Get the entire Tekton site on CD or zipfile. Get a stripped-down copy of this page.

"C." wrote in a while back asking about an apparent discrepancy between the speech of Stephen in Acts and the account of Abraham in Genesis. What developed became less of a question and more of a discussion, one which I think would be quite profitable for other readers to look at.

Here's how our reader framed things to start:

Stephen in Acts said that Abraham left Haran when his father died. Genesis 11:32 says Terah died at the age of 205. Genesis 12:4 says that Abraham was 75 when he left Haran, and Genesis 11:26 says that "Terah lived 70 years and became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran." Okay, now if we just had Genesis to look at, then the comment about Terah dying at the age of 205 could very easily just be a parenthetical comment and not a chronological comment. But Stephen obviously took it chronologically.

Commentators have proposed a few ideas as to how to resolve this problem. One suggestion is that Stephen was following a tradition found in the works of Philo and the Samaritan Pentateuch. C. describes and gives evaluations of other solutions for us:

1. Stephen was mistaken and Luke infallibly recorded what Stephen fallibly said. I do not think that this can fly in this particular instance. While Scripture does not say that Stephen was inspired it does say that in his addresses to the Jews, they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit with which he spake (6:10), and twice it is said that he was full of the Holy Spirit and his face was as the face of an angel. Also, there is God's promise that when His disciples should be brought before rulers, the Holy Spirit would speak in them (Matt. 10:19, Mk. 13:11, Lk. 12:11). It does not seem possible then that Stephen made mistakes.

It is this solution, however, that seems most likely:

2. The listing of Terah's sons is not in order of birth, nor does it imply that they were all born when Terah was 70 as they would then have been triplets, no instance of which is recorded anywhere else in Scripture. Sons are not always listed in order of birth but rather in order of importance, such as Noah's sons in Genesis 5:32. Then it is possible that Abraham was the youngest being born when Terah was 130. Haran did die first making it then likely that he was the eldest and Isaac married Rebecca, the grand-daughter of Nahor by the youngest son of 8 (Gen. 22:22).

Problem solved? To some extent, yes. But C. brought up another very good point:

But if Terah was 130 years old when he fathered Abraham, why would Abraham think it extraordinary that he would have a son at the age of 99, though he certainly would have known of older men in his history that have had children. Also, why would Abraham think 99 was so "old" when his father was 205 when he died. Abraham would have been middle-aged and middle-aged men today certainly can father children. In fact, usually men remain able to procreate many years beyond what a women of the same age can. We do hear of 60 year old men today fathering children with much younger women. So was Abraham exaggerating and being melodramatic to God? Was he perhaps impotent and that is why he said that he was old and Sarah laughed that she should have "pleasure"?

His comments (actually the thoughts in his heart) that how will a man who is one hundred have a child are still puzzling, esp. if his father had him at 135! But besides that, his forebears were having children into ripe old ages. Also, the Bible says that he was old and advanced in years at age 100, but that was just over middle-age considering the age that he died at! Plus, many years later, the same words are used to describe him. And, he had more sons many more years later! What gives?

Also, in Hebrews and Acts, he is described as being as good as dead at age 100. But that was barely over middle-aged! And he had many more children after Sarah died?

What's the answer to this? The answer is, that Abraham's comments are made in light of him not having had children in the previous 100 years, so in effect it is like saying, "After 100 years of infertility I will now have a child?" The comment is relative to Abraham himself, not his contemporaries, and Hebrews/Acts refer to him in the context of his historical infertility.