Study Notes Spoken with Blood: Integrity Matters September 4, 2016 Genesis 21:22‐34 22 At that time Abimelech and Phicol the commander of his army said to Abraham, "God is with you in all that you do. 23 Now therefore swear to me here by God that you will not deal falsely with me or with my descendants or with my posterity, but as I have dealt kindly with you, so you will deal with me and with the land where you have sojourned." 24 And Abraham said, "I will swear." 25 When Abraham reproved Abimelech about a well of water that Abimelech's servants had seized, 26 Abimelech said, "I do not know who has done this thing; you did not tell me, and I have not heard of it until today." 27 So Abraham took sheep and oxen and gave them to Abimelech, and the two men made a covenant. 28 Abraham set seven ewe lambs of the flock apart. 29 And Abimelech said to Abraham, "What is the meaning of these seven ewe lambs that you have set apart?" 30 He said, "These seven ewe lambs you will take from my hand, that this may be a witness for me that I dug this well." 31 Therefore that place was called Beersheba, because there both of them swore an oath. 32 So they made a covenant at Beersheba. Then Abimelech and Phicol the commander of his army rose up and returned to the land of the Philistines. 33 Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba and called there on the name of the LORD, the Everlasting God. 34 And Abraham sojourned many days in the land of the Philistines. (Genesis 21:22­34) 1 More study helps at www.daretoventure.org Study Notes A covenant between Abraham and Abimelech (Genesis 21:22–34) In the present episode the reader is about to encounter Abimelech again. The earlier story of his meeting with Abraham had certainly made an impression on him, so now he comes to make a covenant with the patriarch. He obviously realizes that Abraham is strong and a possible threat to him. However, before they make a treaty, Abraham raises another matter: Abimelech’s men have seized a well that Abraham had dug, and this situation needs to be resolved. 21:22–23. And it came to pass at that time that Abimelech and Phicol the commander of his ​ army spoke to Abraham, saying, ‘God is with you in all that you do. But now, swear to me here by God that you will not deal falsely with me, or with my offspring, or with my posterity. But according to the loyalty I have done for you, you will do to me and to the land in which you are sojourning.’ Abimelech, who was a central figure in the episode recorded in chapter 20, tracks down Abraham to make an agreement with him. This king places himself in a very strong and strategic position in his dealings with the patriarch. First, his military commander accompanies him to the meeting: Phicol’s presence is a military threat. Then Abimelech refers to Abraham as one ‘sojourning’ in the land. This is a deliberate reference to Abraham’s lower social status. Here, then, is a king of the land initiating a covenant with a person of lower rank—all of this suggests that a treaty between a suzerain and a vassal is in operation. Abimelech is attempting to play the part of the superior party. Abimelech is aware of Abraham’s strength, and he is afraid that at some point the tables might be turned. This point is clear because of Abimelech’s concern for his ‘offspring’ and ​ ​ his ‘posterity’. These two terms in Hebrew are found only three times in Scripture, and ​ ​ always together (Job 18:19; Isa. 14:22). They are an example of hendiadys for the purpose of emphasis. The two words are further highlighted and stressed as an alliteration: in e e a ​ ​ ​ Hebrew they are l nînî and l nek dî. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Abimelech demands that Abraham swear to him ‘here’. That adverb is important for ​ ​ that very spot is Beersheba, later named in the passage for the current event. 21:24–25. Then Abraham said, ‘I will swear it.’ But Abraham chided Abimelech because of a ​ well of water that the servants of Abimelech had seized. Abraham responds with a terse reply: ‘I will swear it.’ It is a forceful reply because in the ​ ​ Hebrew it begins with the personal pronoun, ‘I’; this is unnecessary for the sentence ​ ​ because the verb already contains the first person. In other words, it is emphatic. However, Abraham has one caveat: there is a real and immediate problem over water rights. He accuses Abimelech’s workers of having ‘seized’ a particular well, and apparently then not ​ ​ 2 More study helps at www.daretoventure.org Study Notes allowing Abraham access to it. That verb can mean ‘to rob’, or ‘to take violent possession of someone else’s property’ (Job 20:19; Micah 2:2). To find a solution to this quarrel is important for the covenant about to be made: water is critical for a semi­nomad like Abraham, especially in the Beersheba region where so little of it is available. Its importance is underscored by the later recurrence of the problem (see 26:15). 21:26. But Abimelech said, ‘I do not know who did this thing. And also you did not report it ​ to me. And also I did not hear about it until today.’ Abimelech does not want to hear Abraham’s complaint. He flatly denies any complicity in the seizing of the well. He is adamant. There are three parts to his denial, one building on top of what has gone before with the particle ‘and also’. This particle in Hebrew has an ​ ​ adversative force, and it underscores Abimelech’s strong insistence that he is innocent. 21:27–30. Then Abraham took sheep and cattle and he gave [them] to Abimelech. And the ​ two of them made a covenant. Then Abraham set apart seven ewe lambs. And Abimelech said to Abraham, ‘What are these seven ewe lambs that you have set apart?’ And he answered, ‘So that you will take the seven ewe lambs from my hand in order that it might be a witness for me that I dug this well.’ In Genesis 20:14, Abimelech had given Abraham sheep and cattle and slaves as a restorative payment because of his seizing of Sarah. Abraham now reciprocates by giving ‘sheep and cattle’ to Abimelech, but he does so as part of a covenant ceremony. It was ​ customary in the ancient Near East to present gifts during the ritual (see 1 Kings 15:19). It is significant that Abraham does not include slaves in his gift to the King of Gerar; as Sarna notes, ‘The patriarch does not deal in this kind of human traffic.’ Some commentators argue that the setting apart of the ewe lambs by Abraham is a separate transaction and not part of the covenant of verse 27. In other words, they claim that verses 28–30 constitute a separate oath and, in reality, do not belong here. What many modern interpreters conclude is that the narrative is a composite of two sources later combined by a redactor. Here I would agree with Speiser who says, ‘Yet no such measures would seem to be at all necessary. The narrative can be logically interpreted as it stands.’ The section regarding the seven ewe lambs is merely one of the stipulations of the covenant agreement, and it is being spelled out in detail. The fact that this transaction is described as ‘a witness’ would seem to confirm this, since a witness clause is found in ​ ​ almost every ancient Near­Eastern covenant that is in our possession. Part and parcel of the covenant between Abimelech and Abraham is the establishment of Abraham’s legal claim to the well at Beersheba. 21:31–32. Therefore, he called that place Beersheba, because there the two of them swore ​ an oath. Thus they made a covenant at Beersheba. So Abimelech and Phicol, the commander of his army, arose and they returned to the land of the Philistines. 3 More study helps at www.daretoventure.org Study Notes The naming of the place as ‘Beersheba’ carries a double meaning in the original. First, it ​ ​ literally means ‘the well of oath’, and that, of course, reflects the pledge that Abraham and Abimelech have made in the account. But the name can also mean ‘the well of seven’, an epithet recalling the number of ewe lambs that Abraham gave to Abimelech as a testimony to the covenant. A deep well has been found at Beersheba by Y. Aharoni during excavations there in the 1960s–1970s. The archaeologist associated it with our present story of Abraham. On the surface that identification sounds good; however, the well itself, according to the excavators, does not pre­date the remains of the site, which are no earlier than the twelfth century B.C. Aharoni concludes that ‘The local connections of the Patriarchs with the various sites in Eretz­Israel belong only to the period of the settlement.’ Thus Aharoni drops the traditional dating of Abraham by some 600 years in order to connect him with the well he discovered at Beersheba. In reality, there is no reason to link Abraham with that particular well at Iron­Age Beersheba. The mention of Abimelech’s return to the land of the ‘Philistines’ has long been ​ ​ considered an anachronism.