Refusing God’s Blessing: An Exposition of Genesis 11:27-32

By George Van Pelt Campbell

[George Van Pelt Campbell is Associate Professor of Sociology and Religion, Grove City College, Grove City, Pennsylvania.]

At first glance some parts of the Bible may seem lacking in spiritual content. Genesis 11:27–32 is such a passage. Yet a careful reading of the text, observing its features and seeing it in context, shows that it, like all Scripture, is inspired by God and is spiritually profitable (2 Tim. 3:16).

The Relationship of Genesis 11:27-32 to the Book of Genesis

The Book of Genesis[1] is carefully structured.[2] The creation story (1:1–2:3), which introduces the book, is followed by ten sections, each introduced by the heading תּוֹלְדוֹת (hereafter toledot).[3] The term toledot, literally “generations,” refers to an “account of” someone or something “and that which proceeded from” that person or thing.[4] Each section introduces a topic (typically a person, but in 2:4, “the heavens and the earth”) and then tells what became of him or it over time, usually by telling a series of stories that move toward a climax. Ross argues that the two dominant themes in Genesis are blessing and cursing. “We may also observe that the material within each toledot reflects the development of the book itself. Noting the motifs of blessing and cursing in the analysis of the sections, we discover within each toledot a deterioration from blessing to cursing until Genesis 12:1–2, from which point the trend moves to the promise of blessing.”[5]

For example the first toledot section, 2:4–4:26, describes “what became of ” the heavens and the earth (2:4). The series of stories begins with the sinless humans in the Garden of Eden (vv. 4–25), proceeds to the story of the fall into sin (3:1–7) and God’s reaction (vv. 8–24), and concludes by describing the deterioration of human behavior in the murder of Abel by Cain (4:1–16) and the polygamy and murder of Lamech (vv. 17–25), but ending with a brief note of hope (v. 26). So the first toledot explains that what became of the good heavens and earth God created is that sin brought terrible degradation into them; God’s perfect heavens and earth experienced the curse of death against which God had warned in 2:17. Terms for or allusions to death occur often (in 2:17; 3:3–4, 15, 19; 4:8, 10–11, 14, 15 [twice], 23). The word “curse” occurs in 3:14, 17 and 4:11. Stated another way, what became of the heavens and the earth is that the life God created (2:2–25) was marred by sin (3:1–7), resulting in the curse of death (3:8–4:26).

Genesis 11:27–32 begins the sixth toledot, which extends from 11:27 through 25:11. The pattern of degradation from blessing to cursing, which characterizes toledots 1–5, reverses itself in toledots 6–10, which show that the effects of sin are reversed by God and turned to blessing by Him. The toledot of Terah (11:27–25:11) is the story of Abraham, through whom God introduced a program to bless the world. Thus 11:27–32 is a major turning point in Genesis, with distinct connections to what precedes it as well as to what follows it.

The Relationship of Genesis 11:27-32 to Genesis 1-11

Brodie argues persuasively that Genesis 11:27–32 is an integral part of chapter 11.[6] These six verses serve as a fitting conclusion to the first eleven chapters for three reasons. First, the phrase “and [they] settled there” serves as an inclusio,[7] framing the passage as a unit (11:2, 31). Second, as Waltke and Fredricks note, “The repetition of 11:26 [in 11:27] explicitly links” this paragraph to the previous section.[8] Third, verses 26 and 32 each end with the word “Haran,”[9] further binding verses 27–32 to verses 1–26. All three units in Genesis 11 include a note on cursing. The story of the Tower of Babel (11:1–9) demonstrates the failure of humans to obey God. Brodie comments on an unusual, pattern-breaking feature of verses 10–26, the genealogy of Shem (and a toledot unit). “The deficiency in the list of generations is so stark—nine generations instead of ten—that Genesis’ first translator, the writer of the Greek Septuagint, inserted an extra generation. Yet the deficiency probably has a purpose. It accords with the larger picture of the Shem-Terah clan as fading—fading in life span [and] in fertility.”[10] Verses 27–32 continue the curse theme since they are characterized by “premature death, barrenness, and a family journey that peters out,” and “the genealogy (11:10–32) . . . is the only panel in Genesis 1–11 where God is never mentioned; and no one speaks.”[11] The three units in chapter 11 (vv. 1–9, 10–26, 27–32) show that “at the end, human effort and life seem to be falling apart.”[12] Thus verses 27–32 are to be read as the culmination of what precedes it. As Kidner writes, “Terah, lacking the vision, lost the will to persist; in Hebrews 11:9, 10 the lesson is drawn that only faith will stay the course. So the chapter brings the primeval history to a doubly appropriate close, with man’s self-effort issuing in confusion at Babel and in compromise here. On his own, man will get no further than this.”[13]

The Structure of the Abraham Narratives

Several scholars have suggested that the Abraham narratives are written in a chiastic form.[14] Yet none of the suggestions seems entirely satisfactory. Alexander proposes the following arrangement.[15]

A. Sarah endangered; Abraham in Egypt (12:10–13:1)

B. Lot episodes I (13:2–14:24)

C. Covenant with Abraham (chap. 15)

D. Birth of Ishmael (chap. 16)

C.´ Covenant with Abraham (chap. 17)

B.´ Lot episodes II (chaps. 18–19)

A.´ Sarah endangered; Abraham in Gerar (chap. 20)

However, this arrangement misses the parallel Sarah-Hagar episodes in 16:1–16 and 21:1–21. So it seems best to conclude that any outline of a passage may fail to include all the artistic elements in the passage. Biblical books, including Genesis, often have multiple overlapping structures.[16]

A better approach is to see the Abraham narratives as a chiasm that focuses on God’s promises about seed and a land.[17]

A. Introduction: seed and land (11:27–32)

B. Abraham’s obedience to his call (12:1–9)

C. Development of the land promise (12:10–15:21)

1. Threat, failure of faith, rescue (12:10–20)

2. Threat, faith, confirmation of land promise (chap. 13)

3. Rescue of Lot (chap. 14)

4. Covenant (chap. 15)

C.´ Development of the seed promise (chaps. 16–21)

1. Threat, failure of faith, rescue (chap. 16)

2. Confirmation of seed promise, doubt, faith (chap. 17)

3. Rescue of Lot (chaps. 18–19)

4. Repeated threat (chap. 20)

5. Covenant (chap. 21)

B.´ Abraham’s obedience in his supreme test (22:1–19)

A.´ Conclusion: seed and land (22:20–25:11)

1. Seed (22:20–24)

2. Land (chap. 23)

3. Seed (chap. 24)

4. Seed blessed in the land (25:1–11)

In this arrangement 11:27–32 serves as the introduction and 22:20–25:11 serves as the conclusion (A and A’ respectively). They frame the narratives with the themes of seed and land, which dominate the entire toledot.

The Relationship of Genesis 11:27-32 to 25:1-11

In this toledot 11:27–32 parallels 25:1–11. Both are composed of two units, the first a genealogical section (11:27–30; 25:1–6) and the second a section devoted to geographical locations (11:31–32; 25:6–11). In other words both begin with a focus on seed and continue to a focus on land, thereby framing the toledot with two of the dominant motifs of the Abraham narratives.[18] The first land section (11:31–32) focuses on a journey toward Canaan, while the second (25:6–11) highlights Abraham’s burial in Canaan.

Also both units build to the death of the central figure, after which another figure takes the stage. Genesis 11:27–32 ends with Terah’s death, after which Abraham becomes the central figure in the story, and 25:1–11 ends with Abraham’s death, after which Isaac becomes the focus of the story. Both are funeral passages. Death is the effect of the curse (2:17), a motif that dominates chapters 1–11.[19]

Both passages end by noting where someone “settled” (11:31, “they settled [in Haran];” 25:11, “Isaac lived by [lit., ‘settled at’] Beer-lahai-roi”). Terah intended to journey to Canaan, but instead “settled” short of there in Haran, and he died outside the land of God’s promise. By contrast Isaac “settled” in the land God promised to Abraham.

These considerations indicate that 11:27–32 must be read in light of its framing of the Abraham narratives, in addition to its function as the culmination of what precedes it.

Exposition of Genesis 11:27-32

The passage may be outlined in four parts:

1. Heading: The toledot of Terah (v. 27)
2. The family of Terah—his seed (vv. 27–30)
3. The journey Terah undertook—his land (v. 31)
4. Conclusion: The death of Terah (v. 32)

Dorsey gives the following chiastic structure of these verses.[20]

A. Introduction: Terah and his offspring (v. 27)

B. The family lives in Ur of the Chaldeans; Haran dies (v. 28)

C. Abraham takes Terah’s daughter Sarai as his wife, and Nahor marries Milcah, whose father is Haran (v. 29)

D. Sarai is barren (v. 30)

C.´ Abram is taken by Terah, along with Abram’s wife Sarai and Lot, whose father is Haran (v. 31a)

B.´ The family leaves Ur of the Chaldeans and settles in Haran (v. 31b)

A.´ Conclusion: Summary of Terah’s life; his death (v. 32)

These verses introduce the two topics that dominate the Abraham narratives: the concept of progeny (seed) and of land. As seen in the chiasm proposed by Dorsey, Sarai’s barrenness, an aspect of progeny, is at the center of the passage. This problem of barrenness is prominent in the patriarchal narratives and the entire biblical record.[21]

The Idea of the Passage

As already noted, the Book of Genesis shows how sin brought chaos and emptiness into human experience (chaps. 2–11) and then how God restored goodness and blessing (chaps. 12–50).[22] Thus 11:27–32 portrays the debased place from which God’s program with Abraham begins an upward trajectory in history. It is the concrete expression in a human family of chaos and emptiness out of which God would bring blessing.

An Exposition of the Passage

Those without God are unable to escape the effects of the curse (vv. 27–30).[23]

“Now these are the generations [toledot] of Terah” (v. 27a). Verse 27, which begins the sixth toledot in Genesis, reverses the previous pattern of downward trajectories. Here the stories move from pagan Terah to blessed Abraham. The fact that Terah was a pagan is recorded in Joshua 24:2: he “served other gods.”[24] This toledot, Wenham remarks, announces “the fact that a new phase in human history has begun. Like Adam and Noah, Terah had three sons, which may suggest that his life marks another great turning point in the history of mankind.”[25]

As discussed earlier, the term toledot refers to “what became of” the subject. It regularly has a double sense. First, as it usually does in Genesis, this toledot moves beyond the life of Terah and dwells on what proceeded from him, namely, the blessing of God in the life of his son Abram.

Second, this toledot also records what became of Terah himself. What is unusual here is that Terah is dispatched more quickly than any other toledot subject (except where the subject of the toledot is the first generation in a genealogy).[26] The passage says, in effect, “What became of Terah was that he died, and God brought blessing through his son Abram.” The reversal of the elements of blessing and death highlights the fact that Terah’s death occurred before blessing was enjoyed by his descendants.

Whereas Noah “walked with God” (6:9), as did Enoch (5:22, 24), mention of God is absent from Terah’s experience.[27] Brodie notes that 11:10–32 “is the only panel in Genesis 1–11 where God is never mentioned.”[28] The “pattern of increasing sin,” which characterizes 2:4–11:26, leads in 11:1–9 to “humanity, in its hubris, batter[ing] against the boundaries God has established,”[29] and ends in 11:10–26 with no mention of God at all. But this is part of a larger pattern later in Genesis. In fact there are four sections in which God is not mentioned (11:10–32; chap. 34; chaps. 36–37; chap. 47). The toledot of Esau (chap. 36) makes no reference to God, in contrast to what follows in the toledot of Jacob. Two points may be noted about the rape of Dinah (chap. 34) and the famine in Egypt (47:13–26). First, the fact that God would be absent from scenes that depict human depravity and human suffering apart from the blessing of God is appropriate. Second, these scenes contrast starkly with the immediately following sections that record God’s blessings as well as the subsequent deaths-set-in-hope.

Thus the absence of any mention of God in 11:27–32 is part of a pattern in Genesis that graphically portrays God’s absence in the experience of those involved.[30]

“Terah became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran; and Haran became the father of Lot. Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his birth, in Ur of the Chaldeans. Abram and Nahor took wives for themselves. The name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor’s wife was Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah and Iscah” (vv. 27b–29). That Terah was a pagan is strongly suggested by the names in the passage. Terah “does not share Abraham’s faith. The introduction [implies] that Terah’s family worships the moon god Sin. [Terah] settles in Ur and Haran (see 11:31), both of which were important centers of the moon-god cult. The daughters Sarai and Milcah are probably named after the name and title of Sin’s consort and daughter respectively (see 11:29). His own name Terah may be related to the Hebrew yera˙, meaning ‘moon.’ ”[31]

Surely such considerations (with those in 11:31–32) led the author of Joshua to say that Terah served other gods while the change came with Abraham (Josh. 24:2–3, 14–15), since all that is known of Terah apart from Joshua 24 in the Old Testament is in Genesis 11:24–32 and a listing of his name in 1 Chronicles 1:26.

Genesis 11:27–32 introduces the seed theme, which figures so prominently in the Abraham stories. Terah’s progeny is in fact the main focus of these verses. Westermann observes that in verses 27–32 “all the verbs make genealogical statements.”[32] And Wenham notes, “Like the genealogy of Adam in chap. 5, this one ends with the birth of three sons to one man. Noah and Terah each stand at the beginning of a new age.”[33] Yet the family line here seems to be at a dead end. As Brodie points out, “Terah’s hopes for progeny revolve around his three sons, Abram, Nahor and Haran (11:27–30). . . . But these hopes are fragile.”[34] Haran died prematurely, Nahor married but is not recorded as having children, Lot had not married, and Abram’s wife was barren.

Two contrasts with this bleak picture are written into the story. The first is in 12:1–3, in which God promised to make Abraham into a great nation—in spite of a barren wife! These verses introduce God’s major initiative to overcome the effects of the curse, which for Abram included childlessness, and to bring blessing out of the curse (בָּרַךְ, “bless,” occurs five times in these three verses). Terah stands in sad contrast as one who had no way to escape the effects of the curse.

The second contrast is in 25:1–6, the parallel passage in the narrative frame. Both passages begin with a discussion of progeny and end with a death report. But whereas Terah’s progeny was bankrupt at his death, Abraham took another wife after Sarah’s death and produced numerous children. The toledot that begins with no hope for progeny ends with one who escapes the effects of the curse through abundant supernatural provision. God alone can provide escape from the effects of the curse.

The family originated in Ur of the Chaldeans.[35] Designating Ur as Chaldean (twice in the passage for emphasis) “is intended to designate the city as Babylonian.”[36] The geographical reference associates the family origins with Babel, the archetype of rebellion against God. From Babel God would make a new beginning.

“Sarai was barren; she had no child” (v. 30). Though some commentators perceive this as a “passing” remark,[37] several factors indicate its centrality in the story. First, as already stated, it occupies the center of the passage’s chiastic structure. Second, it is repeated, which points to its significance.[38] Third, verses 27–32 have “only one narrative sentence, the remark about Sarah’s barrenness.”[39] Wenham is correct in asserting that “digressions within a genealogy are of special significance.”[40] Westermann notes that “the aim of the genealogy lies in the elaboration in v. 30—Sarah is barren. This motif is the point of departure for several narratives in Gen. 12–25.”[41] In fact, since the entire program of God with Abraham in the Abraham narratives depends on progeny, Waltke and Fredricks are correct in affirming that Sarah’s barrenness “drives the whole story.”[42]

Brueggemann captures the import of this central calamity.

The family of Abraham has derived naturally from historic antecedents, as indicated in the genealogies of Gen. 10–11. But that natural derivation now results in nothing. It ends in barrenness (11:30). . . . It is simply reported that this family (and with it the whole family of Gen. 1–11) has played out its future and has nowhere else to go. Barrenness is the way of human history. It is an effective metaphor for hopelessness. There is no foreseeable future. There is no human power to invent a future. . . . A proper hearing of the Abraham-Sarah texts depends upon the vitality of the metaphor of barrenness. It announces that this family begins its life in a situation of irreparable hopelessness.[43]

In summary, these verses show that Terah was a pagan without a relationship with God, a representative of the civilization of Babel, whose hopes for progeny were small, and who had no way to escape the effects of the curse.

Those who refuse God’s call will live and die without God’s blessing (vv. 31–32).

“Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram’s wife; and they went out together from Ur of the Chaldeans in order to enter the land of Canaan; and they went as far as Haran, and settled there” (v. 31). Verses 31–32 introduce the second major motif of the Abraham narratives: the land theme. Terah’s journey toward the land of Canaan is the topic of these verses. As Westermann observes, “All of the verbs [in v. 31] are parts of the account of a migration.”[44] Brodie writes that Terah’s “hopes of land depend on his attempt to journey from Ur of the Chaldeans . . . to the land of Canaan.”[45] Yet this resulted in failure. “As for the effort to reach the land of Canaan, the journey peters out inexplicably and ominously: ‘when they came to Haran . . . they settled there . . . And Terah died in Haran.’ ”[46]

That Terah set out for Canaan is striking, particularly since the narrative delays reporting the call of Abraham to go there until 12:1–3, even though it is clear that it had happened in Ur. Why did Terah set out for Canaan? Cassuto states the obvious answer. “Influenced by Abram and his circle, Terah and the other members of the family also felt an inner urge—yet not sufficiently strong or clear—in the spiritual direction towards which Abram was set with all his heart and soul. But they did not succeed in overcoming completely the attraction of idol worship and were unable to abandon the world of paganism; they did, in truth, set out on the journey, but stopped in the middle of the way.”[47]

Though Terah understood God’s call to his son, Terah considered but finally refused God’s call to the land of Canaan. Terah refused to believe God’s promise or embrace the hope He offered.

Failure regarding Terah’s seed is noted in verses 27–30, and failure regarding the promised land characterized Terah in verses 31–32.

Just as the people at the time of the Tower of Babel traveled from one place to another and “settled there” (וַיֵּשְׁבוּ שָׁם) in defiance of God’s commands (11:2), so Terah went out “from Ur” (v. 31), and, coming to Haran, “settled there” (וַיֵּשְׁבוּ שָׁם).

“The days of Terah were 205 years, and Terah died in Haran” (11:32). The death of Terah is presented in a negative light in two ways. First, it follows the statement that he “settled” in Haran, indicating that he died having failed to arrive in Canaan, the place of blessing in the following Abrahamic narratives.

Second, the contrast between Terah’s death at the beginning of the toledot and that of Abraham at its end in 25:6–11[48] is dramatic. Terah’s death is presented in a context of his failure to arrive in Canaan and without the passage making any mention of God or giving any words of hope. But the facts about Abraham differ greatly. Brodie captures this contrast between father and son. “The death of Abraham is recounted in a positive way.”[49] Positive statements are piled up so that in regard to Abraham, “as in life, so in death, the overall impression is of blessing.”[50] When Abraham died “in a ripe old age, an old man,” he was then “gathered to his people” (25:8). Though the precise meaning of this is unclear,[51] it clearly has a ring of hope to it. Terah “died,” but Abraham “was gathered to his people.” Also he was buried by his sons—quite an end for a man introduced in 11:26–30 as having a barren wife. Further Abraham was buried in Canaan, the place where God blessed His people, a fact the text then details (25:9–11). Also Abraham was buried “with Sarah his wife” (v. 10). Then “after the death of Abraham . . . God blessed his son Isaac” (v. 11). The blessing that began with Abraham continued after his death.

Genesis 11:27–25:11 is framed by funeral passages. The funeral of Terah stands as mute testimony to the power of God to change even death into “good” (cf. 50:20), and in Abraham, death has been swallowed up in victory (cf. Isa. 25:8; 1 Cor. 15:54–56; Rev. 21:4).

Summary

Genesis 11:27–30 presents Terah as a man unable to escape the effects of sin, who lived and died without blessing or hope because he rejected God’s call. His life fittingly summarizes the effects of sin, as well as the lack of response to God’s grace, portrayed in Genesis 2–11. He stands in contrast to his son Abraham, whose life was a journey into the broad, sunlit uplands of God’s presence. The difference between Terah and Abraham was one thing only: a response of faith to God’s call.

Waltke and Fredricks summarize the meaning of the passage in this way. “This dark introduction [to the Abraham narratives] profiles God’s grace. . . . Terah is steeped in pagan idolatry. One of his sons dies . . . another is married to an infertile wife, and Terah himself will die, having settled for a land short of Abraham’s heavenly vision. Against this hopelessness, God’s sovereign call of Abraham offers bright hope.”[52]

Notes

1. The Torah (Genesis through Deuteronomy) was originally written as a single book with a unified argument. It is always referred to in the Bible as a single book (e.g., Deut. 30:10; 31:24–26; Josh. 1:8; 2 Chron. 25:4; Mark 12:26). The term “Pentateuch” (“five-part book”) came into use in the second century A.D., though the fivefold division is attested in Philo (ca. 20 B.C.–A.D. 50) and Josephus (A.D. 37-100) and may have begun with the Septuagint (ca. 250 B.C.). See John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 1–2. However, the toledot structure makes it clear that Genesis was a discrete subunit of the Torah.
2. For detailed analysis of structure in Genesis and in the Old Testament generally see David A. Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the Old Testament: A Commentary on Genesis-Malachi (Grand Rapids: Baker), 1999.
3. Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 69–74. The ten sections are these (ibid, 70): see Table 1 below.
4. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (reprint, Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 410.
5. Ross, Creation and Blessing, 73–74.
6. Thomas L. Brodie, Genesis as Dialogue: A Literary, Historical and Theological Commentary (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 196–205. The conclusions drawn here do not depend on Brodie’s broader argument regarding the diptych structure of Genesis (ibid., 11–26). Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks also argue that the section faces backward and forward (Genesis: A Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001], 20, n 6). Dorsey also sees it as a hinge unit (The Literary Structure of the Old Testament, 54). Gerhard von Rad observes that for any exposition of “Abraham’s migration an awareness of its close connection with the preceding primeval history is utterly crucial” (Biblical Interpretations in Preaching, trans. John E. Steely [Nashville: Abingdon, 1977], 23). Walter Brueggemann agrees (Genesis: A Bible Commentary for Preaching and Teaching [Atlanta: John Knox, 1982], 105–6).
7. On inclusio and other literary devices common in biblical literature see John D. Harvey, Listening to the Text: Oral Patterning in Paul’s Letters (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 97–106. This device is sometimes called “framing” or an “envelope structure.” See also Shimon Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (New York: Clark, 1992), 197–218; and Robert Alter and Frank Kermode, eds., The Literary Guide to the Bible (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987).
8. Waltke and Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary, 200.
9. “There is a difference between the personal name Haran . . . and the place name Haran . . . ; the initial h reflects two different Hebrew letters (aspirated heh and fricative het. . .). But, in a book that plays with words, such closeness between two names suggests continuity. . . . The two names dovetail. The issue is not trivial. The personal name Haran evoked death; it belonged to someone who died prematurely. Hence, ‘died in Haran’ is almost like ‘died in death.’ . . . This progeny lives in death’s shadow” (Brodie, Genesis as Dialogue, 205).
10. Ibid., 202.
11. Ibid., 197. Von Rad states that in chapters 1–11 “a constantly widening breach [between God and man] is pictured. . . . God’s judging rule [is] also again and again displayed. . . . The end of the story of the Tower of Babel shows a judgment without mercy” (Biblical Interpretation in Preaching, 23).
12. Brodie, Genesis as Dialogue, 205.
13. Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1967), 111–12.
14. See Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15 (Dallas: Word, 1987), 262–63.
15. T. D. Alexander, “A Literary Analysis of the Abraham Narratives in Genesis” (Ph.D. diss., University of Belfast, 1982), quoted in Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 263.
16. On overlapping structures see Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the Old Testament, 26–27; and Brodie, Genesis in Dialogue, 12–24. For alternative structural patterns in the Abraham narratives see Waltke and Fredricks, Genesis; A Commentary, 20; and Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the Old Testament, 56.
17. Adapted from Ross, Creation and Blessing, 81–82. Waltke and Fredricks argue that “land” and “seed” are two of the key words in the Abraham narratives (Genesis: A Commentary, 198).
18. Brodie notes that 11:27–32 “is largely concerned with two things that often give a sense of strength and stability, namely progeny and land” (Genesis as Dialogue, 204). However, he does not note that these verses introduce two of the most prominent motifs of the Abraham narratives.
19. Waltke and Fredricks argue that contrast is a major plot motif in the Abraham narratives, with minor characters often contrasted with Abraham and Sarah, including Lot, Hagar, and Ishmael (Genesis: A Commentary, 197). (Terah should be added to the list.)
20. Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the Old Testament, 54. Apparently Dorsey’s inclusion of Terah in describing 11:29 (C in the outline) is an error, though that does not undermine his structural observations. That Sarai was Terah’s daughter is stated in 20:12 but not in chapter 11.
21. An example is Hannah (1 Sam. 1–2). Though Mary was not barren, her pregnancy was a miraculous event that led to God’s fulfilling His seed promises to Abraham. Thus Jesus’ conception is in continuity with this theme in the Pentateuch.
22. “The material within each toledot reflects the development of the book itself” (Ross, Creation and Blessing, 73).
23. On the verbal parallels and other similarities between this passage and the introduction to the narrative of Isaac (25:19–26), and other passages, see Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 138–39. A significant chronological difficulty exists when the sequence in 11:26–12:4 is compared with Acts 7:2–4. As Hamilton explains, “The chronology of Gen. 11:26–32 is as follows. Terah is seventy years old when Abram is born (Gen. 11:26). Since Terah dies in Haran at the age of 205 years (11:32), Abram would be 135 years old at his father’s death. Yet 12:4 informs us that Abram left Haran at the age of seventy-five to enter Canaan. If no other text were considered, this sequence would present no problem, for one would understand Abram to have left Haran sixty years before his father died. But this explanation contradicts Acts 7:4, which says that Abram left Haran for Canaan only after the death of his father. Is Stephen following the chronology of Gen. 11–12 or not?” (Genesis 1–17, 366–67, italics added). Thus there are two problems. (1) Did Abram receive his call in Haran (as Gen. 11:32–12:4 seems to imply) or in Ur (as Stephen stated in Act 7:2, and as Gen. 15:7 and Neh. 9:7 also seem to assume)? (2) Did Abram leave Haran to enter Canaan after the death of his father Terah (as Gen. 11:32–12:4 implies, and as Stephen states in Acts 7:4), or before his death (as the ages of the participants given in Gen. 11:26, 32 and 12:4 seem to require)? In other words the sequence of events in Stephen’s speech—God’s call in Ur, the journey to Haran, and Abram’s departure from Haran for Canaan after the death of Terah—seems inconsistent with the sequence of events recorded in Genesis 11:16–12:4. Two solutions have been proposed. One assumes that Stephen was drawing from another textual tradition, now extant only in the Samaritan Pentateuch but also attested in Philo, who wrote that Terah died at age 145 rather than 205. (This view is defended by F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, rev. ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988], 133–35, n 21; see also Wayne Litke, “Acts 7.3 and Samaritan Chronology,” New Testament Studies 42 [1996]: 156-60.) This resolves all the chronological difficulties between Genesis and Acts except Stephen’s location of Abram’s call in Ur, which can be resolved by reflecting on the function of sequence in Genesis. Events in Genesis are sometimes related out of sequence for particular purposes (e.g., 11:1–9 is narrated after chap. 10). This seems to be the case in 11:27–12:4. That the call of Abram came in Ur is implied in 12:1 (“Go from your country”), the country of Abram’s birth having been identified as Ur in 11:27–28) and in 11:31 (Terah and his family struck out “to go into the land of Canaan”). On the view defended in this article, mention of the call of Abram was intentionally postponed until 12:1 so that the opening section of the toledot offers no hope and no presence of God, and contrasts with the call of Abram. The other solution resolves the chronological difficulties by taking a cue from another feature of Genesis: the fact that sons are not always named in order of their birth. The chronological difficulties exist only on the assumption that 11:26–27 implies that Abram was the firstborn and was born when Terah was seventy years old. However, if verse 26 means only that Terah was seventy when he had his first son (either Nahor or Haran), and Abram was born later when Terah was 130 years old (named first, perhaps because of his importance), then the difficulties vanish. (Hamilton defends this view [Genesis 1–17, 366–38].) The same explanation of the location of the call in Ur as stated above could apply to this view. Either of the views resolves the chronological difficulties. The best conclusion is that Abram’s call came in Ur, as Genesis 15:7; Nehemiah 9:7; and Acts 7:2 assume; the only evidence against this is the assumption that the sequence of events reported in Genesis 11:32–12:1 must communicate temporal succession, an assumption that is not necessary.
24. “Terah was an idolater, worshiping other gods” (Allen P. Ross, “Genesis,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck [Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1985; reprint, Colorado Springs: Cook, 1996], 46).
25. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 268.
26. This is true only of Adam (5:1–5) and Shem (11:10–11).
27. While “Enoch walked with God . . . and God took him,” Terah “walked” toward Canaan and “took” only his relatives—though the distinctive “walked with God” is in all three instances the verb הָלַךְ in the hithpael stem, in 11:31 the stem is qal.
28. Brodie, Genesis as Dialogue, 197.
29. Waltke and Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary, 190.
30. God was absent in a relative sense, of course. He was not absent from Joseph’s activities in Genesis 47:13–26, but only from the famine, an effect of the curse. God’s presence and absence are often used by biblical writers for literary effect (see Ronald M. Hals, The Theology of the Book of Ruth [Philadelphia; Fortress, 1969]; and Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Ecclesiastes: Total Life [Chicago; Moody, 1979]).
31. Waltke and Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary, 199.
32. Claus Westermann, Genesis 12–36: A Continental Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 134.
33. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 252.
34. Brodie, Genesis as Dialogue, 204.
35. Scholars debate the exact location of Ur. Though it used to be identified with Urfa (modern Edessa) in northern Mesopotamia, most scholars now hold that it was in southern Mesopotamia on the Euphrates, modern el-Muqayyar in southern Iraq. See Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 272–73; J. A. Emerton, “The Source Analysis of Genesis XI 27–32, ” Vetus Testamentum 62 (1992): 37-46, 40; and Alan R. Millard, “Where Was Abraham’s Ur?” Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 2001, 52–53, 57. Some, however, defend the northern view (e.g., Hamilton, Genesis 1–17, 363–65; and Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 139–40). See also Patricia Berlyn, “The Journey of Terah: To Ur-Kasdim or Urkesh?” Jewish Bible Quarterly 33 (2005):73-80. On balance, the southern view seems preferable.
36. Franz Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis (1888; reprint, Minneapolis: Klock and Klock, 1978), 1:367; so also Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 272–73. This holds for both the northern and southern identifications of the site of Ur (Hamilton, Genesis 1–17, 365; and Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 135–36, 139–40).
37. For example Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 158.
38. “The sentence serves as the exposition of a narrative and acquires additional strength from the literary device of parallelism, which is used not only in poetry, but also in narrative so as to emphasize or underscore a statement” (Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 139, italics his).
39. Ibid., 141.
40. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 273.
41. Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 136.
42. Waltke and Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary, 200.
43. Brueggemann, Genesis, 116–17.
44. Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 134.
45. Brodie, Genesis as Dialogue, 204.
46. Ibid., 205.
47. U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis 1–11, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1964), 2:281.
48. Twice 25:6 records that Abraham sent his concubines’ sons away “to the east.”
49. Brodie, Genesis as Dialogue, 286.
50. Ibid., 287.
51. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 160; and Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 397.
52. Waltke and Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary, 201.

Table 1.

1.	Toledot of the heavens and the earth (2:4–4:26)
2.	Toledot of Adam (5:1–6:8)
3.	Toledot of Noah (6:9–9:29)
4.	Toledot of Shem, Ham, and Japheth (10:1–11:9)
5.	Toledot of Shem (11:10–26)
6.	Toledot of Terah (11:27–25:11)
7.	Toledot of Ishmael (25:12–18)
8.	Toledot of Isaac (25:19–35:29)
9	Toledot of Esau, the father of Edom [twice] (36:1–8; 36:9–37:1)
10.	Toledot of Jacob (37:2–50:26)