A Technical Problem? (1)
Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, “Will a child be born to a man one hundred years old? And will Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?” Genesis 17:17 NASB
Laughed– Before Isaac was born, God made a promise to Abraham. But when Abraham heard the promise, he couldn’t believe it. Nothing in his experience would allow him to imagine a 100 year-old man with a 90 year-old wife to have a child by natural procreation. So he laughed at God’s announcement.
Some time later that same announcement is vocalized in the presence of both Abraham and Sarah. This time the text reads: “Sarah laughed to herself, saying, ‘After I have become old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?’”[1] But this time the reaction is different. When Abraham laughed, God made no judgment. He simply reassured Abraham that the event would come to pass. When Sarah laughs, negative consequences ensue. Sarah is confronted, and she lies. Personal shame is involved.
Why does Abraham get a pass but Sarah doesn’t?
The verbs in Hebrew are the same in both texts. They are both Qal waw-consecutive + imperfect of ṣāḥaq. There is no difference in the circumstances except this: Abraham laughs out loud and Sarah laughs to herself. In order to find some reasonable explanation why Abraham is not condemned for the same act as Sarah, Ramban suggests that laughing to yourself is a form of mockery while laughing out loud is a form of astonished praise. In other words, according to Ramban, Abraham believes the promise but finds it overwhelming while Sarah does not believe the promise and therefore derides it. This seems to stretch the text to fit a preconceived justification. Can we really tell the difference between laughing because you are nonplussed and laughing because you scorn the claim, especially when one of the two cases is silent laughter? Yes, Sarah lies when she is confronted, but the shame isn’t the result of her lie. It is the result of her silent laughter. It would appear that the real motivation behind this “technical” interpretation is an attempt to save Abraham’s reputation as the patriarch—and sacrifice Sarah on the altar of unfortunate justice (but she is used to that).
Regardless of how you try to wiggle around the text, these two passages raise an important question: Is the text really about events, that is, does it actually report the news, or is it written with agendas for an audience so that what matters is the impact on the audience, not the actual occurrences? In this case, does the audience need to know that Abraham’s laughter is righteous even if Sarah’s isn’t because Abraham is the important character in the story and he can’t appear to mock God?
And if this story is “audience-driven,” how many other stories are the same?
Topical Index: laugh, ṣāḥaq, exegesis, Genesis 17:17, Genesis 18:12
One of your first books that caught my attention. Went to the idea of untwisting scripture, where do you start. Genesis 1:1. In the beginning? Could be a headache, or could be needed revelation. For the proper paradigm shift for the entire word of God. Another early book I read, from Erwin Lutzer oh, I think the title was as God is revealed to man. Excellent. Changes everything, not how man perceives it, but how God wants us to understand it.. we cannot change the fact oh, that God wants his proper image revealed, he loves us, and gave himself for us., and as I see it, that pattern continues. Do I laugh at how is that possible. Or do I laugh at the possibilities that there are?
Here I am again, replying to my own post, causes me to laugh, entering into his rest, for on the 7th Day…. How many preachers read it preach on it but do not see the Sabbath as the same day as God Called It To be, God does not change. Help me to laugh. Even to chuckle.
Skip, how is going? We live in a world of nauseating suspicion, false agendas and narratives that smack us in the face non-stop. This keeps our faces bruised and bloodied, so we can not see the real truth of what is going on.
How would we know if there are many stories in the Torah that are audience driven to illicit a certain response? Were we there to witness this? Are we reading from our age into theirs? So the ancient writers and storytellers were trying to shape the audience to their agenda, and they were not faithful to tell the real scoop of the story?
Yet we can study modern scholars, and if we pay close attention to what they are writing, we can see they have an agenda, too! Are they audience driven? Are they motivated by the monetary reward, and not to the long term ramifications of their information they are sharing? Are they motivated by what their peers might have to say and write about them? Are their intentions godly or ungodly?
Why is their such suspicion of the writers and editors of Scriptures by modern scholars? Why do they not scrutinize their own writings and their peers with the same vigor? What is their real purpose? Do we need to be suspicious of conservative scholars of Scriptures? Can only we only trust those who hold a more liberal view of the text? Why?
Oops! “Why is their such suspicion” Should read – Why is there such suspicion. A person was working on our plumbing while writing.
Maybe it’s both. Reporting the news and also being aware of the impact it has on the audience. Telling a story and then seeing the affect it has on the audience. Once again Skip
you set up a scenario that provokes much thought without any certain answers. “ could be this, or it could be that”. I am reminded of Hebrews 4:13, in regards to the reason or reasons for the laughter. God observes the heart. Out of the heart proceeds…. I’m not actually sure what I am talking about here, may understand a bit, but I thought I would jump in anyhow. I’m finding that realizing there are many different translations and different ways of seeing things. How you come to conclusions, and are they accurate? Who can we trust? If there are so many variables can you trust anything? Being taught a certain belief system based on somebody else’s conclusions and then finding that you have come up with your own conclusion, where does that leave you !? What does the Bible actually say and what does the Bible actually teach? Did Jonah and the whale actually happen or is it just a story with a point? Does it matter? I’m just thinking out loud here.
Sometimes when I have received what I would call insight into God‘s word, I have occasionally laughed out loud. It’s more laughter out of amazement than it is unbelief, in fact, it’s probably laughter based on believing. Sarah’s laughter is almost like she is saying to herself, “that is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard!”. Let the old man believe whatever he wants but I think it’s ridiculous! For whatever it’s worth! Shalom
Paul Johnson – A History Of The Jews
“Still more remarkable is the attention devoted to women, the leading role they play, their vivacity and emotional power. Abraham’s wife, Sarah, is the first person in history recorded as laughing. When, as a an old woman, she is told she will bear the much wanted son, she did not believe it but ‘laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?’ (Genesis 18:12) : her laughter is bitter-sweet, sad, ironic, even cynical, a foretaste of so much Jewish laughter through the ages. When the son, Isaac, was born, however, ‘Sarah said, God hath made me to laugh, so all that hear will laugh with me’ – and laughter is joyful and triumphant, communicating her delight to us over the distance of four millennia.” Page 15
Within the Jewish reading cycle, the life of Sarah is the only one written about a woman. She must have some Valor., the third reading in Genesis.
Skip asks “Why does Abraham get a pass but Sarah doesn’t?”
OK. I will ask the “elephant in the cosmos” question. Is God sexist? If yes, it would answer this and, no doubt, many other questions and questionable proceedings of the Bible in which females seemingly get the short end of the stick or the hard end of a stone. It certainly would explain the reason why chauvinism and patriarchy are so ingrained in most social structures if we do indeed bear the image of a Discriminating Divine. I am confident this issue has been addressed, given the explosion of field of Women’s Studies in the Academy and their liberal bent, but I wonder if any serious conservative scholarly study, Rabbinic or Christian, has scrutinised this touchy topic? Or is this just another example of “Theology Gone Wild” and the reimaging of “God into our image” movement? It would certainly be easier to justify (my sometimes) boorish sexist behavior if “in heaven, so on earth”. Finally, I hope I don’t get pulverized by any peeved Protestant pachyderms…or (en)lightning bolts.
(en)lightenting bolts HAS to be your classic witicism for my money.
Depending on how one defines “conservative”, Gordon Fee (he’s a ‘continuationist’ with regard to the spiritual gifts) makes a strong argument that 1 Cor 14:34-35 is an interpolation (The First Epistle to the Corinthians NICNT, pp 699-708). He does so by investigating both the external evidence (the extant Greek texts) and the internal (overall context). To my way of thinking, any fair-minded person can see that these do not really fit contextually. Text critically, though the large majority of witnesses have this text, some have it after verse 40 rather than 33. Fee opines that it was originally a gloss placed into the margin of a manuscript which then made its way into the another manuscript via insertion by its copyist who thought it had been omitted by the previous scribe.
In any case, I don’t know of any comprehensive study in this regard, but I’m aware of other scholars who question similar passages.
Never entirely sure how to interpret this particular line of questioning. R. W. Emerson suggests we “Read for the author behind the author” A sugestion that implies to me a discernment of the true nature of the spirit authoring through the author. I am confused by this line of questioning. Is it to question who exactly is the “Author behind the author” or to suggest we are to be considering if indeed there actually is an author behind the author of the scriprures? Is it to help us perhaps conclude the scriptures are not devinely inspired but rather contrived to create that impression. Foundationally I must admit this particular suggestion causes me to question the author behind the author all the more. Yet it is Yehovah alone who judges the motives of the heart. I can perhaps question them and in this particular case, I do.
The above is in no way to disparage or criticise our brother Skip for his work or intents. We all are consistently (I hope) working on discerning the spirit that drives us. Life or death rides on the wings of our words. Like arrows they fly that is a profound responsibility. It has been my experience that discernment of the spirit behind the words is critical for ourselves and others….It is a deeper level of sensitivity than most are participating in. Words that fall flat or do not ring of life and truth are often not from that source, our minds generate a lot of head knowledge and play lots of games with it, but without the spirit or inspiration from the source of life they can fall dead or on death ears or simply tintelate the intelects…No blame, shame or guilt, just an encouragement for sensitivity for one and all and myself as well. It should be added that the spirit can inform how we receive words and often the wrong one can cloud the air causing reactions rather than interactions. That was my concern and why I cam back to elaborate…