The Sister-Wife Motif in Genesis Patriarchal Narratives

Introduction

Genesis contains three patriarchal narratives with a similar sister-wife motif (Gen 12:10-20; 20:1-18; and 26:1-11). In each account the patriarch passes of his wife as his sister out of fear for his own life. This article will examine the typology of the narratives and present a holistic approach by demonstrating that they are all inter-dependent.

The First Account (A)

The three narratives are very similar; indeed they presuppose knowledge of each other and would be unintelligible without this mutual dependence.[1] It is however, the divergences in the different narratives that signal the true intentions of the author. The following table compares the three narratives:

Passage	12:10-20	20:1-18	26:7-11
Account	A	B	C
Chronology	Sarah 65 years old	24 years later	76 years later
Couple	Abraham, Sarah	Abraham, Sarah	Isaac, Rebekah
Locality	Egypt	Gerar	Gerar
Reason for stay	Famine	No reason given	Famine
King	Pharaoh	Abimelech [Phichol v.22]	Abimelech [Phichol v.26]
Offence	Sarah taken as wife	Sarah entered harem but kept from adultery.	Potential only
King becomes aware	Not said	Warning dream	Sees Isaac caressing Rebekah.
Reason for deceit	Abraham’s fear of death.	Abraham’s fear of death.	Isaac’s fear of death.
Excuse	None given	“No fear of God in this place…. When God had me wander…” asked favour of Sarah.	“Because I thought I might lose my life on account of her”.
Penalty on King	Serious diseases on Pharaoh and his household.	Abimelech, his wives and concubines could not beget or bear children.	None. Orders people not to molest either Isaac or Rebekah.
Gifts because of Sarah	Pharaoh treats Abraham well —sheep, slaves, cattle, donkeys, camels.	None reported	Not applicable
Expiation	None	1,000 shekels of silver, plus sheep, cattle, and slaves.	None
Expulsion	Sent away with wife and possessions.	None. “Live wherever you like”	Not immediately, but finally because of Isaac’s wealth only.

The first account (A) has long been recognized by scholars as typological. D. L. Peterson remarks:

The analogy with the sojourn of Israel in Egypt is too obvious to require explication. Hence the setting in Egypt interjects an ambiguous tone to the story.[2]

Although the analogy is “too obvious to require explication”, Peterson, and the scholarly community, have done little to realize the wider implications of this observation; not only in the specific case of the patriarchal narratives, but also more generally for their critical interpretive methods.[3] It is perhaps necessary to tabulate these ‘obvious’ connections:

Genesis 12	Israel in Egypt
And there was a famine in the land: and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was grievous in the land. (v. 10)	And the famine was sore in the land.(Gen 43:1) And they took their cattle, and their goods, which they had gotten in the land of Canaan, and came into Egypt, Jacob, and all his seed with him. (Gen 46:6)
And the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram’s wife. (v. 17)	I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth. (Exod 9:14)
Hagar the Egyptian bondservant (16:1) probably obtained while in Egypt.	And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle. (Exod 12:38)
And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.(v.16)	And the Lord gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they lent unto them such things as they required. And they spoiled the Egyptians. (Exod 12:35, 36) And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. (Gen 15:14)

The parallels between Genesis 12 and the exodus are indeed remarkable, with one notable exception – the use of deception. The Pharaoh of the exodus was not deceived as to the true nature of Israel’s calling; rather he is portrayed as wilfully ignorant: “Now there arose a new king over Egypt which knew not Joseph” (Exod 1:8). If anything, it was Joseph (acting as an agent of a previous Pharaoh) that perpetrated a ruse against his brethren and hid his true identity from them. Surprisingly, though, the Joseph narrative represents a reversal of the sister-wife motif: Joseph’s brethren (i.e. his ‘wife’) migrate to Egypt because of famine, (Gen 43:1) they fear for their lives (Gen 50:19-21), and are themselves deceived by the one whom they sold into the slavery of another man’s house.

The Second Account (B)

If the first account (A) presents a clear type of Israel’s redemptive history, can the second account (B) receive the same treatment? The following tabulation demonstrates that it can:

Genesis 20	1 Samuel
Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah. (v. 2)	And the Philistines took the ark of God …they brought it into the house of Dagon (5:1, 2)
The [Philistine] men were sore afraid (v.8)	And the Philistines were afraid, for they said, God is come into the camp (4:7)
And the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram’s wife. (Gen 12:17)	These are the Gods that smote the Egyptians with all the plagues in the wilderness.(4:8) Wherefore then do ye harden your hearts, as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? (6:6)
For the Lord had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah Abraham’s wife. (v. 18)	But the hand of the Lord was heavy upon them…. his hand is sore upon us (5:6, 7)
And Abimelech took sheep, and oxen, and menservants, and womenservants, and gave them unto Abraham, and restored him Sarah his wife (v. 14)	Send away the ark of the God of Israel, and let it go again to his own place (5:11) Return him a trespass offering: then ye shall be healed (6:3)
Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live (v. 7) So Abraham prayed unto God: and God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maidservants; and they bare children. (v. 17)	And Samuel said, Gather all Israel to Mizpeh, and I will pray for you unto the Lord. (7:5)

In contrast with the Exodus account, the emphasis in 1 Samuel is on the appropriation of the cultic object and setting it in the ‘house’ of the Philistines. Peterson identifies the “fear of Elohim” as one of the major themes in account (B):

The primary theme, I would call “the fear of Elohim.” This theme is…a keystone to the entire Elohistic enterprise. In our text, the theme receives two unusual twists. The patriarch is depicted as one who does not believe that there is fear of Elohim outside the Israelite community, while it is the king, the foreigner, who matter-of-factly acknowledges Elohim’s authority.

In Samuel, the Philistines accord the ark more respect and demonstrate more ‘fear of Elohim’ than the Israelites. Indeed the ark had been captured in the first place because of its use as a talisman in battle (1 Sam 4:3) — the sons of Eli were renowned for their corruption and cultic disrespect (1 Sam 2:12) — and even when the ark was returned, the Israelites could not resist the temptation to look inside it (1 Sam 6:19). The Philistines act with more restraint and respect than the Israelites; they are even aware of the reputation of the Israelite God and when they return the ark they make restitution.[4]

Significantly, Samuel prays for the Israelites— in contrast with Abraham praying for the Philistines in the Genesis account (B).

The second important theme in (B) highlighted by Peterson is what he terms the “dialectic of sin”:

No one could be singled out as guilty, and yet it is quite clear that Elohim had been seriously affronted.

However, is this analysis correct? Surely Abimelech (like the Philistines in Samuel) was aware of the plagues that Elohim brought against Pharaoh for possessing Sarah? Surely Abraham is also partly culpable (willing to sacrifice his wife) and did not need to manipulate the situation (as the Israelites did when they used the ark) for his own protection? It was not necessary for Abraham (or the Israelites) to force God’s hand as he would have delivered them, if only their faith had been sufficient. In contrast the Philistines demonstrated more integrity and courage (in Genesis and Samuel) than the Israelites. Ronning remarks,

The interpretation of these accounts as showing that Abraham and Isaac were really like the first Adam, though spoken of as the new Adam, is corroborated by W. Berg, who calls (A) “The Fall of Abraham,” pointing back to Genesis 3. Among other clues is the recurrent question, “What is this you have done?” in 3:13 (God to Eve), 12:18 (Pharaoh to Abraham), and 26: 10 (Abimelech to Isaac)…In both cases, Abraham’s lapse is a violation of the Edenic ordinance of marriage. Such an analogy with the fall of Adam in Genesis 3 would make the lapse in (B) even more significant, since in that case Abraham and Sarah had been restored to “Eden” (Isa 51:3), yet fell again.[5]

That this analysis is correct can be demonstrated by the use of ‘Edenic language’ in the Patriarchal accounts:

Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch (naga`) it, lest ye die. (Gen 3:3)

The Lord plagued (naga`) Pharaoh because of Sarah. Gen 12:17)

I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch (naga`) her (Gen 20:6)

He that toucheth (naga`) this man or his wife shall surely be put to death (Gen 26:11)

That thou wilt do us no hurt, as we have not touched (naga`) thee. (Gen 26:29)

Abimelech’s accusatory question to Abraham confirms that we are dealing with a lack of covenant faithfulness on Abraham’s part: “What sawest (ha’r’ – ra’ah) thou, that thou hast done this thing?” The r-h (hr) combination is integral to the Abraham narrative – always in a positive sense (including renaming Abraham and Sarah); the sacrifice on Moriah [m-r-h]; and Yahweh-Yireh [y-r-h]: “Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw (ra’ah) the place afar off” (Gen 22:4). Now, however, it is used in a negative, accusatory sense: What sawest (ra’ah) thou?

The ‘new Adam’, whether it is Noah, Abraham, Isaac or Jacob, constantly fails to achieve the Messianic ideal; Ronning observes that,

It is also noteworthy that the “Fall of David” (perhaps another “new Adam,” for the promise of fruitfulness and dominion given to Abraham are also found in 2 Samuel 7) is ironically reminiscent of B…since king David did to the foreigner Uriah what Abraham was afraid the foreign king Abimelech would do to him (2 Samuel 11). The irony is not only in the role reversal, but that Abraham’s fears were unfounded. Abimelech the pagan protested his innocence and rebuked Abraham for exposing him to God’s wrath by his subterfuge; Abraham responded that he did it because he was sure there was no fear of God in that (pagan) place (20:9-11). What does that say when such a thing actually did happen in Israel, under its greatest king, the one after God’s own heart, the one who did more to fulfill the Adamic commission than Abraham or Isaac?

This is perhaps particularly relevant as 1 Sam 21:10-15 describes how David feigned madness in the court of Achish, an event that is commemorated in the title of Psalm 34: “A Psalm of David, when he changed his behaviour before Abimelech; who drove him away, and he departed”. This follows the Abraham/Isaac narrative pattern: (a) David in a ‘foreign’ land; (b) He fears for his life; (c) He uses deception to save himself; and (d) He is sent away. This narrative does not have the normal positive resolution and restitution—David is sent away in disgust by the king who states with revulsion that he has enough idiots in his realm without adding to the number. This throws a negative light on David’s actions, and is used (along with Abraham/Sarah) in the NT (1 Pet 3:10-12) as an example to avoid. The irony of the situation is not lost on Alter, for while David feigns madness when he is recognized as ‘king of the land’, Saul, who is ‘king over Israel’ is actually quite mad.[6]

To summarize so far; account (B) parallels the early monarchical and prophetic period – from the exile of the ark in the time of the first prophet Saul to its return and proper restoration under David (the ‘anointed’). The Messianic ideal is however ruined when David, the recipient of a further outworking of the covenant is discovered to have committed the sin that Abimelech did not; namely, acquiring another man’s wife and murdering her husband.

The Third Account (C)

According to Peterson, the theme of the third account is “patriarchal success in a foreign context”; he concludes this “on the basis of the consistent emphasis on Isaac’s existence on foreign soil”. This is partially correct as the narrative, if one includes the incidents with the wells,[7] stresses the relationship that Isaac develops with foreigners (strangers), which of course contributes to his success. The unusual twist in this account is the way in which the deception is discovered. Peterson comments that it is after a long time that the ruse is whimsically revealed. Abimelech happens to look out of a window and to see Isaac fondling his wife. The word play used here (Gen 26:8, yicHäq mecaHëq; Isaac was “playing with his wife”) suggests the fortuitous character of the revelation.

(1) The word-play on Isaac’s name―yicHäqqx'(c.yI―is a key to understanding the narrative, as the naming of Isaac is associated with the fulfilment of the covenant promise to Abraham (Gen 17:19); Isaac and Rebekah are the first couple ‘born’ into the Abrahamic covenant.

The Hebrew mecaHëq carries sexual connotations and can be used in a positive sense—laugh, play, fondle, caress—and negatively as ‘mocked’ or ‘scorned’. In Gen 26:8, their ‘play’ as man and wife may evoke, or the term itself might be a euphemism for, sexual play.[8] Isaac himself is a victim of the negative use of a cognate of his name (and it is in connection with the covenant) when Ishmael mocks Isaac in Gen 21:9.[9] It is also used negatively in the ‘golden calf apostasy’ at the reception of the Siniatic covenant when “they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play” (Exod 32:6). This is particularly relevant to our understanding of the typology of Isaac at play with his wife, as the Siniatic covenant was a marriage covenant where Yahweh had taken the nation to be his bride. Yet, instead of obeying her vows, the bride was busy committing adultery (idolatry) on her wedding day![10] Yahweh was a faithful husband, “For thy maker is thine husband: the Lord of hosts is his name” (Isa 54:5), but the nation was a slut from her youth onwards: “They committed harlotry in Egypt, they committed harlotry in their youth; their breasts were there embraced, their virgin bosom was there pressed” (Ezek 23:3).

The play between Isaac and Rebekah is different to that of the unfaithful Israelites at Sinai, but it illustrates the marriage covenant between man and wife, between Yahweh and his people.

(2) When the ark was brought to Jerusalem we are informed that,

…as the ark of the covenant of the Lord came to the city of David, that Michal the daughter of Saul looking out at a window saw king David dancing and playing: and she despised him in her heart. 1 Chron 15:29; cf. 1 Sam 6:21

For this act Michal was excluded from being part of the Abrahamic covenant (2 Sam 6:23). Her behaviour mirrors that of Abimelech in looking out of a window. David describes his behaviour as “play before the Lord” and this makes him a type of the wife responding to the covenant affection displayed by God in the return of the ark.[11]

In (1) and (2) we have a literary convention allowing the reader (like Abimelech) a view into an intimate relationship involving God’s loving-kindness. How the reader reacts determines whether they are included or excluded from that Messianic covenant.

Our investigation so far has led us to the conclusion that Account (A) relates typologically to the Egyptian bondage and account (B) to the early monarchical-prophetic period. What then can be said of account (C)? This article suggests that (C) is analogous with the latter reign of Hezekiah. We might expect this because the Judahites are exhorted to look at Yahweh’s faithfulness towards their ancestors:

Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him. For the Lord shall comfort Zion: he will comfort all her waste places; and he will make her wilderness like Eden,[12] and her desert like the garden of the Lord; joy and gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving, and the voice of melody. Isa 51:2-3

There is no one typological structure to be observed; rather there are several:

(1) The Sacrificial Death. There is an obvious resonance between Isaac’s unwillingness to die for his wife and Christ’s sacrifice for his bride. The same contrast can be made with Hezekiah:

Isaac’s Fear of Death	Hezekiah’s Sacrificial Death
v.9) Lest I die [muwth] for her	For you shalt die, [muwth] and not live (Isa 38:1)
v.10) Thou shouldest have brought guiltiness [‘asham] upon us	You made his soul an offering for sin [‘asham] (Isa 53:10)

Abimelech accuses Isaac of bringing “guiltiness” upon his people; in contrast the Servant offers his soul (life) for a sin or “guilt offering”.

It was because of Isaac’s unwillingness to risk his life that guilt was a danger for Abimelech. He represents the response of Gentiles to Isaac’s unwillingness; in Isaiah, it is the Judahites who acknowledge Hezekiah’s ‘atonement’.

(2) The account also has correspondence with the circumstance where covenant love for God’s people is openly displayed:

The Lord hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God. Isa 52:10

This is after the deliverance of Jerusalem in 701 and it refers back to that event as well as to the future salvation that God is to bring about in the land. In this typology, Abimelech is like ‘the nations’ looking upon Isaac and Rebekah and the love being openly shown.

The significance of the near death of Hezekiah (which parallels the destruction of the nation) is that Hezekiah had no heir to the throne. This was a virtual disannulment of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. It was only through an open display of covenant love by Yahweh that the promises were upheld.

(3) The reformation of Hezekiah (c. 715) was a display of reciprocal affection between Yahweh and his people. Hezekiah urged the people to “return to the God of Abraham and Isaac” (2 Chron 30:6); but the Northern Israelites “laughed him to scorn, and mocked” (2 Chron 30:10; cf. Ishmael mocking Isaac). This is like Saul’s daughter Michal, looking out of the window and despising and laughing at the reciprocal covenant affection between Yahweh and his Davidic king.

(4) Finally, there is the beauty of Rebekah. This corresponds to the beauty of Zion (Ps 48:2) which was to be restored after 701 (Isa 61:3); the Gentiles and kings (Abimelech) would see this glory (Isa 62:2) and recognize that Zion should not be ‘touched’; this is the inviolability of Zion in the restored kingdom of God (Isa 60:14), partially seen in the restoration of Judah and Jerusalem after 701.

Typological Structure

The typological application of a narrative account sometimes works on a larger scale with the elements of a story sequentially matching elements in a later account. Whether this works in the case of “Isaac in Gerar” depends on a reader thinking abstractly.

For example, one structure is tabulated below:

Genesis 26	Hezekiah’s Restoration
v.7) Because she (Rebekah) was fair to look upon	Zion was beautiful
v.7) ‘She is my sister’	Ahaz’ alliance with Assyria; Assyrian altar in the Temple; Assyrian fort on Zion
v.8) When he had been there a long time	Assyrian hegemony lasts a long time (since Ahaz, 735)
v.8) Isaac sporting with his wife	Hezekiah’s renewal and reformation of the temple; rebellion against Assyria
v.8) Abimelech ‘looks’	Assyria look at Jerusalem; deliverance of Jerusalem
v.8) ‘Do not touch’	Assyria leaves Judah alone

The problem with this structure is that it is fairly abstract. The aspects of a story, like (1)-(4) picked up above, may have correspondence, but the story as a whole may not apply.

Conclusion

The conclusion of this article is that the ‘sister-wife’ accounts function as typological models for Israel’s pre-exilic covenant history:

1. The Egyptian bondage and Exodus
2. The early monarchical-prophetic period
3. The Hezekiah reformation and deliverance

The sister-wife relationship is the one that is chosen to represent the Abrahamic covenants; a relationship that the Siniatic covenant did not recognize. The law could only condemn such a relationship (Lev 18:9, 11; 20:17), but ironically it was only within the confines of such an unusual union that the Abrahamic covenant could flourish. A husband, who was related to his wife by the same father; pointing to a fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant by a Messiah who was related both to God and to his bride – a bride for whom, unlike Abraham and Isaac, he was willing to die.

---

[1] T. D. Alexander, Abraham in the Negev (Carlisle: Paternoster press, 1997), 51; From Paradise to the Promised Land (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2002), 22-23; J. Ronning “The Naming of Isaac: The Role of the Wife/Sister Episodes in the Redaction of Genesis” WTJ (1991): 1-27.

[2] D. L. Petersen, “A Thrice-Told Tale”; [cited Jan 2012, and to be found online at fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/documents/petersen.htm]; references are to this document, which has no pagination.

[3] Ronning, “The Naming of Isaac: The Role of the Wife/Sister Episodes in the Redaction of Genesis”, 29: “It was well known to the ancients that Gen. 12:10-20 is typologically related to the account of the Exodus, a fact that has not been dealt with by most moderns”.

[4] R. Alter observes that cognates of the Hebrew verb form mšlHym (1 Sam 6:3), used for sending back the ark, are repeatedly used for Pharaoh’s sending Israel out of Egypt, and thus sustains the network of allusions to the Exodus story. The David Story, A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1999), 30.

[5] Ronning, “The Naming of Isaac: The Role of the Wife/Sister Episodes in the Redaction of Genesis”, 22.

[6] Alter, The David Story, 133.

[7] Peterson admits that it is difficult to designate where the sister- wife narrative ends: “I am unable to designate a clear terminus to the tale which begins in 26:1. The wife-sister motif has been assimilated into a series of incidents concerning Isaac’s sojourn in Gerar – a series which continues through Gen. 26:16 when Isaac moves to the valley of Gerar”. However, the narrative concerning the wells forms an integral part of the proceeding tale, without which it cannot be properly understood.

[8] [ED: JWA] It is important to observe that a sexual sense is not an inherent feature of the term mecaHëq (nor its related: Isaac) in any of its instances. The Hebrew mecaHëq or its cognates range from (positive) ‘laugh’ (whence ‘Isaac’ = ‘he will laugh’, Sarah acknowledging God has caused her this outcome: Gen 18:13, 15; 21:6) and ‘sport’ (‘play’) as Isaac with Rebecca, to (negative) ‘sport’ (‘play’) as ‘mock’ (Gen 19:14; 21:9; 39:14; Judges 16:25; Ezek 23:32). Likewise, there is no inherent sexual play sense in any instance of the cognate verb-forms and nouns of the rarer spelling of ‘Isaac’ as yiSHaq/qx;f.yI (with a letter ‘sin’ [hb]f[/hb] instead of a ‘cade’ [hb]c[/hb]), as in Jer 33:26. Indeed, God laughs (yiSHaq) at the futile attempts of man to counter His will, in Pss 2:4 and 37:13.

[9] The question of the legitimacy of Isaac is part of Genesis 21.

[10] The nation faced the punishment for an unfaithful wife – compare Exod 32:20 with Num 5:27.

[11] [Ed. AP]: the word for ‘play’ (qxf) is different to that in Genesis (qxc) but not unrelated.

[12] ‘Eden’ is a play on Sarah’s words: “After I have become old, shall I have pleasure [^cedna], my lord being old also?” (Gen 18: 12).