Abstract
The Yahwist's narrative in Gen. 18.1–16, 20–22a, 33b, and 19.1–27a, 28 focuses on a single theological concern, namely, the power of Yahweh to fulfill the promise of a son for Sarah and Abraham. In the annunciation scene, the deity himself articulates this issue: ‘Is anything too hard for Yahweh?’ The Sodom tale suggests a negative answer—nothing is too hard for Yahweh—by demonstrating the power of Yahweh to fulfill a threat of destruction. The theological reasoning of the Yahwist who joined the Mamre and Sodom episodes is close, though not identical, to the thought of the exilic and post-exilic texts in Jeremiah 32 and Zechariah 7–8.
Commentators have long ascribed most, if not all, of Gen. 18.1–19.28 to the Yahwist source. 1 The narrative consists of two main episodes: the divine visit to Abraham and Sarah at Mamre, culminating in the promise of a son to the old couple (18.1–16a); and the divine investigation of Sodom, the escape of Lot and his two daughters, and the destruction of the city (19.1–28). 2 The episodes share some of the same characters—Yahweh, the divine men, and Abraham—and they narrate events in a tight temporal sequence: mid-day in Mamre, evening and the next morning in Sodom (18.1; 19.1, 15,23,27). Furthermore, they both begin with pictures of hospitality for divine visitors (18.1–8 and 19.1–9), and both end with downward gazes upon Sodom, before and after its destruction (18.16a and 19.28). 3 Beyond these connections, however, a more substantive link between the two episodes is far from obvious. What does the divine promise of a son to an old couple have to do with the divine destruction of a wicked city?
One answer to the question comes in 18.17–19, a soliloquy of Yahweh on the road from Mamre to Sodom. The deity here implies that the gift of a son to Sarah and Abraham is only the beginning of a broader promise to make the patriarch into a great and populous nation. Yahweh suggests further that the fate of Sodom should serve as a lesson that Abraham will teach to his descendants so that they will adhere to the ‘way of Yahweh’ and thereby merit becoming a great nation. Whether this reasoning derives from the Yahwist writer is doubtful. There are good reasons to regard vv. 17–19 as a secondary addition (see section I below). Without them, the narrative does not explicitly explain the logic of the connection between the Mamre and Sodom episodes.
A close examination of the two episodes reveals an implicit theological connection. This article seeks to illuminate the reasoning of the Yahwist writer who shaped the Mamre and Sodom episodes and joined them together in order to answer a question about divine power. 4 Since accretions to the narrative obscure the Yahwist's thought, I begin with the preliminary task of identifying the additions, especially in the transitional passage of 18.16–33.
I
Genesis 18.16–33 presents a scene on the road from Mamre to Sodom. It consists mostly of speech; specifically, a soliloquy of Yahweh (vv. 17–19), Yahweh's disclosure of his plan to investigate Sodom (vv. 20–21), and a long dialogue between Yahweh and Abraham about the possibility of sparing Sodom from destruction (vv. 23–32). These are joined by notices that the divine men and Abraham departed from Mamre (v. 16). the divine men continued toward Sodom (v. 22a), Abraham remained standing before Yahweh on the road (v. 22b), and Yahweh departed while Abraham returned home (v. 33). Several considerations suggest that only some of this material is original to the Yahwist's narrative.
The Sodom episode in ch. 19 concludes with a notice about Abraham: he ‘rose early in the morning [at Mamre]…and looked down toward (ינפ־לע ףקשױ) Sodom and Gomorrah and all the Plain’, and there he saw the widespread destruction (vv. 27a, 28). The text here assumes the disclosure of the divine plan to Abraham in 18.20–21. Why else would Abraham rise early and go to look at the cities and the Plain?
Genesis 18.16a concludes the Mamre episode by narrating the departure of the divine men. At the same time, v. 16a anticipates the Sodom episode by reporting that the men ‘looked down toward’ (ינפ־לע ופקשױ) Sodom. The language here is matched precisely in 19.28a. The two half-verses function together to offer ‘before’ and ‘after’ pictures of the city.
Yahweh's soliloquy in 18.17–19 begins with a question: ‘Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?’ Contrary to the view of some scholars, v. 18 cannot suffice as an answer. 5 Verse 19 is required: ‘No, I have chosen him (ויתעדי) in order that he might charge his sons…’ 6 The end of v. 19 speaks of Yahweh fulfilling for the patriarch ‘what he had spoken about him’. The reference here is likely to the divine promise in v. 18: ‘Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the world shall be blessed through him’. Verses 17–19 are thus an indivisible unit, and their purpose is to justify the disclosure of the divine plan to Abraham. While the disclosure in vv. 20–21 allows this justification, it does not demand it. The scene on the road to Sodom would still make sense if the disclosure attached directly to v. 16. 7
Verse 16b is a concomitant circumstantial clause: ‘While Abraham was walking (ךלה םחרבאו) with them [the divine men] to send them off…’ 8 Syntactically, the clause does not fit well with v. 16a, which appears to narrate antecedent action: ‘The men arose from there and looked down toward Sodom’. More likely, v. 16b goes with Yahweh's statements that follow. Elsewhere in the narrative, concomitant circumstantial clauses mark the beginning and end of sections, and in each case the circumstantial clause is followed by a main clause starting with a waw-consecutive verb.
18. 1b-2: While he [Abraham] was sitting (בשי אוהו) at the entrance of the tent in the heat of the day, he lifted his eyes and saw (ארױ ויניע אשױ)…
18.8b: While he [Abraham] was standing (דמע־אוהו) beside them [the divine men] under the tree, they ate (ולכאױ).
19.1: While Lot was sitting (בשי טולו) in the gateway of Sodom, Lot looked and rose (םקױ טול־אדױ) to meet them.
The circumstantial clause in 18.16b would be similar if it attached directly to v. 20: ‘While Abraham was walking (ךלה םחרבאו) with them to send them off, Yahweh said (הוהי דמאױ), “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great… I shall go down and see whether all of it [Sodom] has done (הלכ ושע) according to the outcry that has come to me; and if not, I will know.”’ 9 This wording is smooth. 10
In v. 17, the phrase, ‘what I am about to do’ (השע ינא רשא), appears to assume that Yahweh will destroy Sodom. As many commentators have observed, it stands in tension with vv. 20–21, where Yahweh proposes simply to investigate the city. Here the fate of Sodom is still uncertain. The tension tells against an original connection between vv. 17–19 and vv. 20–21. 11
Verse 19 is one long sentence. It consists of a main clause (ויחעדי יכ, ‘No, for I have chosen him…’), a purpose clause (הוצי רשא ןעמל ‘in order that he might charge…’), a result clause (הוהי ךרד ורמשו, ‘to the end that they keep the way of Yahweh…’), and a second purpose clause (הוהי איבה ןעמל, ‘in order that Yahweh might bring/fulfill…’). No other sentence in Genesis 18–19 exhibits this piling up of clauses. The length and syntactic complexity is characteristic of the rhetorical style in Deuteronomy (compare, e.g., Deut. 6.1–2). 12
According to v. 19, the fulfillment of Yahweh's promise to Abraham depends on the behavior of his descendants. They must ‘keep the way of Yahweh (הוהי ךרד ורמשו) by doing righteousness and justice in order that Yahweh may bring upon Abraham what he spoke about him’. Nowhere else in Genesis does this condition attach to the divine promise. Usually it is unconditional; see 12.2–3; 13.14–17; 15.5, and 28.13–15. In 22.15–18 and 26.3–5, the fulfillment of the promise is predicated on Abraham's behavior, specifically his great act(s) of obedience to God (see also 26.24). In contrast, Deuteronomy typically makes the fulfillment of the promise to the patriarchs contingent upon the religious behavior of later Israelites; see especially 7.11–12; 8.1,18–20; 11.8–9; 29.11–12, and 30.19–20. The thought in Gen. 18.19 is akin to the theology of these texts.
Verse 19 evinces the influence of Deuteronomy in one more way, namely, the role it assigns to Abraham. He is to ‘charge/command’ (הוצי) his descendants so that they ‘keep the way of Yahweh’ (הוהי ךרד ורמשו). Nowhere else in Genesis does the patriarch have this role. However, it appears frequently in Deuteronomy in connection with Moses. Moses ‘commands’ (הוצ) or ‘teaches’ (דמל piel) the Israelites so that they ‘keep/observe’ (רמש) the ‘way(s)’ or ‘statutes’ or ‘ordinances’ of Yahweh; see especially 4.1–2, 14, and 40, 5.31–33, 6.1–2, and 8.1. The writer of Gen. 18.19 has cast Abraham in the Deuteronomic image of Moses. 13
Verses 17–19 stand in tension with the Mamre episode. Verses 9–15 narrate not only the divine promise of a son for Sarah and Abraham but also Sarah's skeptical response: she ‘laughed’ (v. 12a). A major concern of the narrative, then, is human doubt regarding the power of Yahweh. Verse 14a poses the key theological issue: ‘Is anything too hard for Yahweh?’ (רבד הוהימ אלפיה). In vv. 17–19, the divine promise goes far beyond a single son to include the whole ‘household’ of Abraham, that is, his myriad descendants; they are to become ‘a great and mighty nation’ (םוצעו לודג ױגל). 14 Furthermore, the text here assumes that Yahweh has the power to do what he says. The issue now is whether the condition of the promise will be met. Will the descendants of Abraham act righteously so as to merit experiencing what Yahweh promised to the patriarch? And what role will Abraham play to advance the fulfillment of the promise? These concerns have little to do with the earlier question, ‘Is anything too hard for Yahweh?’
Scholars debate whether the dialogue in 18.22b-33a is original to the Yahwist's narrative. 15 On the one hand, the material shares some vocabulary with ch. 19, for example, ‘sweep away’ (הפס, in 18.23b, 24 and 19.15b, 17b) and ‘destroy’ (hiphil תחש, in 18.28, 31, 32 and 19.13, 14). Also, 19.27b speaks of Abraham going ‘to the place where he had stood before Yahweh’ (הוהי ינפ־תא סש דמע־רשא סוקמה־לא). The phrase refers back to 18.22b, which suggests that ‘Abraham remained standing before Yahweh’ (הוהי ינפל דמע ונדוע סהרבאו).
On the other hand, despite these verbal links, there are good reasons to regard 18.22b-33a as a secondary addition. 16 The theological issue that these verses address—whether Yahweh would pardon an entire city for the sake of a righteous minority in it—turns out to be moot. The narrative in ch. 19 makes clear that no such minority exists in Sodom. The dialogue between Abraham and Yahweh is a purely theoretical discussion about the proper working of divine justice. It contributes little to the broader storyline in Genesis 18–19. 17
Furthermore, 18.22b-33a has nothing to do with the theological issue of 18.9–15: ‘Is anything too hard for Yahweh?’ This question is about the power of God, whether God is able to fulfill his announcements, even the promise of a son to an old couple. The dialogue in vv. 22b-33a assumes that Yahweh can do what he says, and ponders instead how Yahweh would deal with a mixed group of good and bad people. Would the ‘judge of all the earth’ commit the injustice of killing the righteous with the wicked (v. 25)?
If at least some of the scene on the road to Sodom is original to the Yahwist's narrative, the notice in v. 33b about Abraham's return to Mamre is required. The preceding dialogue, however, is not. Without the dialogue, v. 33b would attach directly to v. 22a: ‘The [divine] men turned from there and went on to Sodom, and Abraham returned to his place [at Mamre]’. This reading is smooth, and it brings the scene to a fitting close. 18
To conclude: Gen. 18.17–19 and 22b-33a are secondary expansions of the Yahwist's narrative. The addition in vv. 17–19 reflects the language and thought of Deuteronomy as it justifies the disclosure to Abraham of the divine plan for Sodom. The addition in vv. 22b-33a derives from an editor concerned to address an issue suggested by Yahweh's ‘if not’ in v. 21b: how should the deity treat Sodom if most but not all of its people are guilty? 19 The verses articulate a notion of divine justice according to which, if the righteous should not die with the wicked, the presence of a few righteous citizens secures divine forgiveness for the whole city. 20 In composing this theological excursion, the editor drew on some of the Yahwist's vocabulary in ch. 19. The incorporation of 18.22b-33a into the earlier narrative was facilitated also by the insertion of 19.27b and by the revision of 19.1a and 15a. 21 In 19.1 and 15a, the original subject was probably ‘the men’ (םישנאה). It was changed to ‘the two angels’ (םיכאלמה ינש) and ‘the angels’ (םיכאלמה ) in order to accommodate the notice in 18:22b that Yahweh lingered on the road to talk with Abraham. 22
II
If the preceding analysis is correct, the Yahwist writer's scene on the road to Sodom included only 18.16, 20–22a, and 33b. It read as follows:
(16) Then the men arose from there and looked down toward Sodom. As Abraham was walking with them to send them off, (20) Yahweh said, ‘How great is the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah, and how very grave is their sin! (21) I shall go down and see whether all of it has acted according to the outcry against it [Sodom] that has come to me, and if not, I shall know’. (22a) So the men turned from there and walked on to Sodom (33b) and Abraham returned to his place.
The brevity of this scene is noteworthy. Abraham learns of the divine plan to investigate Sodom, but the importance of the city's fate goes unexplained. How does Yahweh's treatment of Sodom concern the patriarch? Also unexpressed are Abraham's thoughts about the divine plan. The narrative tells only that he ‘returned to his place’ (v. 33b). As for the logical connection between the Mamre and Sodom episodes, this too is left unexplained. If the divine destruction of Sodom in Genesis 19 has relevance to the divine promise of a son to Abraham in 18.1–15, that relevance must be inferred from the paratactic juxtaposition of the two episodes and the narrative details in each. 23
The Mamre episode begins with a summary statement in 18.1a: ‘Yahweh appeared to him [Abraham] among the oaks of Mamre’. Verses 1b-8 then depict Abrahams hospitality for the divine visitors. The episode culminates with an annunciation scene in vv. 9–15. 24 The scene includes:
the announcement of a son for Sarah (vv. 9–10a);
Sarah's response: skeptical laughter (vv. 10b-12);
Yahweh's rebuke: ‘Why did Sarah laugh?’ (vv. 13–14);
Sarah's denial (v. 15a);
Yahweh's rebuke: ‘No, you did laugh’ (v. 15b).
Hospitality in ancient Israel involved certain rules that governed the roles of a host and his guest. At least two of the rules are apparent in the Mamre episode: (1) the host should provide the best that he possesses—typically he gives a foot-washing, food, water, lodging, and provisions for the guest's animals; (2) the guest should reciprocate with news, expressions of gratitude, praise for the host, blessings, and predictions of good fortune for the host. 25 The Yahwist writer goes to great lengths to depict Abraham as the ideal host. Verses 2–8 narrate every small detail of the patriarch's care for the divine visitors. For the guest's reciprocal offer, the writer employs the annunciation scene in vv. 9–15. The visitors repay Abraham's generosity with the promise of a son. 26
An annunciation scene usually narrates the advent of a divine emissary who announces the future birth of a child of special importance. While the biblical examples exhibit some variety (see Gen. 16.11–15; 17.15–22; Judg. 13; 2 Kgs 4.8–17; Lk. 1.11–20, 26–38), the typical pattern of an annunciation scene is as follows:
a recognition of the problem, usually infertility;
the announcement of the birth, name, destiny, and other special features of the future child;
an expression of doubt;
the fulfillment of the announcement, i.e., the birth of the child. 27
In comparison to the above model, the annunciation scene in 18.9–15 appears distinctive in several ways:
The recognition of the problem comes in v. 11, midway through the scene, after the announcement of the future son. The notice in v. 11 about Sarah and Abraham's old age and Sarah's consequent infertility is a parenthetical explanation of Sarah's doubt (v. 12).
The four-fold occurrence of the verb קחצ, ‘laugh’ (vv. 12a, 13b, 15a, and 15b), provides the basis for naming the child as Isaac (קחצי), but the name itself is not actually mentioned.
The announcement in vv. 9–10a says nothing about the child except that he will be born. There is not a word about his destiny or distinguishing characteristics.
The fulfillment of the announcement is dropped, or at least postponed to a later point in the story of Abraham. 28
The theme of doubt is unusually prominent. Explicit reference to Sarah's laughter occurs in vv. 12, 13, and 15. Her skepticism is voiced first in v. 12 and then paraphrased by Yahweh in v. 13. The last word in the scene goes to Yahweh, who contradicts Sarah, ‘No, you did laugh’. The rebuke keeps the reader's attention focused on what is central to the narrative: human doubt in the divine promise.
Genesis 18.9–15 is thus a creative adaptation of an annunciation scene. The biblical writer plays down the normal interest in the future child and instead emphasizes the theme of human doubt regarding the power of God to fulfill his word.
Rhetorical questions lie at the center of the annunciation scene. Together, they highlight the different perspectives of the human and divine characters. In v. 12b, Sarah asks, ‘After I have grown old and my husband is old, shall I have pleasure?’ (הנדע יל־התיה). This question is paraphrased in v. 13b, where Yahweh quotes Sarah as saying, ‘Shall I really bear a child (דלא םנמא ףאה) now that I am old?’ Sarah assumes a negative answer, but from Yahweh's point of view, the correct answer is positive: Sarah shall have a son (v. 14b). In v. 14a, Yahweh asks, ‘Is anything too hard for Yahweh?’ (רבד הוהימ אלפיה). Like Sarah before him, the deity assumes a negative answer to the question: No, nothing is too hard for Yahweh. However, from the perspective of Sarah and Abraham, the correct answer may be positive: Yes, some things might be too hard even for Yahweh.
The annunciation scene closes abruptly in v. 15, without the fulfillment of the divine promise or any human answer to Yahweh's question. Abraham remains silent, while Sarah, out of fear, denies her earlier laughter. Since neither character affirms the deity's power, the narrative leaves vague whether Sarah and Abraham believe the promise of a son. For the old couple and the reader alike, the issue of divine power may be an open question that continues to echo in the narrative that follows. 29
In the Sodom episode (Gen. 19), the divine men come incognito to test the hospitality of the city's residents. 30 The narrative presents two contrasting pictures.
Verses 1–3 focus on the resident alien Lot. He is ‘sitting’ (בשי) in the gate area of Sodom when the divine visitors arrive. He ‘looks’ (אריו) and ‘rises to meet them’ (םתארקל םקיו) and ‘bows with his face to the ground’ (הצרא םיפא וחתשיו). When he speaks to them, he presents himself as ‘your servant’ (םכדבע). He invites them to stay the night in his home and wash their feet. The men initially decline the offer, but Lot urges them—literally, ‘he presses hard upon them (דאמ םב־רצפיו)—and so they enter his house. He then prepares a feast and they eat. This picture of Lot is strikingly similar to the description of Abraham in 18.1–8, and shared vocabulary in the two texts facilitates the comparison. 31 Both men are presented as hospitable hosts who receive divine guests into their homes.
Verses 4–11 depict the opposite behavior of the citizens of Sodom. ‘Both young and old, all of the people to the last person’ surround Lot's house (v. 4). They call to him: ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we may know (העדנו) them’ (v. 5). They intend a gang rape. In this way, the people of Sodom demonstrate their inhospitality. 32 The contrast with Lot is highlighted by specific wording later in the scene. Lot seeks to protect his guests by offering up his two daughters to the crowd (vv. 6–8). The crowd, however, rejects the offer and ‘presses hard against the man Lot’ (דאמ טולב שיאב ורצפיו) as they move to break down the door of his house and abuse the divine visitors (v. 9). This instance of ‘pressing hard’ violates the code of hospitality. It is the exact opposite of Lot's ‘pressing hard’ in v. 3, which he does in the service of hospitality. Thus the wickedness of Sodom is made clear, and an answer to the inquiry announced in 18.21 is given: ‘all of it’ (הּלָּכֻּ), the whole city, is guilty (compare again 19.4).
In the continuation of the Sodom episode, the divine men announce the imminent destruction of the city and urge Lot to flee with his family (19.12–13). Lot conveys the warning to his sons-in-law, but they regard it as ‘jesting’ (v. 14). In the morning, Lot and his daughters escape safely to Zoar, and Yahweh destroys Sodom with fire from heaven (vv. 15–26). Abraham rises early in Mamre and looks down upon the devastation (vv. 27a, 28).
This review skips over many small details of the narrative in order to highlight key elements. The Sodom episode as a whole exhibits the following progression:
the divine visitation and testing of hospitality in Sodom (vv. 1–11);
the divine announcement, threatening the destruction of the city (vv. 12–13);
human doubt in the divine announcement/threat (v. 14b);
the fulfillment of the divine announcement/threat (vv. 15–28).
This progression is partly matched in the Mamre episode. The narrative there also begins with a divine visitation and picture of hospitality (18.1–8). A divine announcement follows, promising a future son for Sarah and Abraham (vv. 9–10). Then comes an expression of human doubt in the divine promise: Sarah ‘laughs’ (קחצ, vv. 11–15). Her laughter corresponds to the skeptical response of Lot's sons-in-law to the divine threat against Sodom: they regard it as ‘jesting’ (קחצמ, 19.14). The word-play on the verbal root קחצ thus links the two expressions of doubt in divine announcements.
Unlike the Mamre tale, the story of Sodom in Genesis 19 includes not only a divine announcement but also its fulfillment. The fate of the city thus demonstrates that Yahweh can do what he says. At the same time, the Sodom episode gives at least an indirect answer to the divine question in 18.14a: if God is able to fulfill his threat against Sodom, then surely he is able to fulfill his promise to Abraham and Sarah. Nothing is too hard for Yahweh, neither the destruction of a wicked city nor the miraculous gift of a child to an elderly couple.
Support for this interpretation comes from Jeremiah 32. The chapter is a heavily edited text consisting of an exilic literary core and several secondary expansions. 33 Verses 1–16 narrate how Jeremiah follows instructions from Yahweh and buys a field at Anathoth during the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem. The purchase is to serve as a proleptic sign of the land's future restoration. In vv. 17–25, the prophet prays to Yahweh and expresses his surprise at the message of salvation given in circumstances of disaster. Yahweh's response begins in v. 27 with a slight variation of the divine question in Gen. 18.14a: ‘See, I am Yahweh. the God of all flesh. For me, is anything too hard?’ (רבד־לכ אלפי ינממה). As in Gen. 18.14, the deity here assumes a negative answer. 34 The continuation of Yahweh's response states that (a) the Babylonian capture and destruction of Jerusalem is certain (vv. 28–29, 36), (b) the city deserves its punishment (vv. 30–35), and (c) Yahweh will restore the people and the land after the exile (vv. 37–42). Verse 42 spells out the divine reasoning: ‘Just as (רשאכ) I have brought this great evil upon this people, so (ןכ) I shall bring upon them all the goodness that I now am promising them’. 35 The explicit logic here compares closely to the implicit logic between the Mamre and Sodom episodes: Yahweh's ability to punish in the past guarantees his ability to save in the future. 36
Similar language and thought also appear in the sequence of oracles in Zechariah 7–8. The oracles are dated to the fourth year of the Persian king Darius (518 BCE) and presented as the prophet's response to an inquiry about the continuation of fasts of mourning for the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE (7.1–3). 37 The material first interprets the exile as divine judgment (7.4–14) and then predicts a change in the fortunes of Jerusalem and Judah(ch. 8). In 8.6, Yahweh asks, ‘Even though it seems hard in the eyes of the remnant of this people (הזה םעה תיראש יניעב אלפי יכ), should it also seem hard in my eyes (אלפי יניעב־םג)?’. 38 The reference is to the promises of Jerusalem's restoration in vv. 1–5. 39 An additional oracle in vv. 14–15 sets the promises in a larger context that includes the past era of divine punishment:
For thus says Yahweh of hosts: Just as (רשאכ) I purposed to bring disaster upon you, when your ancestors provoked me to wrath, and I did not relent, says Yahweh of hosts, so (ןכ) again I have purposed in these days to do good to Jerusalem and to the house of Judah; do not be afraid.
The editorial joining of the oracles in Zechariah 7–8 thus produces a message that approximates the theology of Jeremiah 32 and the implicit logic between the Mamre and Sodom episodes in Genesis 18–19. ‘The certainty of divine judgment which has been experienced vouches for the certainty of divine deliverance which has been promised’. 40
While Genesis 18–19 shares with Jeremiah 32 and Zechariah 7–8 a concern about Yahweh's power and the certainty of the fulfillment of his promises, the two prophetic texts evince some differences in thought. Both texts present judgment and salvation as sequential actions upon one entity, Jerusalem/Judah. Both strive to justify the judgment by reviewing the sinful behavior of the ancestors (Jer. 32.23, 29–35; Zech. 7.8–14). Both demonstrate a concern about the permanence of future salvation.
Thus Jeremiah 32 combines the promise of restoration with the ideas of a new, ‘everlasting’ covenant and the implanting of the fear of Yahweh in the hearts of the people. Zechariah 7–8 links the promise of restoration with moral admonitions, the same ones that the ancestors had ignored to their peril. These theological reflections advance beyond the simple reasoning implicit in Genesis 18–19.
To summarize: the Yahwist's narrative in Gen. 18.1–16, 20–22a, 33b, and 19.1–27a, 28 focuses on a single theological concern, namely, the power of Yahweh to fulfill the promise of a son for Sarah and Abraham. In the annunciation scene, the deity himself articulates this issue: ‘Is anything too hard for Yahweh?’ The Sodom tale suggests a negative answer—nothing is too hard for Yahweh—by demonstrating the power of Yahweh to fulfill a threat of destruction. The theological reasoning of the Yahwist who joined the Mamre and Sodom episodes is close, though not identical, to the thought of the exilic and post-exilic texts in Jeremiah 32 and Zechariah 7–8.
Footnotes
1.
Recent years have seen increasing debate over the date of the Yahwist, his function as an author or editor, and even the very existence of his work as a document running throughout the Pentateuch. See especially Jan Christian Geertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte (eds.), Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (BZAW, 315; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2002); and Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid (eds.), A Farewell to the Yahwist? (SBLSym, 34; Atlanta: SBL, 2006); and compare Joel S. Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Rene-wing the Documentary Hypothesis (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), pp. 45–81. For the purpose of this article, what matters is that, allowing for a few secondary insertions in 18.1–19.28, one can see sufficient cohesion in the material to regard it as the product of a single writer. I refer to the writer as the Yahwist without committing in advance to any views of his date, his role as an author or editor, or the extent of his work in the Pentateuch.
2.
The Priestly writer's account of the Abrahamic covenant in Gen. 17 and his summary of the Sodom episode in 19.29 mark off 18.1–19.28 as a literary unit.
3.
For a detailed examination of the unity of Gen. 18–19, see Robert I. Letellier, Day in Mamre, Night in Sodom: Abraham and Lot in Genesis 18–19 (BIS, 10; Leiden: Brill, 1995), pp. 32–70. According to Letellier, the story in 18.1–19.28 continues in 19.30–38, which narrates Lot's incest with his daughters. For similar views, see John Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975), pp. 219–21; and Erhard Blum, Die Komposition des Vätergeschichte (WMANT, 57; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984), pp. 273–89. Both Van Seters and Blum emphasize that certain details in 19.1–28 serve no other purpose than to explain the peculiar circumstances of Lot's incest—for example, why he has daughters but no wife (see 19.26) and why the daughters have no husbands (see 19.8, 12, 14, 15–16). This observation may be correct, but it does not outweigh the fact that the episode of Lot's incest lies outside the temporal sequence that binds the Mamre and Sodom episodes closely together. Without denying the links between 19.1–28 and vv. 30–38, one may observe that the connections of the Sodom episode to 18.1–16a are much tighter.
4.
Compare Hermann Gunkel, Genesis übersetzt und erklärt (HAT, 1.1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901), pp. 146–48. He proposes that in the earliest stratum of the Yahwist source(Ja), 18.1–16 and 19.1–28 combined with 12.1–8,13.1–18, and 19.30–38 to tell how the peoples descended from Abraham and Lot arose and settled their different regions. (For a recent variation of this view, without the assumption of a Yahwist source, see Blum, Vätergeschichte, pp. 273–89.) One may question, however, whether this etiological interest is as central in the Mamre and Sodom episodes as Gunkel suggests, especially if 19.17–22 and 24–26 are secondary insertions. See Detlef Jericke, Abraham in Mamre. Historicshe und exegetische Studien zur Region von Hebron und zu Genesis 11,27–19,38 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 167–71. Section II of the present study will demonstrate that the episodes have been crafted carefully to address a common religious concern.
5.
See, e.g., Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), p. 239 n. 627 (German original: Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuchs [Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1948]), He argues that v. 19 is a later addition to the Yahwistic material in vv. 17–18 and 20–33.
6.
If the qal ויחִּעְדַיְ were pointed as the piel ויחִּעְדַּיִ, v. 19 would respond directly to the question in v. 17: ‘No, I will inform him…’ See Arnold B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel. Textkritisches, Sprachliches und Sachliches (7 vols.; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1908–14), I, p. 73.
7.
Compare August Dillmann, Die Genesis erklärt (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1892), p. 265, and more recently, Van Seters, Abraham, p. 213. Both contend that the disclosure has no motive apart from the reason given in v. 19. In fact, it does: the disclosure enables Abraham to understand the fate of Sodom as a demonstration of Yahweh's power, which is a central concern in 18.10–15.
8.
Note the waw of accompaniment, the subject-predicate word order, and the use of the participle. See Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline (Toronto: Toronto University Press, 2nd edn, 1976), p. 83.
9.
Read הּלָּבֻּ for the MT's הלָבָּ in v. 21a; see BHS and Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 4th edn, 1963), p. 26 n. 1.
10.
Compare הוהי רמאיו in v. 20a and רמא הוהיו at the beginning of v. 17. The subject–predicate word order in v. 17a signals a new beginning rather than the continuation of v. 16b. See Edgar I. Fripp, ‘Note on Genesis XVIII. XIX’, ZAW 12 (1892), p. 23; more recently, Claus Westermann, Genesis 12–26 (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985), p. 288.
11.
See, e.g., Gunkel, Genesis, p. 184; and Blum, Vätergeschichte, pp. 282–83.
12.
Whether individual words and phrases in v. 19, for instance, ‘keep the way of Yahweh’, are distinctly Deuteronomistic is less certain. See Fripp, ‘Genesis XVIII. XIX’, p. 23; also H. Holzinger, Genesis erklärt (KHC, I; Freiburg: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1898), p. 154.
13.
According to Van Seters, the Deuteronomistic character of v. 19 is a weak argument for regarding the verse as additional, since, in his view, the Yahwist dates to the same late period as Deuteronomistic writers and editors (Abraham, p. 213 n. 8). However, regardless of the Yahwist's date, the crucial issue is whether the Deuteronomistic language and thought of v. 19 appear intrusive in 18.1–19.28 and in Genesis as a whole.
14.
For much the same Hebrew phrase, see Deut. 26.5.
15.
For those who assign the verses to the Yahwist source, see Noth, Pentateuchal Traditions, p. 238; E.A. Speiser, Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB, 1; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964), p. 135; Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), pp. 214–15; George W. Coats, Genesis with an Introduction to Narrative Literature (FOTL, 1; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983), pp. 139–42; Van Seters, Abraham, pp. 213–16; and idem, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992), p. 259.
16.
See Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, pp. 25–27; John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2nd edn, 1930), pp. 304–305; Ludwig Schmidt, ‘De Deo ’. Studien zur Literarkritik und Theologie des Buches Jona, des Gespräches zwischen Abraham und Jahwe in Gen 18,22ff. und von Hi 1 (BZAW, 143; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1976), pp. 136, 153–64; Joseph Blenkinsopp, ‘Abraham and the Righteous of Sodom’, JJS 33 (1982), pp. 119–32; Jericke, Abraham in Mamre, pp. 160–62; and compare Westermann, Genesis 12–26, pp. 283–93; Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (Interpretation; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1982), pp. 150–77; and Blum, Vätergeschichte, pp. 282–83.
17.
Compare Coats, Genesis, pp. 141–42. He contends that the Yahwist invented the dialogue in order to emphasize the wickedness of Sodom and thereby to set the stage for the narrative in ch. 19. The dialogue, however, seems inordinately long and elaborate for this simple purpose.
18.
To be sure, the disclosure of the divine plan in vv. 20–21 requires a response from the patriarch, but it need not be Abraham's words in vv. 22b-33a. The response comes later, at the end of the Sodom episode, and there it takes the form of an action: Abraham rises early to see the fate of the wicked city (19.27a, 28). Compare Van Seters, Abraham, pp. 213–14.
19.
If the editor had before him a form of the narrative that already included the expansion in vv. 17–19, he may also have been prompted by the reference in v. 19 to ‘the way of Yahweh’. The writer of vv. 17–19 understood the phrase as the ‘way’ (that is, the behavior) that Yahweh prescribes for Abraham's descendants. The editor who composed vv. 22b-33a perhaps saw a second meaning in the phrase, namely, the way that Yahweh himself follows, that is, Yahweh's own behavior, especially in the administration of justice. Verses 22b-33a explore this issue.
20.
The same idea appears in Jer. 5.1, and it is implicit in Ps. 14.1–3. Ezek. 14.12–20 also knows this notion of divine justice but rejects it in favor of an individual accountability, according to which the righteous save only themselves (compare Ezek. 18.1–20 and Jer. 31.29–30). According to Isa. 52.13–53.12, Yahweh can spare the many sinners because his righteous servant bears their iniquities and punishment. The servant's suffering and death are compensation for their guilt, and thus he ‘vindicates many’ (see 53.4a, 6b, 10a, lib, 12b). The broader theological context of Gen. 18.22b-33a might also include wisdom texts like Job and Ecclesiastes, which speak of the righteous faring as the wicked. All of these passages reflect an exilic and post-exilic preoccupation with the precise workings of divine justice vis-à-vis nations, cities, peoples, and individuals.
21.
As it now stands, 19.27 speaks of Abraham ‘going early in the morning to the place (םוקמה־לא דקבב םהדבא םכשיו) where he had stood before Yahweh’. This use of םכש with the preposition לא is unusual and perhaps late (compare Song 7.13, where the verb occurs with ל). To express movement to a place, םכש normally combines with a second verb of motion (see, e.g., Gen. 19.2; Exod. 34.4; Josh. 6.15; 1 Sam. 29.11). Without v. 27b, the text reads smoothly: ‘Abraham arose early in the morning and looked down toward Sodom… ‘
22.
See BHS and 18.2, 16a, 22a; 19.5, 8b, 10, 12, and 16.
23.
For discussions of parataxis in biblical narrative, see Erich Auerbach, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1974), pp. 3–23, 70–75; John Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), pp. 35–40; Burke O. Long, 1 Kings with an Introduction to Historical Literature (FOTL, 9; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984), pp. 22–25; and Jack R. Lundbom, ‘Parataxis, Rhetorical Structure, and the Dialogue over Sodom in Genesis 18’, in Philip R. Davies and David J.A. Clines (eds.), The World of Genesis (JSOTSup, 257; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 133–45. Van Seters and Long examine parataxis as a way of linking literary units in chainlike fashion, with minimal connections. Lundbom describes paratactic style more broadly: it includes ‘economy of detail, loose syntactical connections, feelings and thoughts not externalized, purposes left unexpressed, rich background, suspense, etc….’ (p. 37). These features are apparent throughout the Mamre and Sodom episodes but also in the short transitional scene on the road to Sodom.
24.
See Coats, Genesis, pp. 137–38; and compare Robert W. Neff, ‘The Birth and Election of Isaac in the Priestly Tradition’, BR 15 (1970), pp. 5–18. The latter categorizes 18.9–15 + 21.1 as a healing narrative.
25.
For the full protocol of hospitality, see Victor H. Matthews, ‘Hospitality and Hostility in Judges 4’, BTB 21 (1991), pp. 13–21 (13–15); also Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, The Social World of Ancient Israel 1250–587 BCE (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), pp. 82–87; compare T.R. Hobbs, ‘Hospitality in the First Testament and the “Ideological Fallacy”’, JSOT 95 (2001), pp. 3–30, especially pp. 11–12.
26.
Gunkel refers to the promise as a Gastgeschenk (Genesis, p. 179); compare Van Seters, Abraham, p. 207.
27.
See Coats, Genesis, p. 138; also Burke O. Long, 2 Kings (FOTL, 10; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), pp. 60 and 293.
28.
Gen. 21.1–7 narrates the actual birth of Isaac. Whether any of this text directly continues 18.9–15 is debatable. Compare Gunkel, Genesis, pp. 205–206; Westermann, Genesis, pp. 330–35; Coats, Genesis, p. 153; and Van Seters, Abraham, pp. 204, 206.
29.
See Brueggemann, Genesis, pp. 159–62. This understanding of 18.9–15 may lie behind the much later story of the annunciation of the birth of Jesus in Lk. 1.26–38. Like Sarah, Mary doubts the divine promise of a son (v. 34). The angel Gabriel assures her at length and then concludes, ‘For nothing will be impossible with God’ (ὅτι οὐϰ ἀδυνατήσ∊ιπαρὰ τοῦ θ∊οῦ πᾶν ῥῆμα, v. 37). The gospel writer probably was thinking of Gen. 18.14a, which reads in the LXX, μὴ ἀδυνατ∊ῖ παρὰ τῷ θ∊ῷ ῥῆμα; The gospel writer reformulated Yahweh's question as a declarative sentence so as to preclude the possibility of a skeptical response. He also added to his annunciation scene precisely what he felt to be missing in Gen. 18.9–15, namely, the affirmation of divine power by the recipient of the promise. Mary thus responds, ‘Here I am, the servant of the Lord. May it happen to me according to your word’ (1.38). In this way, she is presented as an improvement on the model of Sarah.
30.
Tales about gods coming in disguise to test the hospitality of humans are widespread in Classical mythology. Classicists label such stories as ‘theoxenies’. Parade examples include the story of Philemon and Baucis (Ovid, Metamorphoses 8.611–724), the story of Orion's birth (Ovid, Fasti 5.495–536, and the tale of Jupiter and Lyceon (Ovid, Metamorphoses 1.211–41). For an examination of the theoxeny theme in Homer's The Odyssey, see Steve Reece, The Stranger's Welcome: Oral Theory and the Aesthetics of the Homeric Hospitality Scene (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993). Aside from Gen. 19.1–28, there are no other clear examples of theoxenies in the Hebrew Bible. However, Judg. 13.2–23 may preserve a vestige of the theme, and Jer. 5.1–6 may present a prophetic adaptation of a theoxeny.
31.
In 18.1–3, Abraham is ‘sitting’ (בשׁי) at the entrance of his tent. He ‘lifts his eyes and looks’ (אדיו ויניע אשׂיו) and sees the divine men. Abraham ‘runs to meet them’ (םתאדקל ץדױ) and ‘bows to the ground’ (הצדא וחתשׂױ). When he speaks to them, he refers to himself as ‘your servant’ (ךדבע). For a review of these and other verbal parallels between 18.1–8 and 19.1–3, see Van Seters, Abraham, pp. 215–16.
32.
The plural cohortative העדנ in v. 5 calls to mind the singular cohortative העדא spoken earlier by Yahweh in 18.21. The deity proposes to ‘know’ whether all of the people of Sodom act according to the outcry against them. Such knowledge comes when the people of the city propose to ‘know’ the divine visitors sexually. Perhaps העדנ in 19.5 also calls to mind, through assonance, the הנדע, ‘pleasure’, that Sarah doubts she will have in 18.12. The word-play might convey a contrast: Sarah's sexual pleasure is divinely approved; the sexual ‘knowing’ by the people of Sodom is not.
33.
See Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), pp. 620–31; William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 26–52 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), pp. 206–12; and Leslie Allen, Jeremiah: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2008), pp. 364–72; also Christoph Levin, Die Verheissung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt (FRLANT, 137; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985), pp. 159, 169–75, and 202–209. According to Levin, the short saying of salvation in 32.15b—‘Houses and fields and vineyards again shall be bought in this land’—possibly goes back to the prophet Jeremiah himself (p. 159).
34.
The import of the question is thus to confirm Jeremiah's declaration to Yahweh in v. 17: ‘Nothing is too hard for you (רבר־לכ ךממ אלפי־אל)’. Compare Terence E. Fretheim, ‘Is Anything Too Hard for God? (Jeremiah 32:27)’, CBQ 66 (2004), pp. 231–36. According to Fretheim, the emphasis in Yahweh's question is on לב, and so he translates the word with italics: ‘Is anything too hard for God?’ The deity intends to suggest the possibility that indeed there may be some things that are too hard for God. Against this interpretation, one can observe the distinctive syntax of the divine question. It emphasizes ינממ, not לב, by placing it at the beginning: ‘For me, is anything too hard?’ The wording implies a comparison between Yahweh, the all-powerful ‘God of all flesh’, and others for whom some things may be too hard. Unlike the divine promise in Gen. 18.9–15, Yahweh's assertions in Jer. 32.27–44 are meant to settle the issue of divine power, both for the prophet and the reader alike.
35.
For a similar message expressed with the same locution (…ןכ…רשאכ), see Jer. 31.28.
36.
According to Levin, 32.42,44a is an ‘update’ (Fortschreibung) that once attached directly to the divine promise in 32.15b (Verheissung, p. 172). He paraphrases the logic of v. 42: ‘The certainty that the salvation announced by Yahweh's word…will come to pass is grounded in the experience that the judgment announced by Yahweh's word…has occurred’ (p. 175).
37.
For recent discussions of redaction and organization in the two chapters, see Mark Boda, ‘From Fasts to Feasts: The Literary Function of Zechariah 7–8’, CBQ 65 (2003), pp. 393–402; Martin Hallaschka, Haggai und Sacharja 1–8. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (BZAW, 411; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2010); and Elie Assis, ‘The Structure of Zechariah 8 and its Meaning’, JHS 12 (2012), pp. 1–18.
38.
Omit םהה םימיב (‘in those days’) at the end of v. 6a, following BHS. Verse 6b, as it stands, can be translated as a question, but the restoration of an interrogative ה at the beginning could be justified by assuming haplography. See BHS; also Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 25B; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987), p. 417.
39.
The first half of the divine question hints at the incredulity of a Jewish audience that continues to experience severe hardships in Persian Yehud, despite the completion, or near completion, of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. See Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, pp. 417 and 429–30.
40.
Peter R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968), p. 215.