RE: [asa] promise trumps biology

From: <>
Date: Mon Dec 08 2008 - 18:55:49 EST

Yes, Abraham didn't want his son to marry a Canaanite but the point is that that apparently had lower priority than staying in the promised land. & later in Genesis Joseph is married to an Egyptian, of "the cursed line of Ham." The ancestors of 2 of Israel's tribes result from this union & nobody seems concerned about that.


---- Dick Fischer <> wrote:
> Hi George:
> The point here would be that the Canaanites were from the cursed line
> from Ham, whereas Mesopotamia was home to Semites and the land of Canaan
> was not the land designated to Ham but to Shem. So it is both stay in
> the land allotted to you and chose a wife from the proper branch of the
> family tree. Racial purity is not the issue, I agree, but family
> bloodlines due appear to have importance, at least at this juncture as
> it pertains to the line of promise leading to Christ. I see nothing in
> this message that tells us today who we should marry or not marry -
> except to say we are encouraged to be equally yoked, i.e., Christians
> should marry Christians.
> Dick Fischer, GPA president
> Genesis Proclaimed Association
> "Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On
> Behalf Of George Murphy
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 12:26 PM
> To: ASA list
> Subject: [asa] promise trumps biology
> People have sometimes placed a lot of emphasis on the idea of biological
> continuity and "purity" in the Bible, especially the OT. Israel as
> God's "chosen people" has sometimes been understood in terms of
> biological isolation & some have tried to draw into this ideas about
> selective breeding for superior offspring &c. (Some here may remember
> Rich Faussette's contributions to the list some time ago.)
> With that in mind it's interesting to look at the instructions that
> Abraham gives his servant about getting a wife for Isaac in Gen.24:1-9.
> The servant is 1st told to swear that he won't get a wife for Isaac from
> the Canaanites, but to go back Mesopotamia and get a bride for him from
> among Abraham's relatives. OK, the servant says, but what if the woman
> won't come here with me? Should I take your son to back Mesopotamia? &
> Abraham says "See that you do not take my son back there." If the
> woman won't come then the servant is free of his oath but Isaac is not
> to go back to Mesopotamia.
> Now we're not told what should be done about a wife for Isaac in that
> case but a wife there had to be because of the promise about Abraham's
> descendants. The important point though is that remaining in Canaan,
> which is part of God's promise to Abraham & his descendants (Gen.12:7
> &c), seems to be more important than whatever idea of "racial purity"
> may be involved.
> Of course there are a number of other texts that speak against those
> notions of racial purity (e.g., Ruth), an idea that didn't really become
> important until after the exile with Ezra & Nehemiah. But the fact that
> this text occurs at such a important point in the patriarchal history
> gives it added significance.
> Shalom
> George

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Dec 8 17:30:38 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 08 2008 - 17:30:38 EST