Genesis intratextuality

I started out a set of observations from my reading through Genesis here and here.  The idea is essentially this:

There's a pattern emerging through Genesis where certain characters grasp at something that they already have, whether in actuality or by promise of Yhwh.  The result of the grasping tends to be the loss or spoiling of that which they have grasped for.  The prevailing theme is faith, or lack of faith, that Yhwh has given them that good thing.

For Eve, that was the knowledge of good and evil. Though she possessed it, she was tricked into thinking God had been stingy and so she grasped for it, and lost it, in the eating of the fruit of the tree.


For Sarah, it was having a son.  Though Abraham had received the promise of a son, she grasped at it by giving Hagar to Abraham, and ended up causing Isaac and his descendants the problem of their relationship with Hagar's son, Ishmael.

Now we come to Genesis 22 and the great test of Abraham's faith.  Will he give his only son back to God?  The one through whom God's blessings were promised to flow?  Or will he grasp at him, attempting to keep that which God has said he must give up?

It seems utterly impossible for Abraham to believe that Yhwh will provide for him an heir through Isaac.  The very act that Yhwh asks of him inherently destroys any hope of this.  Yet in a complete reversal of our previous scenes, Abraham trusts Yhwh in the impossible situation.  He freely gives up that which Yhwh had given him and in whom the rest of Yhwh's promises will stand or fall.  He entrusts himself to Yhwh's goodness in spite of all human logic.  (It thus makes sense that Hebrews 11:19 ascribes to him a divine wisdom that affronts all human experience and common sense.)

This scene is the ultimate example of trust in the providence of Yhwh, against all his human experience of possibility.  It is also the polar opposite of the actions of Eve and Sarah in grasping at that of which Yhwh had already assured them.  It is an anti-type-scene in every conceivable way.

The author sets Abraham's insane trust in the providence of Yhwh against the grasping of Eve and Sarah, whose lack of trust had varying degrees of "understandability".

There is so much pastoral application in these chapters that is really huge for our generation.  No time for it here, but perhaps I'll rant about it in another post.  This series is about establishing a pattern of scenes in Genesis, which in turn may enhance the case for my project's slant on Genesis 3.

Next stop, Genesis 27, where the scene reverts to type...

Intertextuality #2: the fun part

I posited here an argument for a strong thematic connection between Genesis 3 and Genesis 16.  While that's fun in itself, it was the possibilities that this connection unearthed that began to pique my interest.

I have suggested in some detail here that Genesis 3 is perhaps best understood as Eve grasping for something that she already possessed.  If this is right, then might that pattern also be repeated later in Genesis?

Indeed, it's worth asking why women are the focus in so much of the, if you'll excuse the pun, patriarchal narratives.

Genesis 16 is a case in point.  In what sense could Sarai be described as having grasped at that which she already had?

Well, if we understand Yhwh's promise that Abram would have countless descendants in its most natural sense (ie, that he would bear them through his wife), then in effect Sarai had already received the child she was grasping for: by promise.  The thematic links are strengthened somewhat in perceiving that lack of trust in God's word is a key operative in both cases.

Eve failed to trust that God had been good to her in what he had spoken to her.  Could we perhaps suggest that Sarai did the same?

The journey through Genesis should be interesting.  I'm holding out some hope that these intertextual links will provide some support for my reading of Genesis 3.



NB.  Feminists, don't get too agitated too quickly about where I'm going with this.  We'll get to Tamar who provides some narrative counter-balance and nuance.

Is there an 'inter' in this texuality?

I'm reading through the Bible cover to cover at the moment (much closer to one cover than the other) and am noticing some interesting things upon reading Genesis afresh.  For example, Genesis 16 seems to follow a familiar pattern.

Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. She had a female Egyptian servant whose name was Hagar. 2 And Sarai said to Abram, "Behold now, the LORD has prevented me from bearing children. Go in to my servant; it may be that I shall obtain children by her." And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai.
 3 So, after Abram ahad lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her servant, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife. 4 And he went in to Hagar, and she conceived. And when she saw that she had conceived, she looked with contempt on her mistress.
 5 And Sarai said to Abram, "May the wrong done to me be on you! I gave my servant to your embrace, and when she saw that she had conceived, she looked on me with contempt. May athe LORD judge between you and me!"
 6 But Abram said to Sarai, "Behold, your servant is in your power; do to her as you please." Then Sarai dealt harshly with her, and she fled from her. (Gen 16:1-6 ESV)

Seeing anything yet?

The driving tension involves a husband, a wife and Yhwh.  The tension is brought to a head as the wife becomes convinced that Yhwh is stingy and has short-changed her.  This is stated in a way that contains a certain amount of factual truth, while misrepresenting the character of Yhwh's actions.
The wife perceives a means by which she may gain that which Yhwh has allegedly withheld from her.  This course of action seems good to her, despite seeming obviously flawed to the reader.  And so the wife takes, and gives to her husband.  The husband, passively and without a reported word, listens to his wife and receives that which is offered.

Then the negative consequences become all too apparent to the man and wife.  Each party shifts responsibility for the situation to the other.  The final result, is that someone becomes an exile.

Sound familiar?  If there isn't significant reference to patterns set up in Genesis 3 I'll eat my exegetical hat.  Which is easy.  Because it's imaginary.  Unless you buy me a real one.

Implications for exegesis?  Probably lots, I'd have to think about it.  Or get you guys to tell me.  It really casts the Genesis 16 event in terms of the nature of Adam and Eve's sin.  It proceeds again from a wrong view of God and ends in a failure to trust his predictive word.

Now something that is also interesting to me is the fact that there are, perhaps, particular resonances with Genesis 3 when read as I have in my project.  I'll post on that soon, God willing.

Public link to my project

Does what it says on the tin.

Title: Why do we still believe the snake?
Subtitle: What happened when Adam and Eve ate.

Link: PDF