The importance of Genesis 12:1–3 cannot be overstated. Gordon Wenham alludes to this when he says: “[Genesis 12:2–3] is generally regarded as the key to the Yahwist’s interpretation of the patriarchal history . . . Whatever one’s critical position, there is no doubt about their cardinal importance for the understanding of Genesis.” Wenham is correct, but he still underestimates the significance of this passage. An argument can be made that not only is Genesis 12:1–3 of “cardinal importance” for understanding the book of Genesis, it is essential for understanding the entirety of the Holy Scriptures.
What makes this passage so outstanding is the “great nation” promise that the Lord made to Abraham. This “nation” would be a blessing to Abraham and, in turn, a blessing to “all the families of the earth” (12:3). The purpose of this presentation is to present an exegetical case for the central position of the “great nation” promise in Genesis 12:1–3. The text of this passage is provided for you on your handout.
- DESCRIPTION OF THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
After a brief introduction in Genesis 11:27–32, the first words that the Lord speaks to Abraham are found in Genesis 12:1–3. Whereas verse 1 calls for an extraordinary faith in God from Abraham, verses 2–3 highlights the promissory word from the very God in whom Abraham believed. This analysis is significant as it provides the grammatical foundations of the passage as a whole, namely the command to “go” in verse 1, which establishes Abraham as a man of faith, and the volitive clause “I will make you into a great nation” in verse 2, which establishes the objective work of God for Abraham.
1. Genesis 12:1: an act of faith. Genesis 12:1 opens by stating: “Now the LORD said to Abram, ‘Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you.’” The text fast-forwards through the early years of Abraham’s life and takes us to this moment when he is given this divine command to leave his homeland and his kinfolk. Notice that Abraham is not given any details of the location his travels will take him or what lies instore for him once he arrives. He is only told that the Lord will direct him to “the land that [he] will show [him].” This was no small feat. Abraham was called to abandon his country and family that had brought him comfort, and to put his earthly security into the hands of the Lord. He had to simply believe the Lord’s word, trust it, and obey him. By doing so, Abraham would demonstrate a genuine and astonishing faith in the Lord.
The author of the Book of Hebrews comes to the same conclusion as he contemplates upon this early event in the life of Abraham. Hebrews 11:8 states “By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going.” It would not have been unreasonable for Abraham to ask the Lord for the destination and purpose of his south-western migration, yet he did neither of these things. The Lord commanded, Abraham trusted in him, and he simply obeyed. Bruce Waltke comments on Abraham’s faith by saying: “Faith demands a ruthless abandonment of the past. Abraham has to leave the consolation of familiarity and tradition far behind. He has to jettison his family, his homeland, and the old ways of worship. But this abandonment leads to his fulfillment” (Genesis, 209). Because of the challenges set before him, Gerhard von Rad says that the text intends to make Abraham’s departure as a “paradigmatic test of faith” (Genesis, 204). John Skinner, in the Anchor Bible Commentary on Genesis, similarly states: “Obedience under such conditions marks [Abraham] as the hero of faith, and the ideal of Hebrew piety” (Genesis, 243). Therefore, it seems clear that the intent of verse 1, more specifically this command to “go,” was to establish the faith of Abraham.
2. Genesis 12:2–3—The Divine Actor: Verses 2–3, however, shifts the direction of our focus. Whereas verse 1 tests Abraham’s faith and obedience by telling him to leave his homeland and family, so verses 2–3 describe what the divine will of God has in store for him.
“2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
In verse 1, there are hints as to what the Lord has planned for Abraham. Since he was called to abandon his “country,” his “kindred,” and his “father’s house,” there is an implication that the Lord intended to give him a new country, kindred, and head of household. The text, however, does not say “Go from your country and your people and your father . . . and I will give you a new country, people, father.” Instead, it says the Lord will make him into a “great nation.” Even if Abraham had logically deduced these implied blessings, he probably would not have envisaged the magnitude of the fulfillment that the Lord had in mind, that being the birth of a nation. It is not merely a new homeland, family, or father that Abraham will receive—each of these blessings, isolated and independent from each other atomistically. The Lord states clearly and unequivocally that what he will replace the people, land, and family-head with a “great nation” (v.2)—a holistic, singular blessing that brings into unity the theme of people, land, and leadership. Whatever expectations Abraham may have had for a new homeland and family pales in comparison to what the Lord truly promised. And this is what the Lord will do for Abraham.
Therefore, I suggest that verse 1 establishes Abraham as the model and the necessity of faith in the Lord. Verses 2-3 move to focus on the primary interest of the passage, that being the blessing of God to Abraham, that the Lord will make him into a “great nation.” The series of volitives that follow are further detailed elaborations of that one promise of a “great nation.”
Survey of Interpretations of Genesis 12:2–3
Grammatically, the passage starts off with the imperative in verse 1 “go” (Hebrew לֶךְ), which is followed by a series of seven volitives in verses 2–3, starting with the cohortative-clause “I will make of you a great nation” and ending with another corhotative “him who dishonors you I will curse.” This volitional sequence is brought to an end by one final verb, the niphal converted perfect 3cp from brk (וְנִבְרְכ֣וּ, “they may be blessed”) in verse 3b. The niphal converted perfect seems to continue the volitional momentum while also bringing the passage to a grammatical conclusion (this is not an uncommon use of the converted perfect – to continue to volitional sequence). Since a series of volitional verbs in sequence like this do not clearly reveal which are direct volitives and which are indirect volitives (using the language of Paul Jouon), this construction opens itself to numerous interpretations.
One such interpretation focuses on two verbs as the structural foundations for the entire passage. One proponent of this view is Joel S. Baden. He suggests that the verbs in verses 1–3a express simultaneity, while the converted perfect וְנִבְרְכ֣וּ in verse 3b is a temporally successive act. Baden’s view does not come through in his translation (granted such an interpretation would be difficult to render in a readable English). It is provided for you in your handout:
“Go from your land and from the place of your birth and from the house of your father to the land that I will show you and let me make you a great nation and bless you and magnify your name, and you be a blessing, and let me bless those that bless you and curse the one who curses you; then all the families of the earth will bless themselves by you.”
He does state, however, that this interpretation implies a “partnership” between Yahweh and Abraham, “one in which both sides are equally responsible for fulfilling their set of actions.” Given this comment, it would be best to understand Baden’s suggestion as an implicit “if/then” construction, even though he does not translate it as such. The apodosis (“then” statement) is marked by the converted perfect in verse 3b and everything preceding that is a simultaneous, collective verbal protasis (the “if” statement). To support this interpretation, notice that Baden translates the converted perfect in v.3b as “then.” “[if you] go . . . and let me make you a great nation and bless you and magnify your name . . . then all the families of the earth will bless themselves by you.”
In response to Baden, it is true that Abraham had a role in the outworking of the divine will of God. His duty was to “go” as the Lord commanded. In the context of the Abrahamic narratives, however, to describe this as an “equally responsible” act (as Baden suggests) seems too strong an assertion, especially in light of the divine, self-maledictory oath in Genesis 15. Since it was the Lord who alone took this oath, God was assuring Abraham that He [God alone] would be the one to fulfill the covenantal promises that He [God alone] had made. This hardly sounds like a partnership where “both sides are equally responsible for fulfilling their set of actions.”
The Lord’s desire was to bless Abraham with a new homeland, but this blessing would occur specifically in Canaan. In order for this to happen, it was necessary for Abraham to leave Haran. The command to “go,” therefore, seems to be a necessary condition, but not an equally responsible one. In order for the Lord to give Canaan to Abraham, it was necessary for Abraham to leave his land and go to Canaan. If the Lord had desired to do so, he could easily have made Abraham into a “great nation” in his Aramean homeland of Haran, or even in his ancestral land of Ur of the Chaldeans. To place the task of “going” as equally ultimate with the Lord’s promise to make His beloved patriarch into a “great nation” seems to undermine the divine foundation on which this covenantal promise is made, which was what gave hope to generations of Abrahamites that follow.
This partnership understanding proposed by Baden is similar to that of T. Desmond Alexander who says regarding Genesis 12:1–3:
“First, the fulfillment of the divine promises is conditional on Abraham’s obedience. By commanding him to leave his homeland and be a blessing, God places the onus on Abraham to obey in order that the promises concerning land, descendants, and the blessing of others may be fulfilled. Second, the climax of the speech comes in the statement that ‘all the families of the ground may be blessed through you.’ The primary motive behind the call of Abraham is God’s desire to bring blessing, rather than cursing, on the nations of the earth” (italics mine).
In Alexander’s analysis, he builds his understanding of the passage upon two verbs, just like Baden. Unlike Baden, who focuses upon the verbs “go” in verse 1 and “they shall be blessed” in verse 3b, Alexander examines the two imperatives of “go” in verse 1 and “be [a blessing]” in verse 2 [“be” is the imperative from the Hebrew hayah, followed by the noun “blessing,” thus a periphrastic construction]. He is clearly impressed by the fact that the imperatives in verse 1 (“go”) and verse 2 (“be”) are followed by cohortatives. That syntactic structure is given such heightened consideration that it influences his translation, which is provided for you on your handout:
“Leave your country, your people, and your father’s household and go [imperative] to the land I will show you, so that I may make you into a great nation and bless you and make your name great.
Be [imperative] a blessing, so that I may bless those who bless you, and curse the one who disdains you, and so that all the families of the ground may be blessed through you” (italics mine)
He interprets the two imperatives (“go” in verse 1 and “be” in verse 2) as direct and the subsequent cohortatives that follows as indirect (purpose clauses).
In response to Alexander, there are three observations worth noting. The first concerns his translation, in that he takes certain liberties by inserting the verb “leave” as distinct from “go” when the MT only has the one imperative “go.” He appears to have spliced the one verb into two, thus making “go” appear syntactically closer to the collective seven volitives that begin with the cohortative “let me make of you a great nation.” This translation, in turn, seems to support his analysis. In truth, the imperative “go” in verse 1 is distant from the cluster of the seven volitives in verses 2–3. From a syntactic analysis, this gives the impression that the imperative “go” should be separated from the other seven verbs that are tightly interwoven together—the opposite conclusion from that of Alexander.
Second, we should remember that syntax serves words/phrases, not the other way around. Whereas the grammar and syntax provide the skeletal structure of a clause, it is the words/phrases that are the substance of the message. In other words, words give the text its meaning, not the grammar.
Third, the bigger question comes when we compare Alexander’s translation with his comments as there is inconsistency here. If indeed he is correct that “the fulfillment of the divine promises is conditional on Abraham’s obedience,” then how are the first person cohortatives, which immediately follow the imperatives, purpose statements? Wouldn’t it be more consistent to say they mark the apodosis (the “then” clause in an implied conditional statement)? I would suggest that, like Baden, an “if/then” interpretation might be more consistent with his exegetical study, although the protasis-apodosis structure differs from Baden. The logical syntactic conclusion to Alexander’s view sees two separate conditional clauses here. Thus, “[if you] leave your country, your people, and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you, [then] I [will] make you into a great nation and bless you and make your name great. [If you are] a blessing, [then] I [will] bless those who bless you, and curse the one who disdains you, and so that all the families of the ground may be blessed through you.”
A third representative of this two-verb interpretation is the view of Peter J. Gentry and Steven J. Wellum, in their book Kingdom through Covenant, where they present a lengthy and detailed study of this passage. Their view is similar to Alexander, in that they also observe that the two imperatives “go” and “be” [a blessing] are the primary verbs of the passage. They comment similarly as Alexander by observing each imperative is followed by a series of three promissory cohortatives. The first group of three are blessings for Abraham specifically while the second group are blessings for the world through Abraham. Thus, they diagram the structure of the passage as provided in your handout:
| Go (Command) | |
| I will make you into a great nationI will bless youI will make your name great | (Promise) (Promise) (Promise) |
| Be [a Blessing] (Command) | |
| I will bless those who bless youI will curse him who curses youIn you all nations will be blessed | (Promise) (Promise) (Promise) |
In response to Gentry and Wellum, there are also three comments worth noting. First, like Alexander, they appear to place a premium on the imperatives at the expense of the first person cohortatives. They comment that the two imperatives “go and “be” are “unambiguous and must be analyzed as qal second-person singular imperatives.” It is not immediately clear what they mean since, by form, the first person cohortatives are just as “unambiguous” and clearly cohortatives. Their comment seems to imply that while the first person forms may or may not express some kind of subordination, the imperatives are “unambiguously” direct imperatives. They acknowledge that the majority of translations interpret the imperative “be” as a subordinate clause as do numerous Hebrew grammars and commentators (the most notable being GKC §110i since it specifically interprets the imperative “go” in Genesis 12:2 as expressing “a consequence which is to be expected with certainty”). In spite of this, Gentry and Wellum remain solid on their position that “be” should remain a direct imperative and they cite numerous sources that argue to the rare use of an indirect imperative (specifically, two dissertations that have shown indirect imperatives are rare).
Regarding this specific comment, it seems that Gentry and Wellum may have missed the interpretative target. They have adequately proven that the indirect imperative is rare, though I doubt any of the Hebrew grammars they cite would deny this assertion. The state of the question, however, is not whether such a use exists or not or whether it is rare or not. It is whether it is being used for the imperative “be” in Genesis 12:2 or not. They claim that it does not and say that those who interpret the imperative as indirect have “misconstrued the text and missed important clues to the literary structure.” My proposed interpretation has attempted to heed their advice: take clues from within the text to determine its structure and message. Given the contextual evidence and the way in which other portions of Scripture comment on this passage, I would submit my proposed structure and message as a fair and accurate reflection of the text.
A second comment on Gentry and Wellum is not regarding something they observed, but rather something they did not observe. There is a clear correlation between the phrases “I will bless you” in verse 2 and “I will bless those who bless you” in verse 3. Both phrases repeat the verb “bless” (Hebrew berek) as first person cohortatives. Similarly, there is a clear correlation between the phrase “be a blessing” in verse 2 and the final phrase “in you all the families of the earth will be blessed” in verse 3. Both begin with non-first-person verbs, where the final phrase begins with the converted perfect וְנִבְרְכוּ. Both use the word “bless,” a noun in a periphrastic construction in verse 2 and a verbal form in verse 3. Both also say that Abraham will be the instrument of the Lord to bring universal blessing to others. Like Alexander, they fail to recognize this clear parallelism of “I will bless” in verses 2a and 3a, and “be blessed” in verses 2b and 3b. Again, like Alexander, they allow syntactic factors to outweigh the content.
Third, while they stress the promise/fulfillment nature of the cohortatives that follow the imperatives “go” and “be a blessing,” they do not, however, explain the relation of these promissory blessings with their preceding imperatives. Is the blessings conditioned on Abraham’s obedience to “go” and “be” (Alexander)? Are these simultaneous actions (Baden)? They state “Although God commands Abram, God is still the implied agent who will enable Abram to bring blessing to others.” (269). While it is, of course, true that God is the primary agent, this still does not clarify the nature of the cohortatives. In fact, to emphasize the agency of God appears to de-emphasize the importance of the imperatives, that is, the duties of Abraham. Without clarity in the relationship of the volitive sequences, Abraham’s actions appear to be inconsequential (and possibly unnecessary) to the blessing on others. It would be mildly awkward to accentuate the imperatives when forming a literary structure while de-emphasizing them when communicating meaning and message.
We have examined those who believe a two-verb structure Genesis 12:1-3. There are also those who suggest that the one single imperative “go” in verse 1 is the only direct volitive that drives the entire passage; the volitives in verses 2–3 are all understood, then, as indirect and interpreted as the purpose for Abraham’s western migration. This is the position of Gordon Wenham. His quotation is provided on your handout when he says “the main verbs [in verses 2–3]—‘make,’ ‘bless,’ ‘make great,’ ‘be,’ ‘bless,’ ‘curse,’ ‘find blessing’—are all subordinate to the imperative ‘go’ (v.1) . . . to indicate purpose or consequence (italics mine).” Patrick Miller states this just as clearly (again, his quotation is on your handout): “The command [in verse 1] is followed by a sequence of cohortative verbs and an imperative with conjunctive waw, indicating purpose or intention (italics mine).” Bruce Waltke translates the cohortatives in verse 2 as “so that I might make you . . . bless you . . .make your name great.” Others say the same.
By making the command “go” as the single primary volitive, the passage emphasizes Abraham’s act of faith as the dominant motif (see the comments above on verse 1). George Coates explains the rationale for reading these volitives as articulating purpose when he says this passage is a “theologically pregnant unit designed to emphasize Abraham’s obedience as a virtue of edifying proportions.”
In response to the one-volitive view of Wenham/Miller/Waltke, which emphasizes the faith of Abraham, we acknowledge that there is some validity to this. As we commented above, verse 1 portrays Abraham as a man of faith. New Testament texts support this also (Rom 4:3, 11–13; Heb 11:8–19; Jas 2:21–23). The movement within the text, however, moves away from Abraham and turns towards the God in whom Abraham believed. Specifically, it is the sovereign grace of God that becomes the most salient theme in verses 2-3. This is something the one-imperative view does not recognize. As important as it is to bring out the faith of Abraham, it is even more important to emphasize the divine object of his faith. This is why the Apostle Paul says concerning Abraham: “That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace” (Rom 4:16). For Paul, the faith of Abraham, though significant, does not dominate over the Lord of the covenant.
Recall that as a resident of Ur, Abraham was in the heartland of ancient paganism. That location would also have been the urban capital of the ancient world. John Calvin says that due to these unholy roots Abraham was “plunged in the filth of idolatry.” The word of sovereign grace came to Abraham in this historical and social setting. Had it not come, he would have remained in spiritual darkness. In other words, God initiated the covenantal relationship with Abraham, not vice versa. We must remember that “faith,” whenever it is mentioned in Scripture, cannot be divorced from the great Lord of mercy and grace. Indeed, it is God who is great, not faith per se. Faith is virtuous insofar as it turns our attention away from ourselves and onto the Lord. I’m sure Abraham would have wanted readers to turn their attentions to the Lord of the covenant more so than upon him.
Restatement of My View
Therefore, I propose a derivative of the two-volitive interpretation, where the verbs “go” in verse 1 and “I will make you into a great nation” in verse 2 provide the architectural pillars for the passage. Abraham indeed demonstrated a remarkable act of faith by obeying the Lord’s command to “go.” More significant than his faith, however, is the God in whom Abraham believed and followed, the Lord who would make him into a great nation. This understanding is confirmed by the fact that the majority of the volitives that follow the initial command to “go” are first person cohortatives with the Lord as the subject. Whereas verse 1 shows the faith-based obedience of Abraham, so verses 2–3 bring the Lord of promise to the forefront of the text and his divine workon behalf of Abraham. The Apostle Paul also confirms the God-centeredness of Gen 12 when he calls the covenant of Abraham a covenant of “promise” in Gal 3:15-18, not a covenant of faith. In other words, for Paul the significance of Gen 12 is that the Lord would bless Abraham by making him into a “great nation.” Accordingly, I would take the imperative of verse 1 (“go”) as a direct volitive that establishes the necessity of faith by Abraham, meaning it was necessary for Abraham to travel to Canaan because this would be the location in which the Lord transforms him into a “great nation.” I would also take the cohortative in verse 2a (“I will make of you a great nation”) as a second direct volitive that emphasizes the divine Lord in whom he trusted.
That promise of becoming a “great nation” was the clear and concrete blessing the Lord would give to Abraham. Although the language of “blessing” (which occurs four times in verses 2–3) is undoubtedly present, it is not as concrete or tangible as the “great nation” promise. In other words, Abraham would have understood what a “nation” is, but the reference to “blessing” needs an antecedent. In this case, the subsequent six volitives are epexegetical and further elaborate the single “great nation” promise, with verse 2 focusing upon the blessings of the Lord upon Abraham and verse 3 the blessings upon those associated with him. In the former, Abraham is the direct recipient of divine favors; in the latter, he (or the “great nation”) is the instrument through whom the Lord will bless others.
Conclusion
In closing, it is significant to point out that even if the centrality of the “great nation” promise is accepted, the question remains: what does this “great nation” entail? The immediate application of this analysis would show that in Gen 12:1-3, specifically in this “great nation” promise lies the programmatic agenda that drives the rest of the history of redemption.
It is impossible not to see Old Testament Israel as the fulfillment of this promise. A preliminary analysis reveals that at significant stages of Israel’s history references back to the Abrahamic Covenant are made. At the reception of the law covenant at Sinai, Israel is called a “holy nation” (Exod 19:6), alluding back to the “great nation” of Genesis 12:2. When Joshua established an Israelite settlement in the land of Canaan, the Lord stated that he has now given to the Abrahamic descendants “all the land that he swore to give to their fathers” and that “not one word of all the good promises that the LORD had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass” (Jos 21:45). Even the covenant of David in 2 Samuel 7 must be seen as a fulfillment of “kings” coming from the line of Abraham (Gen 17:6; cf. Gen 35:11; 49:10), thus the anointed monarch of the “great nation.” Perhaps, further study will reveal the assertion made earlier in this paper: that the Abrahamic promise of a “great nation” is essential for understanding the entirety of the Holy Scriptures. Perhaps next year.
Redeeming Chillingworth 