Genesis 15

This marvelous account of the confirmation of the heavenly promise to Abram is one of great charm and beauty; and even the passing of millenniums of time has not dimmed the luster of it, for, "It carries with it a feeling of awe and mystery which, thanks to the genius of the narrator, can still grip the reader."[1] There were two elements in the divine promise to Abram:

1. the creation of the first Israel, including the promise of settling them in Canaan and making of them a mighty nation, and

2. the bringing in, through them, of the Messiah, by means of whom redemption and salvation would be made available to all who live on earth. These are not the results of "two traditions," handed down through several sources, as affirmed by Davies-Richardson;[2] but they are part and parcel of the same purpose of God visible in the very first call to Abram, in which the intention of blessing "all families of the earth" was clearly stated. Without this conception, the choice of Abram and the development of a "Chosen People" would appear as a partial, capricious action which we find it impossible to ascribe to Almighty God.

And, speaking of "several sources," this chapter is the complete frustration of the source splitters, most of whom frankly admit that the theories fail here. "The analysis presents well-nigh insoluble difficulties, and critics are much divided as to details."[3] No two scholars agree; and even John Skinner admitted "the insurmountable difficulties."[4] Thus, it is clear enough that in rejecting in its entirety the whole multiple source system of Bible interpretation, one is merely rejecting that which is neither scientific nor reasonable.

We receive the sacred text as it has come down to us in the full confidence that Almighty God who gave it has also properly preserved it to the degree that its essential message is sufficient to the divine purpose. That trifling and trivial flaws in the Hebrew text are in all probability present would appear to be inevitable, but all of these are as unimportant as a flyspeck on the Washington Monument. Certainly, no community of scholars can find in any such thing a mandate for tearing up the Bible and re-writing it in their own image.