Module 6: Week 6 — Abraham and Isaac
Answer thoroughly the following questions based on the Learn material in Module 6: Week 6.
1. How does Genesis 18 contrast with Genesis 19 regarding God’s character and activities?
Genesis 18-19 gives a deep look at how God works with people. The first chapter
sets a model of open-handed hospitality, an example we can try to copy. The second
chapter warns that we cannot ignore serious wrongdoing for too long. As Davis (196)
notes, the clash between the two chapters explains the big idea of the Bible: God’s link
with people needs both warm care and firm justice. Recognizing that mix asks us to be
like Abraham – welcoming strangers, praying for the world – while staying alert for the
evil that can pull down a whole city (Davis, 196).
2. Describe the typical hospitality displayed in Genesis 18 during this time.
Abraham’s welcome of the three visitors is more than good manners. It follows
the ancient rule that a host must give shelter and food, it shows the split of work
between women who bake and men who kill, and it uses a calf and wine as concrete
signs that a higher plan is at work. The quick pull-together of men and women, the value
of the herd animal and the shared drink all act as proof that what happened was not a
vision. In this story, opening a house to strangers becomes a step toward a holy promise,
a social pact that ties a family to a divine covenant, and a clear picture of how everyday
chores can become sacred acts (Davis, 197).
3. Describe the kind of laughter of Sarah.
Sarah’s derisive laugh brings together many parts: a real human worry about age
and fertility, maybe a gap in Abraham’s sharing of God’s plan, and a dramatic tension
that makes the birth of Isaac feel more miraculous. Seeing Sarah as stubborn misses the
point; her laugh is an honest response to a huge claim. That response fuels the story’s
power, showing that the Abrahamic covenant is not just an abstract guarantee but a
lived reality that can change even the most skeptical hearts. In the end, the laugh does
not weaken the promise— it sharpens it, making the final fulfillment of the promise
shine even brighter (Davis, 198).
4. How does the Lord evaluate Abraham?
The Bible shows God grading Abraham on three linked ideas: faith – trusting God
even when things look impossible, obedience – doing what God asks even when it’s
painful, and consistency – keeping that same direction through a whole life. Together
they paint a picture of a man whose relationship with God is close and serves as a
model. When God says Abraham is “faithful, obedient, and consistent,” it’s not only a
shout-out to past actions. It sets a lasting standard for anyone trying to live by a divine
promise. Knowing how God looks at Abraham helps us see that true right-standing
comes from the mix of belief, action and staying the course (Davis,199)
5. When is intercessory prayer effective?
The claim that intercessory prayer only works when one sees how awesome
God’s judgement is asks for a nuanced look. Theologically, reverence keeps petitions in
step with the ultimate moral order. Philosophically, it secures intentional coherence.
Psychologically, it fuels the confidence that leads to tangible benefits. Prayer can still
achieve results without that awareness, yet recognition of God’s supreme judgement
acts as a catalyst that maximizes its power. In short, intercessory prayer hits its highest
potential when the mind of the petitioner is tuned to the awe-inspiring scope of
divine
judgement, letting human asking merge smoothly with divine will (Davis, 199)
6. What was the reason for God’s judgment of Sodom and Gommorrah?
God’s talk with Abraham about Sodom works on many levels. It puts the depth of
human evil on the table, stresses that God’s holiness can’t mix with sin, shows that
divine judgment aims to be fair, and shows that asking for mercy can move even a holy
judge. The story builds a big picture that shapes Abraham’s view of God’s character –
and hands down a model for later people. It says we should spot sin, hold to purity, trust
that justice can be fair, and use our voice to ask for mercy. The echo in Psalm 106 keeps
the point fresh, reminding believers that God’s judgement can be both just and kind – as
long as the righteous get a chance to speak up (Davis, 200)
7. How did God destroy Sodom? (Give options.)
The morning after, the Lord blew away Sodom, Gomorrah and some nearby towns with
what the text calls “brimstone and fire.” What exactly those words stand for has puzzled
scholars for years. Some thought a volcano erupted, but geology in the region seems to rule
that out. One leading idea, offered by J. Penrose Harland, says a huge earthquake may have set
off blasts. He writes that a great shake, perhaps with lightning, turned the area into ruin and a
blaze. The fire, he suggests, might have come from sudden gas releases and asphalt seeping
out, sparked by lightning or by hearth flames spreading. (Davis 203) Therefore, the picture still
looks like natural disaster more than miracle.
8. How is this story of Lot often depicted in the New Testament?
The fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 was such a stark disaster that New Testament
writers could not ignore it. They kept bringing the event up – in the Gospels, Paul’s
letters, even Revelation – to make a strong warning against “turning back” to old, dead
religious systems. The tragedy moves beyond its time, working as a theological sign that
calls believers to stay firm, to keep looking beyond any earthly temple, and to live in the
living presence of God among the people. The New Testament turns a historical horror
into a lasting call: stay steady, or you end up in the ruins of former loyalties. (Davis, 203)
9. Discuss the strategic location of Gerar.
Putting all the pieces together, Gerar seems to need a town near a big waterway,
outside Israelite borders, with Philistine habits, and with wells. The wadi esh-Shariʿah
supplies the water. The absence from tribal lists points to Philistine control. The Roman-
Byzantine map slots Gerara right where Tell Abu Hureira sits. And the archaeology gives
us Philistine pottery and wells that match the Bible.All these strands weave a convincing
picture that Tell Abu Hureira is the most likely spot for the biblical Gerar. Future digs
might add more detail, but the current set of facts already gives a solid answer to a
mystery that has lasted for centuries. (Davis, 211)
10. T/F—Abimelech is the real name of the king of Gerar. Explain your answer.
False, Putting together the biblical passages, the meaning of the word, and what
we know about ancient Near Eastern naming, the best guess is that Abimelech acted as
a dynastic title among the Philistines. It appears on different kings, can accompany
another personal name, and fits the pattern of other cultures using generic royal labels.
The fact that Judges 9 gives us a person named Abimelech does not weaken the case – it
probably shows the title’s prestige seeping into personal naming. Even with limited data,
the spread of the term across ages and places backs up the idea of a shared royal
epithet. So
saying “Abimelech was a dynastic title” matches the evidence and shows that the biblical
writers were using the familiar royal naming habits of their time. (Davis, 211)
11. How does this encounter (Genesis 20) put the promise in jeopardy again? (Consider the
events in Genesis 21.)
Genesis 20 gives us a puzzling picture: a woman far past child-bearing age is
shown as so beautiful a foreign king wants her, and Abraham makes a risky lie to protect
her. Instead of showing Abraham as just jealous, the story uses Sarah’s “unusual beauty”
to point out that divine favor can go beyond human standards. It asks us to rethink our
ideas on age, attractiveness and right-and-wrong, reminding that in the biblical view the
ordinary can become extraordinary. Abraham’s fear – odd by today’s eyes – shows a
deep sense that the promise is fragile and a father might go far to shield it. In the end
the tale shows God’s care can show up in unexpected ways, making even the most
unlikely scenes work for the big story of promise and fulfilment. (Davis, 211)
12. How is the word “prophet” used of Abraham in Genesis 20?
Calling Abraham a prophet, as Davis points out, highlights the official quality of
his intercessory prayer rather than any gift of prediction. By foregrounding Abraham’s
sanctioned mediating role, the biblical writer backs a prayer model that is relational,
communal and institutionally accepted. This view not only deepens our picture of
Abraham’s place in the prophetic tradition, it also offers a lasting example of how people
and groups might approach the divine: through authorized, heartfelt intercession, not
just idle speculation about what tomorrow might bring. (Davis, 211)
13. What does Abraham’s covenant with Abimelech tell us about Abraham?
Genesis 21:22-34 paints Abraham as a ruler whose strength does not rest on
brute force but on a vivid, prayerful link with God. His spiritual standing lets him secure
water, stop violence, and set up a covenant that binds both parties to honesty and
shared blessing. By framing the pact as an eternal oath under God, the text tells us that
true stability comes from trust, generosity and putting the divine at the centre of public
life. Abraham’s story still stands as a guide for anyone who wants to blend spiritual
insight with smart diplomacy, reminding us that the hardest-earned power is the one
that can pray, bless and bind people with real, trustworthy deals. (Davis, 215)
14. How is the promise in jeopardy again in Genesis 22?
The binding of Isaac puts a divine order and a divine promise in a direct
clash. Abraham’s answer—walking forward without trying to untangle the conflict—
shows a trust that goes past simple logic. By refusing to argue, he shows a faith that
leans into mystery, believing that God’s promises stay true even when they hide inside a
command that looks opposite. That makes the story the “supreme test” not just because
it asks for obedience, but because it asks for a belief that God will keep his word, even
when the way looks broken. Reading the tale pushes us to think about the limits of what
we can know, about how God’s control works, and about a kind of faith that moves
forward right through a confusing paradox. (Davis, 217)
15. List the three ways of trying to explain why God told Abraham to do what he did
(Genesis 22).
Genesis 22 stands as a tough episode. It puts the idea of love for God against the
idea of love for a child. Readers can try to soften it with history or symbolism, but those
lenses can wipe out the clear picture of a real divine order. Seeing the binding as a literal
command, with Abraham ready to obey until God stops him, keeps the story’s realistic
feel, respects its theological layers, and holds the power it has had on later faiths. So the
third approach – reading the passage as an actual command for human sacrifice – gives
the most solid way to work with Genesis 22. (Davis, 217)
16. Which approach (from #15) seems to be the best explanation?
The binding of Isaac remains one of the Bible’s most dramatic pieces. Though the
text first appears to ask for a real human sacrifice, looking at the way it’s written, the
world it came from, and the way believers have thought about it shows that God never
meant the killing to happen. The story works as a strong test of faith that ends in mercy,
denies any need for human sacrifice, and plants the idea of a substitute that later
believers carry forward. By sorting out the seeming clash between a divine command
and a moral God, the Akedah still shapes how Jews and Christians see obedience,
sacrifice, and the very character of the divine.
17. What does Hebrews 11:17 — 19 tell us about Abraham’s beliefs?
Abraham’s words “we will return unto you” are more than a bold promise. The
writer of Hebrews reads them as a sign of belief in resurrection. This changes the
Genesis story from a mere test of obedience to a forward-looking hope that God can
beat death. By tying Abraham’s faith to God’s power over the dead, Hebrews makes a
bridge from the old covenant to the Christian hope of eternal life. That bridge asks us to
see faith as a hope not only for today’s help but for a future where death never wins—a
belief that still shapes how people think about religion and what they are willing to do
for God. (Davis, 219)
18. Why was Ephron reluctant to sell Abraham just the cave?
Ephron’s reported hesitation makes sense when we see the tangled
responsibilities that came with land ownership in his time. By opting to sell the entire
field rather than just the cave, he sidestepped potential disputes, kept his prestige
intact, and most importantly – freed himself from the endless feudal duties attached to
the field. Genesis 23 therefore is not just a tale about buying a burial plot; it’s a glimpse
into the delicate balance between generosity, self-interest, and legal obligation that
drove the ancient Near Eastern economy. Seeing this helps us value the text’s historic
depth and reminds us that discussions of property, power, and duty still matter today.
(Davis, 222)
19. How does this encounter affect the authority of Scripture?
Putting together the stones dug up, the steadiness of the writing and the way it
matches other ancient sources, it looks pretty solid that the Old Testament “background
material” sits on real history. The Bible keeps details about family set-up, city and farm
life, trade and money, plus a legal framework that goes beyond simple religion. Because
of all that, the Old Testament can act as a rich, if sometimes messy, source for anyone
trying to rebuild the picture of ancient societies. Its lasting usefulness shows why
scholars still turn to it when they want to understand the complicated tapestry of the
ancient Near East. (Davis, 223)
20. What does Abraham’s act of burying Sarah in the land indicate about Abraham?
The burial of Sarah in Canaan is not just an old funeral. It is a deliberate move that packs legal respect,
hopeful belief, and story-continuity together. By buying a permanent place in the promised land, Abraham
shows a kind of emunah that looks beyond his own sorrow and the foretold years of slavery. The act links the
early covenant to later events of exile, conquest, and restoration. So, the episode works as a simple yet
powerful picture: real faith is not only belief but also a steady, forwardthat plants the seed of
God’s promise in today’s ground. (Davis, 223)
looking action
