ECT Abraham before he believed

[Interplanner]

A recent discussion of Isaac's birth (and the type of miracle which produced him) lead me to the question: even if descendency was not broken by the miracle conception, what was Abraham before he believed?

As far as I know he was Persian. further proof to me that once a person has faith as Paul explained, the race, class, descendency, gender etc no longer matters. Abraham's 'seed' refers to those who have faith. His children ('sarkos') may or may not have faith and thus may or may not be his 'seed.'

 

[turbosixx]

A recent discussion of Isaac's birth (and the type of miracle which produced him) lead me to the question: even if descendency was not broken by the miracle conception, what was Abraham before he believed?

As far as I know he was Persian. further proof to me that once a person has faith as Paul explained, the race, class, descendency, gender etc no longer matters. Abraham's 'seed' refers to those who have faith. His children ('sarkos') may or may not have faith and thus may or may not be his 'seed.'

That is an interesting point. I agree, those born again are like Isaac.

Gal. 4:28 And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.

I'm not sure where you are pulling Abraham's 'seed' from but Paul in Gal. 3 says the 'seed' is Christ and it's obvious that those in Christ many and of faith.

Gal. 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.

And of course, Christians are the children of promise just as Isaac.
Gal. 3:29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.

 

[Interplanner]

Thanks Turbo,
check the vocab of Rom 9:8
'sperma' = seed
'sarkos' = ordinary offspring
'tekna' = children

It says the 'sarkos' are not his 'tekna', but the 'sperma' are; they are those who have faith and were born of the promise.

I don't know the name of the other thread but the idea that Isaac was not born of sexual activity is proposed. The main support is that none of the usual OT expressions for sex are mentioned in the narrative, even though it does it at many other critical points. (Wouldn't the conception of Isaac be very critical!!!). 2nd, that Gal 4 says Ishmael was born (ie conceived) the normal way (obviously born normal) but Isaac was (conceived) through the promise. Hmmm, why mention that?

Once again, Isaac is a picture of those who are born from above.

 

[God's Truth]

A recent discussion of Isaac's birth (and the type of miracle which produced him) lead me to the question: even if descendency was not broken by the miracle conception, what was Abraham before he believed?

As far as I know he was Persian. further proof to me that once a person has faith as Paul explained, the race, class, descendency, gender etc no longer matters. Abraham's 'seed' refers to those who have faith. His children ('sarkos') may or may not have faith and thus may or may not be his 'seed.'

The Jews were blood related to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

God had a relationship with the Jews because they were blood related to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God made a promise to Abraham that He would bring the Savior through Abraham's seed. Why? Because God loved Abraham. Why? Because Abraham had faith in God and Abraham obeyed God.

Genesis 26:4-5I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws."


The Jews were blood related to Abraham and had the law with the ceremonial works. The ceremonial works were the way the Jews were to clean themselves; make themselves righteous, just to be able to worship God in the tent, and later in the temple.

Since Jesus came, God does not chose anyone anymore according to whom they are blood related.


John 1:13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.


A person was called a child of God because they were blood related to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and, because they obeyed the law.

A Jewish husband could marry a non Jew and by the husband's will could have his wife follow the Jewish law and become a Jew...by the husband's will.

A person could also become a child of God by their choice...by converting to Judaism.

God says it is no longer by those ways.

Now a person is chosen by God for having faith and obedience in Jesus Christ.

 

[turbosixx]

Thanks Turbo,
check the vocab of Rom 9:8
'sperma' = seed
'sarkos' = ordinary offspring
'tekna' = children

It says the 'sarkos' are not his 'tekna', but the 'sperma' are; they are those who have faith and were born of the promise.

I don't know the name of the other thread but the idea that Isaac was not born of sexual activity is proposed. The main support is that none of the usual OT expressions for sex are mentioned in the narrative, even though it does it at many other critical points. (Wouldn't the conception of Isaac be very critical!!!). 2nd, that Gal 4 says Ishmael was born (ie conceived) the normal way (obviously born normal) but Isaac was (conceived) through the promise. Hmmm, why mention that?

Once again, Isaac is a picture of those who are born from above.

Yes, Isaac is a picture. That is what a lot of the OT is, physical things to help us understand the spiritual.

My personal opinion is that there was sex involved. The promise was made about 25 years before he was born. Since it didn't happen soon enough, he had sex with Hagar. Just my thoughts.

 

[Interplanner]

The detail about Hagar's conception that is totally missing from Sarah's is what I find odd. I have read that 18:12 is something like 'we've been done with our sexual life for a few years now.' And finally there is the remark in 21:2 'at the very time' as though they didn't know...because they weren't. Nothing totally conclusive, but Gal 4 says 'not (conceived) the normal way.' Unless Paul was clumsy enough to confuse conception with birth...

 

[turbosixx]

The detail about Hagar's conception that is totally missing from Sarah's is what I find odd. I have read that 18:12 is something like 'we've been done with our sexual life for a few years now.' And finally there is the remark in 21:2 'at the very time' as though they didn't know...because they weren't. Nothing totally conclusive, but Gal 4 says 'not (conceived) the normal way.' Unless Paul was clumsy enough to confuse conception with birth...

It's totally possible that God waited till they stopped so there would be zero question it was God, but having been barren all her life I would think that even having relations and the faith they had, they would still have no doubt it was a miracle of God.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

I have read that 18:12 is something like 'we've been done with our sexual life for a few years now.'

Dont believe every fable that comes down the pike.

God opened Sarah's womb same as he did Elisabeth's.

Both women past child bearing age.


Then when Abraham was even older he had children by Keturah.



Genesis 25:1 KJV


1 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.

 

[Interplanner]

Is the account of 25:1-4 necessarily later? It may have been earlier. Notice how Moses does put things together like that. Gen 1 tells creation one way; ch 2 another way. But not sequenced.

 

[whitestone]

There not sequenced for a reason Gen.1;1 ect begins and then in Genesis 2:4 KJV is the name of one book,,,the first book ends and the second book by Moses begins in Genesis 5:1 KJV ,,,one is the generations of the heaven and the earth,,,

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Is the account of 25:1-4 necessarily later? It may have been earlier. Notice how Moses does put things together like that. Gen 1 tells creation one way; ch 2 another way. But not sequenced.

This is not even a legitimate question.

Abraham was childless before Hagar had Ishmael.

Otherwise Abraham would not have been needing an heir.

 

[Interplanner]

It still does not set a date because it is just an account of that line without connection to other events, or any events at all.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

There not sequenced for a reason Gen.1;1 ect begins and then in Genesis 2:4 KJV is the name of one book,,,the first book ends and the second book by Moses begins in Genesis 5:1 KJV ,,,one is the generations of the heaven and the earth,,,

He should have no problem understanding this, as he has affirmed himself that translators missed the boat on when to begin chapters.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

It still does not set a date because it is just an account of that line without connection to other events, or any events at all.

It does not need to set a date.

Abraham had no children before Ishmael.

If you want to contend that Keturah's children were between Ishmael and Isaac, then that blows yer theory outta the water about Abraham not being able to perform anymore.

Sarah was beautiful even in old age, perhaps you can elaborate on why he would kick her to the curb?

 

[Interplanner]

Beauty does not solve the gritty Hebrew expression: I'm worn out and my husband is as good as dead. 18:12.

All these questions flow from Gal 4:23 where the conception of Isaac is of a promise whereas the conception of Ishmael was the ordinary way. So....what is the ordinary way? Right. What contrasts with that?

In addition, ROm 4 and 9 add that the coming of Isaac is a picture of all those born from above. Born of God. In the covenant cutting, Abraham was put to sleep. In the conception of Isaac, was he likewise 'out of the picture'?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Beauty does not solve the gritty Hebrew expression: I'm worn out and my husband is as good as dead. 18:12.

All these questions flow from Gal 4:23 where the conception of Isaac is of a promise whereas the conception of Ishmael was the ordinary way. So....what is the ordinary way? Right. What contrasts with that?

In addition, ROm 4 and 9 add that the coming of Isaac is a picture of all those born from above. Born of God. In the covenant cutting, Abraham was put to sleep. In the conception of Isaac, was he likewise 'out of the picture'?

Did you read anything I wrote?

 

[whitestone]

He should have no problem understanding this, as he has affirmed himself that translators missed the boat on when to begin chapters.

yep the most difficult part of eschatology is to believe that God said in Isaiah 46:10 KJV that in the beginning he gave both the beginning and the end. So if one is reasoning through the end of these days they first should see the prophecy of the "generation(S) of the heaven(S)and of the earth...",

 

[Interplanner]

What do you think I missed 1mind? Some couples like that stop having sex... Once again bringing us back to Paul's NT belief that the conceptions were disimilar.

On the intuitive level, when Sarah laughs about "having this pleasure (of a baby) in my old age" it is reaonsable, in this context, to think that she had given up on the pleasure of sex, maybe years before, in her saying: "Now that I'm worn out..." (18:12).

 

[Interplanner]

yep the most difficult part of eschatology is to believe that God said in Isaiah 46:10 KJV that in the beginning he gave both the beginning and the end. So if one is reasoning through the end of these days they first should see the prophecy of the "generation(S) of the heaven(S)and of the earth...",

When he said Is 46, he was referring to Cyrus, the man from a far off country, to perform his will. Cp 44:28 (150 years before the fact, as I recall), and 45:1.

The end from the beginning has to do with Israel's end. Or alternately, "you will know the end by looking closer at the beginning," which is why I believe the Bible gets back to the worldwide mission theme of Gen 1-11 and does not stay on Israel only and does not need to do anything else in Israel after the DofJ. Even the opening promises to Israel were about the Seed blessing the whole world.

 

[whitestone]

When he said Is 46, he was referring to Cyrus, the man from a far off country, to perform his will. Cp 44:28 (150 years before the fact, as I recall), and 45:1.

The end from the beginning has to do with Israel's end. Or alternately, "you will know the end by looking closer at the beginning," which is why I believe the Bible gets back to the worldwide mission theme of Gen 1-11 and does not stay on Israel only and does not need to do anything else in Israel after the DofJ. Even the opening promises to Israel were about the Seed blessing the whole world.

Gan,Eden,Pardis,,paradise where the thief was told he would be,and the third heaven Paul spoke of were the same?