Muchacho Polaco

While the position advocated by Herman Witsius is certainly more complex, its underlying tenet is essentially the same: God established a single covenant with Abraham, but in different stages. Witsius identi- fies two covenantal dimensions: stipulations and promises.21 Witsius implies that the covenant was initiated in Genesis 12, Genesis 15 and

17 both representing further stages in its development. Thus for Witsius, each key stage in the development of the covenant begins with a stipulation (cf. Gen. 12.1; 15.1; 17.1). The covenant promises are of two types, spiritual (of which some are general and common to all believers, and of which others are special and peculiar to Abraham) and corporal (i.e. external promises made to Abraham, yet at the same time types of spiritual and heavenly things). Thus Witsius understands Gen- esis 15 and 17 as subsequent stages of the covenant that was initiated in Gen. 12.1-3.

Kidner explains the reason for the delay in the second stage in terms of the testing of Abraham’s faith, the rationale for the two stages of covenant-making being to highlight both dimensions of the covenant:

“The earlier chapter fixed the basic pattern of grace and answering faith; nothing was asked of Abram but to believe and ‘know of a surety’. Now [in ch. 17] emerge the implications, in depth and extension: in depth, for faith must show itself in utter dedication (1); in extension, for the whole company must be sealed, one by one, down the generations. Together then the two chapters set out the personal and corporate participation; the inward faith and the outward seal…imputed righteousness and expressed devotion (15.6; 17.1).

Although his rationale is significantly different, Kline‘s conclusion is basically the same: Genesis 17 represents a further ratification of the same covenant whose formal establishment is recorded in Genesis 15.31 Basing his analysis on ancient Near Eastern treaties, Kline distinguishes between ‘law covenants’ and ‘promise covenants’, so defined according to who (human or God) swears the oath of ratification. For Kline, Genesis 15 is an example of the latter covenant-type, whereas Genesis 17 is an example of the former. It is important to stress, however, that Kline does not draw such a dichotomy too sharply in the context of these chapters, for he identifies a single covenant (or cove- nant process) which was confirmed or ratified on several occasions.

A two-stage interpretation of the Abrahamic covenant is also reflected in two quite different works on Genesis produced in the mid-1980s: a homiletical commentary by Baldwin, and a short literary study by Rendsburg. Baldwin suggests that

“though the covenant had already been sealed by sacrifice (chapter 15), one more preparatory stage remained to be fulfilled before the birth of the promised son. Whereas in chapter 15 the covenant made with Abram was private and personal to him alone, now the time had come for the matter to be made public… The covenant sacrifice established that the covenant was an unconditional act of God in which Abram had no part to play, and to which he could make no contribution. Now his response is stipulated, albeit in one all-embracing command.”

The rite of circumcision is for her the means by which Abraham and his heirs were to commit themselves unconditionally to God and to the covenant, as God himself had formerly done in the rite of Genesis 15.

Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, Keil entitles Genesis 17 ‘Sealing of the Covenant by the giving of new names and by the rite of circumcision’, and writes:

“The covenant had been made with Abram for at least fourteen years, and yet Abram remained without any visible sign of its accomplishment, and was merely pointed in faith to the inviolable character of the promise of God. Jehovah now appeared to him again…to give effect to the covenant and prepare for its execution.”

Cassuto‘s interpretation of the Pentateuchal compiler’s use of the divine names is of particular significance for the relationship between the two covenant chapters. Cassuto suggests that one of the determining factors in the selection of these divine names was whether the theme of the passage focused on Israel (in which case ‘Yahweh‘ would be employed) or on the rest of the world (when ‘Elohim‘ would be used). Thus, as Hays has correctly observed, ‘according to Cassuto, the theme of Gen. 17 is universal enough to require the use of Elohim’. This ‘universal’ emphasis in Genesis 17 is further explored below.

Adopting a similar negative stance towards the standard source- critical interpretation of Genesis 15 and 17 as doublets, Victor notes concerning ch. 17 that

“there is no detailed representation of the covenant ceremony as in Gen. 15. It is presented in an altogether new way as a renewal of Abraham and Sarah through the change of their names. The words would suggest that the covenant is available to Abraham if he would only stand by it. In chapter 16 Abraham and Sarah have disregarded the covenant through their attempt to have the heir of promise through Hagar. Here in chapter 17 God warns Abraham and renews both Abraham and Sarah, reaffirms his promises and renews his covenant.”

Thus for Victor the final form of the narrative is to be understood as follows: In response to Abraham’s request for confirmation of the promise, a covenant is established in Genesis 15. In ch. 16, however, Abraham and Sarah (because they misunderstand God’s plan) attempt to provide the ‘promised heir’ through Hagar. In Genesis 17, therefore, God must renew the covenant and spell out the promise more clearly than before.

Some of these scholars, as indicated above, while interpreting Genesis 17 as a reaffirmation of the covenant of Genesis 15, nevertheless acknowledge some degree of expansion, development or difference in emphasis within Genesis 17. For Sarna, Genesis 17 serves ‘not only to reaffirm the assurances of posterity and national territory but also broaden their scope and add a note of specificity’. In a similar vein Hamilton notes that ‘there is more here [Gen. 17], however, than reconfirmation. Two new items enter the covenant promises in chapter 17. For McComiskey, only the promise of land and offspring received covenantal confirmation in Genesis 15; other promissory elements (i.e. the promises of royal descendants and divine-human relationship) received such covenantal affirmation only in Genesis 17.9

In Sheriffs‘ reading of the Abraham narrative Genesis 15 records the making of a divine-human covenant, later updated and modified by the covenant of circumcision. Both covenants were then subsequently confirmed by the divine oath in Genesis 22. For Sheriffs, therefore, Genesis 17 is a covenant-making ceremony through which the covenant of Genesis 15 was modified and extended.

The view that the presence of these two covenant chapters in the Abraham narrative can be explained by their distinct provenance (i.e. they derived from different underlying sources or traditions) was first introduced by scholars who adopted the source-critical method.

The source-critical approach to the entire book of Genesis began in the eighteenth century with Jean Astruc‘s suggestion that Moses had composed the book from two main sources which could be distinguished by the divine name each employed.

In his Prologue to History Van Seters addresses the most basic question that arises from a comparison of the two covenant passages: Why does each account reflect an entirely different emphasis? Why does the promise of land dominate Genesis 15, whereas the promise of seed receives the higher profile in Genesis 17?

As indicated above, Augustine was the first of the Church Fathers to discuss the relationship between Genesis 15 and 17 in any detail.

Augustine distinguishes two core promises in the programmatic announcement of Gen. 12.1-3:

“the one, that his seed should possess the land of Canaan…but the other far more excellent, not the carnal but the spiritual seed, through which he is the father, not of the one Israelite nation, but of all nations who follow the footprints of his faith.”

Augustine interprets the covenant of Genesis 15 in terms of the first of these two core promises; viz. the possession of the land by Abraham’s descendants. Genesis 17, on the other hand, is interpreted by him in relation to the other basic promissory aspect, the dimension relating to Abraham’s spiritual descendants:

Here there are more distinct promises about the calling of the nations in Isaac, that is, in the son of the promise, by which grace is signified, and not nature… And because this was to be brought about, not by generation, but by regeneration, circumcision was enjoined now, when a son was promised to Sarah. And by ordering all, not only sons, but also home-born and purchased servants to be circumcised, he testifies that this grace pertains to all.