2

Genesis 17:9 NIV

"Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come." [My emphasis]

Does "you must keep" mean Abraham must do something or the covenant will not be kept?

Is "must" here essential to an end being achieved? [ i.e., I "must" go the shops to buy food. This statement has the possibility of not having food because the journey to the shops is not undertaken.]

Genesis 17:9 ESV

"And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations." [My emphasis]

"You shall keep". Did Abraham and his offspring always keep this covenant?

What is the meaning of the Hebrew in Genesis 17:9 which has been translated [NIV] as "you must keep"?

1
  • 1
    There is no “must” in the Hebrew. תִשְׁמֹר means “you will keep”, the NIV is an extraordinarily poor translation at times. The following verses provide the context: “Such shall be the covenant between Me and you and your offspring to follow which you shall keep: every male among you shall be circumcised.” This covenant has indeed been kept by the Jewish people to this day and will continue Commented Aug 9 at 15:45

3 Answers 3

3

As suggested by the OP, here is my comment supplied as an answer :

Thou dost keep' is a statement of fact. Just as 'thou dost not eat of it' conveys that humans do not partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Thou dost not eat of it. It is not food. It will kill you. 'Thou dost keep it' states a condition. It conveys an absolute attribute of existence. It is far, far stronger than a mere imperative or a command to do the thing. It conveys an absolute necessity of being. In modern terms it is 'existential'. Without it, one does not exist. Without circumcision, one was not of God's people. Period.

Young's Literal Translation of Genesis 2:17 :

and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'

Young's Literal Translation of Genesis 17:9 :

And God saith unto Abraham, `And thou dost keep My covenant, thou and thy seed after thee, to their generations;

4

This seems to be a case of a very poor translation with the NIV, as has been commented on already. This is a much more literal translation of the verse:

"And God saith unto Abraham, 'And thou dost keep My covenant, thou and thy seed after thee, to their generations." Genesis 17:9 Young's Literal Translation, 1898

The very next verse makes clear what that covenant is, and what it entails on the part of Abraham and all his descendants:

"This [is] My covenant which ye keep between Me and you, and thy seed after thee: Every male of you [is] to be circumcised... and it hath become a token of a covenant between Me and you." Genesis 17:10-11 YLT

So, the sign of that covenant being circumcision of every male, required the act of circumcision to be carried out in every generation. That is what had to be done, showing faith in God's covenant by that action.

Signs point to something. The act of circumcision pointed to the covenant God had made with them. God had promised to be God to Abraham and his descendants, and to give land to them (verses 7-8). Abraham had faith in God's covenantal promise. But the sign was not the thing itself. It pointed towards God's covenant. Verse 14 adds that if a male is not circumcised, "My covenant he hath broken." That seems to cover all the points raised.

8
  • "thou dost keep" doesn't communicate effectively to today's English speakers either. The key point is whether the verb is imperative or not. What is the Hebrew conjunction of this verb?
    – curiousdannii
    Commented Aug 10 at 0:17
  • @curiousdannii Indeed, today's English speakers do not resonate with Young's Literal Translation of that verse, which I quoted verbatim. Nor do they resonate with Shakespeare's plays and sonnets. Which is no reason to drop Shakespeare. And yes, it is an imperative. There's no question about that. It's not an optional extra!
    – Anne
    Commented Aug 10 at 7:52
  • 1
    @Anne Thanks. "you shall keep" seems to be outworking of God alone passing through slain animals; Gen 15:17. i.e., God will make it happen to show who He is.
    – C. Stroud
    Commented Aug 10 at 9:43
  • 2
    Up-voted +1. 'Thou dost keep' is a statement of fact. Just as 'thou dost not eat of it' conveys that humans do not partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Thou dost not eat of it. It is not food. It will kill you. 'Thou dost keep it' states a condition. It conveys an absolute attribute of existence. It is far, far stronger than a mere imperative or a command to do the thing. It conveys an absolute necessity of being. In modern terms it is 'existential'. Without it, one does not exist. Without circumcision, one was not of God's people. Period.
    – Nigel J
    Commented Aug 10 at 11:48
  • 2
    @ Nigel I think your comment best answers my question. Would you care to make it an answer?
    – C. Stroud
    Commented Aug 10 at 14:13
1

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֔ם וְאַתָּ֖ה אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֣י תִשְׁמֹ֑ר אַתָּ֛ה וְזַרְעֲךָ֥ אַֽחֲרֶ֖יךָ לְדֹרֹתָֽם׃
God further said to Abraham, “As for you, you and your offspring to come throughout the ages shall keep My covenant." (JPS 2006)

There are various ways to translate "you shall keep" (ESV), but they all convey the idea of a simple imperative. The most common alternative verbs to "keep" seem to be "preserve," "honor," "obey" and "keep faith with." The covenant was an agreement or treaty between two parties. God specifies his promise in the previous verses: he will make Abraham exceedingly fertile, give him the land of Canaan, and nations will come from his descendants.

As to what Abraham must do to uphold his end of the bargain, the central requirement was to circumcise his sons.

10 This is the covenant between me and you and your descendants after you that you must keep: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 Circumcise the flesh of your foreskin. That will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 Throughout the ages, every male among you, when he is eight days old, shall be circumcised, including houseborn slaves and those acquired with money from any foreigner who is not of your descendants.

The OP asks if this covenant was always upheld. The question is controversial with regard to Edomites, Ammonites and Moabites, all of whom descended from Abraham's household. We have more information about the Israelites (descendants of Jacob). Moses definitely did not circumcise his son and almost lost his life as a result (Exodus 4:25). We do not know how carefully the Israelites observed the custom in Egypt but Joshua was told by God to "circumcise the Israelites a second time" (Josh. 5:9) as they entered Canaan. Since the process can hardly be repeated once the foreskin is gone, this seems to imply that some of the Israelites had not upheld the terms of the covenant. Nor do we know how universal the practice was thereafter, although it was certainly the norm.

Under Greek rule, the practice definitely lapsed among Hellenized Jews, to the extent that some even underwent artificial procedures to enable them to participate in athletic programs. (1 Macc. 1:15) Later, Antiochus IV Epiphanes banned circumcision (1 Macc. 1:48) and many Jews complied.

Under Christian rule Jews generally upheld circumcision strictly. In the modern era, however, the practice is no longer universal among secular and Reform Jews.

2
  • Thanks. Could there be an "ultimate" in this? As in, "You will pass this test though first you fail 20 times!"
    – C. Stroud
    Commented Aug 9 at 16:23
  • @C.Stroud It Judaism there is a saying: two rabbis, three opinions. So why not? Commented Aug 9 at 16:29

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.