Then they said to him, "Where is Sarah your wife?" And he said, "There, in the tent." He said, "I will surely return to you at this time next year; and behold, Sarah your wife will have a son." And Sarah was listening at the tent door, which was behind him. Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in age; Sarah was past childbearing. Sarah laughed to herself, saying, "After I have become old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?" And the LORD said to Abraham, "Why did Sarah laugh, saying, 'Shall I indeed bear a child, when I am so old?' "Is anything too difficult for the LORD? At the appointed time I will return to you, at this time next year, and Sarah will have a son." Sarah denied it however, saying, "I did not laugh"; for she was afraid. And He said, "No, but you did laugh." (Genesis 18:9-15 NASB)
So, in chapter 17, we have Abraham falling on his face laughing when El Shaddai tells him Sarah will bear a son. Because of that the child will be named Isaac. The child would be born in one year (..."at this season next year." Genesis 17:21b).
Here Sarah laughed "to herself" or literally "inside herself" when Yahweh said she would bear a son. The timing is very similar to last chapter, "this time next year". There are enough similarities between these two chapters that it would seem to be different examples of the same event. That probably bothers some people, in fact it would probably bother a lot of comfortable Sunday school teachers. But it shouldn't.
The issue winds up being one of inspiration and "inerrancy". If these are the same event, but two very different perspectives, how can they both be "without error"? Ironically, the people asking this question seem to be just fine with four different Gospels in the Christian Scriptures. So why have a problem here?
As I've said before, my view of Scriptures, both Hebrew and Christian is "flexible" enough to incorporate such duplication without a problem. In fact, in my estimation, that there are two indicates a stronger case for their importance and inspiration. The Master I serve is not threatened by two different accounts of the same event of Him speaking personally with one of His human creatures. Something so disruptive to any person's psyche could easily make various impressions at various times. If He's not threatened, why should I be?
The point of application for me is that this is an example of my Master accommodating His human creatures. He visits Abram, eats his food, changes his name to Abraham, discusses the covenant and circumcision, asks about Sarai, changes her name to Sarah, predicts her delivering Isaac in one year, they both laugh, the child is to be named Isaac for their laughter, and then comes the discussion of God "nuking Sodom and Gomorrah from orbit".
What makes it into Scripture is this event in two pieces. In fact, there were probably other things said that didn't make it into the text. Since there wasn't a transcriptionist hanging on every word, I can't be sure there wasn't more said. So, my Master doesn't look at what was remembered, and say, "What have you done?! You got it all wrong! Scrap that and go back and do it again?" And the people editing this "anthology" of God didn't say, "Oops, we have two versions here. Which one do we keep? How do we 'meld' them if we keep both?" Instead they kept both, and kept them distinct. They recorded the two versions faithfully because they viewed them as both being inspired accounts of God visiting His servant Abraham.
God inspires the text to be written, but fails to protect the "inerrant" original texts? Really? So, He's capable of forming stars and galaxies, and subatomic particles, but protecting His inspired texts is just beyond Him? That was too hard? Read the text! "Is anything too difficult for the LORD?" Is my Master sovereign over all matter except pens? If these inerrant original texts were all that important for my Master to demonstrate His inspiration of them, is it rational to believe that He would not protect them? If they no longer exist, then isn't it also rational to believe they're unnecessary to demonstrate inspiration?
If followers of Jesus can agree that God is sovereign, why can't we also agree that the texts we have are the ones that God wants us to have? And if we agree on that, why can't we accept them as they are without some sort of reference to non existent texts we don't have because God didn't preserve them? Why fight over the very thing that reveals to us that our Master wants to bring us together and love each other? The world going to hell will know our Master by our love for each other? If there's no love shown, will they still know our Master?
Now, that being said, I still wade into arguments about versions and texts. I still debate Sianaticus versus Vaticanus versus Alexandrinus. I am not above weighing various text differences in order to translate a passage from Hebrew and Greek. So, in a way I too contribute to the "war of words" regarding the words of my Master. But I still need to live by what I discover as I delve into those words. I must still open my heart and mind, both, to permit my Master to build faith and teach me obedience. As I sift, I must also submit. It does me no good, and is one of the darkest evils of my life, to work with Scripture but not permit it to enter my heart and mind.
The things I do as I study should drive these words of my Master deeper into my soul, not wear them as as a badge of honor on the surface. If they have no impact on my life, I have wasted the amazing gift given to me by Master, the gift of His Scriptures, the gift given to His children across this globe. And it is a gift that so many of His children do not have a chance to enjoy. How can I neglect such an amazing gift? I live in a land where I have no excuse and have an education that is supposed to impel me even more. Time to grab the SCUBA gear and pen; I'm diving in!
The issue winds up being one of inspiration and "inerrancy". If these are the same event, but two very different perspectives, how can they both be "without error"? Ironically, the people asking this question seem to be just fine with four different Gospels in the Christian Scriptures. So why have a problem here?
As I've said before, my view of Scriptures, both Hebrew and Christian is "flexible" enough to incorporate such duplication without a problem. In fact, in my estimation, that there are two indicates a stronger case for their importance and inspiration. The Master I serve is not threatened by two different accounts of the same event of Him speaking personally with one of His human creatures. Something so disruptive to any person's psyche could easily make various impressions at various times. If He's not threatened, why should I be?
The point of application for me is that this is an example of my Master accommodating His human creatures. He visits Abram, eats his food, changes his name to Abraham, discusses the covenant and circumcision, asks about Sarai, changes her name to Sarah, predicts her delivering Isaac in one year, they both laugh, the child is to be named Isaac for their laughter, and then comes the discussion of God "nuking Sodom and Gomorrah from orbit".
What makes it into Scripture is this event in two pieces. In fact, there were probably other things said that didn't make it into the text. Since there wasn't a transcriptionist hanging on every word, I can't be sure there wasn't more said. So, my Master doesn't look at what was remembered, and say, "What have you done?! You got it all wrong! Scrap that and go back and do it again?" And the people editing this "anthology" of God didn't say, "Oops, we have two versions here. Which one do we keep? How do we 'meld' them if we keep both?" Instead they kept both, and kept them distinct. They recorded the two versions faithfully because they viewed them as both being inspired accounts of God visiting His servant Abraham.
God inspires the text to be written, but fails to protect the "inerrant" original texts? Really? So, He's capable of forming stars and galaxies, and subatomic particles, but protecting His inspired texts is just beyond Him? That was too hard? Read the text! "Is anything too difficult for the LORD?" Is my Master sovereign over all matter except pens? If these inerrant original texts were all that important for my Master to demonstrate His inspiration of them, is it rational to believe that He would not protect them? If they no longer exist, then isn't it also rational to believe they're unnecessary to demonstrate inspiration?
If followers of Jesus can agree that God is sovereign, why can't we also agree that the texts we have are the ones that God wants us to have? And if we agree on that, why can't we accept them as they are without some sort of reference to non existent texts we don't have because God didn't preserve them? Why fight over the very thing that reveals to us that our Master wants to bring us together and love each other? The world going to hell will know our Master by our love for each other? If there's no love shown, will they still know our Master?
Now, that being said, I still wade into arguments about versions and texts. I still debate Sianaticus versus Vaticanus versus Alexandrinus. I am not above weighing various text differences in order to translate a passage from Hebrew and Greek. So, in a way I too contribute to the "war of words" regarding the words of my Master. But I still need to live by what I discover as I delve into those words. I must still open my heart and mind, both, to permit my Master to build faith and teach me obedience. As I sift, I must also submit. It does me no good, and is one of the darkest evils of my life, to work with Scripture but not permit it to enter my heart and mind.
The things I do as I study should drive these words of my Master deeper into my soul, not wear them as as a badge of honor on the surface. If they have no impact on my life, I have wasted the amazing gift given to me by Master, the gift of His Scriptures, the gift given to His children across this globe. And it is a gift that so many of His children do not have a chance to enjoy. How can I neglect such an amazing gift? I live in a land where I have no excuse and have an education that is supposed to impel me even more. Time to grab the SCUBA gear and pen; I'm diving in!
No comments:
Post a Comment