Concerning the Abraham / Abimelech incident of Gen. 20:
Although virtually every commentary of man condemns Abraham in this situation, I find it interesting that arguments have been put forth that tend to villify Abraham and praise Abimelech. For example, Jonathan made the argument recently that Abimelech was righteous in this situation and Abraham was not. Such an argument is made based upon the actions of each men. The reasoning is that Abraham deceived Abimelech and so he was in the wrong. Abimelech, on the other hand, supposedly acted innocently, and when the Lord made clear to him that he was sinning against Abraham, he went way beyond the call of duty in his repentance by giving Abraham many valuable gifts. Depsite the actions of these men, one thing seems clear in the text. The anger of the Lord was kindled against Abimelech but not against Abraham. While human reasoning leads us to look disfavorably upon Abraham in this situation, we are still left with the fact that the Lord's anger was against Abimelech but not Abraham.
I have been waiting for the argument to come forth that the reason the Lord was not angry with Abraham was because of his covenant with him. The Lord had a covenant with Abraham but not with Abimelech. Therefore, because of this covenant, perhaps Abraham was viewed as righteous before God whereas Abimelech was not, even though Abraham had been deceptive and Abimelech had acted with integrity and honesty. I don't know why this point has not been argued, so I will present it myself as a possibility and see what the response is. It seems to me that such reasoning would go along with what has been argued in the past, so I find it very interesting that the focus of the arguments has been upon ascribing evil motives to Abraham rather than upon the covenant. It seems to me that the more objective argument from your those who hold to the unilateral thesis would be that it really doesn't matter if Abraham was right or wrong in this situation, and that is the point. His right standing with God came from his faith not from his actions.
Now if there is silence on this, I guess from past posts I can only assume that it is because you are afraid of a setup. Although I certainly like to challenge concepts and expect to continue to do so, I will try to exercise enormous restraint and allow most of my criticisms to be dealt with privately. That does not mean that I won't make some effort to challenge the idea that I just put forth. Even though I consider it a good idea and one that I might be in a position to argue, I have questions about it and would love to see objections answered concerning it.
Concerning this process of attempting to falsify ideas, I hope that many of you try to understand the difference between challenging an idea through attempting to falsify it, and the sinful practice of attacking a person with the purpose of humiliating and condemning that person. Please do not hold onto your imaginative speculations so tightly that if someone were to disprove your perception of something, then such would be equivalent in your mind to ascribing evil motives to you and condemning you. All one needs to do is lay aside their false perception and agree with the one who has shown it to be false, then such a person would be in the clear. Another approach is simply to consider another alternative, maybe one being put forth, raise objections to it and attempt to falsify it. Only by tenaciously holding onto our false concepts and false ways would we find ourselves in the position of being condemned along with the false viewpoint.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
