Abraham Lied

[Calm]

The problem, if problem there be, is that Abraham, who had received a promise of protection from God himself, felt the need to "help" God keep his promise by a misrepresentation to Pharoah, rather than simply telling Pharoah the truth and relying on God to intercede should his protection be required as a result.

Two problems with this theory: first, Abraham had already demonstrated the level of faith that the Lord would protect him when he himself was offered up as a sacrifice to the false gods, and two, Abraham 2:22-24 where Abraham states the source of the deception is the Lord and his instructions....unless you are claiming that is a lie as well. Are you?

This helps me see Abraham as a person who is growing in faith until he reaches the point at the climax of the cycle where he is able to obey God's mind-bending and heart-breaking command to sacrifice his own son.

This can be accomplished by showing he was willing to depend on God's promises through the three experiences of first being sacrificed himself, second Sarah's being willing to be 'sacrificed' and third, his son's willingness to be sacrificed.

[Calm]

I am actually focusing on the Genesis account here rather than the Abraham account.

But if you insist on the Abraham account, does it make it any less a lie because God commanded its telling? A good question, that.

The claim that it demonstrates fear or a certain lack of faith in the Lord fails, however, if he is actually following the commandments of the Lord here rather than just avoiding the whole situation by not going down to Egypt when the Lord instructs him to such as Jonah did or begging the Lord for another solution that wouldn't put him and his wife and his family in danger (what would have happened to his people if he had been killed, it wasn't only Abraham's life that was on the line or Sarah that would have been stolen) such as being willing to wander for 40 years in the desert being fed on manna.

I think that the author of Genesis is quite candid about Abraham's bout of disingenuousness; nothing is hidden; it is out there for all to see.

The interesting point of this thread, and the primary reason it has gone on longer than I anticipated, is due to modern readers of Genesis who insist on reading out of the narrative something the author plainly wanted understood.

That might be because they see Abraham as a real person and as such there is a real history that needs to be considered and that would include the PoGP account even if it's not mentioned in the Genesis.

So do you believe that the Abraham version is a lie or doesn't it matter to you what the whole story is because you think it's a fabrication anyway so it's the point of the author that he is trying to teach that matters or something else? I am really trying to figure out why you are so fond of ignoring the PoGP information.

It appears to me that you are so fond of your literary discussion of Abraham's spiritual development that you are willing to ignore one key fact and that is there is no evidence that Abraham's deception was rooted in fear or a lack of trust in the Lord.

Tell me, if you had included the PoGP account in your storyline, what would you have claimed as Abraham's inner motivation for the deception? Fear or faith in the Lord? Or something else?

As I read further on in Genesis at the unsavory actions taken by subsequent patriarchs (especially Jacob!), I was led to make the following pithy comment to my wife yesterday:

Reading the Old Testament is for many an exercise in justifying bad behavior.

How does reading the horrible things that happen to people who don't follow the Spirit justify "bad behaviour"? If you mean the "bad behaviour" that is an apparent result of obeying God's commandments and for following the Spirit, then they need to be able to justify their own actions by showing how the Spirit directed them to do so or at least a history of past spiritual direction akin to what is shown of the prophets in the scripture. If they are not doing so, they are only picking and choosing what they are "reading" and that type of justification can happen with anyone and pretty much anything as it's basically just the juvenile reasoning of "well, he did it so why can't I".

[consiglieri]

Two problems with this theory: first, Abraham had already demonstrated the level of faith that the Lord would protect him when he himself was offered up as a sacrifice to the false gods, and two, Abraham 2:22-24 where Abraham states the source of the deception is the Lord and his instructions....unless you are claiming that is a lie as well. Are you?This can be accomplished by showing he was willing to depend on God's promises through the three experiences of first being sacrificed himself, second Sarah's being willing to be 'sacrificed' and third, his son's willingness to be sacrificed.

I am unaware that Abraham chapter 1 gives any indication that Abraham had a choice in his being sacrificed. With no choice, I am unpersuaded that faith was a factor in the process.

I am also unaware of Sarah's being willing to be "sacrificed" at any point in the cycle. If you refer to her being taken captive into the harem of Pharoah/Abimilech, I don't see her having a choice in that matter, either. Maybe you could clarify this for me?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Calm]

I am unaware that Abraham chapter 1 gives any indication that Abraham had a choice in his being sacrificed. With no choice, I am unpersuaded that faith was a factor in the process.

I am also unaware of Sarah's being willing to be "sacrificed" at any point in the cycle. If you refer to her being taken captive into the harem of Pharoah/Abimilech, I don't see her having a choice in that matter, either. Maybe you could clarify this for me?

My ^afathers, having turned from their righteousness, and from the holy commandments which the Lord their God had given unto them, unto the worshiping of the ^bgods of the ^cheathen, utterly refused to hearken to my voice..... and hearkened not unto my voice, but endeavored to take away my ^blife by the hand of the priest of Elkenah.

He was offered up as a sacrifice because he was faithful in proclaiming the commandments of the Lord.

11 Now, this priest had offered upon this altar three virgins at one time....These virgins were offered up because of their virtue; they would not ^b<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/1/11b" type="A" mark="b" title="Dan. 3: 18 (1-23)">bow down to worship gods of wood or of stone, therefore they were killed upon this altar, and it was done after the manner of the Egyptians. 12 And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar

It appears to me he knew the possibility of being sacrificed if he refused to worship false gods and instead promoted the worship of the Lord. IIRC, this idea is also mentioned in nonscriptural accounts of Abraham's life (I should go pull out my Traditions of Abraham, but am too lazy at the moment; maybe later).

If you choose not to interpret these verses in the same way, do you at least agree that faith was a factor for Abraham's decision to deceive Pharaoh in that he was obeying God's direction?

As far as Sarah goes, there is the verse that says "This is thy ^bkindness which thou shalt shew unto me" so it appears likely that she acknowledges to Abraham that she was willing to do this at that time as he acts as if she had accepted his request. There is also my assumption that the Lord would consider the belief and faith of the mother as important as well (if the mother did not matter, but only the father than why wasn't Ishmael acceptable as heir?) and so I am assuming she had a faith that was compatible's with Abraham's.

Feel free to leave out Sarah or Isaac's willingness to be sacrificed and just speak of it as Abraham's willingness to sacrifice the one he had, if not loved, then at least believed the blessings foretold of his posterity would come through.

[consiglieri]

Feel free to leave out Sarah or Isaac's willingness to be sacrificed and just speak of it as Abraham's willingness to sacrifice the one he had, if not loved, then at least believed the blessings foretold of his posterity would come through.

I totally agree with you on this part, Cal, and I see your point about Abraham's faith in proclaiming against the predominant idol worship as being the factor in getting him put on the altar at Olishem, as well.

I just see it overall as a pattern of growth on Abraham's part, culminating in the Akedah.

(Strange that it should be called "The Binding" when I had a class member tell me yesterday that Isaac was not bound.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[volgadon]

(Strange that it should be called "The Binding" when I had a class member tell me yesterday that Isaac was not bound.)

Granted that the Akedah is a later name for it, but how does he get around the words "and bound Isaac his son"???????

[volgadon]

And now for an interesting bit of trivia. The Akedah came to mean a severe trial, both of faith and of childbirth.

In some remote Jewish villages in the Atlas the pains of labor were called the akedah, and a song about Abraham was sung by people in the room.

[USU78]

Granted that the Akedah is a later name for it, but how does he get around the words "and bound Isaac his son"???????

Some hold that the Covenant that bound Abraham's progeny to G-d and Abraham's was formed at Isaac's bris.

I think Abraham bound his progeny to G-d when he bound Isaac on Mt. Moriah.

[consiglieri]

Granted that the Akedah is a later name for it, but how does he get around the words "and bound Isaac his son"???????

I honestly don't have an answer for you on that, Volga Boatman.

This (just released) ward Sunday school president has a thorough knowledge of all aspects of Mormon legend and interpretive keys to scripture, and I think this little nugget has seeped through in order to show how not only Abraham, but Isaac were completely faithful and obedient to this mind-boggling and visceral-reaction-inducing commandment of God.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[volgadon]

Some hold that the Covenant that bound Abraham's progeny to G-d and Abraham's was formed at Isaac's bris.

I think Abraham bound his progeny to G-d when he bound Isaac on Mt. Moriah.

Which is exactly how Judaism percieves it, even during the despair and frustration of the first Holocaust (caused by the 1st Crusade marching through the Rhineland) when the cry was you saved Isaac, but we have offered up our own children out of love for you.

[volgadon]

I honestly don't have an answer for you on that, Volga Boatman.[/quotes]

Some Mormons think in mysterious ways....

This (just released) ward Sunday school president has a thorough knowledge of all aspects of Mormon legend and interpretive keys to scripture, and I think this little nugget has seeped through in order to show how not only Abraham, but Isaac were completely faithful and obedient to this mind-boggling and visceral-reaction-inducing commandment of God.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I used words like unbelievable, unimaginable, unthinkable utterly terrifying, absolutely shocking, and mind-bogling to describe God's command in my lesson.

Not only did Abraham have to learn something about Abraham, he also had to learn something about God...

I'm sure WS will protest that it was only 'ignorantifying', but Abraham lied to Isaac when asked about the lamb. One of my favourite touches is that Isaac mentions the fire and the wood, but not the cleaver. He realised that somethin was fishy, and it terrified him.

[Calm]

I honestly don't have an answer for you on that, Volga Boatman.

This (just released) ward Sunday school president has a thorough knowledge of all aspects of Mormon legend and interpretive keys to scripture, and I think this little nugget has seeped through in order to show how not only Abraham, but Isaac were completely faithful and obedient to this mind-boggling and visceral-reaction-inducing commandment of God.

Isaac could have resisted being bound, but didn't. I've read a number of commentaries that see Isaac as being 37 (this conclusion is based on assuming that Sarah died either while they were gone or shortly after the Akedah (her death at 127 makes Isaac 37 since she was 90 at his birth). I see him at least past the age of twelve (perhaps I am wrong in my assumption that his inclusion in the party is seen as logical as he is considered an adult at this time who is being trained in the ways of the Lord) and could have outrun his old man (literally), yet there is no hint of any difficulty, of Abraham threatening him with the knife to get him to hold still...or of a taser in Abraham's back pocket. Perhaps that point had been made to the man before and his memory had altered it into not being bound at all.

PS: a thoughtprovoking---for me at least---commentary on the story: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/Bible/Torah/Genesis/The_Binding_of_Isaac.shtml

I have heard the point of view that Isaac resented Abraham's willingness to sacrifice him even though he chose to go along with it himself and that is why the scriptures don't refer to him returning with his father. I prefer not to fill in the gaps that way and assume that not only Isaac returned, but Sarah was still alive and they had many happy years remaining to them as a family. However, it would appear that Isaac wasn't as committed to following the Lord's will in regards to his children as Abraham was in that he intended to give the birthright blessing to Esau, not Jacob as prophecied he should (IIRC, don't have time to look up the reference at the moment).

[Zakuska]

This (just released) ward Sunday school president has a thorough knowledge of all aspects of Mormon legend and interpretive keys to scripture, and I think this little nugget has seeped through in order to show how not only Abraham, but Isaac were completely faithful and obedient to this mind-boggling and visceral-reaction-inducing commandment of God.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Paul seems to indicate it too...

Heb 11

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

Abraham had such faith in God that he beleived Even if he did go through with it that God would remedy the situation.

[volgadon]

The book mentioned there, Shalom Spiegel's The Last Trial is one of my favourites. I've been reading it a lot.

[paulpatter]

. . . What baffles me is that Mormons are just fine with Nephi cutting off the head of a defense-less man, but shudder at the thought of Abraham telling a lie.

You make two sweeping generalizations that do not withstand even cursory scrutiny: 1) I know many Mormons who struggle with Nephi's murderous act, especially in light of the rationale given for it by God: "It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief" (1 Nephi: 4:13). Recall what happened to the Nephites. 2) I have never met--in my long life--a Mormon who has "shudder[ed] at the thought of Abraham telling a lie." Certainly they exist, but your generalization suggests that Mormons, without exception, agonize over Abraham's prevarication. 'T'ain't so.

[bizabra]

Of course he lied. Lying isn't always wrong. For example, if someone has a gun to your head, lying might be a pretty good idea. After all, "That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another."

BIZ: I agree with situational ethics. The right response is always dictated by the particular circumstances. There is no absolute right and wrong, black or white. Everything is some shade of gray.

[bizabra]

You are misreading me. I hold no such fundamentalistic views. I'll permit consigilieri that luxury.

Abraham, quite consciously, withheld information from both Pharaoh and Abimelech. In the context of my comments on this thread, "to lie" is a verb of action. Therefore, to deliberately withhold knowledge of the truth from someone is not tantamount to "lying." Alas, the English language is inexplicably sparse when it comes to alternative terminology. Perhaps I shall therefore coin a new verb: "to ignoranticize." Yeah, I like that. In fact, I frequently ignoranticize, as a matter of policy in my life. It keeps expectations low and options high.

Here's an example (based on a conversation from late Saturday afternoon):

Am I a liar?

(Phone rings)

Me: Yes?

Wife: What are you doing?

Me: Driving down the road.

Wife: What road?

Me: The asphalt one.

Wife: Where does it go?

Me: It depends on which turns I take.

Wife: What is the next turn you could take?

Me: Well, I could take one that leads me home.

Wife: So when will you be home?

Me: It depends on how soon I make the turn that leads me there.

Wife: I guess I'll see you then.

Me: Yep.

Wife: Love you.

Me: You, too.

(Hangs up phone)

BIZ: Maybe not a liar, but definatly kinda jerky. I would feel pretty peeved at my hubby if I had the convo above with him. Just sayin . . . . . . .

[bizabra]

ignorantify:

v. transitive

1. the deliberate withholding of specific details of one's whereabouts and/or agenda in order to permit one to wander aimlessly, contemplating the profundities of the universe, on a beautiful Saturday afternoon.

"She called to see when I would be back, but I ignorantified her and was able to 'take the long way home' with relative impunity."

BIZ: Or maybe you were just being "ignorant" TO your wife.

[William Schryver]

(Phone rings)

Me: Yes?

Wife: What are you doing?

Me: Driving down the road.

Wife: What road?

Me: The asphalt one.

Wife: Where does it go?

Me: It depends on which turns I take.

Wife: What is the next turn you could take?

Me: Well, I could take one that leads me home.

Wife: So when will you be home?

Me: It depends on how soon I make the turn that leads me there.

Wife: I guess I'll see you then.

Me: Yep.

Wife: Love you.

Me: You, too.

(Hangs up phone)

BIZ: Maybe not a liar, but definatly kinda jerky. I would feel pretty peeved at my hubby if I had the convo above with him. Just sayin . . . . . . .

Yeah!

Definatly.

No doubt she's "pretty peeved" at my "kinda jerky convo" almost every day of her poor miserable life.

Definatly!

.

.

.