cf. 40:21),
―gave him favor‖ (40:4; cf. 40:21), ―successful‖ (40:2, 3; cf. 40:23), ―served‖ (40:4; 40:4),
―put in charge, appointed‖ (40:4; cf. 40:4), ―entrusted‖ (40:4; cf. 40:22), ―did not worry
about anything‖ (40:6; 40:23), is clearly echoed in 40:21 –40:4. The pair of dreams
(40:8 –19) recalls Joseph‘s two dreams (37:5 –10) and foreshadows Pharaoh‘s two drea ms
(41:1 –32), and especially Joseph‘s skill at interpreting dreams (40:8; cf. 41:16). In
particular, 40:15 gives a poignant summary of both chap. 37 and 40:2 –20, ―I was
kidnapped from the country of the Hebrews, and here I have not done anything that I
should have been put in
According to traditional source critics, 40:21 –23 comes from J, while the bulk of chap.
40 is assigned to E. However, certain J -flavored fragments are usually discerned (e.g.,
Skinner; Schmitt, Josephsgeschichte ) in 40:1, ―the cupbearer and the baker … Egypt‖; v 3,
―the prison … imprisoned‖ (cf. vv 5b, 15b). The chief reason for assigning these parts of
verses to J or to a J -inspired redactor is that they pr esuppose or refer back to J‘s version of
the story (40:3b, 5b to 40:21 –23 and 40:15b), while 40:1 uses a word, ―sin,‖ characteristic
of J and in content relates closely to 40:3b, 5b. These observations clearly point to a closer
connection between chaps. 39 and 40 than the usual division in two sources allows. Gunkel,
for example, argued that chaps. 40 and 39 come from different sources because in
40:20 –23(J) Joseph was in prison, whereas in 40:47(E) he is in the captain of the guard‘s
house; in 40:22(J) he oversees all the prisoners, but in 40:4(E) he serves two royal officials;
37:27(J) says Joseph was sold into slavery, whereas 40:15(E) says he was kidnapped. But
these are slim grounds for postulating duplicate sources, when these differences can easily
be explained exegetically and in terms of plot development. The parallels between 40:2 –20
and 40:21 –40:23 and the triptych arrangement of chaps. 40 –41 argue for their unity. So
with Coats, Donner ( Die literarische Gestalt ), Westermann, and Humphreys ( Joseph and
His Family ), I accept that all of chap. 40 comes from one source, most probably J.
Comment

21–23 The second panel of the three -chapter triptych begins like the first (40:2 –6) with
a comment on divine providence at work in Joseph‘s life, ―The LORD was w ith Joseph.‖
This statement ―implies quite real protection and promotion in the matters of his external
life, not, to be sure, protection from distress, but rather in the midst of distress‖ (von Rad,
367). As already noted, the terminology of vv 21 –23 clea rly echoes vv 2 –6, emphasizing
that, despite all appearances, God was on Joseph‘s side in his deepest humiliations. But
there are a few differences in phraseology that require comment.
21 ―Was loyal,‖ lit. ―extended kindness to‖ ( 
), occurs only here in the OT, but the noun 
―loyalty‖ is an important biblical term (cf. Comment on 24:12; 32:11), often used in
prayer to describe God‘s character. It is his loyalty that prompts him to care for hi s people
and answer their prayers (cf. Gen 24:12, 14, 27). Its use here probably hints at Joseph‘s
prayers during his dark moments of despair: ―gave him favor‖ (cf. 40:4).
22 Once again, Joseph‘s qualities are so app arent that he is given authority in his
domain; last time, it was Potiphar who ―had entrusted him with all that he had‖ (40:4); this
time, it is the prison governor.
23 Just like Potiphar (40:6), the prison governor had confidence that Joseph would
compete ntly manage everything.
40:1–4 These verses set the background for the dreams and Joseph‘s interpretations.
1 ―After these things‖ probably marks a considerable time lapse (cf. 15:1; 22:1; 40:7;
48:1). The story does not make clear how long Joseph was in prison before the new
prisoners arrived, only that the total period of slavery and imprisonment was about thirteen
years (37:2; 41:46).
―The cupbearer‖ may well have done more than open bottles and taste the wine, if his
own description of his duties in v 11 is to be taken literally. The Hebrew term 
―cupbearer‖ corresponds to Egyptian wb<. ―These officials (often foreigners) became
in many cases confidants and favourites of the king and wielded political influence‖
(Kitchen, NBD, 283). Nehemiah occupied a similar position in the Persian court (Neh
1:11–2:8).
―Baker‖ may be identified with Egyptian retehti according to Vergote ( Joseph en Égypte ,
37). The nearest equivalent to ―head (of the) baker(s)‖ (v 2) may be ssû wdhw nsw ―royal
table scribe‖ (so Kitchen, NBD, 658).
―Sinned.‖ Their offense is not specified since it is not relevant to the s tory, but
doubtless this term is used to draw the contrast between Joseph thrown into prison for
refusing to sin against God (40:9) and these men for actually offending the king.
2 
―enraged‖ is a rarer term than the more common 
―be angry.‖ Acc ording to Sauer ( THWAT 2:664), it often denotes ―a passion that is
quickly roused, powerful, and soon dies away‖ (cf. Lev 10:1 6; 2 Kgs 5:11). Perhaps this
verse may be rendered ―Pharaoh lost his temper.‖
3 The prison governor (40:21 –23) must have been subordinate to the captain of the
guard, who had put Joseph in prison (40:20). If the captain of the guard was, as Vergote
(Joseph en Égypte ) suggests (cf. Comment on 37:36), the royal butler responsible for
catering arrangements, it is not surprising that he is involved in their imprisonment.
4 Whether the captain of the guard was still Potiphar, after the lapse of time implied in
40:1, is unclear. If Potiphar did still hold this position, it could explain why the captain of

the guard appointed Joseph to be the personal servant of these two pala ce officials, for he
had occupied this role in Potiphar‘s household (40:4). But whatever the motive, Joseph is
once again becoming known to top palace officials. But will this stand him in any better
stead than it did in Potiphar‘s household?
5–9 These ver ses are the central scene of the episode in which the dreams are related
and interpreted.
5 It is not simply that they dreamed that raised the apprehensions of the cupbearer and
baker, but that they both had a different dream the same night and that they were
imprisoned alarms them. The apparently redundant comment about their imprisonment
under lines the vulnerability of the men. As prisoners, they were trapped and uncertain of
their future, so intimations about their fate in the form of dreams were especially important
to them.
6 Since Joseph had been appointed their personal attendant (v 4; cf. 40:4), he naturally
came to see them in the morning and noticed that they were looking ―ill.‖ [
―ill‖ only occurs here and Dan 1:10 with the meaning ―looking sickly, emaciated‖
(TDOT 4:111). Elsewhere, the root has the meaning ―furious, angry,‖ sometimes of the
anger that results from f rustration (e.g., 1 Kgs 20:43; 21:4), which might be appropriate
here.
7 ―Why are you looking glum?‖ Nehemiah was asked the same question (Neh 2:2).
―Human empathy releases the whole of what follows‖ (Westermann, 3:74). Jos eph‘s
expression of concern leads his fellow prisoners to open their hearts to him, which in turn
leads ultimately to his release and promotion in the Egyptian court.
8 The Egyptians shared a belief, widespread in antiquity, that ―sleep puts us in real and
direct contact with the other world where not only the dead but also the gods dwell. Dreams
therefore are a gift from the gods‖ (Vergote, Joseph en Égypte , 48). Their interpretation,
however, was a complex science entrusted to learned specialists; while a dreamer might
have a hunch whether a dream was auspicious or not, he had to rely on experts for a
detailed explanation. In prison they had no access to such expertise; yet being prisoners
they were most anxious to know their fate —hence, their despondency. According to
Joseph, however, it is not learning but inspiration that matters. ―Don‘t interpretations
belong to God?‖ He was later to make the same point to Pharaoh himself: ―It does not
depend on me, but God will declare to Pharaoh his well -being.‖ Josep h‘s attitude is
consonant with the OT’s rejection of occult practices and its reliance on prophecy as a means
of discovering God‘s will (Deut 18:10 –22).
―Joseph‘s answer, ‗Interpretations belong to God,‘ is completely polemic. It is again
one of those splendid statements which our narrator loves and which go far beyond the
situation in the programmatic, doctrinal form in which they are spoken. Spoken by a very
lowly foreign slave, whom the two prisoners had not dreamed of questioning, the s tatement
contains a sharp contrast. Joseph means to say that the interpretation of dreams is not a
human art but a charisma which God can grant. … The events of the future lay in
Yahweh‘s hand only, and only the one to whom it was revealed was empowered to
interpret‖ (von Rad, 371).
9–13 The cupbearer‘s dream is told more fully than the baker‘s. It also contains fewer
allegorical features; only the equation of the three branches with three days is clearly
allegorical. The mention of his picking and squeezin g grapes could be allegorical, if it was
not part of the cupbearer‘s usual duties (cf. Comment on 40:1 –4).

10–11 Threes dominate this dream: three stems, three stages of growth, sprouting,
blossoming, and ripening, and three actions by the cupbearer, taking grapes, squeezing
them, and handing the wine to Pharaoh. The speed with which each stage is described may
well suggest the imminence of the dream‘s fulfillment.
12–13 Joseph‘s explanation is short and sweet. In three days, the cupbear er will be
given his job back.

―lift up your head‖ has two main meanings: (1) count heads, i.e., take a census (e.g.,
Num 1:2; 4:2) or (2) act confidently (e.g., Judg 8:28; Ps 24:9). But here and in 2 Kgs 25:27
(//Jer 52:31) it has a different sense, ―deal kindly with.‖ It is equivalent to Akkadian nasûï
rïsûa ―call someone into the presence of the king.‖ However, in v 19 it is used quite
literally for the baker‘ s fate.
14–15 After doing his fellow prisoner a favor, Joseph makes a plea on his own behalf,
which also underlines his own confidence in his interpretation. ―When you are released,
please remember me and mention me to Pharaoh.‖ The phraseology used by Jos eph is more
commonly applied to divine action than to human action in Genesis, e.g., ―remember‖ (8:1;
9:15; 19:29; 30:22; Exod 2:24), ―do this kindness‖ (24:12, 14; Exod 20:6), and ―bring me
out of this house‖ (cf. 15:7 and especially Exod 20:2, ―I am the LORD your God who
brought you out of the land of Egypt out of the house of bondage‖). His plea seems to
foreshadow the ultimate redemption of all Israel from Egyptian slavery.
―I was kidnapped‖ (lit. ―stolen‖) is hardly an exact description of what happened to
Joseph, but it expresses very vividly Joseph‘s feelings about the way his brothers had
treated him. They had stolen his freedom and sold him into slavery, a crime that, according
to Exod 21:16, warrants the death penalty. ―From the country of the Hebrews‖ (the phrase
is used only here) contrasts his present abode with his homeland in Canaan. The case for
regarding ―country of the Hebrews‖ as an anachronism is unproven. In fact, the ter m
―Hebrews‖ within the OT occurs almost exclusively in texts dealing with pre -Davidic times
(e.g., 14:13; 39:14, 17, ―patriarchs‖; Exod 1:15, 16; 21:2, ―Moses‖; 1 Sam 13:3, 7, 19,
―Saul‖ ). Also, if as is widely believed, it is related to Akkadian hÉabiru< , it may be noted
that this too is a common term in second -millennium texts all across the fertile crescent,
including Egypt, but it disappears in the first millennium (H. Cazelles, ―The Hebrews,‖
POTT, 1–28). Finally, Anbar ( Or 41 [1972] 383 –86) has pointed out that a similar phrase,
―field/land of the Hebrews,‖ is found in Ugaritic. He argues that it is not a synonym for
Canaan but probably refers to part of Canaan north of Shechem.
16–17 Obviously encouraged by Joseph‘s optimistic interpretation of the cupbearer‘s
dream, the baker now relates his. The Egyptian dictionary ―lists 38 kinds of cake and 57
varieties of bread. … These facts, while proving that the Egyptians were first -class
gourmets, also give a particular significance to the words of the chief baker which may be
literally translated, ‗There were in t he top basket all sorts of foods for Pharaoh,
masterpieces of the pastry cook‘‖ (Vergote, Joseph en Égypte , 37).
―White bread.‖ Since the term is found only here, its meaning is uncertain. But KB, 339,
suggests ―pastries made with white flour,‖ and this has been endorsed by M. Dahood on the
basis of Eblaite texts ( BN 13 [1980] 14 –16).
18–19 ―Joseph answered and said‖ (cf. Comment on 31:14). To ―answer and say‖ may
suggest a brusque impatience on Joseph‘s part and the momentous nature of his comment.
Was he annoyed that the baker sho uld imagine that such an inauspicious dream could have

a favorable meaning or that a man who deserved death should hope for pardon? The text
leaves both possibilities open. In any event, in giving his interpretation, Joseph manages to
keep bad news till la st, for initially his explanation of the baker‘s dream is identical to the
cupbearer‘s. But then in the last breath it suddenly diverges: ― … from off you and hang
you on a tree.‖ The expression ―lift up your head‖ may have the very literal sense of
decapi tation, but we cannot be sure. What Joseph is predicting is an aggravated form of
death penalty, execution followed by exposure (cf. Deut 21:22 –23; Josh 10:26). The baker
will not simply be executed, but his corpse will be impaled and e xposed. This treatment
was designed to prevent his spirit from resting in the afterlife. The mention of the birds
eating his flesh is both gruesome and emphatic, for it shows Joseph‘s certainty about the
baker‘s fate.
20–22 Amnesties on the birthday of a P haraoh are occasionally mentioned in late
Egyptian texts. More frequently they were granted on the anniversary of his accession, and
this could be meant here (so Schmitt, Josephgeschichte , 138 –40).
21–22 Joseph‘s words in vv 13, 19 are echoed closely to sh ow their exact fulfillment,
which demonstrates he was inspired by God (v 8), indeed that ―the LORD was with him‖
(40:21).
23 But the cupbearer completely forgot Joseph and his plea (v 14). So Joseph is left bitterly
disappointed in as hopeless a situation as he was when first cast into prison at the end of the
preceding episode (39:20). And there he stays for another two years (41:1), to all
appearances forgotten by man and God.
Explanation
As a human story of hopes raised and then dashed, this episode is m eaningful to most
readers. Unjustly incarcerated, Joseph is noticed first by the prison governor who then puts
him in charge of the other prisoners. Later he is appointed personal attendant to two
distinguished prisoners and proves his worth by correctly i nterpreting their dreams. But the
chief cupbearer, on being restored to his post, fails to do anything about Joseph. He is left
to languish in jail for another two years.
The narrative gives a few hints about Joseph‘s state of mind. He appears sympathetic,
inquiring of the dreamers ―Why are you looking glum today?‖ and pious, ―Don‘t
interpretations belong to God?‖ (v 8). The statement ―the LORD was with Joseph and was
loyal to him‖ (39:21) further hints that he was a man of prayer, whose prayers were
partia lly answered in that he was given promotion within the prison. But his great hope and
prayer —to be released from prison where he bitterly reflects he had been most unfairly
kept, ―I was kidnapped … and have not done anything that I should have been put in the
pit‖ (v 15) —was left unanswered. His experience of painful, apparently fruitless waiting is
typical of that of the patriarchs looking for children (15:2; 25:21; 30:1), of Job praying for
vindication (Job 19:7), and of numberless psalmists who cry, ―How long, O LORD? Wilt
thou forget me for ever?‖ (13:1; cf. 22:2 [1]). Such periods of desolation were experienced
by our Lord (Matt 26:38 –42; 27:46) and by Paul (2 Cor 1:8 –10; cf. 2 Cor 11:24 –29). And
Jesus (Matt 5:10 –12), Hebrews (12:1 –11), and Peter (1 Pet 2:19 –21) warn that all
Christians should expect to suffer for righteousness‘ sake. So once again Joseph‘s
experience may be taken as a paradigm for all disciples.
But it is more. The narrative affirms that the LORD was with Joseph (39:21 –23) and proves
it when he successfully interprets the two dreams. And these two dreams look back to

Joseph‘s two dreams (37:5 –10), which forecast his own ascendancy, and forward to
Pharaoh‘s two dreams, which he will successfully int erpret (41:1 –32). Ultimately, his plea
to be remembered will be recalled by the chief cupbearer, and the prison will prove to be a
steppingstone to the palace. Then it will be clear that the suffering of one righteous man has
proved to be the source of ble ssing not just to Egypt but ―to keep many people alive‖
(50:20). Through Joseph, the Abrahamic promise that ―all the families of the earth will find
blessing in you‖ (12:3) is partially fulfilled.
Joseph in the Palace (41:1 –57)
Bibliography
Barrick, W. B. ―The Meaning and Usage of RKB in Biblical Hebrew.‖ JBL 101 (1982) 481 –503.
Cohen, J. M. ―An Unrecognized Connotation of nsûq peh with Special Reference to Three Biblical
Occurrences.‖ VT 32 (1982) 416 –24. Croatto, J. S. ―<Abrek ‗Intendant‘ dans Gen 41:41, 43.‖ VT 16
(1966) 113 –15. Gai, A. ―The Reduction of the Tense (and Other Categories) of the Consequent
Verb in North -West Semitic.‖ Or 51 (1982) 254 –56. Lash, S. ―La investituro de la biblia Jozefo .‖
Biblia Revuo 17 (1981) 102 –3. Layton, S. C. ―The Steward in Ancient Israel: A Study of ( <aásûer )
>al-habbayit in Its Near Eastern Setting.‖ JBL 109 (1990) 633 –49. Lichtenstei n, M. H. ―Idiom,
Rhetoric, and the Text of Gen 41:16.‖ JANESCU 19 (1989) 85 –94. Niditch, S., and Doran, R. ―The
Success Story of the Wise Courtier: A Formal Approach.‖ JBL 96 (1977) 179 –93. Rendsburg, G.
A. ―The Egyptian Sun -God Ra in the Pentateuch.‖ Hen 10 (1988) 3 –15. Seebass, H. ―Gen 41 und
die Hungersnotstele .‖ ZDMG Sup 4 (1980) 137 –39. Sperling, S. D. ―Gen 41:40: A New
Interpretation.‖ JANESCU 10 (1978) 113 –19.
Translation
1At the end of two fulla years, Pharaoh had a dream. Heb was standing by the Nile.
2And out of the Nile rose seven cows, shapely and well fattened, and they grazeda in the
reeds. 3Then seven other cows rose after them out of the Nile: they looked terribly thin,a
and they stood by the first cows on the river bank. 4Then the terribly thina cows ate the
well-proportioned fat cows. So Pharaoh woke up.
5He fell asleep and dreamed again. Seven good -looking, healthy ears of corn came
up on a single stalk. 6Then seven thin ears of corn a scorched by the east winda sprouted
after them. 7The seven thin ears swallowed the seven healthy full ears. So Pharaoh
woke up and realized it was a dream.
8In the morning his mind was perturbed, so he sent for aall the diviner -priests and
experts of Egypt,a and Pharaoh related to them his dream.b But there was no one to
interpret themc for Pharaoh. 9Then the head cupbearer spoke witha Pharaoh. ―Today I
recall my sins.b 10Pharaoh was in a temper with his servants, and he put mea and the
head baker in custody in the house of the captain of the guard. 11We both had a dream
in a single night, I and he; each of us dreamed a dream with its o wn meaning. 12With us
there was a young Hebrew man, aa slave of the captaina of the guard, and we related it
to him and he interpreted our dreams: he interpreted each in its own way. 13And as he
interpreted to us, so it turned out. Ia was returned to my office, and hea was hanged.‖
14Then Pharaoh had Joseph summoned, and they rusheda him from the pit; he

shaved, changed his outer clothes, and he came into Pharaoh‘s presence. 15Pharaoh
said to Josep h, ―I have had a dream, but there is no one to explain it. However I have
heard about you that you know how to interpret dreams.‖ 16Then Joseph replied to
Pharaoh, a―Except for God, who can announce Pharaoh‘s welfare?‖a 17So Pharaoh
spoke to Joseph, a―There I was in my dream standinga on the ban k of the Nile. 18Then
rising out of the Nile I saw seven well -fattened, shapely cows, and they grazed in the
pasture. 19Then seven other cows rose after them; they looked awful and thin. I have
never seen any as bad as them in the whole land of Egypt. 20Then the thin,
awful -looking cows ate up the first seven fat cows. 21They went down inside them, but
no one would knowa it, because they looked just as bad as at the beginning; then I
wokeb up.
22a ―I lookedb in my dream and seven ears of grain were coming up on a single stalk; they
looked full and good. 23Then seven ears, shriveled, thin, and scorched by the east wind,
sprouted after them. 24The seven thin ears swallowed the seven good ears. So I told it to the
diviners, but no one could explaina it to me.‖
25Then Joseph said to Pharaoh, a―Phara oh‘s dreams are one:a God has declaredb to
Pharaoh what he is about to do. 26Thea seven good -looking cows ar e seven years, and
the seven good -looking ears are seven years, so that makes the dream one. 27The seven
thin, bad -looking cows coming up after them are seven years, and the seven empty ears
scorched by the east wind will be seven years of famine. 28This i s the matter that I have
told Pharaoh: what God is about to do he has showna Pharaoh. 29Seven years of great
abundance are coming in all the land of Egypt. 30Then seven years of famine will follow
them, and all the abundance will be forgotten in the land of Egypt, and the famine will
devastate the land. 31Afterwards the abundance will not be knowna in the land because
that fam ine will be very severe. 32Because the dream has been repeated,a the thing is
establishedb from God, and God is in a hurry to do it.
33―Now let Pharaoh looka out for an intelligent and wise man and put him over the
land of Egypt. 34Let Pharaoh also act and appoint officers over the land and aorganize
the land of Egypt in the seven years of abundance. 35Let them collect all the food of
these coming good years and pile up grain under Pharaoh‘s control, food in the cities,
so that they keepa it. 36The food will be reserve for the land for the seven years of famine
which are to be in the land of Egypt, so that the land is not cut off in the famine.‖
37The idea seemed good to Pharaoh and all his servants. 38So Pharaoh said to his
servants, ―Can we find a man like this in whom there is God‘s spirit?‖ 39Then Pharaoh
said to Joseph, ―Since God has made knowna to you all this, there is no one so
intelligent and wise as you. 40You shall be over my household, and all my people shall
kowtowa to your instruction. Only as regards the throne will I be more important than
you.‖ 41Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, ―Look, I have set you over all the land of Egypt.‖
42Then he removed his ring from his hand a nd placed it on Joseph‘s. He clothed him in
linen garments and put aa gold chain on his neck. 43He allowed him to ride in the
chariot of the second man which belon ged to him, and they called out before him,
―Bowa down,‖ and he putb him over all the land of Egypt. 44Pharaoh said to Joseph, ―I
am Pharaoh, but without your permission no one shall lifta a hand or foot in all the land
of Egypt.‖ 45Pharaoh named Joseph Sapnat -Paneah, and he gave him Asenat, the
daughter of Potiphera the priest of On, as his wife, aso Joseph went out over the land of
Egypt.a

46Joseph was thirty years old when he entered the service of Pharaoh the king of
Egypt, and he left Pharaoh‘s presence and traveled throughout the land of Egypt. 47The
land yielded abundantly during the years of abundance. 48Joseph collected all the food
afor the seven years which befell the landa of Egypt, and he put the food in the cities.
Food from the countryside around the cities he put inside them. 49Joseph piled up grain
like the sand of the sea, a tremendous quantity so that they stopped measuring it, for it
was t oo much to measure.
50Two boys were borna to Joseph before the year of famine by Asenat, daughter of
Potiphera, priest of On. 51Joseph named the firstborn Manasseh, ―because God has
made me quite forgeta all my toil and my father‘s house.‖ 52He called the second one
Ephraim, ― because God has made me fruitfula in the land of my oppression.‖
53Then the seven years of plenty in the land of Egypt camea to an end, 54and the seven years
of famine begana to happen as Joseph had predicted. There was famine in all the
surrounding countries, but in the whole land of Egypt there was bread. 55Then the whole
land of Egypt became hungry, and the people cried out to Pharaoh for bread. So Pharaoh
said to all Egypt, ―Go to Joseph, who will tell you what to do.‖ 56When the famine had
descended over the whole land, Joseph opened all a the stores of grain that were in them,
and he soldb grain to Egypt, and the famine became very sever e in the land of Egypt. 57The
whole world camea to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain because the famine was very severe
throughout the world.
Notes
1.a. On this idiom, see GKC, 131d.
1.b. On omission of the subj ―he,‖ see GKC, 116s.
2.a. Waw consec + 3 fem. pl. impf. 3.a. Here and in v 4, SamPent and a few MSS
read 
instead of 
. cf. vv 19, 20, 27.
4.a. cf. n. 3.a.*
6.a-a. Pass ptcp in constr followed by cause, ―east wind,‖ in abs (GKC, 116l; WOC, 617).
8.a-a. lit. ―all the diviners of Egyp t and all its experts‖; this is the normal construction
when a gen, ―of Egypt,‖ governs two nouns (Joüon, 129a; cf. n. 40:1.a –a.).
8.b. SamPent ―dreams.‖
8.c. G ―it.‖
9.a. SamPent ―to.‖
9.b. Obj, ―my sins,‖ before the verb for emphasis (EWAS, 39n).
10.a. SamPent ―them.‖

12.a-a. lit. ―a slave to the captain.‖ On this construction, see GKC, 129c.
13.a. The contrast between the men‘s fates is highlighted by placing the obj pronouns,
―me … him,‖ before the verbs ( SBH, 68, 152; cf. Longacre, Joseph , 102).
14.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. pl. impf. hiph 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
16.a-a. Reading  
as suggested by Lichtenstein ( JANESCU 19 [1989] 91). 
omitted by haplography. A similar sense is presupposed (cf. SamPent, G, S; cf. BHS ):
―Without God it is not possible to give Pharaoh an answer about his welfare.‖
17.a-a. Note use of 
+ suffix + ptcp for vision in past time (Joüon, 121f; SBH, 95).
21.a. 3 masc. sg pf niph [21.b. Waw consec + 1 sg impf. qal 22.a. G, S, Vg insert ―I
slept again.‖
22.b. cf. n. 31:10.b.*
24.a. Masc. sg hiph ptcp 25.a-a. On the unusual syntax, see EWAS, 18.
25.b. cf. n. 3:11.a.*
26.a. SamPent normalizes the grammar by adding the def art (cf. WOC, 260).
28.a. 3 masc. sg pf hiph  31.a. 3 masc. sg impf. niph [32.a. Inf constr niph 32.b.
Masc. sg ptcp niph 33.a. 3 masc. sg juss qal 
. On pointing, see GKC, 75p, hh.
34.a. Switch from juss to waw + pf gives resultative sense, ―so that he may organize‖
(Longacre, Joseph , 133&).
35.a. cf. n. 41:34.a.*
39.a. Inf constr hiph [40.a. 3 masc. sg impf. qal 42.a. On the use of the def art in
Heb. with materials like gold, see GKC, 126n; WOC, 246.
43.a. Apparently an Egyptian loan word from the Semitic root brk ―bow down, kneel.‖
cf. Vergote, Joseph en Égypte , 135 –41; D. B. Redford, Biblical Story of Joseph , 226 –28;
CAD IA (1.32 –35).
43.b. Inf abs 
. On inf abs following finite verb, see GKC, 113z; Joüon, 123x; A. Gai, Or 51 (1982 )

254–56.
44.a. 3 masc. sg impf. hiph 45.a-a. Omitted by G.
48.a-a. SamPent, G read ―for the seven years when there was plenty in the land‖ (see
BHS; cf. vv 47, 53).
50.a. cf. n. 4:26.b.* SamPent typically regularizes to 3 masc. pl..
51.a. 3 masc. sg pf piel 
+ 1 sg suffix. The unusual pointing ( a instead of i) may indicate a play on Manasseh
(GKC, 52m; Joüon, 52aN).
52.a. 3 masc. sg pf hiph 
+ 1 sg suffix.
53.a. Waw consec + 3 fem. pl. impf.  54.a. Waw consec + 3 fem. pl. impf. hiph
 56.a. Something seems to have dropped out; BHS and many commentators on the basis
of G, S suggest  56.b. The qal normally means ―buy grain‖; usually the hiph is
used for ―sell grain‖ (cf. 42:6).
57.a. The pl. verb ―came‖ with fem. sg noun subj ―world,‖ which stands for ―the inhabitants
of the world‖ (cf. 1 Sam 17:46; GKC, 145e; WOC, 109). SamPent, G have pl. subj ―lands.‖
Form/Structure/Setting
Chap. 41 concludes the great interlude in the life of Joseph that constitutes Gen 39 –41.
Separated from his family and struggling to make his way in an unfriendly f oreign land,
Joseph has twice enjoyed advancement in the service of high Egyptian officials only
eventually to be cast aside. chap. 39 showed him enjoying favor with God and the man
Potiphar, only to be cast into prison on a trumped -up charge. chap. 40 sho wed him
becoming the confidant of the royal baker and cupbearer, only to be forgotten by the latter
when he was released. chap. 41 constitutes the third scene in this great triptych. It starts
ominously, at least when compared with the other two, for it sa ys nothing about God being
with Joseph. Yet on this occasion God is more evidently with Joseph than ever before, for
he is miraculously summoned from prison, interprets Pharaoh‘s dreams, and is appointed
second in the kingdom to Pharaoh himself. And typica l of Genesis‘ storytelling technique,
this episode closes with an anticipation of what is to unfold in the following one, with
Joseph distributing food to the hungry masses who are making their way to Egypt because
of famine. Among these so prompted to vis it Egypt will be Joseph‘s brothers. So the stage
begins to be set for the great denouement in chap. 45.
Chap. 41 subdivides as follows:
Scene 1:
Pharaoh‘s dreams reported (1 –7)
A
Scene 2:
Interpreters fail to explain dreams (8 –13)

B
Scene 3:
Joseph‘ s audience with Pharaoh (14 –46)

Joseph summoned (14 –16)
C

Pharaoh‘s dreams recounted (17 –24)
A1

Joseph explains dreams (25 –36)
B1

Pharaoh appoints Joseph (37 –46)
C1
Fulfillment of interpretation (47 –57)
Scene 4:
Joseph‘s work in seven years of pl enty (47 –52)

Scene 5:
Joseph‘s work in famine (53 –57)

This shows how this chapter divides into three main parts, describing first the dreams (vv
1–13), then their interpretation by Joseph (vv 14 –46), and finally their fulfillment (vv
47–57). Within the first two parts, there are close parallels in the general sequence,
dream —failed interpretation —Joseph summoned : dream —successful
interpretation —Joseph appointed, and very close verbal echoes, especially when Pharaoh
recounts his dream in vv 17 –24 (cf.
The whole chapter coheres well with the rest of the Joseph story. Joseph‘s
imprisonment (39:20 –40:23) is presupposed (v 14), particularly his contact there with the
royal cupbearer (41:9 –13; cf. 40:1–23). Pharaoh‘s paired dreams (41:1 –36) recall Joseph‘s
own pair of dreams (37:5 –11) and those of the cupbearer and baker (40:5 –19). Joseph‘s
successful interpretation of these dreams presages his accurate interpretation of Pharaoh‘s.
Joseph‘s storing of gra in against a future famine in which all the earth would come to him
to buy food (41:55 –57) anticipates the arrival of his brothers in Egypt to buy supplies
(chaps. 42 –44). The naming of Joseph‘s sons, Ephraim and Manasseh (41:50 –52), harks
back to his orig ins (chap. 37) and imprisonment (chaps. 39 –40) and looks forward to their
future blessing by grandfather Jacob, which was to make them ancestors of two of the great
tribes (chap. 48; 49:22 –26). Because this chapter is so well integrated into the rest of th e
Joseph narrative, it is difficult to agree with Westermann that it may have once been
independent, though even he admits that in its present shape ―the chapter is at the very
center of the Joseph story, the structure of which has been thought through to the last
detail‖ (Westermann 3:85).
Traditional source critics have generally agreed that vv 1 –32 are from a single source,
probably E, continuing the account of chap. 40. However, they disagree about the unity of

the rest of the chapter. Some (e.g., Dillmann, Driver, Speiser) hold that the rest of chap. 41
(save v 46 [P]) also comes from E; others (e.g., Gunkel; Skinner; von Rad; Schmidt,
Literarische Studien ) that vv 33 –57 mix J and E material. Gunkel, for example, finds the
following contradictions within vv 33 –57 that lead him to posit the existence of more than
one source: in v 33(E), one man is to be appointed to oversee the storage of grain, but in v
34a(J), a class of overseers i s called for; v 54b(E) has Egypt escaping the famine, but vv
55–56(J) show it suffering from it; vv 35a, 48(J) speak of ―collecting food,‖ whereas vv
35b, 49(E) of ―storing grain.‖ There is also a certain amount of redundancy, especially in
the description of Joseph‘s promotion. But as Redford has argued, these ―discrepancies
have, in large part, been read into the text‖ (D. B. Redford, Biblical Story of Joseph , 166).
So with most modern studies of this chapter, we are content to accept it as a substantial
unity. ―This structure, thought through in every single detail, reveals an overall plan for the
whole chapter and is proof of its literary unity‖ (Westermann, 3:86). The discrepancies and
repetitions that troubled earlier critics will be discussed further under Comment . The use of
―God‖ as opposed to ―the LORD‖ in this chapter (vv 16, 25, 28, 32, 38, 39, 51, 52) is
required by the setting of the story in Egypt and is no indication that the main source of
Genesis, J, is not present here. Here people living i n Egypt are talking about God, whereas
39:2–5, 21 –23, where ―the LORD‖ is used, reflects the narrator‘s standpoint.
Comment
1–7 The first scene recounts Pharaoh‘s dreams from the relatively detached standpoint
of the narrator. Here the dreams are told in t he third person. Later Pharaoh will describe
them again in the first person, allowing an insight into the psychological impression they
made on him.
1 ―Two full years,‖ i.e., about the time of Pharaoh‘s birthday, the second anniversary of
the cupbearer‘s release and Joseph‘s continued detention (cf. 40:20). Doubtless this date
was significant both for Pharaoh and for Joseph. ―Pharaoh dreamed.‖ Kings, especially
Egyptian Pharaohs, stood very close to the divine realm, and so they are often credited with
revelatory dreams in ancient oriental texts. ―The Nile‖ ( 
), a word of Egyptian origin ( yrw), is both the basis and the symbol of Egypt‘s power
and wealth.
2 ―Rose.‖ This describes how they seemed to appear out of the river in Pharaoh‘s dream.
―Seven cows.‖ Cows were not simply the typical farm animal of ancient Egypt, but they
symbolized Egypt, the primordial ocean, and one of the gods, Isis, among other things.
Thro ughout the ancient world, ―seven‖ was a sacred number, sometimes symbolizing fate.
―The reeds‖ ( 
) is another term of Egyptian origin describing the vegetation alongside the Nile (cf.
Vergote, Joseph en Égypte , 59–66).
3 ―They looked terribly thin,‖ lit. ―evil in appearance and thin of flesh,‖ the opposite of
―shapely [beautiful in appearance] and well fattened.‖ Only here and in v 4 is this phrase
used, suggesting a uniquely horrible -looking beast, not to mention their cannibalism. No
wonder Pharaoh woke up!
5–7 Egypt, breadbasket of the Roman Empire, was as famous for its grain as for its
cattle. Yet in another bizarre dream, the Ph araoh sees seven fat ears of grain being eaten by
seven thin ones ―scorched by the east wind.‖ The effects of the east wind from the desert,

which blowing in the spring or autumn, dries up vegetation overnight, are mentioned in
Ezek 19:12; Jon 4:8; cf. Isa 40:7 –8; Matt 6:30. In Egypt the desert wind blows from the
south, but with an Israelite audience in mind, it is still called the east wind here.
7 ―Realized it was a dream.‖ The dream had been so vivid that Pharaoh thought it was
real, until he woke up.
8–13 These verses constitute the second scene, set the following morning, when the
royal dream interpreters fail to understand the dream. Dillmann (405), on the basis of
Egyptian symbols known from classical and Christian sources, claims that the interpreters
ought to have been able to make a good guess at the dream‘s meaning. cf. Comments above
on vv 1 –2. ―The seven fat cows mean seven fruitful years and the seven thin ones seven
unfruitful years. The position of the seven thin cows after the seven fat cows expresses the
immediate succession of the years of famine on the years of plenty.‖ With the wisdom of
hindsight, it is thus possible to see how Joseph‘s interpretation easily fits Egyptian ideas,
but the polyvalency of symbols means that it was not easy in practice to be sure how to take
the dream.
8 ―Perturbed.‖ For this rare word, cf. Ps 77:5(4); Dan 2:1, 3. ―Diviner -priests‖ (
) is an Egyptian loan word ( hyr-tp) that describes a class of pr iests especially learned in
arcane arts (cf. Vergote, Joseph en Égypte , 66–94).
―His dream … to interpret them.‖ This fluctuation between the singular ―dream‖ and
plural ―them‖ does not require harmonizing as the versions suggest (see Notes) but shows
that the narrator saw the dreams as essentially one even though the interpreters could not
interpret them as a consistent unity. ―No one to interpret them for Pharaoh‖ does not mean
they did not make suggestions as to the meaning of the dre ams but that none of their ideas
satisfied Pharaoh.
9–13 These verses summarize without obvious distortion the story in chap. 40, using
much the same terminology.
9 ―I recall my sins.‖ Joseph had asked to be recalled to Pharaoh (40:14; cf. v 23), but the
cupbearer had forgotten. So although as far as Pharaoh was concerned, the cupbearer was
simply recalling the offense for which he was imprisoned, it is possible that the cupbearer is
also tacitly confessing his failure to assist Joseph.
12 ―A young Hebrew man, a slave of the captain of the guard.‖ Ber. Rab. 89:7 sees this
as a rather disparaging reference to Joseph. It may be disparaging. Certainly the description
is meant to suggest that Joseph was quite insignificant and that therefore it is not surprising
the cupbearer had not mentioned him to Pharaoh before. But placed here, this comment
accentuates the change in Joseph‘s position as dramatically as possible: one minute a
forgotten imprisoned slave, the next on his way to the top of Eg yptian society.
14–46 These verses, the third scene, constitute the climax of this chapter, indeed, with
45:1–15, one of the major peaks of the whole Joseph story, when he is transformed from a
nobody into the Pharaoh‘s right -hand man.
14 The rush of finit e verbs, ―summoned,‖ i.e., ―sent and called,‖ ―rushed,‖ etc.,
expresses the urgency that Pharaoh felt and the rapidity of Joseph‘s metamorphosis from
slave to courtier. ―From the pit,‖ the term Joseph used to describe his prison in 40:15, and
also the place where his brothers dumped him (37:20, 22, 24, 28 –29), again accentuates the
sharp contrast between his humiliation and his exultation.
―Shaved‖ refers to cutting the beard (e.g., 2 Sam 10:4) or the hair of the head (Num 6:9)
or both (Lev 14:9), which is probably what is intended here. Shaving and a change of

clothes are often required in the cultic law as a preparation for entry into God‘s presence in
worship (e.g., 35:2; Exod 19:10, 14; Lev 14:8 –9), here for an audience with the Pharaoh.
Note here that only his outer clothes are changed; 
usually denotes the outer poncho -like cloak used as outer garment and blanket (cf.
9:23; Exod 22:26 [27]) , which again suggests the urgency of the servants‘ tasks. They
simply had to make Joseph look respectable enough for the royal presence.
15 ―You know how to interpret dreams,‖ lit. ―you hear a dream to interpret it,‖ perhaps
means as Dillma nn (406) glosses it, ―you only need to hear a dream to be able to interpret it
straightaway.‖ Since this expression, ―hear a dream,‖ only occurs here, its exact meaning is
uncertain. It is clear from a comparison with vv 11 –13, where the cupbearer reported
Joseph‘s abilities, that the Pharaoh has exaggerated them somewhat.
16 So Joseph immediately corrects him. Note the slightly confrontational ―Joseph
replied to Pharaoh‖; both the use of [
(cf. Comment on 31:14 ) and nouns as subject (Joseph) and addressee (Pharaoh) suggest
this reading.
―Except for God‖ (cf. 14:24). ―Who can announce Pharaoh‘s welfare.‖ On the slight
textual emendation, see Notes . Here as elsewhere (40:8; 50:19), Joseph uses an oblique
rhetorical question to draw attention away from himself to God. Joseph is as insistent as he
was to the cupbearer (40:8) that not his own skill but God will interpret Pharaoh‘s dream.
Though Joseph is thus being humble about himself, he is at th e same time offering
something better, divine interpretation of the dreams.
17–24 Pharaoh‘s own recital of his dreams differs significantly from that of the narrator‘s
in vv 1 –7. In the narrator‘s account, the description of the seven fat cows balances tha t of
the seven thin cows, e.g., in the phrases and adjectives used, and similarly that of the seven
fat ears corresponds to that of the seven lean ears. But in Pharaoh‘s telling, more weight is
placed on the awfulness of th e thin cows and thin ears. Indeed, about the lean cows Pharaoh
says, ―I have never seen as bad as them in the whole of Egypt‖ (v 19), and comments that
after they had eaten the fat cows ―no one would know it, because they looked just as bad as
at the begin ning‖ (v 21). These Pharaonic embellishments suggest that he viewed the
dreams as threatening. It is also noticeable that Pharaoh always talks about ―my dream‖ in
the singular (vv 17, 22; cf. v 15, ―it‖), which suggests he regarded both dreams as being a
warning about the future and therefore that he would be receptive to Joseph‘s approach to
their interpretation.
25–36 Joseph‘s interpretation of the royal dream is the first longish speech in the
Joseph story. It shows him to be both cle ar-headed and decisive. His speech divides into
two parts: vv 25 –32, the interpretation proper, and vv 33 –36, the action Pharaoh should
take in consequence.
The interpretation makes four points. First, both dreams announce the same thing (vv
25–26). Second , the seven cows or ears represent seven years (vv 26 –27). Third, seven
years of famine will follow seven years of plenty (vv 29 –31). Fourth, the duplication of the
dream indicates it will be promptly and certainly fulfilled (v 32).
26 Joseph understands t he dreams as allegories (cf. 40:12 –19), a familiar category of
Egyptian dreams (J. Vergote, Joseph en Égypte , 52–59). That cows and ears of grain
symbolize the harvests of the land is a natural interpretation, given their importance in
Egyptian agriculture. A text from Siheil in southern Egypt dating from the second century
B.C. tells of a seven -year famine followed by years of plenty in the time of Djoser (c. 2600

B.C.). Whether this is an authentic record of earlier times or a later fo rgery is disputed, but it
shows that the memory of a seven -year-long famine was known in Egypt as in other parts
of the ancient Orient. The Gilgamesh epic (6.102 –6) threatens ―seven years of empty
husks,‖ as does the Ugaritic epic of Aqht (1 Aqht 1.41 –46), an Aramaic treaty from Sefire
(1.A.27 –30), and even David‘s prophet, Gad (2 Sam 24:13), as well as materials from
Mesopotamia (D. B. Redford, Biblical Story of Joseph , 206 –7; C. H. Gordon, Or 22 [1953]
79).
28 ―What God is about to do he has shown to Pharaoh‖ (cf. the nearly identical
comment in v 25; cf. v 32). Joseph underlines that the dream is heaven -sent, a view of
dreams widespread in Egypt (cf. Comment on 40:8; J. Vergote, Joseph en Égypte , 48–49).
29–31 The interpretation now becomes prophetic announcement as, in language
anticipating the prophets, ―(Behold) seven years are coming‖ (cf. the frequent ―behold the
days are coming‖ ), Joseph predicts a great famine. Abraham is once described as a prophet
(20:7) and in several other passages is cast in a prophetic role (15:1 –21; 18:17 –33; 20:17),
as are Isaac (27:27 –29) and Jacob (48:15 –49:27), so that it is not surprising that Joseph
should be cast in a prophetic role. Here he seems to be more like the late court prophets,
such as Nathan, who acted as advisers to the king (cf. 2 Sam 7).
The whole weight of Joseph‘s announcement falls on the forthcoming famine; just one
sentence describes the years of plenty (v 29), whereas five clauses describe the years of
famine (vv 30 –31). This clearly fits in with the Pharaoh‘s own recognition that his dream
threatened disaster (cf. Comment on vv 17 –24). Inde ed, Joseph picks up one of Pharaoh‘s
additional comments, ―They [i.e., the fat cows] went down inside them [the thin cows], but
no one would know it ‖ (v 21), when he comments, ―Afterwards the abundance will not be
known in the land b ecause that famine will be very severe‖ (v 31). It was a severe famine
that drove Abraham to enter Egypt. This severe famine will bring Joseph‘s brothers and
father down to join him in Egypt (43:1; 47:4, 13). Already this remark foreshadows the
next stage in the drama.
32 This explanation of doubled dreams is highly significant for the light it sheds on
their place in the Joseph story. It shows that ―the thing is established‖ by God; the same
terminology is used of clearly proven cases in Deut 13:15(14); 17 :4; of the Davidic dynasty
(2 Sam 7:26); and of the moon (Ps 89:38 [37]). Doubling also shows that ―God is in a hurry
to do it.‖ In the immediate context, Joseph‘s remark refers to the forthcoming famine, but in
the context of the book as a whole, it has a deeper significance. Some years earlier Joseph
had dreamed a pair of dreams announcing that one day his father and brothers would bow
down to him. That prophecy too is established, and God is hurrying to do it. So once again
the narrative is hinting at th e next development within the story.
33–36 Joseph concludes his interpretation of the dream with some practical advice for
Pharaoh. ―What is theologically noteworthy is the way in which the strong predestinarian
content of the speech is combined with a str ong summons to action. The fact that God has
determined the matter, that God hastens to bring it to pass, is precisely the reason for
responsible leaders to take measures!‖ (von Rad, 376).
33 
―now‖ often marks the transition between statements of fac t and their moral
consequence. ―Look out for‖ is used similarly of the call of David (1 Sam 16:1, 17), of Jehu
(2 Kgs 9:2), and of a successor to Ahab (2 Kgs 10:3). ―Intelligent and wise.‖ These words
are regularly paired and designate those qualities most desired in good leaders (cf. Deut

1:13; 1 Kgs 3:12; Prov 10:13; 14:33).
34 ―Act.‖ The same verb ―do‖ describes God‘s actions in vv 25, 28, 32. Joseph urges
Pharaoh to imitate God and take action.
―Appoint officers‖ (cf. 39:4–5). There is no conflict between appointing ―an intelligent
and wise man‖ (v 33) and appointing ―officers‖ (v 34). Clearly the wise man will need
assistance in his heavy task. Nor is the suggestion compelling that 
―officer‖ is a late w ord, in the light of Judg 9:28, which also uses the term. ―Organize‖
(so NAb, JPs, Speiser, and Sarna, among recent commentators, and Onkelos, Rashi, and
Luzzatto) relates 
―and organize‖ (a verb used only here in the piel) to the participle of the same root
―organized for battle‖ as in Exod 13:18; Josh 1:14; 4:12. Most dictionaries and
commentators relate ―organize‖ to 
―five‖ and suggest that the verb be translated ―take a fifth of the produce of.‖ This then
would anticipate 47:24, 26, where Joseph takes one fifth of the produce in tax. There is no
clear ground for deciding betw een these views, but contextually the former is preferable. A
general remark about ―organizing‖ the land seems more likely than a specific direction to
impose a 20 percent income tax, especially in the light of the fairly general suggestions
made in vv 35 –36.
36 ―Cut off‖; cf. Comment on 9:11; 17:14.
37–46 These verses describe Pharaoh‘s appreciation of Joseph‘s advice and his promotion
as vizier (prime minister) of Egypt. Though Joseph had given a gloomy interpretation of the
dream, thi s did not prejudice the Pharaoh against him, for he too had viewed the dream as
threatening. And because Joseph had followed up his interpretation with very positive
suggestions about how Pharaoh should act to avert the disaster, his ideas were warmly
received.
38 ―Can we find a man like this in whom there is God‘s spirit?‖ This is the second use
of the phrase ―God‘s spirit‖ in Genesis (cf. 1:2). God‘s spirit equips the skilled workman
like Bezalel (Exod 31:3; 35:31), the victorious warr ior (cf. Judg 6:34; 14:6), and especially
the wise ruler (1 Sam 10:6; 16:13; Isa 11:2; cf. Dan 5:14). Wisdom is frequently seen as one
of the gifts of God‘s spirit, so Pharaoh‘s question ―Can we find … God‘s spirit?‖ is an
invitation to look for someone ―intelligent and wise‖ and foreshadows his choice of Joseph,
whose words have proved God speaks through him (cf. v 16).
39–40 Pharaoh answers his own question and appoints Joseph to be over his hous e and
gives him authority over all Egypt: ―all my people shall kowtow to your instruction.‖ The
nature of Joseph‘s office ―over my house‖ is not exactly clear. His job description makes
him second only to Pharaoh in Egypt, ―Only as regards the throne will I be more important
than you, and, v 41, ―I have set you over all the land of Egypt.‖ His role seems to match
that of the Egyptian vizier described by J. H. Breasted ( Ancient Records of Egypt [Chicago:
Univ. of Chicago Press, 1906 –7] 2.§§665 –70): ―One will see that the vizier is the great
supervisor of all Egypt and that all government activities are under his control‖ (e.g.,
treasury, judiciary, police, army, navy, agriculture). ―In fact there is no important state
activity which does not relate to his authority. He is really the equivalent of Joseph and the
writer had before his eyes the functions of the vizier in telling the story of Joseph.‖ Among
modern Egyptologists, Vergote ( Joseph en Égypte , 102 –14) and Kitchen ( NBD, 658) agree
that Joseph appears to be the vizier. However, the title ―over my house‖ seems to
correspond to Egyptian mr pr ―master of the palace,‖ an official who was responsible for

the royal palace or an administrator of the royal domains (cf. Vergote, Joseph en Égypte ,
98–102), a less powerful official than the vizier. R. de Vaux ( Ancient Israel , 129 –31)
suggests a possible resolution of this problem. In Israel ―the master of the palace‖ (1 Kgs
16:9; Isa 22:15, 19 –20) was a much more important figure than in Egypt. In fact, the
Israelite master of the palace had similar powers and authority to the Egyptian vizier; both
were the highest officials in their states. So i n calling Joseph ―master of the palace,‖
Genesis is thus using the correct Hebrew equivalent for the office of vizier in Egypt.
―All my people shall kowtow to your instruction.‖ The verb here translated ―kowtow‖
literally means 
―kiss.‖ Though the cont ext makes the meaning of the verb quite clear, how ―kiss‖ comes
to mean ―submit, kowtow to‖ is more obscure (cf. Ps 2:12). Among the simpler suggestions
are that it is short for ―kiss the earth‖ (König, JBL 48 [1929] 342; K. A. Kitchen, ExpTim 69
[1957] 30; and D. B. Redford, Biblical Story of Joseph , 166). Driver (343) and Ehrlich
(1:210) suggest that it comes from the root 
―order themselves.‖ J. M. Cohen ( VT 32 [1982] 420) suggests that 
41–46 The installation of Joseph as vizier of Egypt ―is an event that we can visualize in
all its details as very few others in the Bible. Every detail of the ceremony has been passed
down to us in Egy ptian representations, even down to the almost transparent linen
garments. We can view the rings, the golden chains, and the war chariots in the museums‖
(Westermann, 3:97); for illustrations, see NBD, 659; IBD). There are numerous examples of
Semites rising to positions of great authorit y in Egypt from the Middle Kingdom, Hyksos,
and New Kingdom periods. One of the most striking parallels from the time of Akhenaten
is that of Tùtu, who, among other offices, was appointed ―highest mouth in the whole
country. This last title meant that he h ad total authority in the special tasks he was given
and was responsible only to the Pharaoh. It is one of the titles that Joseph is supposed to
have had. The wall paintings on the tomb at Tell el -Amarna show Tùtu‘s appointment by
the Pharaoh, who is putti ng the golden necklace of office around his neck. They also show
him leaving the palace, getting into his chariot and riding off as the people prostrate
themselves before him in acclamation. This is altogether an excellent illustration of what
must have ta ken place when Joseph was appointed chancellor in Egypt, in charge of the
Pharaoh‘s household (Gen 41:41 –43). Similar scenes are illustrated elsewhere, but what is
particularly interesting in this case is that the person whom the Pharaoh is honoring is a
Semite‖ (R. de Vaux, The Early History of Israel [London: Darton, 1978] 1:299).
41 This is not a duplication of v 40 as is sometimes alleged by source critics: ―they
cannot be doublets: the imperative ‗see!‘, and the perfect ‗I have placed‘ in vs 41 demand
the presence of vs 40 immediately before, and show that 41 is a dependent, though certainly
repetitive statement‖ (D. B. Redford, Biblical Story of Joseph , 167).
42 The gift of the royal signet ring symbolized the grant of authority to Joseph (cf. Esth
3:12; 8:8; Vergote, Joseph en Égypte , 116 –19).
―Linen garments.‖ The Hebrew word 
―linen‖ is an Egyptian loan word. In Egypt, court officials wore garments of
top-quality, almost transparent, linen. In Israel, the curtains of the tabern acle and priestly
vestments were made of linen (e.g., Exod 26:1; 39:27). Vergote ( Joseph en Égypte , 121)
suggests that this mention of dressing Joseph in ―linen garments‖ may be a reference to him
donning the robe of office of vizier, which was a robe, supported by braces, falling straight
and unornamented from the chest to the ankles.

―Gold chain.‖ Many Egyptian paintings show the Pharaoh placing a gold chain or collar
round the necks of servants he is rewarding. Whether it was an essential aspect of
appointment to the office of vizier is not so clear, but clearly Joseph‘s appointment was at
the same time a reward for his dream interpretation and advice.
43 Joseph was give n the chariot of the second man in Egypt. For the meaning
―second -in-command to the king,‖ cf. 1 Sam 23:17; 2 Chr 28:7; Esth 10:3. On ―bow down,‖
see Notes .
44 ―No one shall lift hand or foot.‖ Though raising one‘s hand was a gesture as sociated
with swearing an oath (14:22), here the combination ―lift hand or foot‖ probably is more
general for ―take any action‖ (cf. Z. W. Falk, JSS 12 [1967] 241 –44).
45 Giving Egyptian names to Syro -Palestinians is well attested in Egypt. Vergote ( Joseph
en Égypte , 141) cites examples from the thirteenth dynasty (Hyksos period) and also later
from the reigns of Rameses II and Merneptah (thirteenth century B.C.). The precise meaning
of Joseph‘s Egyptian na me, Sapnat -Paneah, is uncertain. Josephus translates it as though it
were ―hiding discoverer.‖ Modern commentators have generally followed Steindorff‘s 1889
suggestion that it comes from djd pa Nute(r) (e)f>ankh ―the god has said ‗he will live.‘‖
However, Vergote and Kitchen point out that such a name is more fittingly given at the
birth of a child than later in life to an adult, that this name is unattested, and that this type of
name is attested from 1100 to 500 B.C. So Vergote has proposed that it comes from p; s nty
>m.fn3 which he translates ―the man he knows‖ ( Joseph en Égypte , 145). Kitchen, however
(NBD, 1353 and more fully in He Swore an Oath , 80–84), suggests it comes from
Djad -naf> -<ankh , ―(Joseph) who is called <Ip->ankh .‖ <Ip->ankh was a common name
in the Middle Kingdom and Hyksos periods.
―He gave him Asenath … as his wife.‖ Marriage into one of the top Egyptian families
set a seal on Joseph‘s promotion. On (Heliopolis) lies ten miles northeast of Cairo and was
the center of Egyptian sun worship. ―The priestly corporations of On/Heliopolis were
equalled in wealth only by that of the god Ptah of Memphis and exceeded only by that of
the god Amuµn of Thebes, during c. 1600 –1100 B.C.‖ (K. A. Kitchen, NBD, 910).
―Asenat‖ is a good Egyptian type of name, meaning ―she belongs to the Goddess Neit‖
(Iw.s-(n)-Nt) or ―she belongs to her father‖ ( Iw.s-n-<t) or ―sh e belongs to you‖ (fem. sg, i.e.,
to a goddess or to her mother, lw.s-n.t). ―Such names are well attested in the Middle
Kingdom and Hyksos periods (c. 2100 –1600 B.C., K. A. Kitchen, NBD, 94). On Potiphera,
cf. Comment on 37:36 (also Vergote, Joseph en Égypte , 147 –48; K. A. Kitchen, NBD, 1012).
―Went out over the land of Egypt.‖ The only precise parallel to the expression ―go out
over‖ appears to be Ps 81:6(5), which is a citation of this passage. But in the light of vv 41,
46, which speak of Joseph being ―over‖ Egypt, JPS is probably right to t ranslate ―Thus
Joseph emerged in charge of all the land of Egypt.‖
46 Joseph was seventeen when he was sold into Egypt (37:2). It was thirteen years
before his ignominy was transformed into glory. But this chronological notice does more
than note the passi ng of the long years of shame and disappointment; it harks back to the
previous notice in 37:2 when in the bosom of his family he dreamed of glory. Soon he will
meet his family again, and those dreams will be fulfilled.
―Entered the service of,‖ lit. ―stood before.‖ ―Stand before‖ has this nuance also in 1
Sam 16:22; 1 Kgs 1:2.
47–57 These verses record the fulfillment of Pharaoh‘s dreams and Joseph‘s actions in
response to them. Thus they serve to round off this chapter of the story. vv 47 –53 record

the seven years of plenty. Repetition serves to underline the frenetic pace of Joseph‘s
activity, while the relative brevity of the description of the seven years of plenty compared
with that of the famine helps to create the impression of time fl ying by in Joseph‘s life.
47 ―Abundantly,‖ lit. ―by handfuls.‖ ―Handful‖ (cf. Lev 2:2, 48–49 ―Joseph
collected food, food in the cities, … piled up grain,‖ shows how he implemented his own
advice, ―Let them collect up all the food … and pile up grain … food in the cities‖ (v 35).
―Like the sand of the sea‖ is an image also used in the promises to Abraham (22:17)
and Jacob (32:13 [12]). Here it immediately precedes the mention of the birth of Joseph‘s
sons, a further ful fillment of those promises. This tells, against Westermann‘s contention
(3:97), that vv 50 –52 are an interpolation interrupting the context.
50–52 Those seven years proved fruitful for Joseph in other ways too. The birth of children
and good crops are alwa ys seen as marks of divine blessing in the OT (e.g., Deut 28:4).
51 ―Manasseh‖ means ―making forget.‖ Presumably a child was so n amed at birth
because he helped his parents forget an earlier loss, of another child or relative. Here
Joseph says the birth of Manasseh makes him ―quite forget‖ ( 
, used here, seems a little more intense than the usual 
―forget‖; cf. Job 39:17; Isa 44:21; Lam 3:17) ―all my toil,‖ which probably refers to his
work as a slave (cf. Deut 26:7; Judg 10:16). ―And my father‘s house.‖ The very mention of
his ―father‘s house‖ shows that he has not really forgotten his extended family who,
unbeknown to him, he will shortly meet again.
52 ―Ephraim‖ perhaps originally meant ―fertile land‖ or ―pasture land,‖ certainly an apt
description of the land that the tribe of Ephraim would inherit. But Joseph relates Ephraim
to the v erb 
―be fruitful,‖ a key term in Genesis (cf. 1:22, 28; 8:17; 26:22; 35:11), especially in the
promises (17:6, 20; 28:3; 48:4). It is a little surprising that after the birth of just his second
son Joseph should speak of being frui tful, but again there may be an element of prophecy in
the choice of name, for Ephraim became one of the largest tribes (Deut 33:17).
Both names, Manasseh and Ephraim, express Joseph‘s thankfulness to God. ―In one
God is praised as the one who preserves, i n the other as the one who blesses; both confirm
the promise ‗I am with you‘ from 39:2 –6, 21 –23‖ (Westermann, 3:97). Thus through his
choice of names, Joseph is expressing his faith that God has been with him and blessed
him.
―In the land of my oppression. ‖ [
―oppression‖ is used in Exod 3:7; 17; 4:31; Deut 26:7 of the Israelite bondage in
Egypt. So here Joseph‘s experience anticipates that of his descendants.
53–57 Seven -year famines were a familiar feature of life in the ancient Near East. See
Comment on v 36. Inadequate rainfall in the southern Sudan would prevent the Nile from
flooding for its usual three months in northern Egypt, and without this annual flood,
Egyptian agriculture was doomed. Similarly, failure of the rains in Palestine and Syria le d
to poor harvests there. No doubt it was unusual for the rains to fail in both Sudan and the
Levant in the same year, but this is what occurred in Joseph‘s time. However, thanks to his
foresight, both Egypt and the surrounding countries escaped the worst effects of the famine.
The description of the famine is terse and repetitive to highlight its seriousness. It affected
all the surrounding countries (vv 54, 57) as well as all Egypt (vv 55 –56). Note the chiastic
patterning: ―all the surrounding countries‖ (v 54 [A]), ―whole land of Egypt‖ (vv 54, 55

[B]), ―the whole land,‖ ―the land of Egypt‖ (v 56 [B‘]), ―the whole world‖ (v 57 [A‘]). The
fivefold repetition of the word famine and its description as ―very severe‖ twice (a term
only used elsewhere of the f amine in Jerusalem just before it fell, 2 Kgs 25:3; Jer 52:6)
emphasize the seriousness. The other point made here is that the famine happened ―as
Joseph had predicted‖ (v 54) and that he supplied the Egyptians with food from the stores
he had laid up. Thu s his interpretation of Pharaoh‘s dreams was completely vindicated.
However, the last comment, ―The whole world [i.e., the inhabitants of the whole world; see
Notes ] came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain,‖ hints at the next stage of the drama, when
Joseph‘s own dream of more than twenty years standing will be fulfilled.
Joseph‘s work as relief distributor was not without precedent in Egypt. ―Iti, the
treasurer of the town of Imyotru, boasted that he supplied his fellow citizens with barl ey in
years of famine and helped other towns as well. The steward Seneni of Coptus reported in
his stela, or inscribed commemorative stone pillar, that ‗in the painful years of distress‘ he
had rationed out barley to his town. Ankhtify, ‗the great chieftai n of Nekhen,‘ recorded a
seven -year famine in which the entire south of Egypt is said to have died of hunger and
people devoured their own children. He took pride in having foreseen the event, caused by
a low Nile, and in having been able to rush grain and grant loans of corn to various towns in
order to alleviate the situation. Another famine inscription from this period comes from
Ameny, a chief in the days of Senwosre I (ca. 1971 –1928 B.C.E. ), who recalled that in
years of famine he had supplied wheat an d barley to the people so that no one went hungry
‗until the great Nile had returned‘‖ (Sarna, 290).
Explanation
Thirteen bitter years of slavery and imprisonment in a foreign land come to an abrupt
and sudden end. Joseph is summoned from the prison into t he very presence of the Pharaoh.
The external change in Joseph‘s circumstances is astonishing, but his character has
undergone a remarkable transformation as well. He is no longer the brash teenager whose
careless chatter annoyed everyone. Now Joseph is in telligent and wise without peer in
Egypt. The vale of tears has proved to be the valley of soul making.
But as elsewhere in the Joseph story, Gen 41 is describing the experience not just of
everyman but of a particular individual living in a particular cou ntry in a particular period.
Throughout the Joseph story, the reader is aware of the Egyptian setting, but here the
background of Egypt in the early second millennium becomes unmistakable. Joseph is
appointed vizier, second man in Egypt, and his clothes of fine linen, his gold chain, and his
chariot are all appropriate to one in his position. He is given an Egyptian name and a wife
from one of the great priestly families of On (Heliopolis). His plan of grain storage saves
Egypt from the worst effects of fam ine and makes it a center for relief for the whole Middle
East.
Above all though, this story describes God‘s control of human affairs. It begins by God
disturbing the smug complacency of the Pharaoh, who doubtless viewed himself as divine,
by sending him t wo ominous dreams, in which fat Egyptian cows were eaten by thin ones
and healthy ears of grain by shriveled ears. Pharaoh‘s anxieties were further heightened by
his experts‘ failure to interpret the dreams, at least to his satisfaction. This jogs the roya l
cupbearer‘s memory, who recalls Joseph‘s success in interpreting his dream some two
years earlier. So Joseph is summoned and presented to the Pharaoh.
Immediately he rejects the royal flattery about his skills as a dream interpreter. ―Except

for God, who can announce Pharaoh‘s welfare?‖ he declares (v 16). And again, after he has
listened to the dream and offers an interpretation, he insists, ―God has declared to Pharaoh
what he is about to do‖ (v 25; cf. v 28), and again, ―Because the dream has been repeated,
the thing is established from God, and God is in a hurry to do it‖ (v 32). Here the double
mention of God emphasizes the divine origin both of the dream and of its interpretation.
Pharaoh himself acknowledges the divine inspiratio n possessed by Joseph. He first asks the
question, ―Can we find a man like this in whom there is God‘s spirit?‖ and then he answers
it himself, ―Since God has made known to you all this, there is no one so intelligent and
wise as you. You shall be over my household.‖
This divine control of history and its corollary that inspired men can predict the future
are assumptions shared by the wisdom writers and the prophets. ―A man‘s mind plans his
way, but the LORD directs his steps‖ (Prov 16:9). ―Surely the Lord God does nothing,
without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets‖ (Amos 3:7). And here Joseph, like
Abraham and Jacob, is doubtless viewed as a prototype of later prophets, able to predict the
future and advise his hearers concerning how to act in the light of that knowledge; his
remark ―seven years are coming‖ sounds like the later prophetic ―the days are coming.‖ But
more than that, Joseph is portrayed as the archetypal king, ―intelligent and wise,‖ endowed
with the spirit of God (vv 38 –39; cf. Isa 11:2), whose perfect rule makes the land to flourish
and to enjoy abundant harvests (Ps 72:16; Isa 9:2 [3]).
Joseph‘s experience of release from slavery foreshadows that of his descendants, who
later were released from Egyptian bon dage. Yet again Christians have seen in Joseph a type
of Christ, the greatest prophet and the greatest king. He too, like Joseph, experienced
humiliation before exaltation. As all were commanded to bow before Joseph (v 43), so ―at
the name of Jesus every k nee shall bow‖ (Phil 2:10). And the experience of Joseph and our
Lord is a pattern for all Christians, as Peter says, ―Humble yourselves therefore under the
mighty hand of God, that in due time he may exalt you‖ (1 Pet 5:6).
But in the immediate context of Genesis, this episode is another vital step in the chain of
events leading to the fulfillment of Joseph‘s own pair of dreams that he had dreamed
thirteen years earlier, in which he had seen his brothers bowing down to him. They had
tried to frustrate his dreams by selling him into Egypt. But in Egypt Joseph told Pharaoh,
―Because the dream has been repeated, the thing is established from God, and God is in a
hurry to do it‖ (v 32). Very quickly the truth of Pharaoh‘s dream was demonstrated, but
what about Joseph‘s? The last verse, ―the whole world came to Egypt to Joseph to buy
grain,‖ hints at the next act in the drama.
First Visit of Joseph’s Family to Egypt (42:1 –38)
Bibliography
Greenfield, J. C. ―The Etymology of 
.‖ ZAW 77 (1965) 90 –92. Kutscher, E. Y. ―Life of Pharaoh.‖ (Heb.) In Hebrew and Aramaic
Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977. 392 –93. Rowe, A. ―The Famous Solar -City of On.‖ PEQ 94
(1962) 133 –42. Selms, A. van. ―dawqa —Its Biblical Precedents.‖ Semitics 7 (1980) 40 –49.
Translation

1Now Jacob saw that there was grain for sale in Egypt, so he said to his sons, ―Why
do you just looka at each other?‖ 2He said, ―Sincea I have heard that there is grain for
sale in Egypt, gob down there, and buy grain for us so thatc we may live and not die.‖
3 So ten of Joseph‘s brothers went down to buy grain from Egypt. 4But Jacob did not send
Benjamin, Joseph‘s brother, with his brothers, for he thought thata an accident might
happen to him.b
5So the sons of Israel came to buy supplies among others who were going, because
there was a famine in the l and of Canaan. 6Now it was Josepha who was ruler over the
land; he was the supplier to all the people of the land. Then Joseph‘s brothers came
and bowedb down to the ground before him. 7Joseph saw his brothers and recognizeda
them, but he pretended not to but spoke harshlyb to them and said to them, ―Where have
you come from?‖ They said, ―From the land of Canaan to buy food.‖ 8Now Joseph had
recognized his brothers, but theya had not recognizedb him. 9And Joseph remembered
the dreams which he had dreamed for them, so he said to them, a ―You are spies. You
have come to see the weakness of the land.‖a 10They said to him, ―No, my lo rd. Your
servantsa have come to buy food. 11Wea are all sons of one man. We are honest. Your
servants are not spies.‖ 12But he said to them, ―No. You have really come to see the
weakness of the land.‖ 13They said, ―Your servants are twelve. We are brothers, sons of
one man in the land of Canaan. The youngest one is now with his father today, anda one
is no more.‖a 14Then Joseph said to them, ―Thata is what I said to you that you are
spies. 15This is how you will be tested.a By the life of Pharaoh you will notb leave here
unless your youngest brother comes.c 16Send one of you to fetch your brother while you
are detaineda in order to test your words whether there is truth with you. And if not, by
the life of Pharaoh, you reallyb are spies.‖ 17So he put them in custody for three days.
18On the third day, Joseph said to them, a ―Do this and live.a I am b a man who fears
God.b 19If you are honest,a just oneb of your brothers will be detainedc in custody, while
you yourselvesd go and bring the famine relief to your homes. 20But your youngest
brother you must bring to me, so that your words may be believed and you do not die.‖
So they consented.
21Then they said to each other, ―Trulya b we are guiltyb because of our brother, forc
we saw his distress when he implored us and we did not listen. That is why this distress
has befallen us.‖ 22Then Reuben interjected, ―Didn‘t I tell you not to sin again st the
child, and you did not listen. Now his blood is being required.‖a 23Now theya did not
know that b Joseph understood them,b for there was anc interpreter between them. 24So
he turneda aside from them and wept.b Then he returned to them and spoke with them
and took Simeon from them and detained him while they watched.
25Then Joseph gavea orders that their sacks should be filledb with grain and that
each man‘s money should be putc back in his sack and that they should be givend
provisions for the journey. So it was donee for them. 26Then they loadeda their supplies
onto their donkeys, and they left.
27At an overnight stop, one of them opened his sack to feed his donkey, and he saw
his money at the top of his sack. 28Then he said to his brothers, ―My money has been
returneda and it‘sb here in my sack.‖ Their hearts sank, and they c turned to each other
trembling,c saying, ―What has God done to us?‖
29Then they arrived back at their father Jacob in the land of Canaan, and they tolda him all
that had happenedb to them. 30―The man, the lord of the land, spoke harshly to us and helda

us to be spies. 31And we said, ‗We are honest. We are not spies. 32We are atwelve, we are
brothers,a that is, sons of our father. Oneb is no longer, and the youngest is today with our
father in the land of Canaan.‘ The man, the lord of the land said to us, ‗This is how I shall
discover whether you are honest. 33Leavea one brother of yours with me, but t ake the relief
suppliesb to your homes and go. 34Then bring your youngest brother to me so that I shall
know that you are not spies, that you are really honest. aI shall give your brothera back to
you, and you shall travel freely in the land.‘‖
35Now a when they were emptying their sacks, they discovereda each man‘s bundle
of money in his sack. Both they and their father saw the bundles of money, and they
were afraid. 36Then Jacob their father said to them, a ―It‘s me that you have bereaved.a
b There is no Joseph, and no Simeon,b and a now it‘s Benjamina you want to take. All
these thingsc have happened to me.‖ 37Then Reuben said to his father, a ―You ma y killb
my two sons if I do not bringc him back to you.a Entrustd him to me, and I shall bringe
him back to you.‖ 38But he said, ―My son shall not go down with you, for his brother is
dead, and he is the only one left.a If an accident should happen to him on the way you
are going, you will bringb me down in my old age to Sheol with sorrow.‖
Notes
1.a. 2 masc. pl. impf. hithp 
(cf. GKC, 54f; WOC, 431).
2.a. On this use of 
, see Lambdin, 170; cf. WOC, 677.
2.b. 2 masc. pl. impv qal 2.c. Sequence impv + simple waw + impf. for final clauses
(Lambdin, 119; WOC, 578).
4.a. For this use of 
to express a fear, see GKC, 152w.
4.b. 3 masc. sg impf. qal 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
6.a. The use of 
―he‖ as copula after the subj emphasizes Joseph‘s position (EWAS, 72–73).
6.b. Waw consec + 3 masc. pl. impf. hishtaphel of 
(cf. n. 18:2.d.).
7.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. hiph 
+ 3 masc. pl. suffix.

7.b. On use of fem. pl., cf. GKC, 122q; WOC, 104.
8.a. Use of personal pronoun emphasizes the subj (EWAS, 32).
8.b. Cf. n. 42:7.a.*
9.a-a. The word order in these clauses emphasizes that the brothers are involved in
spying (EWAS, 15, 43).
10.a. The position of the subj before the verb is a mark of an antithetical sentence
according to SBH, 180 –81, but EWAS, 36, thinks it is prompted by the verb of motion ―to
come.‖ Note the string of four apposition clauses, ―Your servants … spies‖ (vv 10 –11), in
climactic repetition ( SBH, 45).
11.a. On the unusual fo rm 
―we‖ ( GKC, 32d), used here as ―an expression of earnest endeavour on the part of poor
strangers to convince Joseph of their honesty,‖ see EWAS, 71, cf. 15.
13.a-a. The word order here emphasizes the subj ―one‖ (cf. 37:30; 42:36), ―always
narrated with intense emotion ‖ (EWAS, 104).
14.a. On this fairly rare use of masc. pronoun 
to express neuter, see Joüon, 152b; cf. 44:10. The fem. is more common (c f. 42:15, ―by
this‖ [fem]).
15.a. 2 masc. pl. impf. niph 15.b. 
to introduce oath formulae (BDB, 50a).
15.c. 
+ inf constr 16.a. 2 masc. pl. impv niph 
, the niph impv ―to express a distinct assurance‖ (e.g., in a threat, GKC, 110c).
16.b. On the asseverative use of 
, especially in oaths, see EWAS, 161.
18.a-a. Sequence of two impvs, ―do … live,‖ ― serves to express the distinct assurance or
promise that an action or state will ensue as the certain consequence of a previous action‖
(GKC, 110f; Jo üon 116f, 117aN, 167u).
18.b-b. Obj before the verb emphasizes it. ―To find the knowledge of the God in the top
Egyptian official must have been no small surprise to his brothers‖ (EWAS, 38, n. 95).
19.a. Putting the predicate ―honest‖ before the subj emphasizes it (EWAS, 15).
19.b. On absence of article on 

, see WOC, 259.
19.c. 3 masc. sg impf. niph 
. WOC, 375, n. 31, says it should be understood as a qal pass.
19.d. Use of personal pronoun for emphasis (EWAS, 33).
21.a. EWAS, 128–29, sees 
as a particle with asseverative force, but WOC, 671–72, describe it as a restricting adv,
which ―can mark a reversal in expecta tions or beliefs.‖ So they translate ―Each said to his
brother, ‗[We believed wrongly that we had gotten away with disposing of our brother] but
we are (now) found to be at fault in the matter of our brother.‘‖
21.b-b. The word order, predicate ―guilty‖ be fore subj, stresses the guilt (EWAS, 16).
21.c. For this nuance of 
see Joüon, 170e.
22.a. Masc sg niph ptcp 
(so Even -Shoshan) more likely than pf (so BDB).
23.a. Use of personal pronoun for emphasis (EWAS, 32).
23.b-b. On word order, see EWAS, 22–24.
23.c. Def art requires no trans lation in English ( GKC, 126r; WOC, 243).
24.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. qal  24.b. Cf. n. 27:38.b.*
25.a. Cf. n. 2:16.a.*
25.b. lit. ―and they filled.‖ For construction, see GKC, 120f.
25.c. Waw + 
+ inf constr hiph 25.d. Cf. n. 15:7.c.*
25.e. Lit. ―and he did.‖ On use of 3 masc. sg in impersonal constructions, cf. GKC, 144b;
WOC, 71.
26.a. Cf. n. 7:17 .b.*
28.a. 3 masc. sg pf hoph 28.b. On the omission of explicit subj after 
(cf. SamPent) + 
, see GKC, 147b ; Joüon, 146h, 154c.
28.c-c. On this translation, see GKC, 119gg; WOC, 193, n. 19.

29.a. Cf. n. 26:32.b.*
29.b. Def art + fem. pl. qal ptcp 
. On the syntax, see GKC, 116f; WOC, 616, 621.
30.a. G adds ―in prison‖ (cf. v 17).
32.a-a. SamPent, G, S read ―we are twelve brothers.‖
32.b. Subj before suffixed 
is for emp hasis; cf. n. 42:13.a -a.
33.a. 2 masc. pl. impv hiph 33.b. BHS, following G, ?S, Tg. Onq. , suggests inserting

as in v 19.
34.a-a. Apposition clause instead of sequential ( SBH, 59). Versio ns insert ―and‖ (cf.
BHS).
35.a-a. On the translation of 
+ ptcp, see GKC, 111g.
36.a-a. The preverbal position of the objs, ―me,‖ ―Benjamin,‖ is for emphasis (EWAS,
38).
36.b-b. Cf. n. 42:13.a -a.* and 42:32 on subj before suffixed 36.c. 
+ 3 fem. pl. suffix (cf. GKC, 91f, 135p).
37.a-a. Note the unusual order of the clauses, usually the protasis, ―if‖ clause precedes
the main clause. Here the inversion contrasts Reuben‘s sons with Jacob‘s (cf. Joüon, 167v).
37.b. 2 masc. sg impf. hiph 
. Here the impf. has permissive sense ( GKC, 107s; WOC, 508).
37.c. 1 sg impf. hiph 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
37.d. Cf. n. 30:26.a.*
37.e. 1 sg impf. hiph 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
38.a. 3 masc. sg pf niph  38.b. Waw + 2 masc. pl. pf hiph 

Form/Structure/Setting
Chap. 42 begins a new phase in the family history of Jacob (cf. 37:2). For twenty years,
Jacob, with eleven of his sons, has lived in Canaan mourning the loss of his favorite,
Joseph. Meanw hile, the latter, after various trials, has risen to head the Egyptian
administration and claims that ―God has made me quite forget all my toil and my father‘s
house‖ (41:51). The career of Joseph in Egypt has been told in three acts, each of which
paralle led the other and demonstrated that the LORD was with Joseph (39:1 –20;
39:21 –40:23; 41:1 –57). In the first act, Joseph rose to be head of Potiphar‘s household, in
the second to be head of the royal prisoners, and in the third to be vizier of Egypt, deputy of
the Pharaoh. This next section of Genesis likewise falls into three acts, each of which
describes a journey to Egypt: the first by his hated older brothers (42:1 –38), the second by
them and his younger brother Benjamin (43:1 –45:28), and the third by all his brothers and
his father (46:1 –47:12), each one more momentous and emotional than the previous one.
This chapter falls into five scenes:

vv 1–4
Jacob sends his sons to Egypt
A

vv 5–17
First audience with Joseph
C

vv 18 –24
Second audience with Joseph
C1

vv 25 –28
Return journey
B1

vv 29 –38
Sons report to Jacob on their mission
A1

The scenes are arranged roughly palistrophically. If, with Humphreys ( Joseph and His
Family ), we regard v 5 as an independent scene, ―the jour ney to Egypt,‖ the palistrophic
pattern is even more pronounced. The first (vv 1 –4) and last (vv 29 –38) scenes involve
Jacob and his sons and are set in Canaan. Both emphasize Jacob‘s reluctance to let
Benjamin go down to Egypt, lest ―an accident should ha ppen to him‖ (vv 4, 38), an
expression found in Genesis only in these two passages and in 44:29. v 5 and the
penultimate scene describe the brothers‘ journey to and from Egypt, while the two central
scenes (vv 6 –17, 18 –24) clearly match each other, both be ing audience scenes in which
Joseph fiercely interrogates his brothers.
The contents of this chapter presuppose what has gone before, and there are frequent

back -references, especially to chaps. 37 and 41. The need of Jacob for food and the
decision to go to Egypt (vv 1 –3) presuppose 41:54 –57. Joseph‘s lordship looks back to
41:41 –50. He remembers his dreams (37:5 –11) as he sees their fulfillment (vv 6, 9).
Joseph‘s brothers mention his disappearance (v 13), and then they confess their own
complicity in it (vv 21 –22; cf. 37:14 –36). In imprisoning his brothers (v 17), Joseph seems
to be giving them a dose of their own medicine (cf. 39:20 –40:23). The closing scene with
Jacob‘s bitter outburst —―It‘s me that you have bereaved. There is no Joseph … you will
bring me down in my old age to Sheol with sorrow‖ (vv 36 –38)—shows that twenty years
later he is still grieving bitterly for the loss of Joseph (cf. 37:33 –35). Furthermore, this
episode establishes the framework for the development of the plot in the succeeding
chapters. Joseph‘s determination to bring his younger brother down to Egypt is pitted
against Jacob‘s reluctance to let Benjamin out of his sight. By holding Simeon in pri son,
Joseph appears to have a hostage that will force Benjamin to come, but paternal favoritism
means that Jacob will allow Simeon to languish in jail rather than put his precious
Benjamin at risk. Thus chap. 42 is an integral part of the Joseph story and can hardly be
understood on its own as a discrete unit of tradition (cf. Coats, 287 –
Traditional source critics fall into two camps in analyzing this chapter: the
straightforward, who hold that the whole chapter is E, apart from vv 27 –28 (J), and
probably v 38 (e.g., Driver, Speiser, Vawter), and the sophisticated, who hold that
fragments of J are scattered through the whole chapter (e.g., vv 2, 3a, 4b, 5, 7, 9b, 10 –12,
27–28, 38; so Skinner; cf. Dillmann; Gunkel; and Schmidt, Literarische Studien , whose
analyses all differ from each other slightly). The latter analysis relies heavily on the
presence of doublets, which are better seen as characteristic d evices of Hebrew prose. The
simpler analysis sees the opening of one sack on the return journey (vv 27 –28) as a doublet
of the opening of all the sacks in Canaan in v 35. And because v 38, like 43:1 –10, fails to
mention Simeon‘s detention, it too is assign ed to J. However, these arguments are not
compelling. It is not surprising that Jacob is unconcerned about Simeon‘s fate: he was one
of Leah‘s sons, not Rachel‘s like Joseph and Benjamin. Besides ―43:1 is the logical starting
point of a separate section, w hich cannot be said of the verse before us‖ (Speiser, 323).
Indeed, Jacob‘s categoric statement of 42:38 makes a fitting end to an episode and is typical
of Genesis‘ technique (cf. 27:45; 29:14; 30:24; 34:31; 37:35; 45:28). Nor is it ne cessary to
view vv 27 –28 and 35 as duplicates. v 35 can be viewed simply as a dramatic heightening
of the tension in vv 27 –28. On the way, one brother finds his money and could therefore be
accused of stealing. At home, after the dismal account of their vi sit, their apprehensions are
increased further when all of them find their money. And both incidents foreshadow their
arrest on the next journey by Joseph‘s agent for stealing his cup. As Redford ( Biblical Story
of Joseph ) and Westermann argue, it is easie r to regard v 35 as an addition to the story than
to consider vv 27 –28 a later addition. But Coats and Sternberg ( Poetics ) argue that v 35 is
integral to the story, for Jacob jumps to the conclusion that the money comes from the sale
of Simeon; hence his v iolent outburst in v 36. However vv 27 –28 and 35 are viewed in
source -critical terms, it seems simplest to regard chap. 42 as an integral part of the Joseph
story, coming from the same source as the preceding chapters.
Comment
1–4 In this scene, Jacob reemerges as a major actor (hence the double mention of his

name in v 1; cf. Longacre, Joseph , 144), and he takes the initiative in sending his sons on a
journey (cf. 37:13). Indeed, he implies that they are being indecisive, ―Why do you just
look at each other?‖ when they could be away purchasing food. Here Jacob‘s authority is
apparent: though old, he is still head of the family, and his grown sons do as he bids. His
dithering procrastination a t the beginning of chap. 43 stands in marked contrast to his
decisiveness here. Note that nothing is said here about famine in Canaan; the comments
about the famine affecting the whole region in 41:57 are clearly presupposed.
3–4 Note how Jacob‘s sons are called ―Joseph‘s brothers,‖ thus foreshadowing their role in
the next scene. Presumably, as many as possible of the family go to Egypt in order to buy
as much food as possible. But Jacob does not go because he is too elderly, nor Benjamin
―for he thought a n accident might happen to him.‖ 
―accident,‖ apart from three occurrences in Gen 42:4, 38; 44:29 (of an accident to
Benjamin), only occurs in Exod 21:22 –23, of an accident to a pregnant woman that could
involve anything up to loss of life. Here Jacob is using what may be a vague term to
describe a fate like Joseph‘s befalling Benjamin, who he now believes to be the only
surviving son of his dear wife Rachel. So, right at the beginning of this new act in the
drama, the narrator reminds us of the emotio nal bonds. Benjamin is now the apple of
Jacob‘s eye as earlier his brother and mother had been; Leah and her sons still matter less to
Jacob.
5–17 These verses describe the brothers‘ first encounter with Joseph. The narrative
underlines the disparity betwe en Joseph and his brothers in various ways. Most obviously,
Joseph is ruler over all the land, whereas his brothers are just a small group among the
many hungry foreigners coming to Egypt for food supplies. Thus it is remarkable that
Joseph and his brother s should ever have met (v 5). But just as significant is the
discrepancy in knowledge: whereas Joseph recognizes his brothers, they do not recognize
him. And this allows Joseph to interrogate them and test them, to see whether they are as
heartless now as they were twenty years earlier.
5 This verse would more naturally follow 41:57, but the inclusion of 42:1 –4 explains
exactly who came and why. The absence of Jacob and Benjamin is crucial to understanding
Joseph‘s reaction. ―Sons of Israel‖ or ―Israelites‖ rather than ―sons of Jacob‖ may be mere
stylistic variation, but Israel does seem to be the preferred name when the entry into Egypt
is in focus (43:6, 8, 11; 45:28; 46:1, 2, 29, 30; 47:27; cf. 45:21; 46:5, 8; 50:25). The entry of
the Israelites as a tribal group into Egypt presages their ultimate exodus from Egypt. But
from the point of view of the Egyptians, ―the Israelites‖ were just another group of Semites
from Canaan seeking to buy food. ―There was a famine in the land of Canaan‖ echoes
12:10; 26:1, two earlier famines that drove Abraham and Isaac toward Egypt for food.
6 
―ruler.‖ Despite its parallels in Eccl 7:19; 8:8; 10:5, this is not necessarily a late word,
since the root is a common Semitic one attested in Old Assyrian and possibly in Ugaritic.
―Joseph‘s brothers came and bowed down to the ground before him‖ picks up the key
word in his dreams (cf. 37:7, 9 –10; 41:32). ―Because the dream has been repeated … God is
in a hurry to do it‖ already intimate d that the fulfillment of Joseph‘s own dreams was
imminent. But this fulfillment does not exactly match the original dream, which included
his father (sun) and mother (moon) and eleven brothers (stars) coming and bowing down to
the ground before him (37:10 ). Here there are only ten brothers and no parents.
7–8 ―Joseph recognized them … they had not recognized him.‖ This is another clear

echo of chap. 37, for the same term, 
, is used: ―Please identify whether it is your son‘s tunic or not‖ (37:32; cf. v 33). It
seems likely, too, that 
―he pretended‖ is a play on 
―they plotted‖ (37:18), for the words only differ by one letter ( 
and 
). These echoes of chap. 37, by reminding the reader of Joseph‘s brothers‘ treachery an d
their cruel deception of their father, help to put his own behavior, hiding his own identity
and speaking harshly to them, into perspective. The brothers fully deserved to be treated so;
they were only being paid back in their own coin.
―Spoke harshly‖ o ccurs only here and in v 30. Joseph‘s motives for treating his brothers
harshly have been variously explained: ―punishment, testing, teaching, and dream
fulfillment. Predictably enough, however, each line (of explanation) is wrong because all
are right‖ (M . Sternberg, Poetics , 286). By failing to explain Joseph‘s conduct explicitly,
the narrator leaves the reader to surmise and fill the gap himself, and this allows the
creation of a multidimensional image of Joseph.
―The entire dialogue between Joseph and h is brothers is remarkable for the way that words,
creating the fragile surface of speech, repeatedly plumb depths of moral relation of which
the brothers are almost totally unaware and which even Joseph grasps only in part.
Ostensibly a political interroga tion, it is really the first of three climactic dialogues between
Joseph and his brothers about their shared past and the nature of their fraternal bond. The
ten brothers, of course, are throughout the object of dramatic irony, not knowing what both
Joseph and we know‖ (R. Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative , 164).
9 ―Now Joseph remembered … ‖ A comment like this on a participant‘s state of mind is
rare in the Bible and is correspondingly significant. The narrator has prepared the reader for
the confrontation of Joseph with his brothers, but he is caught off balance, for some years
earlier he had said, ―God has made me quite forget … all my father‘s house‖ (41:51). Now
all his memories come flooding back. It was his telling tales to Jacob that made him so
unpopular with Jacob‘s sons. Now he accuses them of coming as spies to Egypt, perhaps in
the pay of one of the great powers —the Hittites or Assyria, whom Egypt always feared (cf.
Vergote, Joseph en Égypte , 160 –61). ―The weakness [lit. ‗the nakedness‘] of the land‖
refers to the weak points in their defenses.
10–11 The brothers‘ defense consists of four short sentences in apposition, climaxing
with an emphatic rebuttal of Joseph‘s charge, ―Your ser vants are not spies.‖ Note here and
in the first sentence the deferential use of the third person ―Your servants‖ (cf. 41:10;
46:34; 47:3 –4), which is good Egyptian etiquette (Vergote, Joseph en Égypte , 161 –62) as
well as good Hebrew (1 Sam 3:9; 16:16; 22:15; 27:5). ―We are all sons of one man‖
expresses more truth than they realized, for Joseph was also a son of Jacob. But by
affirming their brotherhood, they hope to rebut the charge of spying, for spies would surely
not travel together and risk the whole family by one of them being caught. ―We are honest‖
or ―honorable‖ ( 
), i.e., they both tell the truth and do what is right (e.g., Num 27:7; 36:5; 2 Kgs 7:9;
17:9).
12 Joseph hamme rs away at his brothers, repeating the accusation of spying three times
(vv 12, 14, 16). ―The constant repetition of the accusation is meant to unnerve the accused
and break down his resistance‖ (Westermann, 3:108). Such interrogation techniques are

still, of course, used today. ―[T]here is nothing new under the sun‖ (Eccl 1:9).
13 But Joseph is more than a tough professional interrogator; he desperately wants to
know about the absent members of his family. So, under pressure, his brothers cont inue to
volunteer details about their family in an attempt to prove their honesty. ―The youngest one
… is now with his father, and one is no more.‖ The final remark is cryptic, though most
easily understood as a euphemism for death (44:20), which is not ne cessarily implied (cf.
5:24); it simply covers up what happened to Joseph. But the mention of the youngest
brother is what interests Joseph. If his half brothers treated him so badly, what might they
have done to his full brother Benjam in? So he seizes on the mention of Benjamin as a
means of verifying their statements.
15–16 To prove they are not spies, Benjamin must be fetched, while nine of his brothers are
held in prison. 
―tested.‖ On this term, see TDOT 2:69–72; THWAT 1:272 –75. ―By the life of Pharaoh‖ is
like the Hebrew oath formula ―As my lord the king lives‖ (2 Sam 15:21). Egyptian oath
formulae by Pharaoh are discussed by J. A. Wilson, JNES 7 (1948) 129 –56; Vergote,
Joseph en Égypte , 162 –67; D. B. Redford, Biblical Story of Joseph , 233 –34, but in so far as
the evolution of these formulae is uncertain, it would seem rash to attempt to date the
Joseph story by them, especially as the for mulation here may simply reflect Israelite
practice (so Westermann, 3:109). Kutscher (Hebrew and Aramaic Studies , 393) thinks the
Hebrew is in fact a misreading of a second -millennium Egyptian oath formula ―As the God
Ra exists.‖ Here Joseph uses an oath b y Pharaoh to scare his brothers and encourage
reflection by them.
17 ―Custody‖ is also used of Joseph‘s imprisonment in 40:3, 4, 7. ―Put,‖ lit. ―gathered,‖
is only used here of imprisonment. There appears to be a play on Joseph‘s name here: ―so
he put‖ sounds a bit like ―so Joseph.‖ This makes it likely that there is an element of
mirroring punishment here: as his brothers‘ action had led ultimately to Joseph being
imprisoned, so he now gives them a brief taste of it.
18–24 The brothers‘ audi ence with Joseph is not a mere filler, as Gunkel suggests;
rather it allows the changing attitudes to emerge. Joseph now appears as a gentler more
sympathetic character, concerned for the welfare of the alleged spies: ―Do this and live. I
am a man who fear s God.‖ He now proposes to detain only one of them and let the others
return to his father. Similarly, the brothers are shown to be learning, confessing their guilt
in making Joseph suffer and recognizing the justice of their present predicament. The first
steps toward reconciliation are being taken.
18 ―On the third day.‖ What prompted Joseph‘s change of plan is not fully explained.
Did he just put them all in prison in vengeful pique, or was it merely a ploy to scare them
and make them review their situat ion, or was it a genuine change of plan to hold only one
and allow the others to return? Joseph must have calculated that little food could have been
sent to Jacob and Benjamin if only one brother was released and that his father would be
unlikely to come if nine of his sons had disappeared on a trip to Egypt. Whatever the
shrewd calculation behind the release of his brothers, Joseph gives the highest motive for it.
―Do this and live. I am a man who fears God.‖ He wants these alleged spies to live.
Furtherm ore, he professes to fear God. To his brothers, these were doubtless surprising
statements whose sincerity they must have questioned. Throughout Genesis, the patriarchs
are very suspicious of foreigners and their lack of reverence for God. In Gerar, Abraha m
said, ―There is no fear of God in this place‖ (20:11; cf. 12:12; 34:30). Though Joseph‘s

professions may have sounded hollow to his brothers, the narrator probably regards them as
sincere. Joseph‘s mission is to preserve life (45:7; 4 7:25; 50:20), while ―to fear God‖ is,
according to the OT, the most fundamental of all religious duties (e.g., Prov 1:7; Eccl 12:13;
cf. Gen 22:12; Exod 1:17; Lev 19:14, 32; Deut 6:2, 13).
19 The God -fearing man is one who cares for the needy and hungry (cf. Job 29:12 –13;
Prov 31:20; cf. 30).
20 In detaining just one of his brothers and sending the others back without him to
Jacob, Joseph is not simply devising a pu nishment to fit the crime but making them relive
their actions some twenty years earlier. And the brothers realize the parallels and lose their
tempers discussing the affair.
21–22 Their discussion is not a mere summary of 37:12 –30; we learn about Joseph‘ s
reaction to his treatment at his brothers‘ hands. Chap. 37 says nothing about what he felt or
said as he was assaulted and then sold off to slave traders; there it was left to the reader‘s
imagination. But now his brothers graphically describe his appeal s for mercy (cf. Deut 3:23;
2 Kgs 1:13) and his distress of soul. 
―distress‖ is more common in poetry than in prose and seems to refer to extreme situations
(cf. 35:3; Deut 31:17; 2 Kgs 19:3). They equate their present situation with his, then,
perhaps overdramatically, but it shows their awareness of divine providence overruling
their affairs and requiring restitution.
Reuben rubs in the last point: ―Now his blood is being required‖ (cf. 9:5, which says
three times ―I shall require‖ the blood of a murdered man). His remark suggests that
Reuben‘s brothers never told him exactly what had happened to Joseph, and he still
believed his son had been killed (cf. 37:30). Or it could be that, like Exod 21:16, he equates
kidnaping with murder as a capital crime.
Reuben‘s outburst is even more important for Joseph, for now he realizes that his eldest
brother had not consented to his sale, and this may be the reason h e decides to detain
Simeon, the second oldest in the family, rather than Reuben. But Sternberg ( Poetics , 291)
thinks it is because he wanted Benjamin, Rachel‘s second son, that he held Simeon, Leah‘s
second son, as hostage.
23 Clearly, interpreters must ha ve been used often in Bible times, and his presence here
is mentioned just to show the two levels on which Joseph is operating. Officially, he is the
Egyptian vizier dealing with foreigners suspected of spying; in reality, he is talking to his
brothers, so that although the private row between them was untranslated, he can follow it.
24 He is deeply moved by the signs of their penitence. Joseph‘s weeping is the
harbinger of further tears on their next journey, when he sees Benjamin (43:30), when
Judah offer s to remain as slave instead of Benjamin and Joseph reveals his identity (45:2),
and on the third journey when he is reunited with his father (46:29). For all his apparent
harshness toward his brothers, this action proves that he still loves them and that if they
continue to show a change of heart, reconciliation will be possible ultimately.
25–28 This short scene describing the journey both mystifies and intensifies the drama.
It gives further insights into the minds of Joseph and his brothers.
25 Why did Joseph put their money back in their sacks? Was it out of brotherly
kindness to show they were his guests (von Rad), to make them appear as thieves (cf.
44:1–13), or to reproduce the earlier situation when they were happy to exchange Jo seph
for money? Would they now decide to hold onto their cash and leave Simeon in prison (so
Sternberg, Poetics )? It may not be necessary to choose between these ideas; Joseph may

have had multiple motives (so Westermann).
27–28 The discovery of their mone y certainly caused consternation among the brothers.
They saw the hand of God upon them in judgment. ―What has God done?‖ uses the enclitic

to express their shock at the discovery (cf. n. 3:13.a.; 12:18; 26:10). Clearly, their
aroused consciences (cf. v 21) are interpreting every unexpected development as a sign of
God‘s wrath on their deeds.
27–28 ―Sack.‖ Two different words for ―sack,‖ 
and 
, are used in this passage. The former, the same word as Engli sh, is used both of sacks and
of sackcloth worn by mourners (e.g., 2 Kgs 19:1 –2; Jon 3:6, 8), whereas the latter is found
only in Gen 42 –44, of the sacks used to carry the grain and money. According to J.
Greenfield ( ZAW 77 [1965] 90 –92), the word is related to Assyrian mataµhÉu and means a
―pack.‖ Sarna suggests the pack was carried inside the sack, but this appears unlikely in
44:1. Rather, it would appear that sack (cloth) was the broader term and ―sack, pack‖ a
more specific one. Traditional source critics used the two terms to distinguish two sources,
but as Westermann (3:112) points out, the presence of both terms here in a single verse
makes this a dubious criter ion for source analysis.
―Their hearts sank,‖ lit. ―went out of them.‖ The expression is used only here, so its
meaning is uncertain. Since ―the heart‖ in Hebrew is the center of thought, Jacob (774) may
well be right to see their reaction a s one of confusion, ―they did not know what to think,‖
rather than, as we say, ―their heart stopped.‖ ―Trembling‖; cf. 27:33 and Comment .
29–38 The last lap of the first journey to Egypt describes Jacob‘s sons reporting back to
him abou t their trip. To appreciate its flavor, one must compare their report here with the
narrator‘s own version in vv 6 –24 and also with their report of the discovery of Joseph‘s
tunic in 37:32 –35, for to Jacob the loss of Simeon in Egypt seems like a replay of the loss
of Joseph (42:36).
In their report to Jacob, the brothers call Joseph ―the man, the lord of the land‖ (vv 30, 33),
emphasizing both their ignorance of his identity and unwittingly that Joseph‘ s dreams have
been fulfilled. In reporting back to Jacob, they mention that they protested their honesty
before they divulged details of their family, whereas in v 11 the order is reversed. It is as
though they wish to break the most sensitive news to Jaco b at the last possible moment.
Hence, they mention the existence of Benjamin after mentioning the disappearance of
Joseph, whereas in talking to Joseph the order was the reverse. ―In any case ‗one is no
more‘ is the climactic statement for Joseph, while ‗t he youngest is now with our father‘ is
the crucial revelation for Jacob, and so in each case what touches most deeply the person
addressed is reserved for the last‖ (Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative , 169). Furthermore, they
tactfully omit the fact that the y were all imprisoned for three days, and instead of saying
Simeon ―was detained in custody‖ (vv 19, 24), they euphemistically state that he asked
them to ―leave one brother of yours with me,‖ as though he were being treated as Joseph‘s
honored guest. They also omit Joseph‘s warning about executing them if they fail to
produce Benjamin (v 20), inventing instead a promise that they could ―travel freely‖ or
trade in the land (v 34; cf. 34:10). Finally, they say nothing about the discovery of money in
their sacks (vv 27 –28). This all -too-bland account of their trip to Egypt, designed to allay
Jacob‘s fears, seems to have left him unpersuaded, for no comment by him on their mission
is recorded. He must have thought, ―Whatever they say, Simeon has not come home and

Benjamin is now being demanded too.‖
35 The syntax of this verse, opening with 
and a participial clause, suggests a lapse of time between it and v 34. But why should
the discovery of the money in the sack cause such surprise and consternation to both Jacob
and his sons? The sons have already discovered money in at least one of their sacks (vv
27–28), so why the great alarm here? Older source critics claimed that vv 27 –28 were an
insertion by J into an account (E) that originally only mentioned the discovery here in v 35.
More recent source critics prefer to see v 35 as the gloss and hold that the story originally
told of the discovery in vv 27 –28. But as Alter observes, it hardly seems likely that an
editor can have regarded the two remarks as contradictory ( Art of Biblical Narrative ,
138–39). How may he have viewed the two discoveries? The commentator Jacob holds that
v 35 is the continuation of the s ons‘ report to their father and is in fact describing their
discovery en route, as in vv 27 –28. But this is an unnatural reading of the text. So is Sarna‘s
idea that this discovery of their money was staged by the brothers. He thinks that after the
initial discovery of money in one sack, the others also found money in their sacks and then
arranged to open the sacks together in Jacob‘s presence. But this ingenious idea fails
because the text states that ―both they and their father … were afraid.‖ More intere sting is
Sternberg‘s suggestion. The brothers and father are scared for different reasons. Joseph‘s
brothers are fearful because their further discovery heightens their sense of guilt and divine
judgment already expressed in vv 21 –22, 28. ―Jacob‘s outburst , I would argue, implies that
his fear differs from their uneasy sense of mystery. It is less obscure and more terrible. Two
strange disclosures have been sprung on him in quick succession. Simeon‘s disappearance
and the money‘s (re)appearance —Jacob refuse s to accept them as coincidences. A tight
causal explanation, clearing up one mystery in terms of another, suggests itself to him: the
brothers have sold Simeon into slavery and are now pretending to be dismayed only to
cover their tracks and lay the groun d for another coup‖ (Sternberg, Poetics , 298).
36 Such a suspicion would be too dreadful to voice aloud, but the narrator gives us
clues that suggest this may indeed be the way Jacob‘s mind was working. It is only he who
has been bereaved and upon whom all these troubles have come, not his sons. He equates
Simeon‘s fate with Joseph‘s. ―There is no Joseph, and no Simeon, and you now want to
take Benjamin.‖
37 This accusation that somehow the brothers have contrived the loss of both Joseph
and Simeon prompts the reckless and otherwise inexplicable outburst of Reuben. The
brothers are trapped by their past lies and their presently aroused consciences. Jacob‘s
accusation admits of no straightforward denial, because it is half true. ―How could
(Reuben) say, We (o r they) have indeed done away with your favorite and lied to you, but
this time our hands are clean and our hearts pure?‖ (Sternberg, Poetics , 299). So, to
demonstrate his sincerity, Reuben offers that two of his sons be put to death if Benjamin
does not r eturn.
38 This offer only raises Jacob‘s suspicions further. Perhaps Joseph and Simeon have
actually been killed by their brothers. He now explicitly refers to Joseph as ―dead,‖ and by
referring to him as ―my son‖ and Benjamin as ―his brother,‖ he effectiv ely denies any
fraternal relationship between the sons of Leah and the sons of Rachel. His final comment,
―you will bring me down in my old age to Sheol with sorrow,‖ echoes 37:35. ―I shall
indeed go down to Sheol in mourning‖ reveals that Benjamin, Rachel ‘s second son, is now
as precious to Jacob as her first son, Joseph, once was and reminds his other sons of the

grief they caused their father by selling Joseph. The process of contrition must run further
before reconciliation is possible.
Explanation
After three chapters focusing on Joseph‘s twenty years in Egypt, twenty years that have
seen him rise from imprisoned slave to Pharaoh‘s deputy, the narrative suddenly brings
Joseph‘s family back into the picture. His aged father, Jacob, sends most of his sons to
Egypt to buy grain to tide them over the famine, and rather remarkably they are there
recognized by Joseph. Not so surprisingly, they fail to recognize him. But this encounter is
enough to make both sides recall the events that led to the rift within t he family twenty
years earlier.
Seeing his brothers bowing down to him, Joseph remembers the dreams in which
sheaves and the celestial bodies bowed down to him. But he is perplexed, for only one of
the dreams appears fulfilled —that of his brothers‘ sheaves bowing down to his. The second
dream was more explicit, with eleven stars, representing his eleven brothers, and the sun
and moon, his parents, falling down before him. Yet here were only ten brothers and no
parents. Where was his full brother, Benjamin, let alone his father and his wives? Those he
most wanted to see were absent, while those who had planned to kill had come. He wanted
to know what had happened to his father and Benjamin. But how was he to discover?
Would his brothers tell him the truth, if he disclosed his identity? How could he be sure
that they still did not harbor deadly hatred against him? To discover the real situation, he
adopts a harsh and indirect line of interrogation, charging them with spying in order to elicit
information about their home background. He thereby discovers that his father and brother
are still alive. But this whets his appetite yet further: have his brothers really told the truth,
and if they have, what can he do to make his brother and father come to Egypt?
He the refore detains Simeon, who may well have been the ringleader who sold Joseph
to the slavetraders, and sends the others back home to fetch their youngest brother. This
detention of Simeon serves two purposes. First, he acts as a hostage encouraging the othe r
brothers to produce Benjamin. Second, his detention replicates in some ways Joseph‘s
detention in Egypt. It poses his brothers with a similar temptation. Will they abandon him
as they abandoned Joseph?
The analogy is not lost on them. They confess their guilt about Joseph and indeed
mention something omitted in chap. 37: ―We saw his distress when he implored us, and we
did nothing.‖ Indeed, they see God punishing them for their sin: ―Therefore this distress has
fallen on us‖ (42:21). Their distress, they acknowledge, is just retribution for their callous
treatment of their brother. As Jesus said, ―[T]he measure you give will be the measure you
get‖ (Matt 7:2), and Paul said, ―God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will
also reap‖ (Gal 6:7).
Arriving back home, Joseph‘s brothers relate to Jacob most of what happened in Egypt,
though they do leave out some of the more alarming incidents. But Jacob is hardly
reassured. To him it all seems like a rerun of the loss of Joseph: ―It‘s me that you have
bereaved. There is no Joseph, … and now it‘s Benjamin you want to take‖ (42:36). And his
sons can do very little to reassure him, for their past deceit about their involvement in
Joseph‘s disappearance cannot be revealed if they wish to persuade Jacob to l et Benjamin
go back with them to Egypt.
Thus nearly all the actors are trapped by their past. The brothers cannot escape the power of

their past guilt by being honest now either to Joseph or to their father. They live in fear of
provoking a new uncontrolle d outburst of paternal sorrow if they take Benjamin and fail to
return him. Jacob himself is even more paranoic, suspecting his sons of selling Simeon to
raise cash, and above all determined not to let his beloved Benjamin out of his sight. Only
Joseph app ears to be in control of the situation, but even he is overtaken by emotion as he
hears the first contrite comments by his brothers for the way they treated him. And he
cannot be sure whether the device of holding Simeon will suffice to bring all his broth ers,
including Benjamin, back to Egypt. Will his dreams be fulfilled or not?
The actors within the story seem to sense divine intervention in their lives. Joseph
remembers the dreams, and his brothers say, ―What has God done to us?‖ But their
surmises are not certainties. The dreams do not match present reality, and the brothers do
not know how far divine judgment will go. But the narrator has no such uncertainty. For
him just the fact that Joseph recognized his brothers among the many hungry people
arrivin g in Egypt to buy grain suggests divine overruling. And the principle enunciated in
the preceding chapter, that doubled dreams show that they are certain and that God will
shortly fulfill them (41:32), applies as much to Joseph‘s own dreams as to those he
interprets. The prophetic dreams of his youth will, like all true prophecy, eventually be
fulfilled (cf. Deut 18:22; Isa 8:16 –17; 41:22; Hab 2:3), so no reader should doubt that ere
long both Benjamin and Jacob will also come down to Eg ypt. But more than that, the signs
of penitence of Joseph‘s brothers hold the promise that full family reconciliation will one
day be possible.
Second Visit of Joseph’s Family to Egypt
(43:1 –45:28)
Bibliography
Muffs, Y. ―Two Comparative Lexical Studies: 1 . Aramaic >l<l = Hebrew ba< <el ‗to receive.‘‖
JANESCU 5 (1973) 287 –94. Niehoff, M. ―Do Biblical Cha racters Talk to Themselves? Narrative
Modes of Representing Inner Speech in Early Biblical Fiction.‖ JBL 111 (1992) 577 –95. Pautasso,
L. G. ―Gen 44:18: A Case for the Textual Relevance of the Targumic Tosephta.‖ Hen 10 (1988)
205–18. Rogerson, J. W. ―Can a Doctrine of Providence Be Based on the OT?‖ In Ascribe unto the
Lord: Biblical and Other Essays: FS P. C. Craigie, ed L. M. Eslinger and J. G. Taylor. JSOTSup 67.
Sheffield: Academic, 1988. 529 –43.
Translation
1The famine was severe in the land. 2So when they had eaten up the supplies which they had
broughta from Egypt, their father said to them, ―Go backb and buy us a little food.‖ 3But
Judah said to him, ―The man asolemnly warneda us: ‗You shall not see me again unlessb
your brother is with you.‘ 4So if you aare really prepared to senda our brother with us, we
willb go down and buy food for you. 5But if you are not prepared t o send him, we shall not
go down, for the man did say to us, ‗You shall not see me again unless your brother is with
you.‘‖ 6Then Israel said, ―Why did you treata me so badly by letting the man knowb thatc
you had another brother?‖ 7They said, ―The man inquired carefully about us and our clan
asking, ‗Is your brother still alive? Do you have a brother?‘ So we tolda him about these

things. Could we reallyb know that he would say, ‗Bringc your brother down‘? ‖
8Then Judah said to Israel his father, ―Send the boy with me, so that we can set off
and go and live, and not die, botha we, you, and our children. 9I myself shall stand
surety for him. From mea you may require him. If I do not bringb him back to you and
producec him in your presence, I shall be guilty before you forever. 10aFor if we had not
dallied,b cwe could have certainly gone there twice already.‖a 11aThen Israel their f ather
said to them, ―If it must be so, do this. Take some of the choice produce of the land in
your containers and bring a present to the man, a little storax gum, a little honey,
tragacanth and ladanum gum, pistachios, and almonds. 12Take double money wit h you
and take back the money that was returneda in the mouth of your sacks. Perhaps it was
a mistake. 13Also take your brother,a and go return to the man. 14May Goda Almighty
grant you mercy from the man, so that he sends back your otherb brother and Benjamin.
As for me, if cI lose my children, I lose them.‖c
15So the men took this present. They also took double money with them and
Benjamin. They set out, came down to Egypt, and stood before Joseph. 16When Joseph
saw aBenjamin with them,a he said to the man in charge of his household, ―Bringb the
men to the house, kill a beast, and preparec it, be cause these men are going to eat at
noon with me.‖d 17So the man did as Joseph had said, and the mana brought them to
Joseph‘s house.
18When the men saw that they had b een broughta to Joseph‘s house, they said, ―It is
because of the money which returnedb in our sacks in the beginning. We are bei ng
takenc inside to be assaulted and fallen upon and to be taken as slaves and also our
donkeys.‖ 19So they camea up to the man in charge of the household of Joseph and
spoke with him in the courtyard. 20They said to him, ―With your permission,a sir. We
came down on the first occasion to buy grain. 21 When we came to the night stopping
place, we openeda our sacks and there was each man‘s money in the mouth of his sack
in full weight, so we have broughtb it with us. 22 We have also br oughta down extra
money to buy grain. We do not know who placed our money in our sacks.‖ 23He replied
―That‘s fine. Your god, the god of your fathers, must have put treasure in your sacks. I
received your money.‖ Then he broughta Simeon out to meet them.
24Then the man brought the men into Joseph‘s house and gave them water, and they
washed their feet, and he provided fodder for their donkeys. 25They prepareda the
present until Joseph came at midday, for they had heard that he would eat bread there.
26 So Joseph came home, and they broughta to him the present which they had with them
indoors and bowedb down to the ground before him. 27He asked them how they were
and said, a ―How is your old father you mentioned? Is he still alive?‖a 28They said,
―Your servant, our father, is well: he is still alive.‖a They again bowedb down and
prostrated themselves. 29Then he raiseda his eyes and saw Benjamin his brother, his
own mother‘s son, and he said, ―Is this your youngest brother, whom you mentioned to
me?‖ He said, ―May God be graciousb to you, my son.‖ 30Joseph then hurried out, for
his affection for his brother boileda up, and he w as on the verge of weeping, and he
went into an inner room and wept there. 31Then he washed his face, went back out
controlling himself, and said, ―Serve the food.‖ 32So they served it separately for him
and them and for the Egyptians, who ate with him sep arately, for Egyptians were
unable to eat food with Hebrews, for that would be disgusting for Egyptians. 33They
were seated in order before him, the firstborn in his place and the youngest in his, and

they all were stunned by it. 34He hada portions distributed from his table, and
Benjamin‘s wasb five times larger than any of the others. So they drank and were merry
with him.
44:1He then gave orders to the man in charge of his household, ―Fill the sacks of the men
with as much food as they can holda and put each man‘s money in the mouth of his sack.
2As for my cup, my silver cup, you must put it in the mouth of the youngest one‘s sack and
the money for his grain.‖ He did just as Joseph said. 3At morning light,a the men and their
donkeys were sent on their way. 4They had left the city but had not gone far, when Joseph
said to his butler. ―Up, chase after the men. Catcha them up and say to them, ‗Why have
you paid me back with evil, not good? 5Isn‘t this what my lord drink s from and divines
with? You have behaveda very badly doing this.‘‖
6So he overtooka them and spoke to them along these lines. 7They said to him, ― Why
does my lord speak like this? Your servants would never do a thing like that. 8Since we
broughta back from the land of Canaan thebmoney we found in the mouths of our sacks,
why should we steal from your master‘s house silver or gold? 9If it is found in the
possession of any of your servants, he shall die, and we shall become your master‘s
slaves.‖ 10But he said, ―All right then, it shall be as you say: in whoever‘s possession it
is found, he shall become my slave, but you shall be free.‖
11So each one hurried to leta his sack down on the ground, and each one opened his
sack. 12Then he searched them, beginninga with the eldest and ending with the youngest,
and the cup was found in Benjamin‘s sack. 13Then they tore their clothes, each one
reloaded his donkey, and they returned to the city.
14Then Judah and his brothers entered Joseph‘s house. He was still there, so they
fell down before him on the ground. 15Joseph said to them, ―What is this deed that you
have done? Don‘t you realize that a man like me is a good diviner?‖ 16Then Judah said,
―What can we say to my lord? What can we speak? How can we justifya ourselves? It is
God who has found out your servants‘ guilt. Here we are slaves of you, my lord, both
we and the one in whose possession the cup was found.‖ 17But he said, ―Maya I never
do a thing like that. Just the man in whose possession the cup was found shall be my
slave. You others may go back to your father in peace.‖
18Then Judah approacheda him and said, ―With your permission sir, may your
servant please have a word in my lord‘s ear. Don‘t be very angryb with your servant,
for you are just likec Pharaoh. 19My lord asked his servants, ‗Do you have a fath er or
brother?‘ 20So we said to my lord, ‗We do have an elderly father, and the child of his
old age is young. His brother is dead, so that he is the only survivinga child of his
mother. And his f ather loves him.‘21Now you said to your servants, ‗Bringa him down to
me, so that I can look after him.‘22But we said to my lord, ‗ The lad cannot leave his
father. If he does leave him, his father will die.‘23But you said to your servants, ‗If your
youngest brother does not come with you, you shall not see me again.‘a
24―So when we had gone back to your servant my father, we tolda him what my lord had
said. 25Then our father said, ‗Go back and buy us a little food.‘ 26But we said, ‗We cannot
goa back. If our youngest brother is with us, we can go back, because we shall not see the
man‘s face if our youngest brother is not with us.‘ 27Then your servant my father said to us,
‗You know that my wife bore me two sons. 28One of them left me and I said, ―Surelya he has
been tornb to bits,‖ and I haven‘t seen him since. 29Now you would take even this one away
from me. If an accident happens to him, you will bringa down my gray head in sorrow to the

grave.‘ 30Now as soon as I arrivea back at your servant my father without the boy, as his
life is bound up with his, 31as soon as he seesa that the boy is not there,bc he will die. So
your servants will bring down your servant‘s gray head in sorrow to Sheol. 32Indeed your
servant stood surety for the boy with mya father saying, ‗If I do not bringb him back, I shall
be guilty before my father forever.‘ 33So now let your servant please stay instead of the boy
as my master‘s slave, and let the boy goa back with his brothers. 34For how can I go back to
my father without the boy anda see the calamity that will befall my father?‖
45:1Joseph was not able to contain himself in the presence of all those standing by
him, so he called out, ―Make everyone leavea my presence.‖ So there was not anyone
waiting on him, when he made himself knownb to his brothers. 2He wept aloud, and the
Egyptians and even the palace of Pharaoh hearda about it. 3Then Joseph said to his
brothers, ―Ia am Joseph. Is my father still alive?‖ But they were not able to answer him,
for they were dumbfound ed by him. 4So Joseph said to his brothers, ―Please comea
closer.‖ So they came closer. He said to them, b―I am Joseph, your brother whom you
sold into Egypt.b 5Now then don‘t be distressed or angry that you sold me here, because
God sent me before you ato preserve life.a 6For so far there have been two years of
famine in the land, but there are still five more to go when there will be no plowing or
harvest.a 7So God sent me in advance o f you to make a remnant for you in the land and
to preservea for you a great number of survivors.b 8Now then it was not you who sent me
here but God. He made me a father to Pharaoh and lord of all his household and ruler
of all the land of Egypt. 9Hurry, go back to my father and say to him, ‗This is what your
son Joseph says: God has made me lord of all Egypt, so comea down to me. Don‘t stay!
10You shall live in the land of Goshen and be near me, you, your sons, and grandsons,
your flocks and herds and all that you have. 11I shall providea you with food there, for
there are still fi ve years of famine to come, so that you and your household and all that
belong to you do not becomeb poor.‘ 12Now you yourselves and my brother Benjamin
see with your own eyes that it is my own mouth speaking to you. 13You then shall tella
my father about all the splendor that is mine in Egypt and everything that you have
seen. You must bring my father down here quickly.‖ 14Then he fell on his brother
Benjamin‘s neck and wept,a and Benjamin wept over his neck. 15He then kissed all his
brothers and wept over them. Afterwards his brothers talked with him.
16The story reached Pharaoh‘s palace that Joseph‘s b rothers had come, and he and
his servants were pleased. 17Pharaoh said to Joseph, ―Say to your brothers, ‗Load your
beasts and go to the land of Canaan. 18Then take your father and your families and
come to me so that I may givea you the best of the land of Egypt, and you shall eat the
choicest produce of the land. 19You are under orders.a Do this. Take carts for
yourselves from the land of Egypt for your y oungsters, and wives, and carry your father
and come. 20Don‘t be sorrya about your belongings, for the best of the whole land of
Egypt is yours.‖b 21So the sons of Isra el did so, and Joseph gave them carts as Pharaoh
directed, and he gave them provisions for the journey. 22He gave them all a change of
cloaks, but he gave Benjamin three hundred pieces of silver and five sets of clothes.
23For his father, he sent as follow s: ten donkeys carrying some of the best produce of
Egypt and ten she -asses carrying grain and bread and provisions for his father on the
journey. 24He sent off his brothers and they left, and he said to them, ―Don‘t be stirreda
up on the way.‖
25They went up from Egypt and came to the land of Canaan to their father Jacob. 26Then

they tolda him, ―Joseph is still alive and rules over all the land of Egypt.‖ Then his heart
stopped,b for he did not believe them. 27They then reported all that Joseph had said to them.
He saw the carts which Joseph had sent to transporta him, and their father Jacob‘s spirit
revived.b 28Israel then said, ―Enough. Joseph my son is still alive. I willa go down to seeb
him before I die.‖
Notes
2.a. 3 masc. pl. pf hiph 2.b. 2 masc. pl. impv qal 3.a-a. Inf abs + 3 masc. sg pf hiph
[
. On the use of the inf abs for emphasis, see GKC, 113n; EWAS, 88.
3.b. On 
to introduce exceptive clause, see SBH, 174; WOC, 643.
4.a-a. 
+ ptcp expresses more than a willingness to act (so Joüon, 154l); it indicates ―that a
state of affairs or behaviour … is actually as one wants or expects‖ (EWAS, 77).
4.b. Coh expresses the will to act (Joüon, 114e).
6.a. 2 masc. pl. pf hiph [[6.b. Cf. n. 32:6.d.*
6.c. 
introducing indirect question ( GKC, 150i).
7.a. Waw consec + 1 pl. impf. hiph 7.b. Inf abs ―used to strengthen a question,
especially in impassioned or indignant questions‖ ( GKC, 113q; cf. WOC, 587).
7.c. 2 masc. pl. impv hiph 8.a. Note thrice -repeated 
for emphasis (Joüon, 177q).
9.a. Fronting of the adverbial phrase for emphasis (EWAS, 43).
9.b. 1 sg pf hiph 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
9.c. Waw + 1 sg pf hiph 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
10.a-a. On the construction of unreal conditional clauses, see GKC, 159x; WOC, 494.
10.b. 1 pl. pf hithpalpel  10.c. On use of 

in apodoses, see GKC, 159ee; Joüon, 167s.
11.a. For analysis of grammatical struct ure of vv 11 –14, see SBH, 108 –10.
12.a. Def art + masc. sg ptcp hoph 13.a. Note precious Benjamin mentioned last in
list (EWAS, 38).
14.a. Note that the subj ―God Almighty‖ often precedes the verb in blessings (cf. n.
28:3.a.; EWAS, 35).
14.b. Omission of article not unusual with 
(WOC, 260). SamPent, G read  14.c-c. On construction, see GKC, 106o: ―an
expression of despairing re signation.‖
16.a-a. SamPent, G, Vg read ―them and Benjamin.‖
16.b. 2 masc. sg impv hiph 16.c. Waw + 2 masc. sg impv hiph 16.d. Initial position
of ―with me‖ for emphasis (EWAS, 43).
17.a. Omitted by G, S.
18.a. 3 masc. pl. pf hoph 18.b. Def art + masc. sg ptcp qal 
. On use in relative clauses, see GKC, 116d; WOC, 623.
18.c. Masc pl. ptcp hoph 19.a. Cf. n. 19:9.d.*
20.a. On this expression ( 
), cf. Joüon, 105c; J. Hoftijzer, VT 20 (1970) 427 –28.
21.a. On use of (pseudo)coh here, see WOC, 576–77.
21.b. Waw consec + 1 pl. impf. hiph 22.a. 1 pl. pf hiph 23.a. Cf. n. 15:5.a.*
25.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. pl. impf. hiph 26.a. On the dagesh in the 
, see GKC, 14d.
26.b. Cf. n. 42:6.b.*
27.a-a. On word order, cf. EWAS, 17; SBH, 48.
28.a. SamPent, G add ―And he said ‗May that man be blessed by God.‘‖
28.b. Waw consec + 3 masc. pl. impf.  29.a. Cf. n. 13:10.a.*
29.b. 3 masc. sg impf. qal 
+ 2 masc. sg suffix. On punctuation, see GKC, 67n; Y. Lerner, Lesû 47 (1982/83) 155.
On word order, see EWAS, 35.

30.a. 3 masc. pf niph 
. On ingressive stative sense of niph, ―grew hot,‖ see WOC, 386.
34.a. Lit. ―he distributed portions,‖ but obviously done by Joseph‘s servants ( GKC,
144n).
34.b. Waw consec + 3 fem. sg impf. (apoc)  44:1.a. Cf. n. 4:7.a.*
3.a. Lit. ―the morning was light,‖ 3 masc. sg pf qal 4.a. Waw consec + 2 masc. sg pf
hiph 
+ 3 masc. pl. suffix.
5.a. Cf. n. 43:6.a.*
6.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. hiph 
+ 3 masc. pl. suffix.
8.a. 1 pl. pf hiph 8.b. So SamPent, G; MT omits def art.
11.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. pl. impf. hiph 12.a. Cf. n. 6:1.b.*
16.a. 1 pl. impf. hithp 
.
17.a. 
to introduce a negative oath (WOC, 608; Joüon, 165k.)
18.a. Cf. n. 18:23.a.*
18.b. Cf. n. 18:30.a.*
18.c. On 
… 
―just like,‖ see J oüon, 154b; 174i.
20.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. niph 21.a. 2 masc. pl. impv hiph 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
23.a. 2 masc. pl. impf. hiph 
+ nun paragogicum; on this, see WOC, 517, n. 61.
24.a. Cf. n. 43:7.a.*
26.a. 

+ inf constr qal 28.a. On the meaning of 
, see WOC, 670, EWAS, 129.
28.b. Cf. n. 37:33.c.*
29.a. Cf. n. 42:38.b.*
30.a. 
+ inf constr 
+ 1 sg suffix.
31.a. 
+ inf constr 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
31.b. The word order means absence, not non -existence (EWAS, 103).
31.c. SamPent, G, S add ―with us.‖
32.a. SamPent ―his father.‖
32.b. Cf. n. 42:37.c.*
33.a. 3 masc. sg juss qal [
. On c hiastic linkage of jussives, ―stay … go back,‖ see SBH, 134.
34.a. On this use of 
, see GKC, 152w.
45:1.a. 2 masc. pl. impv hiph 1.b. 
+ inf constr hithp [2.a. BHS suggest G, S read this as niph, ―was heard.‖
3.a. According to EWAS, 13, the word order emphasizes ―I.‖
4.a. 2 masc. pl. impv 4.b-b. On clause structure, see GKC, 138d; WOC, 334.
5.a-a. Fronting of this phrase in the Heb. emphasizes it (EWAS, 43).
6.a. On the unexpected dagesh, see WOC, 22.
7.a. Cf. n. 6:19.c.*
7.b. SamPent omits initial 9.a. 2 masc. sg impv 
+ aµh ending.

11.a. Waw + 1 sg pf pilpel 11.b. 2 masc. sg impf. niph 13.a. Waw consec + 2 masc.
pl. pf hiph 14.a. Cf. n. 27:38.b.*
18.a. Cf. n. 17:2.a.*
19.a. 2 masc. sg pf pual 
; cf. BHS suggested emendation ―command them.‖
20.a. 3 fem. sg impf. qal 20.b. Word order emphasizes ―to you‖ (EWAS, 17, 75).
24.a. SamPent has hithp. Same meaning.
26.a. Cf. n. 26:32.b.*
26.b. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. 27.a. Cf. n. 36:7.b.*
27.b. Waw consec + 3 fem. sg impf. 28.a. Coh here expresses speaker‘s strong resolve
(WOC, 573; Joüon, 114c).
28.b. Waw + 1 sg impf. qal 
+ 3 masc. sg suffix.
Form/Structure/Setting
Chaps. 43 –45 describe the second of three journeys to Egypt and include the high point
of the Joseph story, his self -disclosure to his brothers. This u nit of narrative consists of
seven scenes that, as in chap. 42, are arranged palistrophically.
Scene 1:
Jacob sends sons to Egypt (43:1 –14)
A
Scene 2:
Arrival in Egypt: Steward and brothers(43:15 –25)
B
Scene 3:
Lunch with Joseph (43:26 –34)
C
Scene 4:
Broth ers arrested (44:1 –13)
D
Scene 5:
Joseph discloses himself to brothers (44:14 –45:15)
C1
Scene 6:
Departure from Egypt: Pharaoh and brothers (45:16 –24)
B1
Scene 7:
Sons report to Jacob on mission (45:25 –28)

A1

As Coats and Westermann have pointed out, the structure and contents of these chapters
echo chap. 42.
42:1–4
Jacob‘s sons sent to Egypt
43:1–14
42:5
Arrival in Egypt
43:15 –25
42:6–16
First audience with Joseph
43:26 –34
42:17
Brothers in custody
44:1–13
42:18–24
Second audience with Joseph
44:14 –45:15
42:25 –28
Departure from Egypt
45:16 –24
42:29 –38
Sons report to Jacob
45:25 –28

At nearly every point in the account of the second journey, there are references back to
the first, e.g., 43:27, 29; 44:19 –23, or at least implicit comparisons are made between the
two journeys: 43:1 –2//41:57 –42:2; 43:3 –8//42:12 –20; 43:11 –12//42:25 –28, 35;
43:14 –15//42:19, 24, 36; 43:16//42:7; 43:18//42:28, 35; 43:20 –23//42:25 –28;
43:23b//42:24 ; 43:26, 28//42:6; 43:27 –28//42:11; 43:29//42:13, 15; 43:30 –31//42:24;
43:33//42:28, 35; 44:1 –12//42:25 –28; 44:14//42:6; 44:16//42:21; 44:17//42:19;
44:18 –23//42:10 –20; 44:24 –31//42:29 –38; 45:1//42:24; 45:3//42:13; 45:4 –5//42:21 –22;
45:21 –23//42:25.
There are also references to earlier episodes in the Joseph story: 43:11 refers to 37:25;
43:26 to 37:7, 10; 44:19, 28 to 37:3, 33; 44:31 to 37:35; 45:4 –5 to 37:27 –28; 45:6 to
41:26 –30; 45:8 –9 to 41:38 –46.
It is therefore clear that, despite the chapter division s, 43:1 –45:28 constitutes a single unit
within the Joseph story. A few commentators regard chaps. 43 –44 as one block and chap.
45 as another, but this failure to note the obvious connections across the chapters in
structure and content rests on the ascript ion of chap. 45 to a different source (E) from
chapters 43 –44 (J) and not on rhetor
Traditional source critics see chaps. 43 –44 as J‘s version of the journey to Egypt found
in E in chap. 42. Chap. 45, on the other hand, continues the E version with some
supplementation by J, though there is less agreement about which verses are to be ascribed
to J. More recently, Redford ( Biblical Story of Joseph ) has suggested that the original

Joseph story largely represented in this section by E (i.e., chaps. 42, 45) has been expanded
by the addition of the J material (i.e., chaps. 43 –44). Schmitt ( Josephsgeschichte ) argues for
the reverse order —chaps. 43 –44 as the primary core expanded by chaps. 42, 45. But these
source -critical analyses have missed the intimate connections and patternings that link
chapters 42 –45. So I concur with recent studies by Coats, Donner ( Josephsgeschichte ),
Westermann, Humphreys ( Joseph and His Family ), and Sarna, who recognize the essential
unity of thi s material. Westermann has expressed himself particularly forcefully about the
unity of these chapters. Source critics, he says, have read nonexistent differences and
tensions into the text. ―But if, on the contrary, one regards the sequence of chs 42 –45 as
rooted in the overall plan of the writer, for whom the mounting tension from the first to the
second journey is necessary, then one has no need to strike out or postulate anything‖
(3:119). ―It is beyond doubt that the narrator intends the contrast betwe en Joseph‘s
reception in chs 42 and 43. The structure of ch 43 shows with utter certainty that the author
intends a sequence in chs 42 –43‖ (3:120). ―Ch 45 is a particularly obvious example where
only a preconception can have led to source division‖ (3:142) .
Comment
1–14 The opening scene of this section matches the opening scene of chap. 42 and
describes the family discussion that preceded each visit to Egypt. But here and throughout
chaps. 43 –44 the dialogues and narrative elements are fuller, thus slowing down the story
as it draws near to its climax.
1 Same wording as 12:10 and similar to 41:57.
2 ―They.‖ The lack of an explicit noun subject shows that this is a continuation of the
previous chapter and not a duplicate. As on the first trip, Jacob asserts his patriarchal
authority by suggesting an expedition to Egypt to buy food (cf. 42:1–2). But whereas then
he orde red them to go, here he puts it almost diffidently: ―buy us a little food,‖ ―as though it
were a matter of a trip to a nearby market‖ (Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative , 171). He is
careful not to anger his sons this time, for he knows that it is his veto t hat is delaying them
(cf. 42:36 –38).
3–5 Reuben had earlier tried to persuade Jacob to let Benjamin accompany them to
Egypt. His argument had been inept, to say the least (42:37 –38), and no doubt it was not
helped by his bad standing wi th his father (cf. 35:22; cf. 49:4). Maybe a similar motive
underlay Levi‘s silence, and of course his companion in crime, Simeon, was in Egyptian
custody (34:30; cf. 49:5–7). So Judah, the oldest son in good standing with his father,
intervenes and pleads for a change of policy.
Judah begins and ends his plea by recalling Joseph‘s threat, ―You shall not see me again
unless your brother is with you‖ (vv 3, 5; cf. 42:15, 20). ―See me,‖ lit. ―see my face,‖
characteristically refers to audiences with the great, such as kings (e.g., Exod 10:28 –29).
But whereas when the brothers last tried to persuade Jacob to let Benjamin go to Egypt,
they glossed over Joseph‘s warnings, this time Judah hints at his threats (42:16, 20).
―Solemnly warned,‖ ―warn‖ (hiph of [
) is used of threats that are not empty (e.g., Exod 19:21, 23; Jer 11:7; Neh 9:26, 29 –30).
Here the finite verb ―warned‖ is prefaced by the infinitive absolute ―solemnly,‖ making the
threat even more ominous.
6 It is easy to be wise after the event, and Jacob‘s grumble about their indiscretion is

really just stalling.
7 So all the brothers back up Judah, pointing out that it was impossible to predict the way
the conversation would go. 42:10 –16 does not record Joseph putting these questions so
directly. It rather portrays them volunteering the information, but that is n ot how this
interrogation felt to them. They felt that supplying details about their family background
was the only way to clear themselves of the charge of espionage; they sensed that the man
wanted to know about their ―clan.‖ On this term, see 12:1 ( Comm ent); cf. 24:4, 7; 31:3, 13.
8–10 Judah now pushes his father to make a decision by appealing to his paternal
instincts. Earlier, Jacob had said that they must go to Egypt to buy grain ―so that we may
live and not die‖ (42:2). So Judah now makes the same point and underlines it with the
comment that this will save him ―and our children as well.‖ 
―children‖ is a term that refers to the dependent and vulnerable younger generation,
whom parents have a particular duty to protect (cf. 45:19; 47:12; Num 14:3, 31). Judah then
grasps the nub of the problem, offering to stand surety himself for Benjamin. Quite what
this would mean in practice, if Benjamin failed to return, is not clear, but standing surety
for someone was r egarded as very risky and not to be entered into lightly (e.g., Prov 6:1;
11:15). ―From me you may require it,‖ though it uses a different verb, sounds like 9:5 and
suggests that Jacob could demand Judah‘s own life if he fa ils to return Benjamin. At the
very least, he would always ―be guilty‖ before him. Having thus offered himself, Judah
urges his father to stop dallying (cf. 19:16 and Comment ) and reminds him of just how
desperate the food situation now is: ―we could have certainly gone there twice already.‖
11–14 At last swayed by Judah‘s appeal, Jacob makes up his mind and tells his sons to
go. Facing a crisis like his meeting with Esau (chaps. 32 –33), he trusts in decisive action
and providence. Despi te the famine, he prepares a ―present‖ of the ―choice produce of the
land‖ for ―the man.‖ Though somewhat smaller than the present he sent to Esau, it was no
doubt sent with a similar motive: ―for he thought ‗I shall mollify him with the present
ahead of m e, and then afterward I shall see him face to face. Perhaps he will accept me‘‖
(32:21 [20]).
―Choice produce of the land‖ is a phrase found only here. ―Choice produce‖ ( 
) is lit. ―strength,‖ as in Exod 15:2; Isa 12:2; Ps 118:14.
―Stora x … almonds.‖ The list of the items in the present is similar to that in 37:25 with
some extras such as honey, pistachio, and almond nuts. On ―pistachio,‖ see Zohary, Plants
of the Bible , 5. ―Honey‖ is often mentioned as one of the special products of the land that
flows with milk and honey. It is often thought to include the syrup produced from dates or
grapes, called dibs in Arabic (e.g., KB, 204). But in those biblical passages where the origin
of the product is clear, honey is produced by bees (e.g., Deut 32:13; Judg 14:8 –9; 1 Sam
14:26 –29; see EM 2:585 –6). It is possible that the narrator sees a parallel between this
expedition to Egypt and the Ishmaelite caravan that brought Joseph there. Both carried
similar products, ―gums of tragacanth, storax, and ladanum.‖ From the Ishmaelites,
Joseph‘s brothers re ceived money; now they are carrying money back to Egypt. ―The wheel
seems to have come full circle. The plot movement that started with a brother leaving home
in all innocence to join his brothers, only to find himself the property of a trading caravan
bound for Egypt, now presses for closure once the brothers leave home in a caravan to
rescue a brother in Egypt‖ (M. Sternberg, Poetics , 300 –301).
13 Note how Jacob leaves giving permission for his beloved Benjamin to go until the last
possible moment (cf. 22:3).