bs_bs_banner

Genesis 12 and the Abraham-

Paradigm Concerning the Promised
Land1
Ulrike Bechmann

Ulrike Bechmann, a professor of religion in the Roman Catholic theological

faculty at the University of Graz, has served since 2007
as the director of the Institut f€u r Religionswissenschaft.

Genesis 12 as well as other texts on Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, and Ketura are
closely connected to the “Promised Land” theme that plays a fatal role in the
context of the conflict in Israel and Palestine. The land where Abraham arrives
and wanders from north to south is named as “Canaan” (Gen. 12:7) – but Abra-
ham leaves it very soon (Gen 12:10) because it is far from being a homeland
that can nourish his household. Genesis 12:1-7 is the first promise of a land
given to Abraham and his offspring, but it is not the only one within the stories.
Furthermore, we can ask if the land is really the main promise? Most of the
themes in the stories focus on missing heirs, not on the problem of gaining land.
Furthermore, there are many other promises along the same line; and in terms of
theological setting, pentateuchical sources, and redactions, they are very different.
Therefore, in examining the topic of land as a promise to Abraham we must not
only consider Genesis 12, but all the texts related to Abraham, Sarah, Hagar,
Ketura, and their sons. The topic of the heirs of Abraham unfolds up to Genesis
25, in which the sons of Abraham and Ketura spread out over the region east of
Jordan. Also, Genesis 12 is not the beginning of the story of Abraham and
Sarah. The story starts in Gen 11:27 with Sarah as the main figure – and this
fact challenges traditional biblical interpretations of Genesis 12.

1
This paper was presented at the International Theological Conference, “Promised Land” and extended for this
publication.
DOI: 10.1111/erev.12199
62 C (2016) World Council of Churches. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Copyright V
Ulrike Bechmann Abraham Paradigm in Genesis 12

When “Text Becomes Land”: Biblical Texts and Political Processes

Dealing with biblical texts in the context of historical or political questions is very tricky.
One has to be aware that biblical texts were thought to be presenting not a history but a
story.2 It was only Europe of the 19th century that started to identify the truth of biblical
texts as being (modern understood) historically accurate. The methods of biblical historical
criticism that identified the various “sources” of the biblical text3 were sometimes seen to
be undermining the basis of belief. When archaeology was extended as a new science, cer-
tain famous archaeologists began to dig up sites in Palestine in order to find proof that the
Bible true in a modern historical sense.4 What had been known as textual story up to that
date was now reconstructed as real history. The dissertation of Markus Kirchhoff points
to this process in “Text zu Land” (text becomes land)5 and situates it not only with the Zion-
ists, but also in the context of British Christianity.

The identification of the biblical promise of land with Zionist settling in modern Pales-
tine is only part – not the source – of the reason that Jewish immigration into Palestine
was and is legitimized in relation to the Torah. The Zionist movement and the first
waves of immigration into Palestine were not motivated religiously. The motivations
were mainly European anti-Semitism, the pogroms in Russia at the end of the 19th cen-
tury, and the insight that assimilation of Jews in Europe would not work. The concept
of nationalism fostered the idea of a nation for the Jewish people – Jewishness now
was thought as ethnic identity. And European/British colonialism was the premise to
realize a forced immigration into Palestine. In fact, in the beginning the idea of a Jewish
state was not much applauded by the European Jewish community. But the pogroms in
Europe, the growing anti-Semitism in Western Europe culminating in the Shoah, and
the reality of an ongoing immigration to Palestine transformed the political idea to a
real process of gaining not only land but a state in Palestine on all levels.6 The reference

2
Klaus Bieberstein, “Geschichten sind immer fiktiv – mehr oder minder. Warum das Alte Testament fiktional
erz€ahlt und erz€ahlen muss,” Bibel und Liturgie 75 (2002), 4-13.
3
Only the name Julius Wellhausen may stand for the method, see Erich Zenger, Einleitung in das Alte Testament,
(Stuttgart Berlin K€
oln, 3. neu bearb. u. erw. Aufl., 1998 [1995]), ch. B. (5 Kohlhammer-Studienb€ucher Theolo-
gie 1,1)
4
For the history of archaeology in Palestine, see Ulrich H€ubner (ed.), Palaestina exploranda: Studien zur Erforschung
Pal€astinas im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert anl€aß lich des 125j€ahrigen Bestehens des Deutschen Vereins zur Erforschung Pal€astinas.
Abhandlungen des Deutschen Pal€astina-Vereins 34 (Wiesbaden, 2006).
5
For details see Markus Kirchhoff, Text zu Land. Pal€astina im wissenschaftlichen Diskurs 1865 – 1920 (G€
ottingen,
2005) (5 Schriftenreihe: Schriften des Simon-Dubnow-Instituts Leipzig 5).
6
The complex process of taking over land in order to gain a state is analyzed by Dan Diner, Israel in Pal€astina
€
(Uber Tausch und Gewalt im Vorderen Orient, K€onigstein / Ts., 1980).

Copyright V
C (2016) World Council of Churches 63
The Ecumenical Review Volume 68 • Number 1 • March 2016

to the Torah and Abraham’s promise of a land for his offspring were used to support
the political process.

The declaration of the state of Israel 1948 cited the Torah. But the decisive step of
using the religious promise of land to Abraham and his offspring in a nationalistic way
did not take place until after the Six-Day-War of June 1967. The texts of Abraham as
well as other texts on the conquering of the land became relevant for the political con-
flict. They are now widely used to justify not only the founding of the state of Israel,
but far more the conquering and enduring occupation of East Jerusalem, the West
Bank, and the Gaza Strip. The stories of the forefathers and foremothers are located
mostly in the region of the West Bank – therefore the nationalistic-religious movement
insists on especially this part of the land. The divine promise of the land to Abraham
and his offspring is seen as the right of the Jewish people, who envisage themselves as
the offspring of Abraham, to come to Palestine, possess it, and live in it. It is under-
stood that now, in a time where this was and is politically possible, the divine promise is
fulfilled.

The question arises as to why this religious argumentation strengthened after 1967
rather than 1948. My thesis is that the founding of the state of Israel in 1948 was legiti-
mized through the international community (UN-Resolution 181). Even with the
resistance of the Arab countries and the Palestinian population, there was a backing by
the UN. By contrast, the war of 1967 and the extension of the occupied regions were
delegitimized through the UN (see UN-resolution 242) until today. To cling to the
occupied West Bank and Gaza, especially the decision to stay in the land and extend
the process of settlements to the West Bank, needed broader argumentation. Religious
arguments became prominent – and for a certain time Western Christian communities
were hindered in any protest. Not long after the Shoah who would dare to argue against
a Jewish religious belief? Furthermore, being in a process of reconsidering the anti-
Judaistic traditions of Christian theology after the Shoah and trying to set up a Chris-
tian–Jewish dialogue, there was nothing to say against the claiming of the biblical stories
for the Jewish and Israeli community.7

Similar arguments were used by some Christian groups in proving the truth of the
Bible. For the Christian Zionist movement or messianic Christians, the state of

7
See Ulrike Bechmann, “Pal€astinensische Christen und Christinnen – die unbequeme Seite des christlich-
j€udischen Dialogs,” in Gesellschaft f€u r christlich-j€u dische Zusammenarbeit in Frankfurt a.M. (ed.), mich erinnern – dich erken-
nen – uns erleben. 50 Jahre Gesellschaft f€ur christlich-j€udische Zusammenarbeit in Frankfurt am Main 1949-1999
(Frankfurt, 1999), 169–79.

64 Copyright V
C (2016) World Council of Churches
Ulrike Bechmann Abraham Paradigm in Genesis 12

Israel was seen as the fulfilment of the heavenly promise and even as the begin-
ning of the messianic time. Protests of Palestinian Christians and any problems
they had with justifying the occupation on the basis of the Bible were not recog-
nized.8 Palestinian Christians only began to be part of the theological and religious
leadership of the Christian Churches in Palestine.9 The Palestinian contextual theol-
ogy was developed from the 1980s onward.

The longer the occupation dragged on, the more developed became a nationalistic-
religious Jewish settler movement and their nationalistic use of the biblical text and the
stories of Abraham. Hebron, the grave (and therefore centre) of the forefathers and
foremothers, is home to the fiercest settlers and the centre of a veneration of the mur-
derous settler Baruch Goldstein as a martyr.10 In combination with the texts of Exodus,
the Palestinians as well as the neighbouring people are seen as “Amalek” (see Deut.
25:17-19) who has to be destroyed or driven out of Palestine. These arguments are not
only used by nationalistic Israeli groups, especially by the settler’s movement11; they are
also spread by Christian Zionists or messianic groups politically supporting the settlers
for their own purposes. This support, especially for the settlements, is not only given
through finances and political influence, but also in building up and nourishing the bib-
lical (fundamentalist) arguments in order to secure the settlement process. As an out-
come of this attitude, these people use the Bible to support the building of illegal
settlements with all well-known consequences of violence. According to this Christian
approach, criticizing the settlements and occupation of the Palestinian regions is akin

8
For example, Mitri Raheb, I am a Palestininan Christian (Minneapolis, Augsburg Fortress, 1995); Naim Stifan
Ateek, Justice, and Only Justice: A Palestinian Theology of Liberation (N.Y.: Maryknoll, 1989); see also Ulrike Bech-
mann and MitriRaheb (eds), Verwurzelt im Heiligen Land. Eine Einf€u hrung in das pal€a stinensische Christentum (Frank-
furt, 1995); Viola Raheb, “Mit dem Alten Testament im Konflikt um das Land,” in Impuls oder Hindernis? Mit dem
Alten Testament in multireligi€oser Gesellschaft, ed. Joachim K€ugler (M€unster, 2004), 45–58 (5 bayreuther forum
TRANSIT 1).
9
Uwe Gr€abe, Kontextuelle pal€a stinensische Theologie. Streitbare und umstrittene Beitr€age zum €okumenischen und interreligi€osen
Gespr€ach (Erlangen, 1999).
10
Ulrike Bechmann, Gest€orte Grabesruhe. Idealit€at und Realit€a t des interreligi€osen Dialogs am Beispiel von Hebron/al-Khalil
(Berlin, 2007) (5 AphorismA – Reihe Kleine Texte 24).
11
Irvine H. Anderson, Biblical Interpretation and Middle East Policy: The Promised Land, America and Israel, 1917-2002
(Gainesville, Florida, 2005); Idith Zertal and Akiva Eldar, Die Herren des Landes. Israel und die Siedlerbewegung seit
1967 (M€unchen, 2007); Sebastian Dorsch and Stephan Maul, “Eretz Israel. J€udischer Extremismus, religi€ oser
Zionismus und die Siedlungsproblematik,” in Der israelisch-pal€astinensische Konflikt. Hintergr€u nde, Dimensionen und
Perspektiven, Historische Mitteilungen, Beih. 48, ed. Dietmar Herz, u.a. (Stuttgart, 2003), 73–95; Tamara Neumann,
“Religious Nationalism, Violence, and the Israeli State. Accommodation and Conflict in the Jewish Settlement
of Kiryat Arba,” in Religion und Nation – Nation und Religion, ed. Michael Geyer and Harmut Lehmann (G€ ottingen,
Beitr€age zu einer unbew€altigten Geschichte, 2004), 99–114.

Copyright V
C (2016) World Council of Churches 65
The Ecumenical Review Volume 68 • Number 1 • March 2016

to criticizing the Bible itself and God’s will to fully put the land in the hands of the
Israeli state, his own people, as he promised in Genesis 12.

There are several possible reactions toward this theo-political attitude. One is to insist that
the Bible is not a handbook for political decisions and that the Bible is not accepted as a
common basis for life. In fact, any political organization has to insist on a sound political
basis and laws, including human rights standards, international laws, and treaties. The set-
tlements are based on an occupier’s law12 that ignores the IV Geneva Convention (1949),
and the settlers are allowed to act even against Israeli law. Nevertheless, if responsible pol-
iticians are influenced by a literal understanding of the Bible, it will influence their political
stand, as can be seen clearly in the last few years of American policy.

Therefore, one of the most urgent duties for the World Council of Churches (WCC) is
to react to these challenges on various levels. Such an attitude cannot be tackled only by
separating theology and politics on a theoretical level or by setting up projects on a prac-
tical level. It has to be attacked through a differentiated theological stand and the will to
challenge this deadly theology. The project of WCC on a practical level, the Ecumenical
Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI), seems to be very helpful
in documenting and partly supporting Palestinians in conflicts with settlers and military
forces of Israel. But another important task is to react to the theological support and
grounding of the occupation. We must challenge two sides of Christian theology: (i)
The theological tradition of Jewish-Christian dialogue that claims to be on the side of
Israel unconditionally in order to take the responsibility for the Shoah and Christian
anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism13; and (ii) the theological tradition of Christian funda-
mentalism that claims the everlasting promise to Abraham to be fulfilled in fully con-
quering the West Bank to be part of Israel. These different tasks are taken up in the
various activities and theological debates of WCC and other Christian institutions.

12
See Rajah Shehade, Occupier’s Law: Israel and the West Bank (Washington, 1988).
13
F. W. Marquardt’s theology may exemplify this kind of theology, where he urges the Palestinians to give in into
Israel because of God’s promise of the land to Israel, see Friedrich Wilhelm Marquardt, Was d€u rfen wir hoffen,
wenn wir hoffen d€urfen? Eine Eschatologie, Bd.2 (G€utersloh: Kaiser 1994), 275-185; Palestinian theologians reacted
to this theological stance, see Viola Raheb, “Mit dem Alten Testament im Konflikt um das Land,” in Impuls oder
Hindernis? Mit dem Alten Testament in multireligi€oser Gesellschaft, ed. Joachim K€ugler (M€unster, 2004), 45–58; Mitri
Raheb, “Land, V€ olker und Identit€aten: ein pal€astinensischer Standpunkt,” Concilium 43 (2007), 174–81; see also
Ottmar Fuchs, “‘Kontextuelle Theologie in Pal€astina,’ Erinnerungen an ein wissenschaftliches Symposium in
Bethlehem,” in Von Nazareth nach Bethlehem: Hoffnung und Klage. Mit einem Forschungsbereicht von Saleh Srouji, ed.
Ulrike Bechmann and Ottmar Fuch (M€unster, 2002) (5 T€ubinger Perspektiven zur Pastoraltheologie und Reli-
gionsp€adagogik), 177–92; Ottmar Fuchs, “J€udische Klagepsalmen in Pal€astina – eine Herausforderung auch f€ur
die praktische Bibelhermeneutik,” in Praktische Hermeneutik der Heiligen Schrift (Stuttgart, 2004) 408–37.

66 Copyright V
C (2016) World Council of Churches
Ulrike Bechmann Abraham Paradigm in Genesis 12

This paper will only discuss the biblical arguments of Abraham’s promise of the land as
being fulfilled through the state of Israel. What can be said from the perspective of bib-
lical theology and exegesis to this biblical approach? In the remarks that follow, I want
to give a hermeneutical clue to what we can learn from working with the paradigm of
Abraham and what has to be stressed in a theological debate about biblical justification
of Israel’s use of land.

The Relation of Biblical Text and History: Necessary Differentiations

Differentiating biblical and modern terminology

Whoever talks about Genesis 12 and the Abraham paradigm relating to the “Promised
Land” has to clarify the level they are talking about. A similar name is not a guarantee
for similar semantics. The gap between biblical times and terminology and modern
times and terminology is not easily to bridge. One of the dangers is a continuous use of
“Israel” that does not differentiate between Israel in the biblical terminology (which is
used in very different ways even within the Bible, requiring a differentiated use even in
biblical terms!) and the modern state of Israel or the Israelis as people, or Israel used
for the Jewish people as a whole. The same can be said about the terms “land” or
“Abraham.”

With regard to the many problematic uses of Promised Land, it is less the biblical
text than the exegesis of these texts that contributes to a theological legitimization
of violent oppression or even expulsion of Palestinians in order to gain land for
the state of Israel. There is an urgent need for very meticulous terminology in
order to avoid confusing history and story in identifying historical and modern ter-
minology. This should be underlined for the sake of the Christian God-talk as well
as for the sake of the Palestinians and Israelis. Constructing other peoples’ identity
(for Palestinians or Israelis or Jews) – as is done by a Christian Zionist theology or
even a Protestant dogmatic theology – is paternalistic and unacceptable. Even if
one insists on using biblical terms directly as a political basis, there are some prob-
lems with Abraham and the concept of land in Abraham’s paradigm. The Bible
itself does not back this interpretation.

Abraham’s stories as theological (in fact fictional), not historical texts

The stories of Abraham are theological texts, but they use the form of a historical narra-
tive. They are by no means “historical” in the modern sense of telling what (more or
less) really happened at the time of narration. The interest to write “history” in a modern

Copyright V
C (2016) World Council of Churches 67
The Ecumenical Review Volume 68 • Number 1 • March 2016

sense only started in modern Europe in the era of historism. For the Ancient Near East,
the normative time was the past and any changes had to be found in the past or the
beginning of creation. This is clearly visible in the setting of the ideal time: It is paradise
at the beginning of creation. Texts of the Ancient Near East as well as biblical texts have
a very different agenda concerning “history.” These are literary stories dealing with
problems of their time in the form of stories of the past. In fact, these stories are either
new or taken up and retold and reworked through a redactor – and sometimes retold
and reworked several times. After the redaction of the Torah was finalized (likely at the
beginning of the 4th century), this process was transformed in re-telling the biblical sto-
ries within the early Judaistic literature. Texts like the Book of Jubilees, the Testamen-
tum of Abraham, and other texts of early Judaism can be described as re-written Bible.14
This is the same process of reworking the stories of the past to promote relevant theo-
logical positions. Therefore, while the stories of Sarah and Abraham convey historical
information, this is not about the narrated time of Abraham, but about the time in which
they are written. They portray the forefathers and foremothers acting as models for the
problems of their time – and these backgrounds can be reconstructed. Abraham and
Sarah, as they are narrated, are figures of a narrative.

Two lines of scientific theories in Old Testament studies support this view:

(i) Archaeology in the Holy Land was begun in order to prove the “historical” basis
of the biblical stories. After more than 100 years of archaeology, there is increas-
ing confirmation that the history of Palestine and the peoples living there differs
significantly from the story as it is told in the Bible.15 Together with the ongoing
and matching research of the exegesis of the Old Testament, we see evidence of
the theological nature of the texts as narratives.
(ii) Today we find a widespread variety of ways to analyze biblical texts: from
historical-critical methods to canonical approaches16 to literary criticism and
reader-response-criticism. Most of studies interpret the biblical text as being
written after the Exile (586 B.C.), as reflecting these traumatic experiences
and trying to implement a theology that still claims JHWH as God of Israel
and transforms it to the new conditions of Israel’s life in Babylon. This is
also true for many of the texts about Abraham and Sarah. Therefore

14
See Michael Segal, The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology, and Theology (Boston, 2007).
15
Prominent among these is Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman’s The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New
Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (New York, 2001).
16
The canonical approach was founded by Brevard Childs, see for example Brevard Childs, Old Testament Theology
in a Canonical Context (London, 1985).

68 Copyright V
C (2016) World Council of Churches
Ulrike Bechmann Abraham Paradigm in Genesis 12

Abraham’s starting point for his journey to Palestine reflects the way from
Babylon on – just like the people of Israel who hoped to go back the same
way. Abraham is narrated as having positive and negative sides, given aspects
of identity-building (such as circumcision as part of the covenant), of atti-
tudes toward foreign people (in Egypt Gen. 12:10-20) and toward law (Gen.
15), and of the temple in Jerusalem (Gen. 22). The effect of these long proc-
esses of redaction is to create a great diversity and plurality in the narratives
of Abraham – in fact there are many fathers Abraham.17 The plurality within
the reception – from Abraham as the true and first observer of the law
(Book of Jubilees) to Abraham as a person of belief only (Paul) – proves
that the biblical text offers all these various aspects of Abraham that can be
identified and elaborated through further interpretation. They bear testimony
to the different process of the emergence of the text.

Not only Abraham! The promise to end the barrenness of Sarah

In talking about the Promised Land or “the” Abraham-paradigm,” we must identify
what belongs to the “Abraham-paradigm” regarding its meaning. What characteristics
or what personal qualities or what values are transported with “Abraham”? Gen 12:1-9
is often called “the “Abraham-paradigm because Gen 12:1-9 comprehensively covers
the promises Abraham is given throughout the following narratives. Genesis 12:1-9
seems in a way to sum up Genesis 11:27 to Genesis 25. As any summary, it is surveying
the various stories and therefore – as any overture – is written at a very late time (see
next point). Genesis 12:1-9 outlines Abraham’s journey to Canaan on the word of God,
his travel through the country, his building of altars and worshipping of Elohim
until he comes to Beersheba, the promise from God of a “land, that I will show you”
(verse 7), and the promise of being a great nation.

Many scholars see a break between verses 9 and 10. The endangering of Sarah through
Abraham Genesis 12:10-20 and the selfish argumentation of Abraham are seen as rep-
resenting the earlier traditions about Sarah and Abraham.18 Through this wandering,
Abraham and Sarah represent the Egypt part of the history of the exile as well as the
Babylon part through their way from Ur and Haran. Egypt is the second Diaspora of
the Israelites during and after the Exile. But even if we consider Genesis 12:1-9 alone,

17
See Ulrike Bechmann, “Die vielen V€ater Abraham. Chancen und Grenzen einer dialogorientierten
Abrahamsrezeption,” in Impuls oder Hindernis? Mit dem Alten Testament in multireligi€oser Gesellschaft (5 bayreuther forum
TRANSIT 1), ed. Joachim K€ugler (M€unster, 2004), 125–50.
18
See for example, Irmtraud Fischer, Die Erzeltern Israels. Feministisch-theologische Studien zu Genesis 12-36 (Berlin,
1994).

Copyright V
C (2016) World Council of Churches 69
The Ecumenical Review Volume 68 • Number 1 • March 2016

with regard to content this summary is not sufficient to be called the “Abraham-
paradigm.” The tradition of interpretation has singled out this piece of text rather than
the text itself, which actually starts from Genesis 11:27 and unfolds itself up to Genesis
25. The topoi “land” and “Abraham” alone do not cover the entire story. Without an
heir, there would be nobody to inherit the land. But an heir is only possible through
Abraham’s wife.

As indicated through the introductory remarks, the patriarchal interpretation high-

lights this part of the text and ignores the women of Abraham who are necessary
for the promise to be fulfilled. Indeed, the starting point of the story of Sarah
and Abraham is found in Genesis 11:27. Abraham and Sara are part of his
father’s journey to Haran. But, “Sarai was barren; she had no child” (Gen. 11:30).
This fact is stressed twice. To add “no child” doubles the fact of barrenness.
Therefore, the main problem is underlined at the beginning of the story.19 Once
the problem is highlighted, Abraham receives the call of God (Gen. 12:1) to leave
the region of his childhood and go to a land that will be shown to him; a land
that will be given to his offspring. This call is often interpreted as a test of Abra-
ham’s obedience. But it is not leaving home that is the real problem, it is the tim-
ing. At this point of the story, Abraham still has several chances to have sons
and daughters; Sarah has none. But the call to leave exacerbates the main problem
of Sarah being barren. For Abraham, leaving the family cuts down any further
possibility of a second marriage within the extended family. He no longer has the
chance to remarry within his clan and have children with other wives. Now the
barrenness of Sarah is no longer her problem alone, but also the Abraham’s. And
the totality of barrenness of both creates the starting point for the suspense over
how the promise to be a great nation or people in Genesis 12:7 can be realized.
This masterly introduction of human hopelessness and divine promise sets the
story in motion.

In the end, Abraham has no land on its own (except the cave for Sarah in Genesis 23).20
He lives in a convivium with other people, which is not seen as a bad situation. But what
is fulfilled is the promise of heirs. Three wives and eight sons stand at the very end

19
See Ulrike Bechmann, Sara. Herrin – Rivalin – Ahnfrau (5 Reihe: Kleinschriften, hrsg. v. Kath. Bibelwerk) (Stutt-
gart, 2006).
20
Buying the cave often is stressed as a factor of gaining land. This is mixing the concept of land to live on (as in
Genesis) with the concept in Deuteronomy of land as exclusively for Israel alone. But a grave is not land to live
on, it is a sign for the heirs to venerate their foremothers and forefathers. Abraham lays the ground for the possi-
bility which indeed is accomplished in Genesis 25. Again, the focus in not land, but heirs.

70 Copyright V
C (2016) World Council of Churches
Ulrike Bechmann Abraham Paradigm in Genesis 12

(Gen. 25:1-6) and they are spread over the whole region. They also are depicted as part
of the Abrahamic “nation building,” and the brothers are set in a complex relation to
each other. Ishmael is part of the covenant (Gen. 17); he also is promised being the
father of a blessed great nation (Gen 25).21 Abraham as father has to be shared with
Arabs of the whole region in the east and south who called themselves Ishmaelites
since the 4th century B.C.22 Yes, the problem of the barrenness at the beginning of the
story is solved in the end! And his offspring lives in the land and its surrounding
regions, as promised in Genesis 12. But what does this mean in terms of property, own-
ership, or possession?

Abraham and Sarah as model for living in the Exile

The issue of what “land” will mean to Abraham and Sarah unfolds in meaning throughout
the whole story. It explicates what people think about land, people, and promise, and how
these issues are set into reality. Most of the texts were written during the exile and post-
exile period (after 586 B.C.) after the land was lost. The texts discuss this problem through
the use of remembered narratives, and in doing so they construct their history as well as
their future. This process is necessary in building up a new identity: An identity of how
Israel is able to live in Juda/Jerusalem under Babylonian and later Persian rule, how the
Diaspora-communities of Babylon and Egypt can relate to the people in Juda, and how
the people of Juda are related to the wider region and its inhabitants. How this is con-
structed depends on the context. The concepts also differ according to social levels, class,
gender, and even ethnic affiliation. Not every voice is represented equally; some voices
have to be reconstructed; and some voices may have been lost.

Very different answers emerge in the texts about “Abraham” and the “promised land,” as
there may have been shared answers about how to cope with living in exile and later in the
Diaspora in Babylonia/Egypt, and also how to live in the land under foreign rulers. There-
fore, the Abraham-Sarah-texts discuss problems such as how to live in a land under for-
eign rule; how to worship God without temple; how to settle in an unknown, even
possibly hostile, land; how to rely on God’s promise for a better future without results at
hand; and what this “promise” means after the historical catastrophe of the loss of
Jerusalem?

21
Thomas Naumann, “Die biblische Verheißung f€ur Ismael als Grundlage f€ur eine christliche Anerkennung des
Islam?,” in Lernprozess Christen und Muslime. Gesellschaftliche Kontexte – Theologische Grundlagen – Begegnungsfelder, ed.
Stephan Leimgruber and Andreas Renz (M€unster, 2002) (5 Religionsp€adagogik interkulturell 3), 152–70;
Thomas Naumann, “Ismael – Abrahams verlorener Sohn,” in Bekenntnis zu dem einen Gott? Christen und Muslime
zwischen Mission und Dialog, ed. Rudolf Weth (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 2000), 70–89.
22
See Ernst A. Knauf, Ismael. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Pal€astinas und Nordarabiens am Ende des 1. Jahrtausends v.
Chr. (5 ADPV 7) (Wiesbaden, 1989).

Copyright V
C (2016) World Council of Churches 71
The Ecumenical Review Volume 68 • Number 1 • March 2016

Abraham and Sarah’s life is like a mirror-image of the life of the people in exile. Just as
Ur (5 Babylonia) was the origin of Abraham and Sarah, they went up to a land
unknown to them and landed in Canaan. The exiled population went back to the roots
of Abraham and Sarah, into Babylonia, a place unknown to them. Abraham went at the
call of God, but the exiled people had to go at the call of the Babylonian rulers, seen as
a punishment of God. Abraham and Sarah managed to live there their whole lives only
on the hope for the fulfilment of the promise of God, even without a sign of this fulfil-
ment. Abraham and Sarah also managed to live in a land with foreign people and for-
eign rulers, and Abraham worshiped God without a temple in calling his name and in
direct contact with God.

At a later time, the narrative about Abraham and Sarah may also have functioned as
encouragement for those in the Diaspora: Palestine or Juda may be a forlorn and poor
place compared with the living conditions in the Diaspora.23 The narrative could be
understood as a call to overcome the hesitations, to come back to the forefathers and
foremothers in order to occupy the land, as Abraham and Sarah did. Occupying is
understood in a total different sense than in Deuteronomy.

The numerous and different concepts on land within the Abraham-Sarah-paradigm

If there is a process like “Text zu Land,” the problem is how to deal with the conflicting
concepts of Land.

Among the different concepts that are interwoven within the stories about Abraham,
Sarah and Hagar and their sons the concepts of “promised land” are also very different.
Land is understood as a place for the more important people, who will be Abraham
and Sarah’s offspring and live on the land (Gen. 12); Land will be such a place in the
future, after 400 years of exile in Egypt (Gen. 15, late, Pentateuchal redaction).24 It is
possible to live on the land without possessing it (Gen. 23). Land is conceived of with
different, other people to live with (Gen. 14; 20); as well as a place that is not sufficient
(i.e., Abraham has to leave the land because of hunger Gen. 12; 20). But it is also land

23
See Klaus Bieberstein, “Erfunden und wahr zugleich. Israels Landnahme? Abrahams Landnahme,” Welt und
Umwelt der Bibel 49 (2008), 41–45, at 43.
24
Thomas R€omer (ed.), Abraham. Nouvelle jeunesse d’un anc^e tre (Genf, 1997) ; Thomas R€ omer, “Gen 15 und Gen 17.
Beobachtungen und Anfragen zu einem Dogma der “neuern” und “neuesten” Pentateuchkritik,” in DBAT 26
(1990), 32–47; Thomas R€ omer, “Genèse 15 et les tensions de la communaute juive postexilique dans le cycle
d’Abraham,” in Transeuphratènes 7 (1994), 107–21; Konrad Schmid, Erzv€ater und Exodus. Untersuchungen zur doppel-
ten Begr€undung der Urspr€u nge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsb€u cher des Alten Testaments (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1999)
(5 WMANT 81).

72 Copyright V
C (2016) World Council of Churches
Ulrike Bechmann Abraham Paradigm in Genesis 12

that can be shared, because it has enough for all (Abraham-Lot). Land is also defined
through very different borders (Gen. 13:14; 15; 25).

Abraham never possesses the land, never kills or expels people from the land in order
to take it as a living. He can share the space with Lot and he leaves without hesitation
when there is not enough to live on. Abraham’s problem is not the land but, again, his
failing offspring.

Many promised lands: The question of borders

As I noted at the beginning: the same word often is not identical with the same meaning
or semantics. What it means to possess land has to be exemplified through stories. It is
not possible to combine these stories into one single concept, seen through the exam-
ple of the borders of the Promised Land. Borders are a main issue within the present
conflict. Anyone attempting to justify any borders on texts related to Abraham is con-
fronted with the contradicting concepts of the extension of “land.” Only three con-
cepts may illustrate the problem.

One of the “border-concept” is presented when God leads Abraham on a hill and
shows him the land of his not yet born offspring.

The Lord said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, “Raise your eyes now, and look
from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward; for all the
land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever. I will make your offspring
like the dust of the earth; so that if one can count the dust of the earth, your offspring also
can be counted. Rise up, walk through the length and the breadth of the land, for I will give it
to you.” So Abram moved his tent, and came and settled by the oaks of Mamre, which are at
Hebron; and there he built an altar to the Lord.(Gen. 13:14-18)

Ernst Axel Knauf identified the hill geologically as “height Nr. 913” and asked: “What
would Abraham have seen?” And he reconstructs that the biblical notion of what Abra-
hams would have seen is far from being a fictional landscape. Indeed, he would see from
Beth El in the North to Beth Zur in the South, which is a well-known territory. It was the
province “Jehud” during the neo-Babylonian and Persian time.25 Genesis 13 is directed to
the people who live in the province Jehud at that time. They receive the affirmation that
indeed this province is the land that was promised to Abraham. It is at the same time an
attempt to stop any dreams of a land much bigger than Jehud, of reconquering the north
or of a revolt against the Babylonian or Persian rule. This promise strengthens those who

25
Ernst Axel Knauf, “Der Umfang des verheißenen Landes nach dem Ersten Testament,” Bibel und Kirche 55
(2000), 152–55, at 154.

Copyright V
C (2016) World Council of Churches 73
The Ecumenical Review Volume 68 • Number 1 • March 2016

stayed back in Jehud. They indeed can claim that they are the offspring of Abraham and
that the land is given to them. This is a clear position against the theology of those who are
still in Babylon or even those who came back from Babylon and tried to overtake the rule
in Jehud. The struggle over the leading positions between those from the exile and those
who stayed in the country can be sensed in Nehemiah. The persons coming back from the
exile were claiming that the “people of the land” are the ones who caused the catastrophe
and are not the ones to lead the country. Genesis 13 is comfort and reinforcement for
Judeans on one side, and a challenge on the other side.

Very different is the concept of borders in Genesis 15: Abraham receives the promise
of an innumerable offspring and falls asleep. In his dream he divides animals that are
eaten up by a fire (predicting the burnt offering of the temple) and is promised that his
offspring will live in a country from the Nile to the Euphrates – but in the future, ten
generations ahead, and only at the end of exile and Diaspora.

Then the Lord said to Abram, “Know this for certain, that your offspring shall be aliens in a
land that is not theirs, and shall be slaves there, and they shall be oppressed for four hundred
years; but I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come
out with great possessions. As for yourself, you shall go to your ancestors in peace; you shall
be buried in a good old age. And they shall come back here in the fourth generation; for the
iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.”
When the sun had gone down and it was dark, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed
between these pieces. On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your
descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the
land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim,
the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.” (Gen. 15:13-21)

Genesis 15 is one of the latest texts and belongs to the redaction of the Torah. It con-
nects Exodus and Genesis through implementing the Exodus-story to the Abraham
traditions (especially Gen. 15:14-16). It includes the Diaspora of Egypt and Babylon,
naming the Nile and the Euphrates, and enumerating different peoples within these
borders. The names of the peoples are mostly fictive or did not exist any longer at that
time – and some never existed.26 Genesis 15 is the most far-reaching description of
“land” and its borders. At that time, the Persians were rulers over a vast empire and

26
Most of the enumerations of people in Kanaan are fictive, see Ulrich H€ubner, “Jerusalem und die Jebusiter,” in Kein
Land f€u r sich allein. Studien zum Kulturkontakt in Kanaan, Israel/Pal€a stina und Ebirnari f€u r Manfred Weippert zum 65. Geburt-
stag, ed. Ulrich H€ubner and Axel Knauf (Freiburg/G€ ottingen, 2002), 37-42 (5 Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 186);
Christoph Uehlinger, “The ‘Canaanites’ and Other ‘pre-Israelite’ Peoples in Story and History (Part 1),” Freiburger
Zeitschrift f€u r Philosophie und Theologie 46 (1999), 546–78; and Christoph Uehlinger, “The ‘Canaanites’ and Other ‘Pre-
Israelite’ Peoples in Story and History (Part 2),” Freiburger Zeitschrift f€u r Philosophie und Theologie 47 (2000), 173–98.

74 Copyright V
C (2016) World Council of Churches
Ulrike Bechmann Abraham Paradigm in Genesis 12

Jehud wasa very small province within, with no possibility at all political self-
determination. But the communities had a kind of civil and religious autonomy.
Having this context as background, the concept bears an eschatological note and
reclaims any landscape with Judeans in it as the inheritance of Abraham. Perhaps
the eschatological note conforms to Jes. 19:23-25, as Knauf suggests.27 But it also
can be understood as reflecting the Diaspora. Living there can be interpreted as the
beginning of the fulfilment of the divine promise, if the borders of the rivers are
not depicted as political borders for an independent country. If the rivers are bor-
ders of the spreading Jewish communities, the promise is fulfilled through the Dias-
pora, where Judeans – beginning to become the Jewish communities – could live all
in all an acceptable life.

Genesis 25 belongs to the priestly code and holds a different view of “land.” It leaves
out Egypt and the Euphrates, but it depicts as “land” the region of Syria, Palestine, and
northern Arabia, where all eight sons of Abraham are living. It extends from the south
(with Ishmael) to the west (Isaac) and the east (the six sons of Ketura), and covers the
wider region of Jordan including the desert regions in the south and north Arabia.
Again, there are no concrete borders in a political sense, but a region with people
thought of belonging together. Genesis 25 (as well as Genesis 17) builds up a regional
identity within the Persian empire. It unites and connects people as belonging together
live in between empires, here with Persia as the ruler of the land. It is more a concept of
space than of “land,” a concept of people within the space who belong together
through circumcision, the common father, a covenant with God, and the promise to be
a great nation. Genesis 25 binds the people together without possessing a land with
borders. It is the same possibility as in Genesis 12: living on the land without ruling or
possessing it. This is according to the promise of Genesis 12:1-2. Abraham is called to a
land where he will be a great nation and has a great name. Nothing is said about ruling
it. But Genesis discusses the relation to other peoples.

Abraham and Sarah in Egypt: Depicting the Diaspora

Genesis 12 names the land to where Abraham is sent as “Canaan”: he wanders through
it from north to south and then further to Egypt because of hunger (Gen. 12:10-20).
Canaan was the name the Egyptians used for Palestine; Abraham is mainly bound to
places where he builds an altar or stays. He seems to stay only a short time, then he
leaves the land and wanders further south to Egypt. There are not only different con-
cepts of “land” but also different concepts of Egypt, the Pharaoh, and his people.
Egypt is depicted as hostile country of oppression in Genesis 15; but Genesis 12 differs

27
See Knauf, “Der Umfang des verheißenen Landes nach dem Ersten Testament,” 152.

Copyright V
C (2016) World Council of Churches 75
The Ecumenical Review Volume 68 • Number 1 • March 2016

strongly in this respect. In the beginning, Abraham fears that the Egyptians are brutal.
He has to learn that Egypt is a friendly and nourishing place and that the Egyptians
respect the law even for foreigners. Abraham is the one who is full of prejudices and
hostility (Gen. 12:10-20). He has to learn through Sarah’s fate that this prejudice and
hostility will fall back on him and Sarah in a destructive and endangering way. God has
to interfere in order to save Sarah and his own promise of heirs. The same line is fol-
lowed in Genesis 20 with regard to the kings of the south, where Abraham is described
as ger, a foreigner. Again, the kings of the land are not as evil as Abraham fears. The
only conflict about land and water erupts within his own family: Lot and Abraham have
to depart (Gen. 13).

This short overview clarifies that in Genesis the promise of land for the offspring
of Abraham is conceptualized in very different ways depending on the theological
context of the texts. In sharp contrast with the theological traditions of Genesis are
the concepts of the deuteronomistic tradition. There, land obviously is constructed
exclusively; possessing it gives the licence to expel those who live there in order to
take over the land. Deuteronomy 7:22 asks Israel to comfort itself with the thought
that the people around them are meant to be eaten by the not-yet-vanished beasts
instead of themselves. The concept unfolds itself along the same lines in the book
of Joshua. The book of Joshua describes the total overtaking of the land with no
other people left.

However, at first sight these are terrible texts compared to biblical standards such
as in Genesis 1:27, where all human beings are created in God’s image. Are these
passages texts of terror?28 A closer look enables us to observe that even these texts
are written at a time when Israel was defeated and had lost its land. Therefore,
many references indicate that these texts are written to explain this loss, even the
book of Joshua. Many passages are tying living in the land together with conditions:
Everybody has to fulfil the entire law – otherwise the land is lost. Promise and curse
very often go together. Deuteronomy and Joshua tell through their stories why Jeru-
salem was destroyed. The condition (living according to the law) was fulfilled only
once and will never be fulfilled again. Joshua is not written to repeat the process.29

28
This title was used by Phyllis Trible regarding biblical texts that promote violence against women, Phyllis Trible,
Texts of Terror: Literary-feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (Philadelphia, 1984). (5 Overtures to Biblical theology 13).
29
See Norbert Lohfink, “Landeroberung und Heimkehr. Hermeneutik zum heutigen Umgang mit dem
Josuabuch,” Jahrbuch f€ur Biblische Theologie 12 (1997), 3–24. Discussions about problematic texts of the OT can be
found in Joachim K€ugler (ed.), Prek€a re Zeitgenossenschaft. Mit dem Alten Testament in Konflikten der Zeit. Internatio-
nales Bibel-Symposium Graz 2004 (Berlin, 2006) (5 bayreuther forum TRANSIT 6).

76 Copyright V
C (2016) World Council of Churches
Ulrike Bechmann Abraham Paradigm in Genesis 12

It is written as a narrative to explain what Israel could have had – and that it is not
God who is responsible for the disaster, but the people themselves. Even within
the book of Joshua there is an indication that even then not everyone will be able
to stick to the law (cf. Jos 7). The absoluteness of defeat has to be explained
through the absoluteness of failure of Israel.

What can only be indicated here has been described elsewhere. There is a plurality of
concepts of “promised land,” even within the stories around Abraham, and even more
so within the whole Bible. There is not only one idea of “the land,” nor about the bor-
ders, nor about how to live on it or the people on it. There is no single concept of
“land,” of ‘“promise,” of “Abrahams offspring.” Habel identified six concepts of land30
and perhaps there are more to identify. The different biblical texts reflect the plurality of
theological positions during the Old Testament times, controversies that can be studied,
for example, on the controversies of Jeremiah with other prophets (Jer. 7) or with the
women of Judah (Jer. 44). Even if we read one conclusive Abraham-Sarah narrative fol-
lowing redactions and canonization, we must recognize that this redactional process has
bundled together texts of different times and opinions, written in very different con-
texts. The redaction of the Torah binds together the creational stories, the narratives of
the forefathers and foremothers, and the Exodus together with the traditions of Sinai
and the wandering in the desert, and, last but not least, the traditions of the book of
Deuteronomy. Altogether these narratives represent very different theological concepts
that stand beneath each other in conflicting ways. In this respect, the Bible represents of
what is found later on in the Jewish religious literature. It is the decision to preserve not
only one voice, but all or at least most of them to be the basis for a further theological
debate. And this debate went on – not within the Torah any longer, but outside the
Torah, in prophetic texts, in wisdom texts, in texts that are thought of as “Apocrypha,”
and in commentaries bound to the Mishnah and later on to the Talmud. The stream of
commenting and discussing with arguments started with the Torah and never ceased.
This stream of interpretation is the case up to the present, and therefore there is not just
one Jewish or Christian interpretation of “promised land.”

Whoever opts for one biblical text as a basis or legitimization for political decisions
uses a concept of fundamentalism that is bound to the political options. Fundamental-
ists do not have “the Bible” as agenda, but they have their own political hidden agenda
that leads them to use certain biblical texts and interpretations. Therefore, hermeneuti-
cal questions have to be considered.

30
Norman C. Habel, The Land Is Mine. Six Biblical Land Ideologies (Minneapolis, 1995).

Copyright V
C (2016) World Council of Churches 77
The Ecumenical Review Volume 68 • Number 1 • March 2016

Hermeneutical Reflections

Despite the missing historical background, the biblical text was and is meaningful for
religious communities (Jewish and Christians) in building up their identity.31 In fact,
very often a myth or a fictional story is more relevant to identity-building or influencing
actions, even on a political level, than the pure facts given. The felt discrimination, for
example, or the narrated oppression, even if it is something not relevant in one’s own
life, can mobilize more constructive or destructive energy than any real history. This is
true for modern times32 as it is true for ancient times. Therefore, the texts of Abraham
and the divine promise have a certain impact on identity-building processes. This was
and is a historical fact for the times when the texts came into being as well as in the
times that followed, when religious communities took the texts as their religious basis
through the process of canonization.

In what spirit do we read the texts ourselves?

Reading the Bible is interaction, is discussion of two subjects: the reader and the text.
Indeed, no matter how a biblical text is taken into consideration, it is clearly bound to
the questions, options, and needs of any reader. This is not meant as a simple confirma-
tion of everybody’s feelings. It is the same process as during the emerging of the texts.
Choosing between the different concepts means that we must clarify our own options
and attitudes about the political basics and the theological basics. We must talk about
options and about attitudes with regard to how religious texts are related to modern
political concepts.

The question arises: Is it possible to extract whatever you need from the Bible? Is there
no authoritative reading? Can anybody legitimize violence in the same way as justice
and freedom? If one formulates these alternatives: Yes, it is possible – and it is done!
But precisely the fact of that there are conflicting stories within the same Bible turns
out to be a limitation for any simple or one-sided confirmation of one’s own political
position. There are many corrections to the texts of terror, and texts that outperform
them in various respects. It seems very plausible that some texts of the Bible are not
written to be imitated, but to illustrate the implications of violence, hate, or

31
Dexinger argues that not the historical facts are relevant but the theology that has an impact on identity-building
processes; see Ferdinand Dexinger, “Das Land, das ich dir geben werde. Verheißung und religi€ ose Terri-
torialanspr€uche,” in Jahrbuch f€u r Religionswissenschaft und Theologie der Religionen, Bd. 7/8 (1999/2000), 329–55.
32
For example the so-called “Dolchstoßlegende” (stab-in-the-back-legend) played a role in the rise of Nazism, the
myth of Wilhelm Tell is relevant to identity building in Switzerland up to today; the myth of the Jews as those
who control the world supports anti-Semitism.

78 Copyright V
C (2016) World Council of Churches
Ulrike Bechmann Abraham Paradigm in Genesis 12

patriarchalism. Perhaps the commentators themselves were alerted by some traditions.

But how is it possible to hinder the use of texts of violence to oppress texts of peace
and justice? The question arises: Are there texts that can be prioritized from a certain
perspective?

The stories of the Bible offer experiences of human beings with God be it for good or
for evil. Some of these texts describe their present situation as dominated by violence –
but violence has still not ceased up to today. Biblical texts do not shield these realities,
neither violence against (and from) women, nor slavery, hunger, nor land ceasing. They
tell stories about perpetrators and their victims, but not in order to be imitated: rather,
they provide a starting point to recognize ourselves and the violence of our time. And
they object to this violence through various literary means. They invite the reader to
take part in the narrated world and they lead them to take a stand within the story. Their
own world with their own options confronts the fictional world. Through this, our
own option or attitude to the text is formed. If we have an option for a just God that
stands on the side of oppressed people, then violence against the poor will never be
welcomed, even in a fictional story. Narrations of violent acts hope to produce abhor-
rence. This is the message they want to deliver. It strengthens the attitude that violence
is not acceptable between human beings. And a text about God fighting and killing
“the other” is questioned by texts about God protecting “the other.” Reading these
texts leads back to our own options and attitudes. Only those who want to oppress,
expel, or kill can find support through such texts – but they have to be challenged by
the other texts.

This brings any debate about biblical support back to the options of the persons and
their attitude. Do they want justice or are they willing to oppress people and deprive
them of human rights? These options determine how biblical texts are understood.
The “Abraham-paradigm” of a Promised Land to his offspring offers many possibil-
ities, even if someone tries to read them literally and wants to legitimize political
processes. It is not God’s promise to Abraham that causes the conflict. It is the con-
flict about land and a settler’s attitude that enables Christian and Jewish groups to
refer to Abraham as legitimizing their stand. As shown, a close reading of the texts
about Abraham and his wives contradict this view – and therefore lead back to the
groups themselves. What has to be questioned is the political option and attitude
behind the concept of “promised land.” Does a concept of solidarity and justice lie
behind it? Or is there an option for a political exclusiveness of rights? Are human
rights valid for all, or are they thought to be relative at some time? These attitudes
have to be challenged.

Copyright V
C (2016) World Council of Churches 79
The Ecumenical Review Volume 68 • Number 1 • March 2016

What we need is a practical critique of religions33 so that the impacts and consequences
of religious attitudes can be included in such discourses.34 If theology were not able to
find theological answers to this critique of religious texts, it would be in fact necessary
to limit such normative basics of religion: here, the Bible.35

But where can we get the appropriate priorities and perspectives of biblical texts, and who is
able to implement them? Who is the subject that gives priority to grace instead of law, justice
instead of retaliation, delegation of vengeance to God instead of violent action? The ques-
tion of the attitude and option of the community arises. The spirituality of living together
coincides with the spirituality of reading and understanding the Bible and can lead to con-
crete political stands or actions. One example is the history of the United Reformed Church
of South Africa, where this certain Christian community reads the Bible in accordance with
their political options. The idea of being the chosen people legitimized Apartheid.36 But the
wider community of Christians, namely the WCC, stood against this interpretation. In a
way, this “correction” together with actions was part of the end of the Apartheid. There is
no real authority to hinder biblical interpretations in order to oppress. But it requires the
resistance of all other Christian communities to stand firm against an interpretation that sup-
ports oppression and violence in the name of Abraham and God’s promise.

Situations like that challenge our picture or notion of God. Is there an option for an
inclusive concept of God, who loves everybody unconditionally? Is there an attitude of
unlimited solidarity with oppressed and poor people? And concerning the Abraham-
paradigm: Is there an option for texts that force pro-existence for others within and
outside the “land”? Do we read the texts in an inclusive or exclusive sense? Biblical
interpretations that encourage oppression of people seem to have an unholy appeal. In
order to restrict these effects it is necessary to strengthen any commitment of people
and communities. Already, too many confessions have come too late.

33
See Bechmann, Gest€orte Grabesruhe, 29–36; Ottmar Fuchs, “Religionskritik in praktisch-theologischer
Verantwortung,” in Biblische Religionskritik. Kritik in, an und mit biblischen Texten, ed. Joachim K€ugler and
Ulrike Bechmann (M€unster, 2009), 47–74 (5 bayreuther forum TRANSIT 9).
34
See Manfred Brocker and Mathias Hildebrandt, (eds.), Friedensstiftende Religionen? Religion und die Deeskalation polit-
ischer Konflikte (Wiesbaden, 2008).
35
Problematic texts of the Old Testament are discussed in Joachim K€ugler (ed.), Prek€a re Zeitgenossenschaft. Mit dem
Alten Testament in Konflikten der Zeit. Internationale Bible-Symposium Graz 2004 (Berlin, 2006). (5 bayreuther forum
TRANSIT 6).
36
F. E.Deist, “Postmodernism and the Use of Scripture in Theological Argument: Footnotes to the Apartheid
Theology Debate,” Neotestamentica: Journal of the New Testament Society of South Africa 28:3 (1994), 253–63; Ulrich
Berner, “Erw€ahlungsglaube und Rassismus. Das Alte Testament und die Entstehung der Apartheid-Ideologie,”
in K€
ugler, Prek€are Zeitgenossenschaft, 134–49.

80 Copyright V
C (2016) World Council of Churches