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.

Less oversimplified?

As a follow-up to this post, I thought I'd publish a couple of thoughts.

In Genesis 12-17, I would identify at least these 6 distinct promises that God makes to Abraham:

1- Make you a great nation (many descendants, bless you, be very fruitful, etc)
2- Will give this land (forever)
3- Make your name great (cf Babel)
4- You will be the reference point of blessing and cursing (Ie, will bless those who bless you, curse those...)
5- All peoples on earth blessed through you. (not to be confused or conflated with 4)
6- I will be your God and the God of your descendants (relationship, forever)

I would probably argue that all of these promises hold significant biblical theological weight, and even if you could conflate a couple of them I reckon you'd be hard-pressed to reduce them to 3 without losing some seriously significant stuff.

In fact, I reckon not understanding the significance of the bits that are normally left out of the standard Goldsworthian threefold schema would lead to a much less clear reading of the Deuteronomic histories, the prophets and even the Psalms.

Particularly, I say this in terms of the laments where the writers are struggling with the dissonance between these promises and the current or past experience of Israel. Their dilemma is partly trying to put together the promises made to Abraham and the fact of their being oppressed by outside nations.

More thoughts?

Oversimplification?

Does anyone else think that while the tri-partite concept of Nation-Land-Blessing is a helpful identification of major Biblical theological themes, that it is somewhat inadequate to capture even most of the aspects of these promises:

Genesis 12:1-3

The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.

² "I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.

³ I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you."

Genesis 12:7

The LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your offspring [a] I will give this land." So he built an altar there to the LORD, who had appeared to him.

Genesis 15:4-5Then the word of the LORD came to him: "This man will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir." 5 He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars—if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."

Genesis 15:18

On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river [d] of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates

Genesis 17:3-8

Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4 "As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. 5 No longer will you be called Abram [b] ; your name will be Abraham, [c] for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8 The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God."

?