Introduction
Water has always been scarce in the Middle East and therefore a source of conflict. This article will examine the theology of water conflict in the Biblical narrative – particularly in the patriarchal accounts. Genesis 21:22-34 recounts the dispute between Abraham and Abimelech and Gen 26:12-33 between Isaac and Abimelech.
Duplications or Literary Art
Older German higher-critical scholarship saw the composition of the Pentateuch in ‘source’ or ‘documentary’ terms. On this approach, Gen 26:12-33 is usually assigned to a J source (apart from vv. 15 and 18 which is assigned to an E source) and Gen 21:22-34 is mostly assigned to an E source (apart from vv. 28-30 and 33 which is assigned to J).[1] Under this methodology our narratives are considered duplications and this is explained as due to the use of separate J and E sources which had two independent versions of an old folk-story. According to this approach, a reviser of the J narrative inserted an altered version of E’s story into the narrative of Isaac, and introduced the anachronism of making Abimelech a Philistine king. It is said that the composition of the Pentateuch as we have it is due to a final priestly editor after the Exile, who allowed the different versions to stand side by side as independent episodes.
More recently, (since the literary turn in Biblical Studies in the 1980s), some scholars have suggested that what was previously thought to be duplicate sources are in fact literary compositions based on and presupposing the knowledge of the original source.[2] The inadequacy of the criteria employed for assigning the various stories to sources has received a renewed critique since the 80s. The literary scholar R. Alter, writing in 1981, remarked,
Different repeated episodes have elicited different explanations, but the most common strategy among scholars is to attribute all ostensible duplication in the narrative to a duplication of sources, to a kind of recurrent stammer in the process of transmission, whether written or oral.[3]
However, Alter applies a literary approach to narrative episodes which he terms ‘Biblical Type-Scenes’.[4] This approach leaves one open to the charge of ‘historicized-fiction’, but this is only the case if one equates history with the mere reportage of facts. A. R. Millard observes:
Let all who read remember that the patriarchal narratives are our only source for knowledge of the earliest traditions of Israel, that traditions can be correct reflections of ancient events, and that they do not pretend to be textbooks of ancient near-eastern history or archaeology.[5]
D. Alexander, commenting on the sister-wife episodes, remarks that,
While there is evidence that the later accounts have been shaped to some extent by the process of their inclusion within a larger literary work- something which might naturally be expected –it cannot be confirmed that they are merely fictional narratives based on 12:10-13:1.[6]
His conclusion is as valid for the sister-wife episodes as it is for the chapters under discussion. The occurrence of supposed anachronisms to discount the historicity of the accounts is based on dubious evidence and is open to several other plausible explanations.[7]
The Wells of Contention
All the patriarchal narratives share a common theme, namely, that of legitimacy. Who is the legitimate heir—Isaac or Ishmael? Who is the legitimate husband of Sarah (Rebekah); is it Abraham (Isaac) or Abimelech? Who has legitimate ownership of the wells; is it Abraham (Isaac) or Abimelech? Who is the legitimate recipient of the patriarchal blessings, Jacob or Esau? The theme of legitimacy is duplicated with subtle variations throughout the Genesis narrative.
The formulaic incorporation of themes that are coupled with particular type-scenes should be placed in a worldview where the medium for revelation is history itself; not necessarily history as a causal-effect continuum or even a repetition (with subtle variations), but as rudiments of a larger theological picture—an historical harmony, whose teleology extends both forwards and backwards; and whose eschatological purpose will only be fully comprehended right at the end—and that only through divine revelation and intervention. Alter observes:
The type-scene is not merely a way of formally recognizing a particular kind of narrative moment; it is also a means of attaching that moment to a larger pattern of historical and theological meaning. If Isaac and Rebekah, as the first man and woman born into the covenant God has made with Abraham and his seed, provide certain paradigmatic traits for the future historical identity of Israel, any association of later figures with the crucial junctures of that first story –the betrothal, the life-threatening trial in the wilderness, the enunciation of the blessing –will imply some connection of meaning, some further working-out of the original covenant.[8]
The next section will demonstrate that the wells of Genesis 26 served as a model for covenantal relationships with the ‘Gentiles’ during the reign of Hezekiah and that, in turn, this has been adapted in the NT as a paradigm for covenantal relationships.
The Wells as a Paradigm for Covenantal Relationships
The narrative in Genesis 26 has parallels with the prophetic pronouncements of Isaiah 49 as the following table demonstrates:
| Genesis 26 | Isaiah 49 |
|---|---|
| Isaac’s sacrifice (Genesis 22) | …and I will give thee for a covenant of the people. (v. 8) |
| …and Rebecca lifted up her eyes when she saw Isaac (Gen 24:64) [Rebekah=to fetter or tie] |
…lift up thine eyes (v. 18) …gird thyself with them, like a bride (v. 18) |
| Isaac unblocks Abraham’s wells | …even by the springs of water shall he guide them (v. 10) |
| Esek = contention Sitnah=enmity (vv. 20-21) | I will contend with them that contend with thee (v. 25) |
| Reheboth= to enlarge/broad places (v. 22) |
…the place is too straight for me give me place that I may dwell (v.20) …who have begotten these? …who have brought up these? (v. 21) |
The Prophecy of Isaiah can be firmly placed in the reign of Hezekiah. The prophecy concerns the reforming king Hezekiah, who re-established covenantal relationships with Yahweh (unblocking Abraham’s wells),[9] and who extended the covenant to ‘Galilee of the Gentiles’,[10] thereby enlarging or broadening the covenant to fulfill its original intention (“In thy seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed” Gen 22:18). After 701, Hezekiah endured the hostility of the nations (“I will contend with them, that contend with thee”) bringing back Judahites and Gentiles to Judah. The work that he had done to establish a safe water supply for the defence of Jerusalem (2 Chron 32: 1-4; cf. Isa 36:1-37) became symbolic for the ‘wells that Isaac unblocked’ and is commemorated (as well as anticipated) in the wells of salvation of Isaiah 12:
Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and will not be afraid; for the LORD GOD is my strength and my song, and he has become my salvation. With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation. Isa 12:2, 3 (RSV)
The story of Isaac is paradigmatic for the extension of the covenant into a new arena in the face of unrelenting hostility.
The Well of Living Water
The Genesis narrative also has parallels with John. The Fourth Gospel commences with a prologue that parallels the Genesis ‘creation account’ followed by a ‘patriarchal narrative’ shaped around Jacob, even incorporating the ‘betrothal convention’ of a type-scene set at ‘Jacob’s well’ in Samaria. Jesus is a new well with ‘living water’ (John 4:10; 7:38) which he offers to those of the north (Samaria). This new well is not the Abrahamic well that had been blocked and was now being unblocked by Isaac’s servants (Jesus’ disciples); it is the well that complements the Abrahamic well.
In typological terms, the patriarchal wells had been blocked by the Jews (the Law and the Prophets). Not only did these wells need to be re-dug but a new well was needed. This new well produced a hostile reaction on the part of the Jews. The hostility of the Pharisees, who had ‘shut up the kingdom of heaven’ (Matt 23:13), mirrors that of the herdsmen of Gerar who had ‘blocked Abraham’s wells’ and is ascribed to the same motive of envy (Gen 26:15; Matt 27:18).
| Genesis 26 | John 4 |
|---|---|
| Abraham digs wells and wells blocked | Traditions of the Jews |
| Isaac re-digs wells | Ministry of John the Baptist and Jesus[11] |
| New well of living water found (v. 19 mg.) | Jesus a new well of living water (v. 10) |
| Herdsmen of Gerar contend (v. 20) | Opposition by the Pharisees |
Jesus transforms the water for ‘purifying the Jews’ (John 2:6) into the wine of the communion (John 2:10) and the baptism of the Spirit (John 7:38); for the ‘woman at the well’, he teaches her that the Samaritans (those of the tribal ‘north’) could share the new well.
The Well of the Oath—Beersheba
The treaty between Abraham and Abimelech is believed by some scholars (Van Seters for example) to display signs of disunity and the joining of separate traditions. There are two explanations for the name Beersheba – the ‘Well of Seven’ or the ‘Well of the Oath’ and the narrative in Gen 21:22-32 supposedly consists of two accounts describing two separate treaties. In the first treaty Abraham and Abimelech swear to live in peace with one another; to seal this covenant Abraham gives Abimelech sheep and oxen. In the other treaty, the dispute over the ownership of the well is resolved by setting aside seven ewe lambs as a witness to the fact that Abraham had dug the well. Since the days of S. R. Driver, (the commentator mainly responsible for cementing German Higher Criticism at the beginning of the twentieth century through his popular Introduction), however, this has not been a problem:
The two explanations resolve themselves into one: for the Heb. Word for ‘to swear’ (nishba’, the reflexive of the unused shaba’) seems to mean properly (as it were) ‘to seven oneself’, i.e., to pledge oneself in some way by seven sacred things, so that, if it might be assumed that the ‘seven lambs’ were used for this purpose, only one ceremony would be described in this passage.[12]
Alexander views the entire passage as a unity, compromising firstly of a ‘friendship’ treaty and only then a treaty over the outstanding dispute over the well (of which Abimelech was ignorant). Alexander observes:
Once the [friendship] treaty is concluded Abraham is in a position to settle the dispute over ownership of the well. Having acted in a gracious manner towards Abimelech, Abraham now asks him to recognize his claim to the well.[13]
As with all the patriarchal narratives, and indeed even the Exodus, the question of historicity looms large for scholars. It is not because of a lack of archeological evidence, but because of problems over the dating. The dating of the archaeological finds seems to indicate, for example, that the cities conquered by Joshua did not exist at the time when Israel conquered the land (but are of a later origin). The same type of ‘problem’ is encountered in scholarly treatment of the patriarchal narratives. The Philistines certainly existed but, according to the evidence, supposedly did not inhabit the land in the time of Abraham. D. W. Manor’s comments on the well at Beersheba in the standard academic dictionary reflect the general consensus:
It is not possible to determine when the well was dug, although it appears from the building that surrounded the well in stratum VII, and the fact that the well stood almost exactly in the centre of the courtyard of this building, that the well existed during stratum VII. Because the stratigraphy of the well area has been disrupted in antiquity (due to the collapse of the upper walls of the shaft), it is impossible to determine stratigraphically the date of the well. The only possibility available to determine its date is to excavate to the bottom of the well, but after excavating through 28 m of accumulation without reaching bottom, it was deemed necessary to abort the operation. On the basis of the orientation of nearby stratum IX architectural features, the excavators suggest that the well was dug in stratum IX (Herzog 1984:4-6). There is, however, no evidence to attribute any part of this well to the patriarchal period.[14]
Without being an archaeologist, it is difficult to comment on such findings, but other scholars[15] have criticized the methodology that leads to such conclusions; they have also pointed out, for example, that in the case of Beersheba the well was never excavated to the lowest strata, that there is even uncertainty if it is the correct well (there are many wells in the vicinity), that although the patriarchal narratives name places they rarely name cities (it is possible, for example, that Beersheba and Gerar were transient settlements before cities were established) and that many of the anachronisms are difficult to prove or disprove by archeological finds as they are perishable (an example is the mention of camels in the patriarchal accounts, a supposedly late addition but notoriously difficult to ‘dig up’ as they are perishables that are often scavenged by wild animals).
Beersheba in the New Testament
Luke makes intertextual allusions to the Beersheba narratives in Zechariah’s hymn of praise at the birth of John the Baptist (Luke 1:67-79).
| Luke 1 | Genesis 26 |
|---|---|
| 71. That we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all that hate us. | 27. Wherefore come ye to me, seeing ye hate me, and have sent me away from you? |
| 73. …the oath which he swore to Abraham our father. |
18. Isaac digged again the wells of water, which they had digged in the days of Abraham his father. 33. Beersheba –well of the oath. |
| 74. …being delivered out of the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear. | 24. …fear not, for I will bless thee… |
| 76. …the prophet of the Most High… | 28. We saw plainly that the Lord was with thee… |
| 79. …to guide our feet in the way of peace | 31. …they departed from him in peace. |
The correspondences are clear, but the objection might be voiced that the terms of the hymn (and indeed the typology of Isaac), are more appropriate to the Messiah than to John the Baptist. Luke 1:69 refers to a ‘horn of salvation’ (a mighty saviour) – ‘horn’, suggests the strength of a fighting animal. It is used in Ps 132:17 of a successor to David, but the language here reflects Ps 18:2. The reference to the house of David his servant (Luke 1:27; Acts 4:25) identifies the horn as the Messiah. Although the hymn praises the privilege of the preparatory role played by the Baptist (vv. 76-77), it recognizes that the full import of the fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants is in the Messianic role played by Jesus (vv. 68-75; 78-79).
Isaac and Messianic Typology
It is perhaps fruitful to include Alter’s insightful commentary on the life of Isaac before investigating the typology:
This chapter [Genesis 26] is the only one in which Isaac figures as an active protagonist. Before, he was a bound victim; after, he will be seen as a bamboozled blind old man. His only other initiated act is his brief moment as intercessor on behalf of his wife in 25:21. Textual critics disagree about whether this chapter is a ‘mosaic’ of Isaac traditions or an integral literary unit, and about whether it is early or late. What is clear is that the architectonics of the larger story requires a buffer of material on Isaac between Jacob’s purchase of the birth-right and his stealing of the blessing – a buffer that focuses attention on Isaac’s right to the land and on his success in flourishing in the land. All the actions reported here, however, merely delineate him as a typological heir to Abraham. Like Abraham he goes through the sister-wife experience, is vouchsafed a covenantal promise by God, prospers in flock and field, and is involved in a quarrel over wells. He remains the pale and schematic patriarch among the three forefathers, preceded by the exemplary founder, followed by the vivid struggler.[16]
Isaac is indeed the “typological heir” to Abraham; his Messianic foreshadowing shows him as the covenantal sacrifice and the one who ‘unblocks’ the promises in the face of growing hostility. He resolves all the old disputes over ‘legitimacy’ and declares a Messianic banquet. Interestingly, once the perpetual quarrels over wells have been eternally laid to rest, his servants arrive (the same day) with more good news – we have found water (Gen 26:32). This seems both superfluous and extraneous; superfluous because everyone now has their own legitimate claim to a water source; extraneous because Isaac’s servants were digging a new well (which we are not informed about) while the negotiations were still ongoing. This new well represents the outpouring of the Spirit in the Messianic age:
In that day (the same day) there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and uncleanness. Zech 13:1 (KJV)
The Messianic age is one where all covenantal relationships are restored, where there is room enough for everyone to live peaceably; where the nation of Israel and the Gentiles live in covenant relationship with the same God through the means of his son who ‘unblocked’ all the wells and dwells in their midst.
Conclusion
The patriarchal narratives, like the Bible itself, stubbornly refuse to be classified; is it history masquerading as theology, or artful literature? What are the sources and dates of composition? How can type-scene and convention reflect historical reality? In a perverse twist the same questions surround the ‘living word’; where did he come from? Who was his author? Who is the historical Jesus? Ultimately these are questions of faith—and both the written and the ‘living word’ will be shown to come from the same source—a unique interaction between God and man through the Spirit.
Scholarship should recognize its limitations in understanding how God works, “for now we see through a glass darkly”. Our concept of ‘inspiration’ is not necessarily the same as God’s; nor is our understanding of history the same as the One who knows “the beginning from the end”. What is clear, however, is that the collective experience of Israel is somehow also the individual experience of Israelites. So, Abraham can be both a historical reality and at the same time act as a federal representative for the community of faith; the NT writers had no problem understanding the Levites paying ‘tithes’ through the loins of Abraham. Scholarship must somehow resolve its schizophrenic attitude to the Bible, attempting to force it into their agenda. The NT authors can take the example of Isaac and shape it under the inspiration of the Spirit to reflect the historical reality surrounding the hostility towards Jesus in the first century.
Water conflict has always troubled the Middle East and will probably contribute to the next war, but more importantly it masks a deeper enmity; a hatred born out of envy and a spiritual dispute over legitimacy and ownership. This is particularly relevant to the current claims of ownership related to the Palestinian question and appeals to being the legitimate heirs of Abraham. It also relates to Christ himself, who is claimed by the Muslims as a prophet, by the Jews as an itinerant exorcist and by the Gentiles as their God (a claim never made by Jesus). Water conflict in the patriarchal narratives allegorizes the covenants and typifies the Messiah as the only legitimate source of water. It is only through him that all the disputes can be resolved and it is likely that we have here a pattern for the last days.
[1] A digest of older higher-critical views can be found in Peake’s Commentary on the Bible (rev. ed.; M. Black and H. H. Rowley, eds.; New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1962); for our topic, see p. 176.
[2] See the discussion of the ‘sister-wife’ episodes (Genesis 12, 20, 26) in J. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975), 167-91 and C. Westermann, Genesis 12-36 (Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1985), 161, 318-320, 424.
[3] R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 49-50.
[4] Alter is at his best when challenging source-critical preconceptions with the literary concept of ‘type-scenes’ which he defines as recurring patterns for episodes. The ‘betrothal scene’ is such a ‘pattern’ or ‘convention’ and variations of the scene are used when finding a bride for Isaac, for Jacob and for Moses, who also met his wife by a well. This ‘type-scene’ is even appropriated in the NT when Jesus meets the Samaritan woman by a well. Type-scenes are a literary device or convention for presenting certain events (such as a betrothal scene) in a fixed format; it is the subtle variations on the standard format that alerts the reader to significant points.
[5] A. R. Millard, “Methods of Studying the Patriarchal Narratives as Ancient Texts” in Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives (eds. A. R. Millard & D. J. Wiseman; Leicester: IVP, 1980), 43-48 (56).
[6] T. D. Alexander, Abraham in the Negev, A Source-critical Investigation of Genesis 20:1-22:19 (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997), 51.
[7] See J. P. Holding “Are the Philistines in Genesis an Anachronism?” It is available Online [Cited Nov 2012] at http://www.tektonics.org/lp/oldphilistines.html.
[8] Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 60.
[9] In the first month of his reign, Hezekiah; “opened the doors of the house of the Lord and repaired them” (2 Chron. 29: 3). This was the beginning of an extended reformation and rededication; “now it is mine heart to make a covenant with the Lord God of Israel…” (v. 10).
[10] ‘Galilee of the nations’ (Isa 9:2) is a term (of contempt) and it is interchangeable with ‘Galilee of the Gentiles’ (cf. 1 Macc 5:15). The northern tribes had been intermingled with Gentiles. These tribes were issued an invitation by Hezekiah to celebrate the Passover at Jerusalem (2 Chron 30:1). ‘Galilee of the Nations/Gentiles’ is a type of the ‘Gentiles’ expressing the expansion of the covenant to include the Gentiles (cf. Matt 4:14-16) – the prophet Isaiah warmed particularly to the theme of Gentile inclusiveness: “I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not…” (Isa 65:1).
[11] Interestingly, the controversy with the Pharisees had repercussions for the relationship between the disciples of John the Baptist and those of Jesus. The Pharisees attempted to drive a wedge between the two parties by provoking envy (Jesus’ baptizes more disciples than the Baptist) and by questioning the efficacy of Jesus’ baptism (questions about ‘purifying’ in John 3:25, 26).
[12] S. R. Driver, Genesis (Westminster Commentaries; London: Methuen, 1904), 215.
[13] Alexander, Abraham in the Negev, 74.
[14] D. W. Manor, “Beersheba” ABD, 1.642 [My emphasis].
[15] See K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).
[16] R. Alter, Genesis, Translation and Commentary (New York: W. W. Norton & Co Ltd, 1996), 131.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One