Remember when Abraham neglects to tell a foreign ruler or two that his "sister" is also his wife? I occasionally hear someone use those stories of Abraham to demonstrate how Abraham was sinful and sometimes lacked faith.
I get irritated at this because we do not know enough information to criticize Abraham.
1. God never rebukes Abraham for this. God appears to even be on Abraham's side by giving dreams to the ruler or inflicting with an illness.
2. We also don't know Abraham's motivation for his. It could have been a common practice for rulers to kill the husbands of beautiful wives. Much like how I wear a seat belt. I still trust God for safety, but I don't put God to a test.
10 comments:
Hi John,
Hmmm...I disagree. I find both passages heavy with irony. Both times the "unbeliever" acts better than Abraham. In fact, I think that both Pharoah and Abimelech's words are dripping with scathing after they find out Sarah is his wife. They both strongly rebuke him and then practically mock him for his actions (in a way then, God rebukes Abraham through unbelievers and puts him to shame for not trusting His providing care). For example (of scathing), Pharaoh basically says (in Gen. 12:19) "here's your "wife" Abraham! Get out!" Abimelech says to Sarah "look, I gave your "brother" a bunch of money" (Gen. 20:16).
The reason that this action is so sinful is because God has promised Abraham a son. Abraham's actions put that promise in jeopardy. If Sarah would have become pregnant after either episode, there would have been questions on whether the child was really Abraham's according to promise.
I am still not convinced. The rulers' rebukes were not based out of a sense of righteousness, but out of anger that they were cursed because of Abraham's actions. Is there any indication from the text that God rebuked Abraham through the rulers' rebukes.
I don't think your point about Abraham's actions putting God's promise in jeopardy works. Abraham would also have put God's promise in jeopardy if the rulers had killed him for having a beautiful wife. It was a catch 22.
Also, the first incident was before Abraham knew the promise was to be through Sarah. The second incident, well, it worked before.
Hi John,
Abimelech seems to have acted righteously. In fact God tells him the reason that He didn't kill him was because he had acted innocently. I think that in way then he speaks "prophetically" (i.e. bringing God's word) to the sinning prophet, when he rebukes Abraham.
Regarding God's promise in jeopardy: I don't follow your logic. It is true that the first incident happened before the specific promise of Isaac, but not before the general promise in Genesis 12 that he would be the father of many nations. So no matter which incident we are dealing with, we find that Abraham trusted his own cunning more than God's providing for his safety. In the end he lied and put his wife in a situation to commit adultery (interestingly enough, Genesis' original audience was Israel after the exodus around the same time as the giving of the law...The original audience was probably horrified at Abraham's actions because they had just been told that such deceit was not to be committed by the covenant people).
To me then, Abraham had the following choice: do the right thing and trust God to protect him, or do the wrong thing and trust his own abilities. I don't see how that's a catch-22 (a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation). Clearly, he didn't have any children yet and God had promised that he would be the father of many nations....in other words God wouldn't let him get killed.
To make an analogy: let's say that a missionary had a vision (I'm playing into your view of gifts :) and in the vision God told the missionary that he would see the entire village where he was laboring converted. Let's also say that the very next day soldiers of the local civil war storm into the village and confront the missionary. They tell him that if he denies that the is a Christian he will live; otherwise, they will put a bullet in his head (good communists that they are). The missionary has a dilemma very similar to Abraham's: he knows what God told him, but he also knows what will happen if he admits his faith. If he trusts God, he's risking his life...
Granted, no analogy is perfect, but in my mind that's close to what was going on with Abraham.
God had grace on Abimelech because he had acted innocently. God was also preserving the covenant. I don't see how that forces Abimelech's rebuke to be prophetic. Also, the fact that Abraham repeated the incident makes me think that he didn't think it was a rebuke from God either.
Please understand that my "catch 22" logic works when you said that the reason the action is so sinful is that "Abraham's actions put that promise in jeopardy." All I was saying was that either way, God's promise would be in jeopardy. Now you are saying that the sin is that he sinned in order to get out of the jam. That is a change from what I was responding to and is no longer a catch 22.
Your analogy is understandable, but the question is whether or not Abraham compromised, sinned, or "did the wrong thing".
Abraham did not lie. Abraham did withhold information. If Abraham had not withheld information, the promise would be in jeopardy. As you pointed out, witholding information also put the promise in jeopardy.
I am not so sure the Hebrews would have been shocked, because I don't know what their understanding of deceit was. I want to be careful not to read 20th century categories into the story. Another story comes to my mind where a prophet (Elisha, I think) uses deceit to get into a temple of Baal, in order to slaughter all the priests. When I first read the story, I was shocked, but again, there was no rebuke, or mention that God did not approve of his actions.
I am in no way advocating lying, but I am suggesting that maybe our understanding of what the Hebrews thought about things is limited.
Another analogy would be those Germans holding Jews in hiding. A Nazi comes and asks if there are any Jews here. If you tell the truth they will be murdered, if you lie the Jews will live. I am not sure what is ethically right in that moment, but I think that I would lie. But I would hope that all I had to do was withhold information
Hi John,
Hmmm....I still think you are misunderstanding the passage :)
To say that Abraham thought that his actions were okay because he didn't think there was a "rebuke from God," doesn't make sense to me. I'm much more inclined to see this as a pattern of sin which Abraham struggled with (a pattern which his son learned well). Nor am I convinced that the Hebrews might not have been shocked by Abraham's behavior. After all his deceit was coupled with putting his wife in the position to commit adultery. This is very different from the Nazi analogy. In the Nazi analogy, someone (other than the liar) will be saved by the lie. In Abraham's case, the lie will put someone in a position to sin (one could argue that he saved "his life" with the lie, but it is very possible that he put it in equal danger. After all, Pharaoh (not necessarily Abimelech) might have killed him for lying to him. So in the end God very likely had to "save" his life anyway).
You mention again that this was a catch-22 situation. Some people suggest that Abraham's entire trip into Egypt was a display of unbelief (i.e. Abraham is told to go to Canaan, the promised land. As soon as he gets there a famine breaks out, and he heads down to Egypt...so much for the "promised land"). However, I honestly am not sure if I can buy that, but I think that it is worth mentioning.
Finally, I don't think that the example of the temple priests being slaughtered (I can't remember that incident....where's that found again?) works in this context. There are plenty of things that biblical characters did which were not necessarily "moral" or endorsed by God (even if he did work through them).
My two cents worth :-D
2 Kings 10. It was the king Jehu and not the prophet Elisha. It even mentions that he was deceptive. Of course Bible charaters sin, but God seemed to be very pleased with this one.
Abraham, perhaps was not trying to save his own skin, but to honor the promise of God, and not put God to the test.
Abraham did not lie by withholding information. I will grant you that Abraham withholding information did put his wife at risk, but again, my main point is that we do not know Abraham's motivation. I am not convinced that the Hebrews would have been shocked. It was a very different world back then (you can't just up and take someone's sister as your wife these days). I cannot infer moral judgements on actions when I don't know the motivation for the action and when the action is not outrightly condemned. We see the rulers get mad, but we don't know their motivation, nor if God agrees with their response.
Hi John,
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree :)
I still maintain that God does show his displeasure with Abraham's actions. Abimelech's dream is especially instructive in this. Abimelech essentially accuses Abraham before God and says "He's the one who told me she was his sister." God in response never vindicates Abraham. He basically says: "Abimelech, you're right, and because you are innocent I've kept you from sinning against me."
I find two other things that confirm this: 1) Abraham not only put Sarah in a bad situation, he also put the "unbelievers" in an adulterous situation (and causes reproductive havoc because of God's curses). 2) Abraham never really tries to justify himself (I find this to be very telling). He basically stands there shamefaced as Pharoah denounces him and mumbles something about Sarah actually being his half-sister in front of Abimelech.
Also, I have to come back to the way in which Pharaoh and Abimelech heap so much scorn on Abraham. Abimelech especially is scathing in the way he tells Sarah that "Look, I gave your "brother" a thousand pieces of silver" (20:16).
Nor do I think Abraham simply withheld information. He also pretended that she wasn't his wife, and made quite a bit of money out of the deal (especially with Pharoah...as if he was the brother giving his sister away in marriage).
We also know his motivation: to save his own skin. He says so in 12:13 and 20:11. He never says anything about protecting God's promise, etc.
Isaac does the same thing in Gen. 26 (note: Moses juxtaposes God's promise to Isaac with Isaac's lie about Rebekah--who was no where near being his sister--in the same way that he juxtaposes both incidents in Abraham's life with God's promise). Isaac also stands there looking at his feet while another Abimelech rails on him: "What is this you have done to us? One of the people might easily have lain with your wife, and you would have brought guilt upon us" (26:10). To me this clearly points out that even in that particular culture such actions were considered wrong.
Nevada, this is your strongest post yet on this. I still hold doubt, but you have given me something to think about.
(Anybody want a peanut?)
John,
Did David give you a dutch rub from me? :-D
Come on, don't hold back, jump on the "Abraham was a schmuck" bandwagon with me! ;)
Dutch rub???
I can't help but think that reading "Abraham was a schmuck" into the text is not helpful.
Post a Comment