A warning: If your faith is shaky and you don't wish to have it challenged in any way, please don't read any further. I'm serious. This is a theological debate.
Let me first define the Biblical Canon. The canon is the generally accepted collection of different writings that compose the Bible today.
How many of you realize that the "Bible" we all use today was repeatedly argued about down through the centuries? Martin Luther, for example, thought James, Jude, and Revelation unfit to be included among the canonical books. If you don't believe me, read a book about the canon or even do a google on this. If we had used Luther's recommended version, our Bibles today would be without those books. And the Catholic Church had many councils which met in an attempt to decide what to include, and what not to include.
In fact, there have always been controversy and questions surrounding the Bible, even by those who professed to love it greatly (and attempted to follow its teachings). And there have always been compromises. You see, the "Bible" at one time was just a collection of letters and writings (that were recopied faithfully and accurately, from what we can tell). And the question was always what was inspired (sanctioned) by God and what wasn't.
I can get into more details at another time if any one is interested. But here are the beginnings of a point I'd like to make: There have always been different ways of looking at the Bible - this is not simply a modern-time phenomenon. In fact, only in the last couple of hundred years or so have we been accustomed to thinking that this collection of writings, and only this collection, is the Bible.
Many rigid interpretations are made by people who never knew this. Sometimes a rigid interpretation is backed by scripture when its based on a passage that has remained true, no matter how many times it's been recopied. Scholars can look at very ancient writings (such as some of the Dead Sea Scrolls) and say with authority that the original manuscripts have not changed.
But some of the Dead Sea Scrolls contain passages which perhaps should be included in a new canon. These passages are "Prophecies by Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Daniel not found in the Bible are written in the Scrolls," "... never before seen psalms attributed to King David and Joshua," and "The scrolls contain previously unknown stories about biblical figures such as Enoch, Abraham, and Noah. The story of Abraham includes an explanation why God asked Abraham to sacrifice his only son Isaac." (my emphasis here)
In fact, there is now a Dead Sea Scrolls Bible which obviously differs from the standard Bible that we use.
Abraham And The Sacrifice of Isaac
I am ordering the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, because I would dearly love to see any explanation whatsoever for Abraham's behavior in Genesis 22:1-18. I'm going to reprint it here to save you from trying to hunt it down. It's in the New American Standard version, which is an exceedingly accurate translation (more on translations at another time, if you wish):
1 Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
2 He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you."
3 So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him and Isaac his son; and he split wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him.
4 On the third day Abraham raised his eyes and saw the place from a distance.
5 Abraham said to his young men, "Stay here with the donkey, and I and the lad will go over there; and we will worship and return to you."
6 Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son, and he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So the two of them walked on together.
7 Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and said, "My father!" And he said, "Here I am, my son." And he said, "Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"
8 Abraham said, "God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." So the two of them walked on together.
9 Then they came to the place of which God had told him; and Abraham built the altar there and arranged the wood, and bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood.
10 Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.
11 But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
12 He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."
13 Then Abraham raised his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him a ram caught in the thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram and offered him up for a burnt offering in the place of his son.
14 Abraham called the name of that place The LORD Will Provide, as it is said to this day, "In the mount of the LORD it will be provided."
15 Then the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven,
16 and said, "By Myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son,
17 indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies.
18 "In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice."
I read a rapturous recap of this in another blog and it was said this is an example of following God unquestioningly. I'm not naming the blog, because I don't have permission and the person who published it is very sweet and wise in many ways. This is simply something we disagree about.
But I see this differently than many do.
I see Abraham as being a very poor father, and a man who actually did not understand God whatsoever. God was testing him, yes. But it proved how little Abraham actually knew God. So to me the test was not how well Abraham loved God, or how obedient he was. Instead, it was how well he knew Him. And he failed, miserably.
The Judeo-Christian God is not a god that wishes for human sacrifice. I don't think he's a god of love either (that oversimplifies God).
I also am disturbed by how calloused Abraham was. It doesn't say he did it with a heavy heart although elsewhere in scripture we are told when a protagonist is upset about something. Additionally, Abraham lies to Isaac through evading his question. How is that behavior proper?
I think this shows us (more than anything else) that Abraham was human, and failed at times. It also shows the mercy of God (since He stayed Abraham's hand). But...Abraham was an idiot here, and entirely wrong. I believe it's a mistake to hold him up as an example of unquestioning faith.
Besides, oddly enough, God admits in the end that he's testing Abraham for fear.
Even though (as we are told elsewhere in the Bible) "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom," Abraham was only beginning to get a little wisdom, here. God could certainly have been testing for fear, but I don't believe that is all Abraham was being tested for.
Look, I realize that God acknowleges that Abraham loves Isaac. But just how much did he love Isaac? Well, Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac blindly without discussing it further with God (although he argued God to the mat in his attempt to save Sodom earlier).
And... if God doesn't condone Human Sacrifice, and we consider murder a sin, wouldn't his tempting Abraham to do it really mean that he was tempting Abraham to sin? And if Abraham contemplated it, wasn't he sinning in his heart, if not in deed? These are not easy questions to think about.
In the past, Abraham and his wife Sarah both were often caught doing the wrong (or at least questionable) things:
1. Abraham's offering Sarah to the Pharoah and claiming she was his sister in order to avoid trouble (Gen. 12: 11-20). Incidentally, it is quite likely that the Pharoah consumated his 'marriage' to Sarah, which is why God sent such horrible plagues to beset him. Abraham also made the same lie to the King of Gerar (Gen. 20) at a much later date, with similar consequences.
2. Abraham's questioning God's judgement with Sodom (Gen 18).
3. Abraham's taking Hagar on as a wife because both he and Sarah didn't believe God's promise to provide an heir (Gen 13:14-18, 15:18 and 16).
4. Sarah's laughing at the angels and later lying about it (Gen 18:12-15).
They are not people we can take on indubitably as role models. We need to be more careful about summing up these stories as nice, neat little homilies. They're more complex than that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
I took you advice: I skipped the text, not for lack of interest, but because I still am a bit fragile over the passing of my beloved Astro.
Nevertheless, I wanted to say hello, and wish you a good Sunday.
Barbara, I am so very glad you popped in. I was wondering how you've been. I miss you, and have you in my prayers. These last 12 months or so have been very tough for you.
I know it may not be as intellectually satisfying to you for me to post the work of others on the subjects you mentioned above, but unfortunately I don't have the time right now to type out my own thoughts, in my own words, on these subjects. However, these pieces accurately represent what my beliefs are regarding the subject of Abraham and Isaac.
Here are two links which I believe may at least answer some of your questions regarding the sacrifice of Isaac:
http://www.apocalipsis.org/Abraham.htm
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qkilisak.html
The cannon I will respond to later. But rest assured, everything is as it should be.
This was/is good. I agree that most of us are taught only the niceties of the Old Testament without delving deeper into the scripture. I also find it interesting that a lot of folks only know half of Jonah's story.
I'm interested in what you have to say on any subject you want to discuss..
Bryan, After reading these links you provided (thank you so much!), I find that most of what is written are explanations or suppositions. The only part that is a really concrete attempt at an answer is this part:
In Hebrews 11.17-19 we see the Judeo-Christian focus on the faith of Abraham--
By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 19 Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.
Abraham saw an apparent contradiction: (1) God said "kill" Isaac and (2) God said Isaac will have many descendants. Abe drew an obvious conclusion--"God will raise Isaac back to life."
This makes more sense to me than any other thoughts on the matter. It still is supposition, however. Nothing is actually stated.
It also doesn’t tackle this: In Genesis, it specifically says that Abraham has been tested for fear. He couldn’t have been fearful if he thought Isaac would be brought back to life!
Here is an interesting argument I could make against my posted thoughts, however:
It is commonly believed that 'fear' of the Lord really means 'respect' of the Lord. If that's so, then Abraham 'respected' God enough to do what he was asked, though he didn't really believe that God was going to leave Isaac dead.
More supposition, I grant you, but there is enought spoken of the 'fear' of the Lord that I think it could be reasonably interpreted as 'respect' (see Job 28:28; Ps 111:10; Prov 1:7, 9:10, 15:33; Is 11:2, 33:6; and Micah 6:9)
Well! It sounds as though you’re saying there are some things written and some things taught that do not make a great deal of sense. It sounds that way to me too. As you know, my spirituality isn't based on any scripture. Part of the reason for that is due to some of the hypocrisy and the inconsistency I see from all organized religions.
I think that ancient religious scriptures (of which the King James version of the bible is derived by translation) are chocked full of sage advice, powerful wisdom and poignant lessons. Ancient works abound with this sort of deep thinking. Ancient philosophers, in addition to pondering the age-old question of whether God exists (never mind who's God), have been trying to figure out man's social morality, motivation, "goodness" and "badness" and how this is all related for centuries before even the printing press was invented.
There is also, possibly due to misunderstanding of their world around them, possibly due to misguided misinformation and definitely due to translational and editorial error, much that is just plain wrong. A glaring example is the age of the earth. The ancients were way off. Science has proven it beyond a shadow of doubt. This is not even controversial like evolution – it is science fact. There are a ton of other inconsistencies too. There have to be – it is so old and passed through so many hands – both benevolent and corrupt - and through so many languages that don’t translate neatly that error is inherent. It is unavoidable.
Those that myopically adhere to a rigid literal interpretation of anything written are selling themselves short. Going behind the words, trying to determine the feelings, the visions, the sorrows and the losses experienced by those in the stories and by those writing them is where the true wisdom rests. A literal interpretation is just another interpretation – as good as any other. I prefer to be skeptically cautious – just because it is written somewhere doesn’t make it true; not today, not two years ago, not 2000 years ago.
The topic of Biblical canon has always interested and perplexed me. My hubby and I have had many discussions on the matter over the years. It does seem fragile that it was left up to men to argue and eventually decide on what would be in or out, but then again, it was men whom God entrusted with writing the stories, letters & teachings in the first place.
It would certainly be more tidy for us if God had just etched the Scriptures on stone like he did the ten commandments and then with a booming voice from heaven said, "This is My Word. Learn from it."
Talk about having problems that stem from family dysfunction. Can you imagine what little Isaac must have thought?
"Uh, dad, there's no animal for the sacrifice."
"God will provide."
Moments later, Isaac is tied up on the altar, and dear dad has a knife over him. That HAD to do some lasting emotional & mental damage.
I tend to agree with Mr. Althouse. I grew up Roman Catholic and as I studied more theology through college etc, I became more and more disillusioned with what is purported to be God's word. It all seems, when logically looked at, like a bad game of telephone. By admission of many scholars, the "word" has been passed down from age to age, and men, somtimes terribly corrupt, decided what would make the Bible and what would not. It all seems very ungodly to me. THe stories provide good motivation for right and worng, for good living and bad, but I question the accuracy after so many years of meddling. I am glad you posted this, it made me pause and think a bit.
What I want to know is, if God "talked" to people in the past, why doesn't He do it anymore?
(Yeah, I bet the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible will be quite interesting.)
Interesting. I never thought of it this way. My first thought is yes, God doesn't condone human sacrifice, but he allows it when it is necessary - it was necessary that Christ died on the cross for our sins and wasn't that the ultimate human sacrifice?
I need to read back through this when I am less distracted so I can give a better answer. I am not at my house at the moment, but I'll be back to read through the discussion. I always like to be open to discussion - especially when it comes to topics like this.
I'm a novice on the subject, so I'm going to learn from all the discussion today. My silence only means I'm listening...
Fred- Mind if I sit next to you?
Hi Saur,
Great post, hope you don't mind if I weigh in.
First off, I have to say I don't take the Bible as a literal and historical evaluation of past events, I take it as a set of interpretations of events, often orally passed down from the players in the events and continually handed down from generation to generation until somebody decided to write something down. Like TSBs game of telephone, this method undoubtably leads to exageration and falsehoods.
As a Jew, I am somewhat in the minority in my religion for having this interpretation. Still, Judaism has always know that the Bible needs to be interpreted in the context of the time frame in which it is being read, and as such Judaism has a second religious text, called the Midrash, which is only interpretations and often critiques of various sections of the Bible.
So that being said, I do relate with a great deal of what you read into the story of Abraham and Isaac. But I think you have to remember that we're talking Genesis 22 here. Abraham has not received the 10 commandments (in fact we won't receive them for another 600 years) nor any sort of guidelines as to what pleases or doesn't please God.
At this point, there has been little interaction between God and humanity. There was Adam and Eve eating the apple, and being punished for disobeying the lord; there was the interaction between Cain and Able, where Cain was punished for taking the life of his brother, and there was the floods and Noah, where God punished humanity for their wickedness, though no specifc wickedness was mentioned.
Are there any steadfast rules that God has put forth, to this point, which say don't kill your son? Well, maybe the Cain and Able story, but not really. In fact, the most important rule, at this point in the bible, is to always obey God. So when God says to sacrifice your child, you sacrifice your child.
Does that make Abraham a bad person, or a bad parent? Perhaps. But given the times, and the knowledge that he had to this point, I'm not 100% surprised he decided to listen to God.
Scottage, welcome, and excellent points indeed! Thank you so much for your very thoughtful contributions.
Ellen & Fred, by all means, pull up a chair... ;o)
Eddo, but ... Jesus wasn't exactly human. And he's the only other example in the Bible that comes close to sanctioned 'human sacrifice'. And in this case, neither his earthly or heavenly father actually killed him.
Old Hoss, an excellent question indeed. Some people claim that God really DOES talk to them, but the ones I respect don't make that claim. I did know a girl once who said "I was getting ready to do my laundry, and reached for the Tide, but God said "No, Kathy, not Tide. Use Cheer", so I used the Cheer instead." I kid you not. When I told her God was NEVER so specific with me, she admitted he wasn't with her, either. It was just a feeling that she got. I told her that she'd better be more careful in the way she conveyed her 'feelings' then...
Suzie, excellent points and insights. We've experienced the same thoughts and insights.
TSB & Mike A, granted, I must admit that I believe there are very likely mistakes - same as the game of telephone. It's pretty tough to have an oral tradition for thousands of years, and expect it to be accurate. All that being said, the Jewish people were sticklers for oral accuracy... still, I think we'd be foolish not to consider that mistakes and omissions (however minor) would be bound to happen.
Jamie Dawn, I know, talk about dysfunctional family life! ;o) Yeah, when I first heard about how the canon was chosen, it really shook me up. I was in my teens then, and was very suprised by it. It made me rethink Rev. 22:18-19. Instead of applying to the entire Bible, perhaps these words applied only to Revelation. IF Revelation is even a valid book in the canon...
I think Tide is out from now on! I'm switching to cheer!
Interesting, having read the bible as someone with no faith and reading it as a novel (so to speak) the lack of emotion in the men and the plurity of emotion in God always confused me. I mean I loved the fact that God was a vengeful, forgiving guy but the people who he made seemed like a real bunch of un feeling asshats.
Your post covers this for me, in the novel there is no exploration of the man's feelings, seemingly an unthinking devotion which is not only foolish but also of little value.
Good post. Yeah, I'd be happy if they'd left Revelations and a few other things out. Actually, I'd prefer the New Testament to be the four gospels, Acts, and the gnostic gospels/Dead Sea Scrolls. I could do without Paul's letters. That's just me.
It's hard for me to wrap my mind around much of the Hebrew Scriptures... the G*d there is so different from the way I think of G*d.
Saur:
Yes, I believe the word fear in the context you are talking about does mean reverence for in the original Hebrew. Although it would also seem to be indicative of obedience.
And don't forget, unbelief is also a sin. I choose not to be as hard on Abraham as you, at least he exercised obedience and faith in the matter of offering up Isaac. God has always used weak imperfect vessels to carry out his will. God called King David a man after his own heart, yet David was guilty of murder when he had Bath-Sheba's husband killed. But you see David was quick to repent. That's why I believe God called him a man after his own heart.
I think the whole point of the story of Abraham and Isaac is that Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac if God so commanded, and from the story we know that God did give this command.
I'm still meditating on the human sacrifice angle you asserted. There is an answer and I will find it. Give me time. I sent an email regarding this to my fourth cousin, who happens to work for the Wycliffe Bible Association. She is an expert in her field.
Now, there was something that was mentioned earlier about the ancients being wrong about the age of the earth, and that it is scientific fact that the Earth is much older than what is declared in the Bible. First, radio carbon dating methods have come under intense fire recently for giving false readings.
Secondly, does the Earth really look millions of years old? It depends on which world-view glasses you are looking through.
And finally, here is an article written by Gregory Koukl on the authority of the Bible. While I don't always agree with him on some things, this article is still worth reading. http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5125
Helpful Hint: If, when clicking on the links I have provided, you will first right-click, then choose "open in new window", it will make it much easier for you to navigate.
ha ha - thanks for the nice comments - I am a bit too sensitive when it comes to my designs - even my sister once made the mistake of saying one of my designs was "boring" - I had to go on Welbutrin for depression. ha ha.
saur,
i am pretty sure the old testament canon was taken directly from what the jews already used from jesus' time. as for the new testament canon, the christian historian eusebius wrote in the early 4th century about the different books/letters considered canonical by different churches. it's actually very interesting to see how consistent the different lists are (give or take a few letters). and i believe it was just one council that closed the canon by the end of the 4th century. i believe the bible we have now would be very much like what was read by early christians.
wikipedia has an obviously contested article on biblical canon that is nevertheless full of useful information. for anyone who's interested, the link is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Canon
about abraham, i don't think we can judge abraham because we didn't hear from God like he did. i have to admit though, that i definitely wouldn't sacrifice my son if i were in abraham's shoes.
I always figured the biblical canon was some huge gun that noah built after the ark. You know between his 400th and 500th birthday.
Bono is Brian Peppers!
I believe the scriptures were acurate in the original language and a seeker will investigate the origin. All the saints of God were examples of how God enters into lives to work his good purposes not role models to teach us how to live. As for canon I think all they had to do was be certain who wrote it- so if it was a grocery list it could qualify. The book contains the word of God- argueing over it's completeness or whatever is a perfect distraction. God wants your heart and trust and will work out the details as the relationship grows.I am always impressed with the depth of subject matter on this site and the desire to keep it real Saur, and your ability to draw a very diverse audience. It never gets nasty or mean spirited even if a disagreement happens. Well done
Regarding the charges that have been posted during this discussion as to the general unreliability of Scriptures, I offer the bibliographical test of scripture. It’s true, we were discussing the Old Testament and not the New Testament, but I’d be willing to bet that the Old Testament has fared very well, too. I will post the results I find regarding the reliability of the Old Testament MSS on my blog when I locate the research material.
The Bibliographical Test
The bibliographical test is an examination of the textual transmission by which documents reach us. In other words, not having the original documents, how reliable are the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts (MSS) and the time interval between the original and extant copy?
We can appreciate the tremendous wealth of manuscript authority of the New Testament by comparing it with textual material from other notable ancient sources.
The History of Thucydides (460-400 B.C.) is available to us from just eight MSS dated about A.D. 900, almost 1300 years after he wrote it. The MSS of the history of Herodotus are likewise late and scarce, and yet, as F.F Bruce concludes, “No classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest manuscripts of their works which are of use to us are over 1300 years later than the originals.”
Aristotle wrote his poetics around 333 B.C. and yet the earliest copy we have is dated A.D. 1100, nearly a 1400 year gap, and only five MSS are in existence.
Cesar composed his history of the Gallic Wars between 50 and 58 B.C. and its manuscript authority rests on nine or ten copies dating 1,000 years after his death.
When it comes to the manuscript authority of the New Testament, the abundance of material is almost embarrassing in contrast. After the early papyri discoveries that bridged the gap between the times of Christ and the second century, an abundance of other MSS came to light. Over 20,000 copies of New Testament MSS are in existence today. The Iliad had 643 MSS and is second in manuscript authority to the New Testament.
Sir Frederick Kenyon, who was the director and principle librarian at the British Museum and second to none in authority in issuing statements about manuscripts, concludes: “The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down to us originally as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and general integrity of the New Testament books may be regarded as finally established.”
The New Testament Greek scholar J. Harold Greenlee adds: “ Since scholars accept as general trustworthy the writings of the ancient classics even though the earliest MSS were written so long after the original writings and the number of extant MSS is in many instances so small, it is clear that the reliability of the text of the New Testament is likewise assured.”
The application of the bibliographical test to the New Testament assures us that it has more manuscript authority than any piece of literature from antiquity. Adding to that authority the more than 100 years of New Testament textual criticism, one can conclude that and authentic New Testament text has been established.
-Josh McDowell
I’m not even going to include the internal evidence test, the external evidence test, the legal-historical test and the scientific test. That would be too labor-intensive.
Here is the email Barbara sent me regarding our discussion:
Thanks for sending me these questions. They are important. I do not have time to do a detailed study on these two subjects, so I will mainly say things I remember from past studies. There are a few things that have been misunderstood. God has said that our thoughts and ways are not his thoughts or ways.
It is true that there have been many discussions in the past about what should be in or out of the Old Testament and New Testament. There are verses in Proverbs that say there is wisdom or safety in the advice of many counsellors (11:14, 15:22, 24:6). By New Testament times, the Jews agreed on what should be in the Old Testament, and Jesus and the early church accepted that. During the centuries, church councils have discussed what should be in the New Testament, as well as what doctrines we believe. Just because some individuals or groups disagree in the case of a few books, that does not mean the canon is weak. Instead, it strengthens what we believe, because they have been carefully scrutinized. Joe said he is not sure that Luther believed those three books should not be in the canon, just that he didn't understand why they were in. But he translated them. There have been and still are inspirational books written, including possibly some in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but they have not been recognized as the word of God by Jews or Christians, like those in the canon have been.
God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac as a burnt offering. Abraham did not misunderstand, and was not misguided. Abraham's test was whether or not he believed and obeyed God, not how much he loved his son. If he truly loved Isaac, and God said that he did, then of course he felt heavy emotions about doing it. Just because the Bible does not go into that does not mean that he acted callously. There are many such things the Bible does not tell us. There are many different words in Hebrew for "fear". The one used in Genesis 22:12, yada', has the area of meaning of: 'fear, be afraid, stand in awe of, revere, honor'. It does not only mean one of those things in English. This story is very important to the Jews. They call it "Aquedah", which means "binding", because Isaac was bound. It shows that fear and love for God should be more important than even family ties. It is true what Abraham said, that God would provide an animal for the offering, because God did. Abraham didn't know what God would do, and many believe that Abraham believed God could raise up Isaac even if he was killed, because God had promised to make a great nation through Isaac. The Bible doesn't tell us. We can be sure that God wouldn't have let Isaac be killed, because he didn't want human sacrifice. God was not enticing Abraham to sin. This was a test of Abraham's faith and attitude toward God, and he was growing in his understanding of God. He had come from a pagan background. We believe that Moses was inspired by God's Spirit when he wrote this, because the Bible makes clear in the 2 Peter 1:21 that holy men of God were so inspired. It is certainly true that people in the Old Testament acted dysfunctionally many times, and we can't always take them as our examples. But God commended Abraham in this case. He was not an idiot.
I hope this helps.
Barbara
Post a Comment