Abram and his wealth

[Chad]

Dr. Miller,
Recently I led a youth Bible study on Genesis 15. In this text, God makes his covenant with Abram by appearing as a smoking pot and a flaming torch and passing through animals that had been cut in half to signify the seriousness of the covenant. We noted that this covenant was really a one-party covenant because Abram was in a "deep sleep" and couldn't do anything. Therefore, God was entering to a covenant saying, "I will do all of this for my name's sake". We covered verse six where Abram's faith made him righteous. This was an awesome study! However, one question came up.

Question: In Genesis 12:20 Abram takes the wealth that is given to him by the Pharaoh. However, in chapter 14:22-24 he refuses to take anything from the King of Sodom because he knew that people would say his wealth came from that king instead of God. Why did he take from Pharaoh and not from the king of Sodom? Did this have to do with his meeting with Melchizedek in 14:18-20?

[Mike Miller]

Wow. Congratulations on having a very sharp group of students who would pick up on something like that. I also want to commend your understanding of the covenant ratification.

To begin with, Genesis 12:16 provides a bit of a difficulty in translation. What is meant by "he had sheep . . ." (ESV) or "Abram acquired sheep . . ." (NIV)? A literal translation is "and there was to him sheep . . ." But what does this mean? Does it mean that Pharaoh gave those things to Abram, that Abram already had those things, or that Abram, by his own effort amassed them himself? I tend see this as a description of all the people and possessions Abram took with him to Egypt. In fact, the exact phrase (in Hebrew) is used in Genesis 26:14 (Isaac) and Genesis 30:43 (Jacob). Verse 5 said they traveled with family, possessions, and "people they had acquired in Haran," and there is no indication he would not still have them with him. When he conspired with Sarai to lie to the Egyptians, he was hoping that "it may go well with [him]" and that his life would be spared (12:13), and in verse 16, we see that Pharaoh did indeed deal well with him (same word in Hebrew). So, the way I see it, this says that Pharaoh did let Abram live, and Abram had lots of people and possessions with him. In other words, it was a really good thing that Pharaoh let him live, because he had lots of livestock and servants who would need a significant amount of space and resources.

In light of that interpretation, the apparent disjunction with his refusal of possessions from the king of Sodom disappears. In Genesis 12, Abram wasn't being given anything, but in Genesis 14 he was. He simply refused the gifts (rightful plunder from the battle) so that God would receive glory.

Hope this helps, but if not, feel free to follow up.

[Chad]

Thank you so much! That really helps and it clears up the confusion there. Thanks for being a resource! God bless!