Did Abraham Sin in This Thing?

[tortdog]

Genesis 20 recounts the story of Abraham fearing for his life and telling the pharaoh that Sarah, his wife, was his sister. The pharaoh complains of deception by Abraham, and Abraham explains his reasoning. God punishes the Pharaoh, and Abraham intercedes with God on behalf of the Pharaoh.

usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis20.htm#v2

I do not believe that Abraham committed sin in this act, since the Bible does not condemn Abraham (but does condemn other servants of God who sin). Also, it seems that God punishes the pharaoh, but does not punish Abraham.

A protestant who is well informed of the Bible believes that Abraham clearly sinned in this regard, but that God’s “unconditional grace” saved Abraham from God’s punishment.

Is there a Catholic response to this question?

 

[NotWorthy]

I think Abraham sinned. I mean, allowing your wife to become part of someone else’s harem? C’mon, man!

You’ll notice that God established a covenent with Abraham prior to his little faux pas. After he returns to Canaan, God will renew His Covenant with Abraham. It seems that Abraham’s actions necessitated the need to re-establish this covenant.

And remember, Genesis reads like a history book. The characters actions aren’t always explained as sinful or not. Often times the writer describes the story devoid of any personal opinions.

 

[Robbinson]

Genesis 20 recounts the story of Abraham fearing for his life and telling the pharaoh that Sarah, his wife, was his sister. The pharaoh complains of deception by Abraham, and Abraham explains his reasoning. God punishes the Pharaoh, and Abraham intercedes with God on behalf of the Pharaoh.

usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis20.htm#v2

I do not believe that Abraham committed sin in this act, since the Bible does not condemn Abraham (but does condemn other servants of God who sin). Also, it seems that God punishes the pharaoh, but does not punish Abraham.

A protestant who is well informed of the Bible believes that Abraham clearly sinned in this regard, but that God’s “unconditional grace” saved Abraham from God’s punishment.

Is there a Catholic response to this question?

Actually - Sarah was indeed both Abraham’s wife and his sister (see Gen 20:12) (“Besides she is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.”)

That being said, I do think it is a lie to tell someone a “truth” with the understanding and expectation that it will be misinterpreted and to their peril.

We all sin (even Abraham) - the only one’s free from Sin are Jesus and Mary (who, per Church teaching, was saved from original Sin by Christ).

Blessings,

Brian

 

[tortdog]

I don’t want anyone to think that I believe Abraham was perfect. Clearly he was a man and all men sin. But the question is whether Abraham sinned in THIS instance.

Why would God punish the pharaoh but not punish Abraham? Abraham was the chosen servant of God. Wouldn’t God correct Abraham for his sins, as he did David, Saul, and Jonah?

St. Augustine’s thoughts on this are that Abraham did not sin:

Reply to Objection 3: In Holy Writ, as Augustine observes (Lib. De Mend. v), the deeds of certain persons are related as examples of perfect virtue: and we must not believe that such persons were liars. If, however, any of their statements appear to be untruthful, we must understand such statements to have been figurative and prophetic. Hence Augustine says (Lib. De Mend. v): “We must believe that whatever is related of those who, in prophetical times, are mentioned as being worthy of credit, was done and said by them prophetically.” As to Abraham “when he said that Sara was his sister, he wished to hide the truth, not to tell a lie, for she is called his sister since she was the daughter of his father,” Augustine says (QQ. Super. Gen. xxvi; Contra Mend. x; Contra Faust. xxii). Wherefore Abraham himself said (Gn. 20:12): “She is truly my sister, the daughter of my father, and not the daughter of my mother,” being related to him on his father’s side. Jacob’s assertion that he was Esau, Isaac’s first-born, was spoken in a mystical sense, because, to wit, the latter’s birthright was due to him by right: and he made use of this mode of speech being moved by the spirit of prophecy, in order to signify a mystery, namely, that the younger people, i.e. the Gentiles, should supplant the first-born, i.e. the Jews.

ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.SS.ii.SS_Q110.SS_Q110_A3.html

Thoughts?

 

[Seraphim25]

I don’t think Abraham sinned at all here. In either Romans or Corinthians sin became more abundant when the law was established. Paul asserts to this by saying: How can anybody be held responsible for a crime at which their is NO law? Therefore, when the law became manifest sin flourished in the land and just as it flourished God out of is grace and wisdom forgave the sin at which it was committed through Jesus Christ.

The use of Abraham by God was solely to define Gods character here. He chooses a pagan or at least came from paganism background and God told him that he was the true God! Is it up to us to whom God shall use? No, of course not for God searches all the hearts of men and knows us inside and out and we are naked before God because we can not hide anything from him. Abraham was right with God because he knew Abraham’s heart!

Just as any other religious figure to whom God chose Moses a murder, all the prophets were sinners but God chooses them because he loves us and desires us to come back him. The true definition of Gods love is unconditional. And it demonstrates Gods power by choosing common folk.

Paul an excellent example of this is found when Paul attests to the fact that he was the biggest accuser of Gods people before he converted. After he was converted became the biggest voice for Christianity but he also suffered a great deal through his own personal sufferings “a demonic thorn in my flesh” through other calamities that he faced.

God does not use perfect people nor has he ever for there aren’t any perfect none says the Lord God. When Jeremiah was told to seek out but 1 person that upholds Gods law he told him that he would not destroy Israel. Jeremiah found none and God knew that because he said there is none that can do it except God himself which is why he said I myself will Shepard my people I myself shall give them rest, I myself will heal them, but do the sleek and the strong I shall destroy putting fear in the hearts of men for thine judgments are right and true.

 

[Robbinson]

I don’t think Abraham sinned at all here. In either Romans or Corinthians sin became more abundant when the law was established. Paul asserts to this by saying: How can anybody be held responsible for a crime at which their is NO law? Therefore, when the law became manifest sin flourished in the land and just as it flourished God out of is grace and wisdom forgave the sin at which it was committed through Jesus Christ.

The use of Abraham by God was solely to define Gods character here. He chooses a pagan or at least came from paganism background and God told him that he was the true God! Is it up to us to whom God shall use? No, of course not for God searches all the hearts of men and knows us inside and out and we are naked before God because we can not hide anything from him. Abraham was right with God because he knew Abraham’s heart!

Just as any other religious figure to whom God chose Moses a murder, all the prophets were sinners but God chooses them because he loves us and desires us to come back him. The true definition of Gods love is unconditional. And it demonstrates Gods power by choosing common folk.

Paul an excellent example of this is found when Paul attests to the fact that he was the biggest accuser of Gods people before he converted. After he was converted became the biggest voice for Christianity but he also suffered a great deal through his own personal sufferings “a demonic thorn in my flesh” through other calamities that he faced.

God does not use perfect people nor has he ever for there aren’t any perfect none says the Lord God. When Jeremiah was told to seek out but 1 person that upholds Gods law he told him that he would not destroy Israel. Jeremiah found none and God knew that because he said there is none that can do it except God himself which is why he said I myself will Shepard my people I myself shall give them rest, I myself will heal them, but do the sleek and the strong I shall destroy putting fear in the hearts of men for thine judgments are right and true.

Hi - this is a good post (very interesting and very well stated), though I do disagree with the ultimate conclusion. Abraham was subject to “natural law” (the CCC talks of the natural law). Taken to its logical conclusion, saying Abraham could not sin because he was not subject to the law yet would mean Cain did not “sin” when he killed Able. I believe (I believe Catholic teaching concurs) that we have always been subject to the natural law - which is made explicit in the 10 commandments, but has always been with us. Lying or deceiving is a sin - our concience knows this even without reference to the 10 commandments.

Now - someone might argue that this particular act of deception was not a sin given the circumstances (that is a different argument that could be debated).

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Genesis 20 recounts the story of Abraham fearing for his life and telling the pharaoh that Sarah, his wife, was his sister. The pharaoh complains of deception by Abraham, and Abraham explains his reasoning. God punishes the Pharaoh, and Abraham intercedes with God on behalf of the Pharaoh.

usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis20.htm#v2

I do not believe that Abraham committed sin in this act, since the Bible does not condemn Abraham (but does condemn other servants of God who sin). Also, it seems that God punishes the pharaoh, but does not punish Abraham.

A protestant who is well informed of the Bible believes that Abraham clearly sinned in this regard, but that God’s “unconditional grace” saved Abraham from God’s punishment.

Is there a Catholic response to this question?

Satan is “the father of lies”. Abraham was guilty of an enormous sin, not only because of the wickedness of lying (which is bad enough !), but also because of the extraordinary mercies he had received from God. What he did was inexcusable. That he was not rebuked, may mean that he was punished by not being rebuked - for sometimes the heaviest of judgements in this life is, to be left to our sins. His wickedness is aggravated by many circumstances - this was not the first time he had acted so, & he had seen the dreadful judgement on Sodom & Gomorrah for their sins. But here he is, putting others in great danger of judgement by this lie. At least David left a Psalm after his adultery & murder - we do not find any such broken and contrite heart in Abraham.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I don’t want anyone to think that I believe Abraham was perfect. Clearly he was a man and all men sin. But the question is whether Abraham sinned in THIS instance.

Why would God punish the pharaoh but not punish Abraham? Abraham was the chosen servant of God. Wouldn’t God correct Abraham for his sins, as he did David, Saul, and Jonah?

St. Augustine’s thoughts on this are that Abraham did not sin:

Reply to Objection 3: In Holy Writ, as Augustine observes (Lib. De Mend. v), the deeds of certain persons are related as examples of perfect virtue: and we must not believe that such persons were liars. If, however, any of their statements appear to be untruthful, we must understand such statements to have been figurative and prophetic. Hence Augustine says (Lib. De Mend. v): “We must believe that whatever is related of those who, in prophetical times, are mentioned as being worthy of credit, was done and said by them prophetically.” As to Abraham “when he said that Sara was his sister, he wished to hide the truth, not to tell a lie, for she is called his sister since she was the daughter of his father,” Augustine says (QQ. Super. Gen. xxvi; Contra Mend. x; Contra Faust. xxii). Wherefore Abraham himself said (Gn. 20:12): “She is truly my sister, the daughter of my father, and not the daughter of my mother,” being related to him on his father’s side. Jacob’s assertion that he was Esau, Isaac’s first-born, was spoken in a mystical sense, because, to wit, the latter’s birthright was due to him by right: and he made use of this mode of speech being moved by the spirit of prophecy, in order to signify a mystery, namely, that the younger people, i.e. the Gentiles, should supplant the first-born, i.e. the Jews.

A lie which is partly true is the worst lie of all - that sort of doctrine is the wisdom of the serpent, whose lie was almost entirely truthful: which is what made it doubly poisonous, doubly wicked, doubly devilish. ​

 

[Fidelis]

And remember, Genesis reads like a history book. The characters actions aren’t always explained as sinful or not. Often times the writer describes the story devoid of any personal opinions.

This is exactly right. The Bible isn’t the unsubtle morality play people make it out to be – you often have to read between the lines and see what ultimately results from the actions of the characters. Sometimes it takes a long time.

A good example that one always gets questions about is polygamy. People always ask, “If polygamy is bad, why doesn’t God condemn his servants or punish them when they engage in it?” Well, actually God punishes them by allowing the chips to fall where they may. In every case we read about bigamy and polygamy in the OT, something bad always happens as a direct result of it. It might take a long time sometimes, but you can easily trace it back if you take the time to do it.

So what about Abrahams actions in Egypt? Well, after Pharoah found out he gave Abraham a bunch of gifts and sent him on his way? What’s wrong with that?

Weeelll, you might say that he consented to taking a little bit of Egypt with him when he left (much like the Israelites would do 500 years later, keeping Egypt in their hearts --it’s luxuries and idols – when they left). One of these gifts was a maidservant for Sarah, Hagar. What’s wrong with that?

Weell, it seems Sarah and Abraham got tired of waiting for God to make good on his promise of a son so they used Hagar to speed things up, Sarah nagged Abraham to produce a child with Hagar, the result of which was Ishmael. So what’s wrong with that?

Weelll – As you know when the son of the promise (Isaac) did finally come along, Hagar and Ismael were cast out. Stinks for those two, but, ultimately, what is wrong with that?

Weeelll - as you also must know, the descendents of Ishmael went on to become traditional bitter enemies of Israel and caused them no end of death and trouble, especially when it came time for Israel to try to make their way to the Promised Land during the Exodus. It took a while, but what went around, came around.

 

[tortdog]

So am I hearing that many here disagree with St. Augustine on this issue?

 

[NotWorthy]

So am I hearing that many here disagree with St. Augustine on this issue?

If St. Augustine is truly saying that Abraham didn’t sin in this event, then yes, I disagree with him.

Are you sure that’s the context of what he was saying? Because I don’t like the way the author is clipping from several of his quotes to prove their point.

Notice, also, that St. Augustine is giving a pass on Abraham’s words, but nowhere in his quotes is St. Augustine addressing the fact that Abraham allowed his own wife to become a part of another man’s harem!!!

Think of the Hebrew tradition of a man usurping another man’s wife? Absalom (?) taken King David’s harem. Ham uncovering his father’s nakedness (incest with Noah’s wife). Both incidents deal with the man trying to take over the other man’s authority. That’s why God had to renew his covenant with Abraham after his return to Canaan, in my opinion, because that Covenant was lost in Egypt. And Abraham had to be credited with Righteousness again.

 

[thistle]

Actually - Sarah was indeed both Abraham’s wife and **his sister **(see Gen 20:12) (“Besides she is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.”)

That being said, I do think it is a lie to tell someone a “truth” with the understanding and expectation that it will be misinterpreted and to their peril.

We all sin (even Abraham) - the only one’s free from Sin are Jesus and Mary (who, per Church teaching, was saved from original Sin by Christ).

Blessings,

Brian

D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 12. My sister, or niece, according to those who say she was daughter of Aran, who thus must have had a different mother from Abraham; (Menochius) or, as we rather think, Sara was truly his half-sister, born of Thare by another wife. His adding truly, seems to restrain it to this sense; and we know that in those countries, marriages of such near relations were allowed, though not when both had the same parents. Why should we not, therefore, believe Abraham, who certainly knew the real state of the question, and who would not tell a lie, rather than seek for improbable and far-fetched solutions? Said, who lived eight hundred years ago, mentions the name of Jona, Abraham’s mother, as well as that of Tehevita, who bore Sara to Thare. The Hebrews, in general, give this explanation. (Calmet) — By calling Sara his sister without any addition, Abraham intended that the people should conclude he was not married; therefore he did not say she was his half-sister, as this would have frustrated his design, if, as St. Clement of Alexandria, asserts, such might and did marry under the law of nature. (Haydock) — Philo observes, the Athenian legislator, Solon, sanctioned the same practice, which was followed also by the Phœnicians. (Calmet)

 

[tortdog]

I read the quote of St. Augustine’s reasoning along the lines of:

• Abraham was a patriarch and we should never assume that he has sinned in a specific case absent clear evidence; and
• If something in the Bible APPEARS to be a sin at first view but there is an innocent alternative explanation, then we should assume the second.

For my own part, if the “modern” view is true (that Abraham sinned) I find it hard to reconcile

• God punishing the pharaoh who was deceived by Abraham and in essence did not know that he was doing anything wrong; and
• God not punishing or even reprimanding Abraham for bearing false witness.

Worse, this view mandates that we believe that God did not forgive the victim (the pharaoh) until the guilty asked God to forgive the victim. That hardly seems just.

Let’s escalate the crime/sin. Say that a holy man had raped a woman. It would be akin to the woman being punished by God until the holy man asked God to forgive her.

 

[tortdog]

This:

• If something in the Bible APPEARS to be a sin at first view but there is an innocent alternative explanation, then we should assume the second.

should read:

• If something in the Bible APPEARS to show one of the patriarchs engaging in sin at first view but there is an innocent alternative explanation, then we should assume the second.

 

[NotWorthy]

			*  * If something in the Bible APPEARS to show one of the patriarchs engaging in sin at first view but there is an innocent alternative explanation, then we should assume the second*.

Why is this? Patriarchs were sinful men, too. Why should they be cut a break. I always assumed they should be held to a higher standard.

 

[tortdog]

Because if a man portrayed by the Bible to be a servant of God sins and that sin is made public in the Bible, the Bible will necessarily make clear that it is a sin and God will punish that servant appropriately. I see no reason why God would give Abraham a pass, while not doing likewise for Saul, David or Jonah.

Otherwise it leaves the Bible open for the interpretation that God has his favorites.

 

[NotWorthy]

Because if a man portrayed by the Bible to be a servant of God sins and that sin is made public in the Bible, the Bible will necessarily make clear that it is a sin and God will punish that servant appropriately. I see no reason why God would give Abraham a pass, while not doing likewise for Saul, David or Jonah.

Otherwise it leaves the Bible open for the interpretation that God has his favorites.

But I thought Abraham was punished, no? If not, how was Noah punished for getting blind drunk after the flood?

 

[tortdog]

How was Abraham punished? The very next day God listened to Abraham and “de-punished” the pharaoh.

 

[NotWorthy]

How was Abraham punished? The very next day God listened to Abraham and “de-punished” the pharaoh.

Didn’t someone already mention that he was saddled with Hagar, which would create for numerous generation a little trouble between the Jews and the Arabs?

For a parallel situation, look at Lot having sex with his two daughters after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Although Lot is not punished, the Jews certainly suffered with animosity between the Amonites and the Moabites for several generations (don’t forget, Lot’s daughters were Amon and Moab).

 

[NotWorthy]

Jacob’s assertion that he was Esau, Isaac’s first-born, was spoken in a mystical sense, because, to wit, the latter’s birthright was due to him by right: and he made use of this mode of speech being moved by the spirit of prophecy, in order to signify a mystery, namely, that the younger people, i.e. the Gentiles, should supplant the first-born, i.e. the Jews.

Jacob, too, was punished for this. The Jews suffered much bitterness with the Edomites (the tribes that descended from Esau) all the way down to the time of Jesus. Herod was an Edomite, although the name had been changed to Idumen (?).