Torn - Scholarly Article

The three “men” are usually understood as God and two angels.
They appear in human form to visit Abraham.
The exact identity is debated, but the message is clear.

In Genesis 18, the three “men” who visit Abraham are generally understood as God and two angels appearing in human form. The text itself later distinguishes them: two continue on to Sodom (Genesis 19:1) and are clearly called angels, while the third speaks with divine authority and is identified as the Lord.

There are different interpretations:
 – Some Jewish and early Christian traditions see all three as angels.
 – Many Christian interpreters understand one of them as God appearing in a veiled form, with the other two as angels.
 – Some later Christian readings suggest a symbolic link to the Trinity, though this is not explicit in the text.

Ancient readers likely understood this as a divine visitation, where God is present, either directly or through a representative, accompanied by heavenly messengers.

The key point is not the exact metaphysical identity, but the event itself:
 God comes near to Abraham, speaks with him, and reveals His plans.

So Episode 6 reflects a widely held interpretation:
 a divine encounter expressed through human-like figures, making the interaction personal and understandable.

While one of the three “men” who visit Abraham is either an appearance of “the angel of the Lord” or a veiled in-person appearance of God, the other two “men” are angels.

While some Christians have interpreted the “three men” in Genesis 18 as an Old Testament appearance of the Trinity,^[143] this would not be how the original audience of the text understood it and “forces on the text an interpretation the text itself will not yield.”[144] The Jewish Talmud identifies all three “men” as angels, as did Christian theologian Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE). Islamic tradition “details how the angels in the form of handsome men – identified as Gabriel/Jibril, Michael/Mikal, and Israfil by Ibn Kathir – came to Abraham’s/Ibrahim’s and Sarah’s house as guests.”[145] Many Christian interpreters hold that “God appears to Abraham along with two angels, all with their glory veiled in a human form.”[146] For example, theologian Bruce K. Waltke affirms that:

This is actually the Lord and two angels (see 18:1, 10; 19:1). The later identifications of the “men” (18:10, 13, 16–17, 33; 19:1) confirm their manifest difference. One man is none other than the Lord, as 18:2–3 and especially 10, 13–15 make explicit. However, the Lord and his heavenly assembly in their incarnation appear in human form (see 16:7).[147]

John Goldingay describes this as a story about a visit “by God and by his envoys who appear in human form . . .”[148] Likewise, Victor P. Hamilton affirms that “Yahweh appears to Abraham with others at his side.”[149] An appearance of God in human form is a special form of theophany (i.e. an audio and/or visual “display to human beings that expresses the presence and character of God”^[150]). Some Christians understand this as a pre-incarnation appearance of the second person of the Trinity (a so-called Christophany^[151]), but this is something that has to be read into the text.[152]

Catholic theologian E.F. Sutcliffe, S.J. cautions that in Genesis 18: “It’s difficult to know whether Yahweh appeared in person or through the intermediary of an angel.”[153] Sutcliffe references Genesis 16:7, in which “the Angel of Yahweh” could be understood as an angelic messenger who speaks God’s words in the first person because they are acting as God’s official representative/ambassador, and who is thus functionally identified as God himself (16:13). As theologian John H. Walton points out: “in Ugaritic literature, when Baal sends messengers to Mot, the messengers use first person forms of speech.”^[154]

However one interprets this incident, the central point remains that God (whether more or less directly) reveals himself to Abraham “veiled in a human form.”[155]

No, Abram is not breaking any laws.
Jewish dietary laws did not exist yet.
He is simply showing normal ancient hospitality.

Abram is not breaking Jewish dietary laws in Genesis 18:8 because those laws did not yet exist in his time.

The dietary rules about separating milk and meat come much later in the Law of Moses. Abram lived centuries before this, so he cannot be judged by standards that were not yet given.

Instead, his actions reflect the hospitality culture of the ancient Near East, where offering generous food to guests was a sign of honor and respect. Serving both dairy and meat would have been seen as a rich and appropriate meal.

Interestingly, the fact that the text openly shows revered figures doing things that later laws would prohibit is often seen as a sign of historical authenticity. If the story had been invented later, it likely would have been adjusted to match later religious practices.

So rather than breaking a law, Abram is simply acting in line with the customs of his time, showing generosity and hospitality to his visitors.

Serving milk and meat together is against Jewish kashrut laws about diet, but as these laws did not exist in Abram’s day, he is not breaking them.

Although serving milk and meat together is against Jewish kashrut laws about diet, since these laws did not exist in Abram’s day, he is not breaking them in Genesis 18:8. Indeed, Abram’s behaviour in serving his guests fits with the hospitality culture of the ancient world, and as Denis Prager observes:

The Torah’s repeated recounting of Jews engaged in practices that violate later Jewish law actually conforms traditional beliefs about the veracity and the age of the Torah. Had the Torah been written much later – after Jewish law was established – such violation of Jewish law by key Jewish figures likely would never have been recorded.[156]

The Hebrew word means “pleasure” or “delight,” not specifically “lust.”
It could refer to sexual joy, having a child, or both.
“Lust” is a stronger, more interpretive translation.

The original Hebrew word in Genesis 18:12 is ‘eḏnāh, which means “pleasure,” “delight,” or “joy.” It is related to the word “Eden,” carrying the idea of something enjoyable or life-giving.

Some translations render this as “pleasure” or “delight,” while others interpret it more specifically as sexual pleasure, since the context is about Sarah having a child in old age.

Because of this, translating it as “lust” is not strictly wrong in the sense of “desire,” but it is stronger and more specific than the original Hebrew. In modern English, “lust” often carries a narrow, sexual meaning that may not fully reflect the broader nuance of the text.

Scholars differ on what Sarah had in mind:
 – Some think she is referring to the physical aspect of conceiving a child.
 – Others think she is focused on the joy of having and raising a child.
 – It is also possible the text intentionally includes both ideas.

So the most accurate understanding is that Sarah is expressing surprise at the idea of experiencing pleasure or joy again, whether through intimacy, motherhood, or both.

A literal translation of the original Hebrew of Genesis 18:22 would indicate that Sari wondered if she would have “pleasure” or “delight.” This “pleasure” may have been at the prospect of either the sexual means or of the parental outcome of having her own child with Abram, or both.

The script of episode seven translated a Hebrew word from Genesis 18:22 as “feel lust.” Whilst a “lust” is literally simply a “desire,” common English usage combines with the context here to suggest that Sarai’s desire is sexual. The Hebrew word at issue in Genesis 8:22 is “‘eḏ·nāh,” which is the feminine form of “eden” (as in the garden “in eden”), a word that means “delicate, delight, pleasure.”[157] More literal English translations of Genesis 18:22 translate this word as “pleasure” (e.g. ESV and World English Bible) or “delight” (e.g. CSB). The specific “pleasure” to which this refers is open to interpretation. For example, seventeenth century theologian Matthew Poole coyly suggested that the “pleasure” referenced by Sarai was “Not so much in the conception, as in the education and fruition of a child.”[158] In other words, Sarai was mostly laughing in herself at the idea that she would have the pleasure of raising her own child. However, as Tammi J. Schneider notes, the Hebrew term ‘eḏ·nāh has “a possible sexual connotation.”[159] Some translators therefore infer from the use of ‘eḏ·nāh in context that Sarai is indeed thinking about “conception.” Hence the New English Bible translates: “So Sarah laughed to herself and said, ‘Now that I am worn out and my husband is old, am I still to have sexual pleasure?’” Likewise, the Good News Bible has: “So Sarah laughed to herself and said, ‘Now that I am old and worn out, can I still enjoy sex? And besides, my husband is old too.’” Theologian Andrew E. Steinmann agrees that Sarah’s thought here “probably refers to sexual pleasure . . .”[160] That said, perhaps the Hebrew of Genesis 8:22 is deliberately vague, so that it can encompass both thoughts. In sum, Sarai’s ‘eḏ·nāh (pleasure/delight/joy) may have been at the prospect of either the sexual means or of the parental outcome of having her own child with Abram, or both.

Isaac means “he laughs” or “he will laugh.”
It does not literally mean “God laughs.”
But the name is closely tied to God bringing joy.

The name “Isaac” comes from the Hebrew Yitzchak, which means “he laughs” or “he will laugh.” It is directly connected to the moments in Genesis where both Abraham and Sarah laugh at the idea of having a child in old age.

While some suggest a longer form like “Isaac-el” could imply “may God laugh,” the biblical text itself emphasizes the simpler meaning: laughter.

This laughter carries multiple layers:
 – At first, it reflects surprise or disbelief.
 – Later, it becomes joy and fulfillment when Isaac is born.

Sarah herself highlights this meaning in Genesis 21:6: “God has made laughter for me; everyone who hears will laugh with me.”

So the name does not literally mean “God laughs,” but it points to God’s action in turning doubt into joy.

Isaac’s name becomes a lasting reminder that what seemed impossible became reality, and that God brings joy out of unlikely situations.

The name Isaac is derived from the Hebrew name Yitzchak, which literally means “he laughs” or “he will laugh.”

The name “Isaac” comes from the Hebrew name Yitzchak, which has the same root letters (ṣḥq) as the word translated as “laughed” in Genesis 17:17: “Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed . . .” (ESV). Indeed:

the name Isaac means “laughter” and is probably a shortened form of Isaac-el, which means “may God laugh.” In conferring this name on Sarah’s son, the Lord superimposes His own laughter upon Abraham, forever reminding the patriarch that He always gets the last laugh.[161]

Hence:

Isaac’s name and meaning connect directly to his story in Genesis where laughter and joy come out of the improbable. His name is a constant reminder of God’s provision and Abraham’s faith.[162]

When Isaac was born, Sarah said: “God has made laughter for me; everyone who hears will laugh with me.” (Genesis 21:6).

Some take Abraham’s age literally, others see it as symbolic.
Ancient texts often used numbers figuratively.
So “100 years” may express significance more than exact age.

There are two main approaches to Abraham’s age at Isaac’s birth. A literal reading accepts that Abraham was actually 100 years old. This view is still held by many believers and fits a straightforward reading of the text. However, many scholars argue that these numbers reflect ancient literary conventions rather than precise historical data. In the ancient Near East, numbers were often used symbolically to convey importance, honor, or structure.

Archaeological evidence suggests typical lifespans were much shorter, usually around 60–70 years. This creates tension if the ages are read strictly literally.

There are also internal challenges in the biblical narrative. Taken at face value, some timelines would imply overlapping generations that the text never describes interacting.

Other ancient sources, like Mesopotamian king lists, also use large or patterned numbers for rhetorical and symbolic purposes, not exact record-keeping.

Because of this, many conclude that Abraham’s age is best understood as schematic or symbolic, fitting the storytelling style of the time.

At the same time, the literal interpretation remains a valid option within Christian tradition, so this question is still open to debate.

While many modern-day Christians take what the Bible says about Abraham’s age literally, it is likely that “the ancient audiences all understood these to be schematic, not arithmetic numbers.”[163] In other words, given the  cultural context of the ancient near east, the numbers used for character ages in the patriarchal stories in Genesis are figurative rather than literal, and Abraham was not literally 99 years old 13 years after the birth of Ishmael.

As Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen notes:

External evidence from burials of all periods all over the biblical world and beyond would indicate that most people died in their sixties or seventies at the latest (and most often, much younger).[164]

Theologian Craig Olsen observes that:

Not only do the lifespans themselves and a chronology based those lifespans create conflicts [with archaeological evidence] outside the Bible, but they create conflicts inside the Bible as well . . . . the face value interpretation of the patriarchal lifespans cannot be maintained consistently. . . . Isaac’s birth is not much of a miracle if both Abraham’s father and grandson fathered children older than 100. It seems unlikely that Abimelech would have taken Sarah for his harem if she were 89 or 90 years old as the face value reading implies. And Jacob volunteering to work for seven years for Rachel’s hand in marriage is ludicrous if he really was 77 years old.[165]

As Carol A. Hill points out:

If the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are both literal and complete, then the death of Adam has to be dated to the generation of Noah’s father Lamech. Shem, Arphaxad, Shelah, and Eber would have outlived all of the generations following as far and including Terah. Noah would have been the contemporary of Abraham for 58 years and Shem (Noah’s son) would have survived Abraham by 35 years. But where does the Bible indicate that any of these men were coeval? They are spoken of as respected ancestors, not as contemporaries that interacted with them or who were to be cared for in their old age.[166]

However, as Olsen also observes:

There is also no evidence of any ancient culture recording lifespans or reigns of ancient ancestors as accurate face value numbers. All the evidence discovered to date shows that ancient cultures either did not record the lifespans of their ancestors, or they exaggerated their lifespan or reign using symbolic numbers as a way to bestow honor . . . . Ancient texts, like the Sumerian King List, the Gilgamesh Epic, the Lagaš King List, and Egyptian writings use numbers for rhetorical effect. They do exhibit use of multiplication and fractions; not for accurate record keeping, but hyperbolically to exaggerate and glorify their gods, kings or ancestors. They also use round numbers (10, 20, 30, 40, 60, 100, 200), sacred numbers (e.g., repeated use of the number seven), and graded numbers. All of these are also common biblical rhetorical devices . . .[167]

Likewise, Hill explains that:

the purpose of numbers in ancient religious texts could be numerological rather than numerical. Numerologically, a number’s symbolic value was the basis and purpose for its use, not its secular value in a system of counting. One of the religious considerations of the ancients involved in numbers was to make certain that any numbering scheme worked out numerologically; i.e., that it used, and added up to, the right numbers symbolically. This is distinctively different from a secular use of numbers in which the overriding concern is that numbers add up to the correct total arithmetically. Another way of looking at it is that the sacred numbers used by the Mesopotamians gave a type of religious dignity or respect to important persons or to a literary text . . . . Figurative numbers are used throughout the Old Testament, and also (but less frequently) in the New Testament.[168]

Olsen adds that: “A symbolic understanding of the patriarchal lifespans supports the antiquity of their origin, and it allows them to speak in the idiom of their day.”[169]

Weaning meant the child had survived early childhood.
In a time of high infant mortality, this was a big milestone.
So families celebrated it as a sign of life and hope.

In the ancient world, weaning was a major milestone in a child’s life. Infant mortality was high, and many children did not survive their earliest years. In Isaac’s case, the celebration is especially significant because his birth had been long-awaited and unexpected. The weaning feast highlights that the promise was not only fulfilled in birth, but that the child was now securely part of the future.

Weaning marked a significant rite of passage in a cultural context that had a high infant mortality rate.

As Dennis Prager explains:

Abraham was a wealthy man who could afford to throw a great party in honor of his son’s weaning. Today, parties are often made on the eighth day, at the time of a child’s circumcision. But in the ancient world, with its very high rate of infant mortality, it was only later – at the time of weaning, for example – that parents felt confident the child would survive and would throw a party in the child’s honor.[170]