The Political Theology of the Priestly Document (P)
[…]
Von Rad suggested a three-part structure for P. He differentiated between “three big concentric circles . . . which move from the outside inwards towards the salvific mystery of God—the circle of the world, the circle of Noah, and the Abrahamic circle” (“drei mächtige konzentrische Kreise . . . die von außen nach innen fortschreitend in das Heilsgeheimnis Gottes einführen: der Weltkreis, der Noahkreis und der abrahamitische Kreis”).
[…]
The circle of Abraham includes “the Abrahamic household,” consisting of the Arabs (“Ishmael”), Israel (that is, “Samaria”) and Judah (“Jacob”), and Edom (“Esau”). Intermarriage within this circle is allowed: according to P, Esau marries—illegitimately (Gen 26:34, 27:46)—two “Hittite women” (Gen 26:34). Subsequently, Jacob receives advice from his parents to marry a woman from among his kin in Paddan Aram (Gen 27:46, 28:1–5). In response, Esau marries another woman, one of the daughters of his uncle Ishmael (Gen 28:6–9). Therefore, it can be concluded with de Pury that “according to P Jews are permitted to intermarry with Ishmaelite and Edomite women, but not with ‘Hittite’ or ‘Canaanite’ women.’” P furthermore records the genealogy of Ishmael’s descendants (Gen 25:12–18) as well as Esau’s (Gen 36:4–14), who possess a qualified theological nearness to Israel through this ethnic proximity. This Abrahamic circle is defined by the Abrahamic covenant of Genesis 17, which promises the participating covenant partners fruitfulness, land inheritance (which seems to imply a right to use rather than to possess), and proximity to God.
The circle of Israel narrows the focus down to the nation of God alone. It is generally concerned with the establishment of the sanctuary, which enables the sacrificial cult of Israel. This sacrificial cult alone is what allows Israel to achieve atonement. The sanctuary and the implementation of the cult seem to function as the partial restoration of the initial creation, in the sense of a second “creation within creation.” The circle of Israel is not established by its own covenant because the foundational promise of the presence of God (“I will be your God”) was already given in Gen 17:7 (cf. Exod 6:7, 29:45–46). Nevertheless, the establishment of the sanctuary concretizes the presence of God specifically for Israel by locating God’s ׁ שכינה in the midst of his people (cf. Exod 29:45–46).
[…]
Whether the Priestly writer’s Abraham is aware of it or not, what he asks is that Ishmael become Yhwh’s priest; and it is that request that is denied to Ishmael and offered instead to the yet to be born Isaac. In this whole exchange (vv. 18–21), the question therefore is not whether Ishmael will be allowed to live in the land of Canaan—the right of Ishmael to live in Canaan has been settled once and for all in v. 8—but the question is only whether there is a need for a further son, i.e. for a further category among Abraham’s multi-nation descendants. And the answer to that question is yes. Sarah’s son Isaac will beget those descendants of Abraham who are destined to become Yhwh’s priestly nation.
[…]
The promises of fertility given to Abraham as a “covenant” and to Ishmael as a “blessing”, when considering their concrete arrangements, are drawn up quite similarly and seem nearly equivalent.
Therefore, it is much more likely that the function of vv. 19–21 is not the exclusion of Ishmael but rather in the inclusion of Isaac in the Abrahamic covenant. Ishmael’s inclusion in the covenant is clearly stated in Gen 17:7–8. Additionally, this section highlights the fact that the covenant with Abraham and his descendants, to which Ishmael belongs without a doubt, is an “eternal covenant.”
The need for an explicit inclusion of Isaac in vv. 19, 21 can be explained its position in the narrative, namely, that at the time of Genesis 17 Isaac had not yet been born. This makes the double appearance of “covenant” terminology in vv. 19, 21, with reference to Isaac, plausible: an extension of the covenant to a person who did not yet exist is a bold enterprise and therefore needs special terminological emphasis.
Nevertheless, the conclusion remains that Ishmael is not the same type of partner in the covenant of God as Isaac is. They are equal with re-gard to fertility and land holdings (in the sense of an ,אחוזה Israel will then signify its land in Exod 6:8 as ) מור ׁ שה within the greater region of the “whole land of Canaan.” But they are not equal with regard to the possibility of cultic proximity (“living before God,” Gen 17:18b).
This proximity—as the narrative of the Priestly Document goes on to show—only belongs to Israel by means of the foundation of the sanctuary and is explicitly denied to Ishmael.
[…]
In Genesis 17, the Priestly Document apparently attempts to balance the theological prerogative of Israel with the political reality of Persian-period Judah: Judah lives in a modest province within “ecumenical” proximity to its neighbors. Perhaps the specific outline of Genesis 17, the creation of an “Abrahamic ecumenicity”, as Albert de Pury has put it, has to do with the fact that Abraham’s tomb of Hebron, which was in all likelihood venerated by Judeans, Arabs, and Edomites, was probably not part of Achaemenid Judah but part of Idumea as Ernst Axel Knauf and Detlef Jericke have convincingly argued. This means that P had to include Judeans, Arabs, and Edomites in a privileged position and therefore developed the notion of an “Abrahamic” covenant of the peoples living in the “whole land of Canaan.”
