was abram a mirror for his descendants?

WAS ABRAM A MIRROR FOR HIS DESCENDANTS? THE THEME

OF THE EXODUS IN GEN 12,10-20*1

INTRODUCTION

This account of the going down of Abram and Sarai to Egypt presents a

striking parallel to what is related subsequently, at the end of the Book of

Genesis and the beginning of the Book of Exodus...there is hardly a verse or

half a verse in this section that does not remind us of a parallel statement in the

narratives pertaining to the Israelites2.

The Pentateuch is generally full of events and characteristics which seem

to repeat and come up again and again in the chain of narratives. The

vicissitudes in the lives of latter patriarchs seem to have similar versions in

those of the earlier ones. Some of these phenomena include the favourable

consideration of the younger in place of the elder, the deception of the

father by the children, the hatred of a son by his own brother(s). The

examples of Abel being favoured in place of Cain, and Jacob in place of

Esau readily come to mind. The same goes for the case of Isaac being

deceived by his own child3, and only for Jacob to suffer the same fate

4.

This lends weight to the Hebrew proverb, ~ynbl !mf twba yf[m, «what

happened to the fathers is a sign for the later generations»5. Inner-biblical

interpretation has sought to explain the events in the scriptural pages, on

the basis of earlier ones. This notion of intra-biblical studies, examined by

Fishbane6, can simply be held to be a reawakening of the approach

employed by the midrashic interpretation, to illuminate a comprehension of

the scriptures. Thereby, the bible seeks to explain itself, and latter

1 It is important to note right from the start that this passage is closely related to Gen

20 and 26,1-18. The three passages have a similar plot which has been noted by

numerous scholars in the past. However, the selection of only this first passage, which

was also considered by Gunkel (cf. H. GUNKEL, Genesis,172) as the most original, is

due to the limit of the present enterprise. It is not a noveau choice, as evidenced in

articles which treat just this passage alone, like J. JOOSTEN, «Abram et Saraï en Égypte.

Composition et message de Genèse 12,10-20*», B. BECKING, «Abram in Exile.

Remarks on Genesis 12,10-20*» 2 U. CASSUTO, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 334.

3 Gen 27, 18-29

4 Gen 37, 31-35

5 J. JOOSTEN, «Abram et Saraï en Égypte» 21.

6 M. FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel.

2 WAS ABRAM A MIRROR

occurrences owe their roots to earlier ones. In this line, typology is simply

recognizing in persons, places and events of the past, an anticipation,

announcement and models of future persons, places and events. The

relationship between the type and the reality that it is said to prefigure must

be based on some resemblance between them7.

It is in the light of the foregoing, that the episode of Abraham and his

wife in a foreign land, resonates so much similarity and memories about the

latter event of the exodus of the descendants of Abraham from the land of

Egypt. Is it really true that what would happen to the son must have

occurred in the life of the father? The passage of our interest is the story of

the patriarch in a foreign land. The patriarch goes to a foreign land with his

wife and calls his wife, his sister in order to save his life. It is told thrice in

the book of Genesis (12,10-20; 20; 26,1-18). It commonly starts with the

Patriarch relocating to a different country with his wife. Out of fear for his

own life, he encourages his wife to call herself his sister. The plan works,

the patriarch is spared, while his wife is taken. A complication arises in

which the foreign sovereign who takes the matriarch soon comes to learn of

the ruse. He accosts the patriarch and the woman is restored to her husband.

In this particular enterprise, we wish to view just one of these three

stories which have been called a type-scene by some scholars8. We wish to

see the notion of the exodus in the episode and determine the leitwort and

motif-links between the Genesis story and the Exodus event. Our method is

basically expository and linguistic. The task at hand calls for close reading

and careful attention to the vocabulary employed in the passage. Thus, the

nuances of words shall be attended to, and the linguistic features shall not

be overlooked.

1. Text of Gen 12,10-20

רץ׃ 10 ב בא ד הרע י־כב ם כ ימה לגור ש ם מצר רד אבר רץ וי ב בא י רע ויה

י 11 אמר אל־שר י ימה ו יב לבוא מצר ר הקר י כאש ה ויה י אש עתי כ ה־נא יד ו הנ אשת

ת׃ ה א יפת־מרא

7 J.-M. HUSSER, «La typologie comme procédé de composition dans les textes de

l’Ancient Testament», 12. 8 Cf. R. ALTER, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 58; G. WENHAM, Genesis 1-15. 285.

Contrary views however exist as to whether these stories qualify to termed as such, on

the basis of the fact that not every repetition of scene(s), must be termed as a type scene

- « Il reperimento delle scene tipo (da distinguere dale scene semplicemente ripetute,

che si tratti della presentazione di Sara e di Rebecca da parte di Abramo e Isacco come

loro “sorelle”...) » J.-P. SONNET, « L’Analisi Narrativa dei Racconti Biblici », 45.

WAS ABRAM A MIRROR 3

ו׃ 12 ך יחי י ואת ו את את והרג ו אשתו ז ים ואמר ו אתך המצר י־ירא ה כ והי

ך 13 י בעבור יטב־ל ען י ת למ תי א ך׃ אמרי־נא אח י בגלל ה נפש וחית

ד׃ 14 וא מא ה ה י־יפ ה כ אש ו המצרים את־ה ימה וירא ם מצר וא אבר י כב ויה

ית פ 15 ה ב ח האש ק ה ות ה אל־פרע ו את לל ה ויה י פרע ו אתה שר ה׃וירא רע

ים׃ 16 ת וגמל ת ואתנ ים ועבדים ושפח אן־ובקר וחמר ו צ יהי־ל ה ו יב בעבור יט ם ה ולאבר

ם׃ 17 שת אבר י א ר שר ו על־דב ית ים ואת־ב ים גדל ה נגע ע יהוה׀ את־פרע וינג

וא׃ 18 י אשתך ה י כ דת ל א־הג מה ל י ל ית ל את עש אמר מה־ז ם וי א פרעה לאבר ויקר

ך׃ 19 ח ול ה אשתך ק ה הנ ה ועת י לאש ה ל ח את וא ואק תי ה רת אח ה אמ למ

ו ע 20 ו׃ויצ ו ואת־כל־אשר־ל ו ואת־אשת ו את ישלח ים ו ה אנש יו פרע ל

2. Delimitation of text

The verses which precede this pericope, speak of the journey of Abram

with Sarai his wife and Lot his nephew from Haran to the land of Canaan.

The action is basically that of movement. Abram traversed four places

(Haran, Canaan, the mountain on the east of Bethel and Negev) in the space

of five verses (Gen 12,5-9). This motion would definitely take a different

twist in this pericope. While previously, Abram never stayed in any of

those places, except to build an altar to the Lord; in our pericope, there is

an halt in the continuous movement, with the verb, גור which denotes, to

sojourn, to dwell as alien. Thus, even though he is not settling in the sense

of ישב, he is halting in his continuous movement and making a definite

stop.

Another element which demarcates this passage and separates it from the

previous verses is the fact of a new problem at hand – the famine. While

the preceding verses do not have that problem, nor does the patriarch have

to worry about how to survive a hunger situation; these verses are marked

by a new challenge – that of famine and survival. The theme of survival is

so germane to vv. 10-20, that they cannot be overlooked in the motivations

which gave rise to the ploy of the patriarch, in presenting himself as the

brother of his wife.

Coupled with the varying action and challenge being confronted in

vv.10-20, there is a change in the characters in the unfolding of the

narrative. While Lot and the persons which Abram had acquired are

mentioned in Gen 12,5; their absence is remarkably noticeable in Gen

12,10-20. No mention is made of Lot or of his whereabouts while Abram


and Sarai were in the land of Egypt. It was not said that Abram and Lot

were enriched in Egypt. Only Abram is mentioned. This is all the more

striking with the fact that in the verse following this pericope, mention is

immediately made again of Lot and all that belonged to Abram (cf. Gen

13,1). As though a pause was made, and the narrative thread was resumed.

This absence of the mention of Lot and those with Abram clearly

underscore the independent nature of Gen 12,10-20.

Another feature which clearly marks out the separate nature of Gen

12,10-20 is the difference in place. There is a clear movement into Egypt in

Gen 12,11 (ימה יב לבוא מצר ר הקר י כאש The place, Egypt, was not .(ויה

mentioned in the verses which preceded this pericope. The events of

Gen12,10-20 took place at Egypt, and nowhere else. Thus, it is a compact

and composite unit. The exit from Egypt again, is not ambiguous. Gen

ו) 12,20 ו את ישלח ים ו ה אנש יו פרע ו על was very clear about the expulsion (ויצ

of Abram and his wife Sarai from Egypt. The unity of place that is evident

in the unfolding of the action marks off the passage as a unit on its own.

There is lively discussion on where the passage ends. While some

scholars view Gen 13,4 as the end of the passage9, some others vote Gen

13,1 as the conclusion of the narration10

. The argument that supports Gen

13,4 as the conclusion of the passage holds that there is a mention of ד כב

again in Gen 13,2 as we have it in Gen 12,10. Also, the cities Bethel and Ai

which are mentioned in 13,3 match with their naming in Gen 12,8.

Furthermore, the mention of the construction of an altar in Gen 13,4a pairs

with that of Gen 12,7b. Lastly, the name of the Lord is invoked in both Gen

12,8b and 13,4a. Notwithstanding the harmony of words favouring this

argument, it cannot be maintained. The opening in Gen 13,5 is inseparably

linked with 13,2. This makes it difficult to demarcate Gen 13,5 from 13,2.

Gen 13, 5 has a presupposition of Gen 13,2. Also the use of the adjective,

ד does not depict the same reality. While that of Gen 12,10 refers to the ,כב

extremity of the famine, that of Gen 13,2 refers to the amplitude of the

wealth of Abraham. As such, Gen 13,4 cannot possibly be the end of the

passage.

Moving over to the position that Gen 13,1 concludes the passage, the

expression that Abram went up from Egypt (ים ם ממצר seems to (ויעל אבר

really tally with his going down to Egypt in Gen 12,10 ( ימה ם מצר רד אבר .(וי

9 Cf. U. CASSUTO, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 334; P. WEIMAR,

Untersuchungen zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch,, 48-51. 10

J. SKINNER, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, 247; H.

HOLZINGER, Genesis,139;


There seems to be a parallel structure here. Again, some similarity can be

seen in ו ו ואת־כל־אשר־ל ו ואת־אשת ו of Gen 12,20 and את ו וכל־אשר־ל of ואשת

Gen 13,1. The parallelism however, can be said to be signs, which mark the

beginning of new sections, rather than opening and closing the same

narration. Furthermore, Gen 12,20 must be the conclusion of the narration

and not Gen 13,1; because the latter retakes the noun again. Abram has to

be restated, thereby marking a new narration. This is different from the

grammatical style in Gen 12,20 whereby Abram is referred to by the use of

pronouns. Also, Gen 13,1 introduces Lot again, as he is an important

character for the narration of Gen 13,1ff.

3. A literal translation

10 And then there was a famine in the land. And Abram went down to

Egypt to sojourn there, for the famine was severe in the land.

11 And as he drew near to enter Egypt, he said to Sarai his wife, Look, I

know that a very beautiful woman you are.

12 And when the Egyptians see you, they will say, this is his wife. And

then they will kill me and you, they will let live.

13 Please say, you are my sister, so that it may be well with me for your

sake. And my soul may live because of you.

14 And as Abram was entering Egypt, the Egyptians saw the woman, for

she was very beautiful.

15 And the chiefs of Pharaoh saw her and they praised her to Pharaoh. And

the woman was taken into the palace of pharaoh.

16 Meanwhile, it was well for Abraham, on her account. And then he had

flock, and cattle, and sheep, and male servants, and female servants, and

female asses and camels.

17 And then God struck Pharaoh with great plagues, with his household,

because of Sarah the wife of Abram.

18 Then Pharaoh called for Abram and said, What is this you have done to

me? Why did you tell me that she was your wife?


19 Why did you say ‘she is my sister’? So that I took her for myself as

wife. Now then, here, take your wife and go.

20 And Pharaoh ordered men concerning him, and they sent him away,

with his wife and all which belonged to him.

4. Structure

רדרעב בארץ ויהי 10 ד הרעב בארץ וי אברם מצרימה לגור שם כי־כב

ה־נא ידעתי כי אשה ויהי 11 אמר אל־שרי אשתו הנ כאשר הקריב לבוא מצרימה וי

יפת־מראה את

את והרגו אתי ואתך יחיו והיה 12 כי־יראו אתך המצרים ואמרו אשתו ז

ך 13 ך וחיתהאמרי־נא אחתי את למען ייטב־לי בעבור נפשי בגלל

המצרים את־האשה כי־יפה הוא מאד ויראוכבוא אברם מצרימה ויהי 14

י פרעה ויראו 15 קחאתה אל־פרעה ויהללואתה שר ית פרעה ות האשה ב

יטיב בעבורה 16 אן־ובקר וחמרים ועבדים ושפחת ואתנת וגמליםויהיולאברם ה ־לו צ

יתו על־דבר ש וינגע 17 שת אברםיהוה את־פרעה נגעים גדלים ואת־ב רי א

א־הגדת לי כי אשתך הוא ויקרא 18 את עשית לי למה ל אמר מה־ז פרעה לאברם וי

ך ואקחלמה אמרת אחתי הוא 19 ה אשתך קח ול אתה לי לאשה ועתה הנ אתו ואת־אשתו ואת־כל־אשר־לו וישלחועליו פרעה אנשים ויצו 20

The passage is an independent unit which can be neatly divided into

three parts:

vv. 10-13

vv. 14-16

vv. 17-20

The first section begins with a wayehi, and after the exposition of the

characters and the situation on ground, the action begins again with a

wayehi. The section has a conversation between Abram and Sarai, the

sensing of danger and how the danger would be addressed. In comparison

with the preceding pericope, the absence of YHWH in the discussions and

planning is quite evident.


The second section, vv. 14-16 has no dialogue. It begins also with a

wayehi, and consists mainly of the narrator giving a description of the

events that took place in Egypt, and how Sarai was praised to Pharaoh. This

section is again closed by another wayehi, which this time around is not

followed by a preposition + Infinitive, but preposition + pronoun.

The third section is another dialogue section, which matches with the

first section. However, in contrast to the first section whereby the

conversation was between Abram and Sarai (even though Sarai was quite

quiet), the third section does not have any recorded word from either of

them. The section begins with a form of waw + imperfect11

. However, the

key word נגע replaces היה in this particular instance. This serves to express

the incursion of YHWH and emphasize the firm and decisive manner in

which he intervenes. This singular verb changes the course of the whole

narration and sets in play, the righting of the wrong perpetuated by Pharaoh

in taking Sarai.

Just as the exposition (v. 10a) began with a wayehi, so also the

conclusion ends with a waw + imperfect (ויצו). At this point, we would like

to disagree with Fischer12

who sees just two divisions in the passage. She

joins v. 14 to what had preceded from vv. 10-13. However, this can be seen

as too surmising a position to take, for the wayehi together with preposition

marks a turn and change in the narration. The dialogues cease, and new

characters are introduced (the Egyptains and Pharaoh). Furthermore, Gen

24,30; 29,13 and 35,17 lend support to this use of wayehi + preposition +

verb in infinitive construct as beginning a new section.

Taking note of the dialogues, we can also arrive at this progression in the

narrative in dividing them into scenes;

v. 10 – Introduction; action of Abraham

vv. 11-13 first scene: speech of Abraham

vv. 14 – 16a second scene: action in Egyptian court

vv. 17 – 19 third scene: speech of Pharaoh

v. 20 – conclusion: action of Pharaoh

The Introduction and Conclusion can be said to reflect the action of the

two men, whose names are explicitly stated in the narrative, Abraham and

Pharaoh. The speeches of both of them are represented in the second and

fourth lines which also constitute the first and third scene. The intervention

of YHWH occupies the central scene, which is the action in the Egyptian

11

Thus, a subtle form of wayehi.

12 I. FISCHER, Die Erzeltern Israels, 122-123


court. This can be considered as an upturn of the events, as it changes what

comes before and determines what happens after. Weimar and

Brueggermann considered YHWH as the principal actor13

, as evidenced in

the central section of the chiasmic structure. However, Fischer would

consider Sarai as playing a more major role, even if she was silent and was

never the speaker in any scene – «Sie steht ab hier im Mittelpunkt des

Geschehens aller Szenen, wenngleich sie völlig passiv gezeichnet wird und

nie als Subjekt einer Handlung oder Rede auftritt»14

.

5. Exodus and Gen 12,10-20

The notion of exodus itself reflects the exit of children of Israel from

Egypt, from the shackles of slavery. The event has always been seen as a

central one in history, because it defines the Israelites as a people, and

gives them a unique identity. The importance of this singular event is also

seen in the multiple quotations in the scriptures which refer to this event. It

was seen as a basis of comparison of other events (eg. 1 Sam. 15,6; Micah

7,15), as an initial dateline for Israelites’ history or the starting point of a

historical review. Judges 19,30 for example, states that such a deed had

never been seen since Israel left Egypt. Furthermore, the exodus episode

also functioned to reflect the sovereignty of God as typified in Joshua 2,10;

9,9. The event is cited as a reason why Israel should be kind to its kindred,

and also to strangers in its midst (cf. Exo 22,20). Thus, the reality of

exodus and its importance cannot be overemphasized. Little wonder then

we have undertaken this exercise to look at the presence of the crossing in

the tissues of Gen 12,10-20, whereby some notions of the experience of

Moses and the people of Israel are seen active underneath the narrations of

Abram and his spouse in Egypt. It can be stated that Genesis dealt with

individuals, while Exodus dealt with a people. N. Sarna underscores that it

is in the book of Exodus that the phrase ‘the Israelite people’ appears for

the first time (cf. Exo 3,6.5.16)15

.

13

P. WEIMAR, Untersuchungen zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch, 16;

W. BRUEGGEMANN, Genesis, 127. 14

I. FISCHER, Die Erzeltern Israels, 124. 15

N. SARNA, Exploring Exodus. The Heritage of Biblical Israel, 6.


6. Keywords and themes that link Gen 12,10-20 with the exodus

experience

There is a lot of similarity between this passage and the exodus. It is the

thesis of this present exercise to thematically and linguistically establish a

connection between the exodus episode and the experience of Abram and

Sarai in Egypt. This will be approached by a rich appeal to the

morphological connections, which serve as literary links between the event

in the life of the patriarch and that of the Israelites in a foreign land. The

first striking element is the fact of the location of their journey, which

serves to connect and poke the interest of the attentive reader.

ימה ם מצר רד אבר וי

This is the first mention of the land of Egypt in the Bible, and it is

immediately linked with the patriarch of the Israelites. Egypt would later be

mentioned other 678 times in the scriptures. It is important to consider the

image given to this land from this pericope. It is portrayed as a place where

the men desire beautiful women, and they could even kill the husband (if

the woman is married) in order to claim his wife. It is quite amazing where

Abram got the idea that the Egyptians had this kind of murderous capacity,

given that in the narration, he had never encountered Egyptians before this

moment.

Egypt is generally presented in the Scriptures as a land of refuge. It is the

place where people scurry to for solace when the winds of adversity begin

to blow. The other instance of Gen 47,4 readily brings home this point. G.

Wenham describes Egypt as being nourished by Nile and thus, has a more

certain food supply. Its low and rich landscape offers the opportunity for

greater growth of crops and plants, in comparison with its Canaan

neighbouring land16

. Egypt is portrayed by B. Jacob as the breadbasket of

the ancient world, whose fertile grounds are maintained by the Nile.17

Jacob and his family would also, in Gen 47,4, move from Israel to Egypt,

in order to escape the famine which was ravaging the land.

The view by J. Husser18

, which is echoed by J. Joosten, that the place,

Egypt, was simply imposed upon this narrative by later editors in order to

link the passage with the latter experience of the Israelites leaves much to

be desired. Husser and Joosten are of the stance that since the story in Gen

12, 20 and 26 have a common framework and storyline, thus, the mention

of Egypt was secondary to the basics of the narration. In Joosten’s words,

‘the location in Egypt transfers the affair into the realm of literary

16

G. WENHAM, Genesis 1-15. 287 17

B. JACOB, Das Erste Buch der Tora. Ubersetzt und Erklärt, 347. 18

J.-M. HUSSER, «La typologie comme procédé de composition», 22-23.


fiction’19

. This position can be critiqued; taking into consideration the fact

that other similarities with the Egyptian episode are repeated in the other

versions of the story (Gen 20 also mentions the feature of striking). Gen 26

also speaks of the anxiety of Abram and the dismissal from the court of the

foreign sovereign. This goes ahead to show that the inclusion of the name

‘Egypt’ would not just be sufficient to link this movement of the patriarch

to a foreign land, with that of his descendants. Furthermore, the conjecture

that the name ‘Egypt’ was an afterthought goes much against the grain of

the characterization of Pharaoh in both episodes. If Egypt as a place was

simply inserted into the Genesis event as an afterthought, then why the

difference in the characterization of Pharaoh in both experiences? Thus, it

is not simply an effort of a latter editor to force Gen 12,10-20 to cohere

with Exodus. It is rather, the unfolding of the events in Egypt as the final

form of the text proposes it to be.

One of the themes which link the Exodus episode with this pericope is

that of fear. Just as Abram was afraid for his life, so also the new Pharaoh

was afraid that the geometric and rapid increase of the Israelites would one

day sustain a cross-carpeting of alliance and result in the expulsion of the

Egyptians from their own land (cf. Exo 1,8-10). This theme of fear, though

it has no word-similitude between the two accounts, is seen in the fact that

it took flesh in practical actions. The fear of Abram made him to act and

give a directive, just as fear made Pharaoh to give a directive that all the

male children, which were to be born by the Israelite women must be

immediately murdered20

. Just as the instruction was given to a woman in

the situation of fear in Gen 12 (Abram instructing Sarai), so also it was the

female folk (the Egyptian midwives) that were instructed to snuff out the

lives of newly born Israelite males. This again lends support to the thesis of

the resonance which rings between these two episodes.

The use of the word, « sojourn » is another element which serves to unite

these two episodes. Gen 12, 10 reads אברם מצרימה לגור שם. The same verb

is found in Gen 47,4 (אמרו אל־פרעה לגור בארץ באנו To sojourn», here» .(וי

simply means to take refuge in a foreign land. The qal form is more

common, having a total of 81 occurrences in the Old Testament. It has a

subtle but interesting openness to a homonym which has the same

orthography, the alternative form of יגר, which means – ‘to be afraid’. It is

used with the preposition מן, and examples can be seen in Deut. 18,22 and

Job 41,17. It is interesting to note this possibility of meaning, considering

19

J. JOOSTEN, «Abram et Saraï en Égypte» 374. 20

Exo 1,16


that in this particular episode, we see a conglomeration of both meanings:

Abram going to sojourn in Egypt, and was afraid of losing his beautiful

wife to the Egyptians. According to R. Martin-Achard, the ר is to be ג

differentiated from the foreigner in general, who is rather נכרי or זר. The ר ג

is a stranger that has settled, established himself or herself for a particular

period in the land and has already won a special status21

. The question in

this case might be that Abram went to gur, but did he ever become gēr in

Egypt? We remember that he had amassed wealth. Was his sojourn meant

to be temporary or permanent? What was his intention after his life was

spared? The answers to these questions make the intervention of God in the

matter all the more relevant. Abram would later settle in Hebron in Gen

23,4. There, one could say that he clearly became a ר buying land and ,ג

property, and settling decisively among the ranks of the Hebronites.

Another element which links these two passages is that of the perceived

eagerness of the Egyptians to kill. Abram had this conviction that the

Egyptians would be all-too-ready to kill him, for the purpose of taking his

beautiful wife (והרגו אתי ואתך יחיו). This eagerness to commit murder is

once more seen in Exo 2,15 whereby Pharaoh sought to kill Moses on

account of his defence of his countryman. In other words, murder was

about to be committed once again for the sake of an Israelite. Exo 5,21

reflects the same murderous attitude when the fore masters of the Israelites

complained of the readiness of Pharaoh to kill, by means of overburdening

them with tasks, coupled with the provision of meagre resources. Römer

rightly notes that the same verb is used in both Genesis and Exodus (הרג)22

.

This word tends to strengthen the link between the two experiences and

portray the perceived pre-figurement of the exodus experience in this life-

event of Abram.

Abram is quite known for his riches and wealth. His means of

enrichment is hinted at in Gen 12,16 whereby he got much sheep, oxen, he-

asses, men-servants, maid-servants, she-asses and camels23

from Pharaoh

21 R. MARTIN-ACHARD, גור, TLOT 307.

22 T. RÖMER, «The Exodus in the book of Genesis», 7.

23 There are discussions however on the list of these gifts of Abram, given the stating

of asses and camels after the male-servants and female-servants. The Samaritan

Pentateuch has a longer list, which has some inclusions: sheep, oxen, many beasts, male

and female servants, male and female donkeys, and camels. The addition and

rearrangement of the animals simply demonstrates the fact that there are discussions on

the order of the animals. Why should the male and female donkeys be separated by male

and female servants? The Jewish interpretation holds that the female donkeys were

paired with the camels, rather than the male-donkeys, because they were better pack-


for the sake of Sarai his wife. This enrichment is very similar to the

experience of the Israelites in Egypt (cf. Exo 12,35). The children of Israel

despoiled the Egyptians, becoming richer with jewels of gold, silver and

raiment24

. Römer however notes the difference between the two episodes25

.

In the Genesis encounter, Pharaoh gave of his own free will to Abram, the

Israelite Patriarch. However, in Exodus, it is said that the Israelites

plundered the Egyptians. This marks a difference in the similarity between

the two episodes.

Perhaps, the strongest motif for the similarity between the two events

comes up in the notion of the striking (נגע), which is quite striking. In Gen

12,17, the verb that is used to express the action of God striking Pharaoh

and his household with plagues (יתו on (וינגע יהוה את־פרעה נגעים גדלים ואת־ב

account of Sarai, Abram’s wife is נגע. In Exo11,1 the same word in its

nominal form is used to describe the affliction inflicted upon the Egyptians

by YHWH. The Egyptians were stricken with a plague (נגע) in order to

demonstrate the power of God, and bring about the liberation of the

Israelites. B. Becking would note that it was only the final plague that was

described with this term. In other parts of the book of Exodus, the plagues

were portrayed, with the more common verb, 26נכה can actually have a נגע .

variety of meanings. Three of the eight occurrences27

of this verb in

Genesis are used in this present story and its parallels (Gen 12,17; 20,6;

26,11). In Gen 12,17, the Lord strikes Pharaoh and his house with great

plagues. In 20,6, He tells Abimelech, ‘I did not let you touch her’; and in

Gen 26,11 Abimelech issues a warning that whoever touches Isaac or his

wife will be put to death. Definitely, one can say that the verb is used

differently in each of the three occasions. While in 12,17 it could be said to

refer to plagues (as the verb is further buttressed with the noun נגעים used as

animals. However, the ordering of similar lists in Gen 24,35 and 30,43 gives the

impression that the last two items on the list may not be strange after all. The famous

archaeological arguments (cf. J.P. FREE, « The Problem of Camels in the Patriarchal

Stories »; M. RIPINSKY, « The Camel in Dynastic Egypt ») on the question of

anachronism in the mention of camels since they were not yet domesticated as at the

time of the documentation of this narration makes interesting reading, but not germane

to our present task. 24

This was also noted by U. CASSUTO, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 335;

T. RÖMER «The Exodus in the book of Genesis», 7; J. JOOSTEN, «Abram et Saraï en

Égypte», 374-375. 25

T. RÖMER, «The Exodus in the book of Genesis», 8. 26

B. BECKING, «Abram in Exile. Remarks on Genesis 12,10-20*» 42. 27

Gen 3,3; 12,17; 20,6; 26,11; 26,29;28,2;32,26;32,33


an adverbial accusative with the piel of the verb)28

. In Gen 20,6 however, it

has a sexual connotation, especially when it is viewed in the light of v. 4

which states explicitly that Abimelech had not drawn close to her ( ואבימלך

ליה א קרב א This should be read also as a means by which the person .(ל

being referred to is not to be condemned but should rather be accepted and

drawn closer to the king. But what does the word mean in 26,11? It

becomes a bit ambiguous here. The verb נגע in Gen 26,11 implies both

Isaac and Rebekah, and it could have two meanings. In Gen 26, Abimelech

gives a decree wherein he states that nobody should touch Isaac or his wife.

In this wise, the ‘touch’ can definitely not refer to strike with the intent of

inflicting a disease29

, as is the case in Gen 12, 10-20. The touch here could

have a sexual connotation – ‘to have intercourse’, since that was the

context from which he Abimelech had just been saved – he had attempted

to make Sarai his wife, with the result of getting rebuked directly from God

for it. On the other hand, it could also have the sense of rough handling.

Here, the Gerarites might be trying to have their pound of flesh for the

trouble that this couple had put them through. On the other hand, the

touching could refer to another man, falling into the same weakness of

appropriating the beautiful wife of a defenceless stranger in their midst.

D.J.A. Clines raises further questions when he asks, «Can the Gerarites be

entirely sure, when a death penalty hangs over this touching, that the king

does not mean all forms of touching? Are Isaac and his wife now in the

position of the ritually unclean...?»30

Van Seters on the other hand, took the stance of seeing a double entendre

in the sense of the verb. He held that the verb נגע used with reference to a

man, meant «inflicting bodily injury» while for a woman, it meant «to

28

L. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, 206. It is important to note that Schwienhorst

does not denote the sexual connotation of this verb in his analysis. Is this a gross

oversight? Definitely his position is contrary to that of Y. Peleg who maintains, on the

basis of the principle of measure for measure, that since God struck Pharaoh with נגעים,

then his sin must have been touching (נגע) of Sarai. And Peleg wishes נגע to be

understood in a sexual context here. His claim was that something did occur between

Pharaoh and Sarai. Cf. Y.I. PELEG, «Was the Ancestress of Israel in Danger? » 208. 29

According to Schwienhorst, the verb frequently in this sense, has God as its

subject and persons as its object. In all its usages, it refers to a disease, which is quite

frequently stated (cf. 2 Kings 15,5; 2 Chr. 26,20; 1 Sam 6,9; 1 Sam. 5,6.9.12; 6,5; Isa.

53,4; Ps. 73,5.14; Job 19,21). Cf. L. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, 206. 30

D.J.A. CLINES, What does Eve do to Help? And other readerly questions to the Old

Testament, 81.


approach sexually»31

. However, the infliction of the plague, when put in the

broader light of Exo 11,1 definitely debunks this thesis of gender-

separation in application of the verb. This is due to the very fact that both

male and female were inflicted in Exo 11,1 without any form of

discrimination – the plague was sent upon Pharaoh and upon the whole of

Egypt.

Another element which is quite emphatic in relating the Genesis trip to

Egypt with the Exodus experience is that of the dismissal of the couple.

The words of the dismissal are quite similar in both accounts. In the

Genesis account, after Pharaoh had discovered that Sarai was actually

Abram’s wife, he sent for him and gave him a direct query, ‘Why did you

say, she is my sister?’ The failure of Abram to give an answer to the charge

laid by Pharaoh had been interpreted in various ways. It was seen as an

embarrassing silence because Abram had no response. While Gunkel holds

that whatever Abram might have said would have been be insignificant for

the course of the narrative32

, Wenham puts it more mildly that Abram

permits Pharaoh to have the last word, thus admitting his guilt33

. Fischer

underscores the anger of Pharaoh which does not give room for an

articulated response from Abram34

. The form of the dismissal in Genesis,

again invokes our interest, as it has a lot of similarity with that of Exodus.

Becking notes that the verb שלח, as used in Gen 12,20 is close to that of the

Exodus experience35

. In Gen 12,20, the verb is used in its Piel conjugation,

giving a factitive nuance – Pharaoh had Abram and Sarai sent away. In the

description of Exodus, the same verb is used frequently in the Piel

conjugation (cf. Exo 7,14; 14,5). The verb in its Piel form occurs 46 times

in the entire book of Exodus, occurring 40 times before Exo 15, and a bare

6 times after the expulsion from Egypt. Comparing the first and last usages

of the verb, a tension is revealed between the combat between God and

Pharaoh and the paradox between the theme of God hardening the heart of

Pharaoh and Moses’ main message being the demand for liberation of the

Israelites to serve God in the desert. The cry of confusion of the Egyptians

in the fortieth use (a significant number) of the verb in its Piel form, את מה־ז

נועשינו כ עבד ל מ י־שלחנו את־ישרא reveals the dissolution of the tension, and

the stringent consonance of the use of this verb, with its attendant

conjugation, in both experiences.

31

J. VAN SETERS, Abraham in History and Tradition, 181. 32

H. GUNKEL, Genesis,171. 33

G. WENHAM, Genesis 1-15. 290. 34

I. FISCHER, Die Erzeltern Israels, 133. 35

B. BECKING, «Abram in Exile», 42-43.


7. Theological relevance

This narration goes a long way to underscore the role of the God of

Israel in the history of their salvation. The sojourn of Abram in Egypt

shows the saving power of God, even in the face of momentary

unfaithfulness and wandering of Abram. Though Abram sought to

practically look for a solution to the famine that ravaged his land, not

explicitly seeking the position of God on the next step to take nor following

the course mapped out for him by God, God remained faithful in not letting

the promise about his descendants inheriting the land to be thwarted by the

patriarch’s brief stint in Egypt. This is all the more underscored by the

readiness of God to deliver Abram from the hands of Pharaoh, despite the

failure of Abram to call upon God when he saw that Sarai had been taken.

The theme of selfishness of Abram stands in strong contrast with the

selflessness of Sarai and the generosity of God. The role of Sarai in the

whole episode has been one of many lively discussions, based on the fact

that though she never uttered a word throughout the narrative, yet she

remained the main character of the events36

. However, if it can be

established that a character can also be known by the actions carried out, it

would definitely imply that Sarai was at least ready to save the life of

Abram. This is coupled with the fact that she did not protest her abduction

or denounce Abram on entry in the palace of Pharaoh. This stands in strong

contrast to the selfish motive of Abram who was apparently interested only

in carrying out the ruse for his own safety.

The generosity of Sarai, implied in her action, is however, interpreted

and incarnated in the justice of God, who goes all out to redeem the

situation. He puts things right and does not permit injustice to go

unpunished. However, the balance of justice has been one again, of much

discussion. The character of pharaoh in this narrative is presented in a

positive light and leaves much to be desired when set against his

characterization in the book of Exodus. Pharaoh is presented as a just man

who was interested in maintaining justice and setting things right.

This episode also makes us ponder on the relationship between power

and morality. Is the sovereign beyond the law? If he is limited by the law,

what are the parameters by which he is constrained to bend his decisions

and actions to the confines of the law? This calls to mind the number of

times that those in positions of authority at times, bend the law to suit their

purposes.

36

Cf. I. FISCHER, Die Erzeltern Israels, 136.


Also Sarna rightly notes, ‘human beings cannot successfully defy God’s

will or effectively thwart His purposes’37

. All the steps taken by Pharaoh

were not sufficient to change the plan God had for Abraham and his

descendants. In the same vein, it is important to note that God has a way of

making his purposes come to pass, writing straight on a crooked line, even

with the opposition of earthly powers and sovereignties.

CONCLUSION

D.J.A. Clines defined the theme of the Pentateuch as the partial

fulfillment or non-fulfillment of the promise to the patriarchs38

. In this

sense, the promise or blessing is both the divine initiative in a world where

human initiatives always lead to disaster, and a reaffirmation of the primal

divine intentions for man. In this sense, God goes out of his way to redeem

the distortion of the plan He has for man, whether this distortion comes

from the receiver of the promise, as in the case of the patriarch Abram, or

from an external force, as in the case of Egyptian Pharaoh. This

observation of Clines is quite close to what Paul Ricouer pines, that

scriptures always intends to communicate the conviction that the divine

plan, although unavoidable, is never fulfilled if not through what may be

called human recalcitrance39

. In other words, man has to fail and exhibit his

human limitations, in order for God’s power and faithfulness to be made

more evident. This tension generates a narrative, an encounter, a history of

falling and being picked up, a binary of darkness and light, helplessness

and power. The one who thinks himself to be powerful, is made to see the

strength and depth of his weakness; while the One who is ignored by the

self-conceited, proves that He has the real power and authority, and cannot

be ignored. However, His power is not to hurt nor exploit His subjects

according to whims and caprices, but rather to save and aid. The experience

of Abram in Egypt clearly showed this fact and interaction, and it

continued even in the experience of his descendants. In sum then, Abram

was certainly a mirror. But not a mirror of himself. Rather, a mirror of the

One who called him from his father’s house40

.

37

N. SARNA, Exploring Exodus. The Heritage of Biblical Israel, 2. 38

D.J.A. CLINES, The Theme of the Pentateuch, 29 39

P. RICOEUR, Temps et Récit, 18-19 40

Cf. Gen. 20,13

ABBREVIATIONS

BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche

Wissenschaft

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology

JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies

JSOT.S Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement

Series

TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament

TLOT Theological Lexicon of Old Testament

WBC Word Biblical Commentary

ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ALTER, R., The Art of Biblical Narrative, New York 20112.

BEAUCHAMP, P. et al., Typologie biblique. De quelques figures vives, Paris 2002.

BECKING, B., «Abram in Exile. Remarks on Genesis 12,10-20*» in A.C.

HAGEDORN, – H. PFEIFFER, ed., Die Erzväter in der Biblischen

Tradition. Fs. M. Köckert, BZAW New York 2009, 35-47.

BRUEGGEMANN, W., Genesis. A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching,

Atlanta 1982.

CLINES, D.J.A., What does Eve do to Help? And other readerly questions to the

Old Testament, Sheffield 1990.

———, The Theme of the Pentateuch, JSOT.S 10 (1978) 29.

FISCHER, I., Die Erzeltern Israels. Feminitisch-theologische Studien zu Genesis

12-36, New York 1994.

FISHBANE, M., Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford 1985.

FREE, J.P. , «The Problem of Camels in the Patriarchal Stories», JNES 3 (1944)

187-193.

GUNKEL, H., Genesis, Gottingen 19103; English trans., Genesis, tr. M.E. Biddle,

Macon GA 1997.

HOLZINGER, H., Genesis, Freiburg 1898.

JACOB, B., Das Erste Buch der Tora: Ubersetzt und Erklärt, Schocken Verlag,

1934.

JOOSTEN, J., «Abram et Saraï en Égypte: Composition et message de Genèse

12,10-20*» in M. ARNOLD, G. DAHAN & A. NOBLESSE-ROCHER, ed.,

La soeur-épouse. (Genèse 12,10-20), Paris 2010.

KUNTZMANN, R., ed, Typologie biblique. De quelques figures vives, Paris 2002.

MARTIN-ACHARD, R., «גור» TLOT, I, 307.

PELEG, Y.I., «Was the Ancestress of Israel in Danger?» ZAW 118 (2006)

197-208.

RICOEUR, P., Temps et Récit, Paris 1985.

RIPINSKY, M., «The Camel in Dynastic Egypt», JEA 71 (1985) 134-141.

RÖMER, T., «The Exodus in the book of Genesis», Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 75

(2010) 1-20.

SARNA, N., Exploring Exodus. The Heritage of Biblical Israel, New York 1986.


SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, L., «נגע», TDOT, IX, 206.

SKINNER, J., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, New York 1910.

SONNET, J.-P., «L’Analisi Narrativa dei Racconti Biblici», in M. BAUKS – C.

NIHAN, ed., Manuale di esegesi dell’Antico Testamento, Bologna

2010.

VAN SETERS, J., Abraham in History and Tradition, New Haven CT 1975.

WEIMAR, P., Untersuchungen zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch, Berlin

1977.

WENHAM, G., Genesis 1-15, WBC 1, Waco TX 1994.

was abram a mirror for his descendants?

Documents