In Genesis, Abraham is chosen by God to be the father of many nations and the one through whom the covenant is established (Genesis 12:1–3; 17:1–8). However, at the same time, Genesis also introduces Melchizedek, king of Salem and "priest of God Most High" (Genesis 14:18–20), who is presented as a righteous and significant figure. Given that Melchizedek was already a priest of the true God, what does Scripture or Christian theology say about why God specifically chose Abraham—rather than Melchizedek or any other righteous men of that time—to make His covenant with? I'm looking for answers based on biblical evidence or theological reasoning, rather than speculation.

Wikipedia says the following: > The patriarchs and matriarchs were either real individuals or believable composites of people who **lived in the "patriarchal age", the 2nd millennium BCE**. But, in the 1970s, new arguments concerning Israel's past and the biblical texts **challenged these views;** What is the most current favoured date?

In its article on the decline of human life spans, [CreationWiki](http://creationwiki.org/Human_longevity) states, >Interestingly, Noah died only two years before Abraham was born. Unfortunately for readers they provide no biblical support. What is the biblical basis for this claim?

Why did Abraham ignore God's command while in Mesopotamia and choose to make a turnaround to Haran instead of going to the land God would show him?

Considering that in the Jewish mindset at the time of Jesus, as we learn from Paul in Romans 9:6-13, the Jews thought that they were "the children of promise" descended from Isaac (not Ishmael) and "God's elect" descended from Jacob (thus Paul citing God's election of Jacob over Esau), **why then, in John 8, the Judeans refer to themselves as "children of Abraham" rather than the "children of Jacob" or something else?** I understand that Paul used Abraham as a model of faith, but faith was not the topic in John 8:30-59. Why did Jesus's interlocutors refer to themselves as "children of Abraham"? Did they implicitly acknowledge that the *Idumeans* (roughly [the leftover of the Edomites in the Hellenistic period](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edom#Hellenistic_period) , descendants of Esau) and the *inhabitants of the Nabataean Kingdom* (descendants of Ishmael [according to Josephus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmaelites#Josephus '_Antiquities)) were their brothers too, two neighboring peoples in the South that they looked down on? Wouldn't it be more natural that in the discussion of freedom they wanted to emphasize to Jesus of their being the *children of promise* and of their *election* over Esau? Or to take it one step further, since they were from the Jerusalem area, maybe they should have called themselves "**children of Judah**" whose ancestors may have stayed there, not ever been "enslaved" (being exiled to Assyria / Babylon)?

The whole verse of Acts 7:2, "And he said, Hear me, brethren and fathers! "The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran." God ask Abraham to "Depart from your country and your relatives, and come into the land that I will show you." (Acts 7:3). At Acts 7:8, God gave Abraham the covenant of circumcision; and so Abraham became the father of Isaac, and circumcised him on the eighth day; and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the twelve partriarchs." This event occurred at Genesis 17:1-10. Genesis 17:1-2, "Now when Abram was ninety-nine year old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; Walk before Me, and be blameless, vs2, And I will establish My covenant between Me and you, And I will multiply you exceedingly." Genesis 17:10-11, "This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you; every male among you shall be circumcised. vs11, And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you." My question is geared to those who deny the deity of Jesus Christ. Since Genesis 17:1-2 clearly states that God appeared to Abraham what form did God take? I fully understand that the Bible teaches that God (the Father) cannot be seen even according to Jesus Christ Himself at John 5:47 and at John 6:46. So how is this "seemingly" contradiction reconciled?

I was reading 12:3 and I started to wonder whether or not that blessing was for Palestinians too, as descendants of Abraham. Thank you.

**Origination** Someone once quipped that ***Abraham was a Gentile before He was a Jew!*** By that it was a reference to the literature that Abraham lived with his ancestors in Ur of the Chaldees. That was his native land. (Genesis 11:31, 15:7, Nehemiah 9:7) Either because of economic necessity or looming military invasion by the Assyrians, the whole clan of Abraham's ancestors moved up north in the upper Fertile Crescent to Haran. This was in the land of the Hittites, and the city was an commercial center for caravans moving across the Tiger-Euphrates valleys. So it was said by one of the prophets, "Your mother was a Hittite." (Ezekiel 16:3-4) Then Abraham moved down the western part of the Fertile Crescent into the land of the many Canaanite tribes, and became a traveling nomad there. >Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land I will show you...and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. (Genesis 12:1-3) Because of this origination, it would be proper to say that Abram (Abraham) was indeed a Gentile---according to the broad definition applied to non-Jews in the world. He was an *ethnic* as the Bible uses the term. And so there was no difference between the humanity of Abraham's family and any other people. **Promise to Man** It was to this man that God spoke the ***promise of the Seed***. And it was a ***promise that engulfed all of humanity***, not just one race. Of course, Abraham needed a place to live, but the book of Hebrews explained that the *real destination of living* was a ***spiritual city, whose builder and maker was God.*** >By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange land...for he looked for a city which has foundations whose builder and maker is God.
...They that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
But now they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly; wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared for them a city. (Hebrews 11:9-17) **Since This is So** Since Abraham is of Gentile stock...since the promise of blessing was to the whole world...since the main goal is a "spiritual city" (spiritual realities)...would this not be sufficient reason, to not only interpret the Scriptures as a message for Equality of all Races, but be a basis to resolve the messy situation of Racism in the minds---and hearts---of people around the world? After all, is it not written: >For God so loved the world, that He gave... (John 3:16) >There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond or free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ. (Galatians 3:28-29) >For He is our peace who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of partition between us. (Ephesians 2:14) Could not the preaching and proclamation of the ancient promise to Abraham---without all the later Jewish legal trappings and rites and traditional customs---be a starting point, a rallying call, for racial reconciliation? For peace on earth and good will to men? All Gentiles (ethnics), Abraham and everyone else, are the same flesh and blood people...whom God loves. (Acts 17:26)

I was thinking and have come up with a concept that I will call the "Rule of Majority". Assuming that one of the Abrahamic religions is true, then if we are imbued with the Holy Spirit, and that the aforementioned Spirit guides our actions, then the sect with the most followers must be true? For He is with us always (*cf.* Mat 28:20), and the Holy Spirit is a helper which helps to show us the right path (*cf.* John 14:26). And furthermore, I am aware of the Parable of the Narrow Path, but could this refer to the correct sect being a minority *globally*? Thus, my question is: What from scripture, tradition, or common sense can buffer or destroy the so-called "Rule of Majority"?

Paul says in Romans 9:7-8 >**7** and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” **8** This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. And Galatians 3:16 says >Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. But if the promise to Abraham and his offspring was for Christ or us as believers, why was circumcision, if it was the sign of the covenant, given to Abraham’s physical offspring, since they’re not part of the Abrahamic covenant? My best guess right now is that the promise in Genesis 12 has some double-fulfillment features going on, like 2 Samuel 7 and Isaiah 7. As an alternative to a direct answer, links to helpful related articles or books would also be appreciated.

Abraham was from a pagan family, separated by his call to God. His families I supposed weren't different from the Canaanites in pagan worship. In some instances, the Canaanites proved more morally upright than Abraham and Isaac by instructing their fellows not to interfere with Isaac and Abraham's wives (family), meting with dire consequences anyone who does break such binding law. Genesis 26: 6-11 If this proves true, why did Abraham and Isaac instructed the heirs of the covenant never to marry from the Canaanites (pagans) but should marry from their families (pagans) in Padan-aran?

I remembered recently that long ago, in middle school, my history teacher told us in the class that Yahweh, the Hebrew God was a god part of a polytheistic religion, and that He wasn't even the king of gods(like Zeus from Greek religion), and that Abraham choose Him(Yahweh) from the other gods to be the all-mighty, all-knowing, all-powerful, single God to his new monotheistic religion, that he passed to his son Issac and his grand-son Israel and it became the God of Israel nation and trough Jesus(who was part of the Israeli nation, kingdom of Judah), it became God-The Father for us, Christians. This sounds like a blasphemy to me, but is this based on any historical discovery, or has it any theological or historical veracity?

What is the family tree diagram explaining how Sarah was Abraham's half sister (same father different mothers)? > She is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and so she became my wife. - Gen 20:12 I tried googling it and I found this [link](https://stone-kingdom.net/index.php?cID=398) which had the following diagram: But that doesn't work as sister, because she's Terach's grandaughter. Abraham's niece.

Most of the commentary that I have read regarding the identities of the Three Visitors to Abraham in Genesis 18 have all agreed that God (without specifying which Person) was one of them. Many seem to think that the other two visitors were angels. However, I have seen it indicated that "The three visitors are considered by some to represent the Trinity." (cf. *Understanding the Scriptures* by Scott Hahn) Does anyone know of any Catholic sources (perhaps, Church Fathers, Catholic Saints, papal documents, etc.) which suggest that the aforementioned Three Visitors to Abraham were indeed, the Holy Trinity?

I would like to know, if possible, at least the approximate age of Isaac when Abraham offered him as a sacrifice to God. Based on Abraham's advanced age, it would seem that Isaac did not resist in being bound to the wood. Also, it seems that he was no toddler since he helped carry the wood that he was to be bound to. Has a reasonable estimate of Isaac's age ever been ascertained at the time of his sacrificial offering to God? Thank you.

It is generally accepted that Abraham lived 175 years . However, the dates when he lived are rather fuzzy and hotly debated. When was he alive and what reasons would you give for your conclusion? What methods have gone into determining the dates in which Abraham (and perhaps other early biblical figures) lived and died?

Genesis 16:10, "Moreover, the angel of the Lord said to her, "I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they shall be too many to count." Vs11, "The angel of the Lord said to her further, Behold, you are with child, and you shall bear a son; and you shall call him Ishmael, because the Lord has given heed to your affliction." At vs13, "Then she called the name of the Lord who spoke to her, "Thou are a God who sees", for she said, "Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?" Genesis 17:1-2, "Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and send to him, I am God Almighty; Walk before Me, and be blameless. Vs2, And I will establish MY covenant between Me and you, And I will multiply you exceedingly." Vs3, "And Abraham fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying," Verses 4-7 God reiterates His everlasting covenant with Abram, who is now called "Abraham." So again, here's my question? Is the angel of the Lord who multiplied Hagar's descendants the same being who appeared as God Almighty at Genesis 17:1-2 who multiplied Abraham's descendants? Please provide Biblical evidence for you position.

Proponents of an [intermediate state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_state) typically regard the story of Lazarus & the rich man (Luke 16:19-31) to be informative on the realities of the underworld. According to the story, Hades / Sheol would have at least two compartments -- one of comfort for the righteous and one of torment for the wicked. > 22 **The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side**. The rich man also died and was buried, 23 **and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side**. 24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; **but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish**. 26 And besides all this, **between us and you a great chasm has been fixed**, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ [Luke 16:22-26 ESV] Some even see a connection with Luke 23:43 *"And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, **today you will be with me in paradise**.”"*, arguing that Jesus likely meant that He and the repentant criminal would meet again in Abraham's bosom that day (today in *paradise*). See [Is there room for interpreting "paradise" in Luke 23:43 as a reference to "Abraham's Bosom" (Luke 16:19-31)?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/74473/38524) But if Sheol / Hades has always had a compartment for the righteous, and if said compartment is of comfort and joy, a paradise where the righteous wait in comfort and bliss for the advent of the Messiah, then how do advocates of an intermediate state explain the fact that OT authors such as David, Isaiah, Job, Ecclesiastes and others seemed to be oblivious to this compartment when they spoke about death in their writings? It is as if they were completely unaware of its existence. I will cite some passages in a second, but as a summary, I'll share a quote from Rajesh's answer [here](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/74036/38524) : > ## Here's The #1 Point ## > > Here is, by far, the most significant point: While God might have allowed the Israelites to believe that the dead were conscious(even allowing some such as Saul and his contemporaries to believe that they were capable of being contacted), you know what's one thing God **never** *once* allowed them to believe? That the **righteous go to heaven** and the **unrighteous go to hell**; more accurately, that the righteous go to *one compartment of Sheol to be in bliss* and the unrighteous go to *another compartment of Sheol to be in torment*. In fact, quite the opposite! Whatever the Israelites *did* believe about the dead, it utterly opposes any notions of heaven and hell(or individual compartments of Sheol, one dedicated for the righteous who live there in bliss, and another dedicated for the unrighteous who live there in torment). > > I want you, for one moment, to completely **forget** *everything* you've ever thought, believed, or assumed about the state of the dead. If you were to then read each of the following passages, would you ever in a *billion years* come out with the notion that the dead are either being tormented in hell(compartment of Sheol for the unrighteous) *or* experiencing bliss in heaven(compartment of Sheol for the righteous, i.e. paradise/Abraham's bosom)? We will see that such notions are *thoroughly foreign* to the Bible. He then proceeds to quote a number of passages from multiple OT authors in support of these assertions. And to be honest, I have to admit that he has a good point. Passages such as Psalm 30:9, 6:4-5, 115:17, 88:10-12, Isaiah 14:9-11, 26:14, 38:17-19, Job 10:21-22, 14:10-12, 17:13-16, Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 strongly suggest that people in Old Testament times referred to the state of the dead in terms that reveal no knowledge about a blissful paradise in Sheol where they would meet Abraham and other saints. **Question**: According to proponents of an intermediate state, why does the Old Testament seem to be oblivious to the existence of the Bosom of Abraham?

There are several examples in the Bible where faithful people were given a new name: - Abram became Abraham (Genesis 17:5 ) - Sarai became Sarah (Genesis 17:15 ) - Jacob became Israel (Genesis 32:28 ; 35:10 ) - Simon became Peter (Matthew 16:18 ; John 1:42 ) Usually, we refer to Abraham as Abraham, Sarah as Sarah, and Peter as Peter – using their new names. Given that pattern, why is it more common to refer to Jacob as Jacob, rather than his new name, Israel? Interestingly, it seems that Jacob was given his new name twice, as if he forgot it the first time (Genesis 32 and 35). Among the mentions of Jacob/Israel in the Bible, there are 17 occurrences of the phrase “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” but only four occurrences of “Abraham, Isaac, and Israel.” Sometimes God himself uses the name Jacob, after having said “you will no longer be called Jacob” (Genesis 35:10). As evidence of modern usage, the Wikipedia article for Abram/Abraham is Abraham , but the Wikipedia article for Jacob/Israel is Jacob . Also, Abraham and Jacob are the names of the relevant tags here on Christianity Stack Exchange.

I know that Abraham came before Moses, and so there were no Ten Commandments yet. However, if Abraham killed Isaac out of obedience to God, would that be considered a sin in any way? I feel like the answer is clearly "no", but I would appreciate any input.