Genesis 15:18

This was the formal "cutting" of the Abrahamic Covenant. God now formalized His earlier promises (Genesis 12:1-3; Genesis 12:7) into a suzerainty treaty, similar to a royal land grant, since Abram now understood and believed what God had promised. God as king bound Himself to do something for His servant Abram. The fulfillment of the covenant did not depend on Abram’s obedience. It rested entirely on God’s faithfulness. [Note: Westermann, "The Promises . . .," p. 690.]

". . . it is fitting that in many respects the account should foreshadow the making of the covenant at Sinai. The opening statement in Genesis 15:7: ’I am the LORD, who brought you up out of Ur of the Chaldeans,’ is virtually identical to the opening statement of the Sinai covenant in Exodus 20:2: ’I am the LORD your God, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.’ The expression ’Ur of the Chaldeans’ refers back to Genesis 11:28; Genesis 11:31 and grounds the present covenant in a past act of divine salvation from ’Babylon,’ just as Exodus 20:2 grounds the Sinai covenant in an act of divine salvation from Egypt. The coming of God’s presence in the awesome fire and darkness of Mount Sinai (Exodus 19:18; Exodus 20:18; Deuteronomy 4:11) appears to be intentionally reflected in Abraham’s pyrotechnic vision (Genesis 15:12; Genesis 15:17). In the Lord’s words to Abraham (Genesis 15:13-16) the connection between Abraham’s covenant and the Sinai covenant is explicitly made by means of the reference to the four hundred years of bondage of Abraham’s seed and their subsequent ’exodus’ (’and after this they will go out,’ Genesis 15:14). Such considerations lead to the conclusion that the author intends to draw the reader’s attention to the events at Sinai in his depiction of the covenant with Abraham.

"If we ask why the author has sought to bring the picture of Sinai here, the answer lies in the purpose of the book. It is part of the overall strategy of the book to show that what God did at Sinai was part of a larger plan which had already been put into action with the patriarchs. Thus, the exodus and the Sinai covenant serve as reminders not only of God’s power and grace but also of God’s faithfulness. What he sets out to accomplish with his people, he will carry through to the end." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 152.]

Moses revealed the general geographical borders of the Promised Land here for the first time. Some scholars interpret the "river of Egypt" as the Nile.

"The argument is usually based on the fact that the Hebrew word nahar is consistently restricted to large rivers. However, the Hebrew is more frequently nahal (= Arabic wady) instead of the nahar of Genesis 15:18 which may have been influenced by the second nahar in the text. [Note: "J. Simons, The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament, p. 96, sec. 272."] In the Akkadian texts of Sargon II (716 B.C.) it appears as nahal musar." [Note: "James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, p. 286; also Esarhaddon’s Arzi(ni) or Arsa = Arish (?), (ibid., p. 290). See Bruce K. Waltke, ’River of Egypt,’ Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible 5:121; and J. Dwight Pentecost, Prophecy for Today, p. 65. An interesting case for the Nile is made by H. Bar-Deroma in ’The River of Egypt (Nahal Mizraim),’ Palestinian Exploration Quarterly 92 (1960):37-56." Walter C. Kaiser Jr., "The Promised Land: A Biblical-Historical View," Bibliotheca Sacra 138:552 (October-December 1981):311.]

God later specified the Wadi El ’Arish, "the geographical boundary between Canaan and Egypt," [Note: Charles Pfeiffer and Howard Vos, Wycliffe Historical Geography of Bible Lands, p. 88.] as the exact border (Numbers 34:5; Joshua 15:4; Joshua 15:47). That seems to be the river in view here too. The Euphrates River has never yet been Israel’s border. These borders appear to coincide with those of the Garden of Eden (cf. Genesis 2:10-14). Thus the Garden of Eden may have occupied the same general area as the Promised Land.

Some amillennialists take these boundaries as an ideal expressing great blessing and believe God never intended that Abram’s seed should extend this far geographically. [Note: E.g., Waltke, Genesis, p. 245.] However such a conclusion is subjective and finds no support in the text.