The Heavenly Doorman

Genesis 20

Abraham and Abimelech

1 From there Abraham journeyed toward the territory of the Negeb and lived between Kadesh and Shur; and he sojourned in Gerar. 2 And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, "She is my sister." And Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah. 3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night and said to him, "Behold, you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man’s wife." 4 Now Abimelech had not approached her. So he said, "Lord, will you kill an innocent people? 5 Did he not himself say to me, 'She is my sister'? And she herself said, 'He is my brother.' In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have done this." 6 Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her.

Trying to draw more out of this passage.

Last time I tried to show that it appeared that the passage presupposed that blame could have been (read counterfactually) ascribed to Abimelech even if God had "kept him" from not sinning. And, secondly, the passage assumed Abimelech's freedom by referencing that he should not be blamed for what he did, even though out of the two paths, to sin or not to sin, one was closed off to him. Thus he was a morally responsible agent, who did what he did out of the integrity of his own mind, while having one of the options, out of two, closed off to him and thus no genuine alternative possibility.

But what of this notion of being "kept from" doing something. I think the Calvinist notion of decree fits best here.

If we do not assume that God had decreed Abimelech's actions from the foundation of the world, then perhaps God, in this case, was something like a bouncer in front of a door.

Abimelech could go into either door. The sin door or the not-sin door. If he tried to go into the sin door, God, the bouncer, would "keep him" from getting in. In this case Abimelech would have both, following Fischer, regulative and guidance control.

If this metaphor of God "keeping" Abimelech is close to the mark, then Abimelech retains his libertarian freedom. If the "keeping" takes the form of antecedent the divine decree, and if Abimelech is morally responsible, then he does not have libertarian freedom.

The problem I see it is that Abimelech says that he is "innocent" and has acted in an upright and morally virtuous way.

Now, perhaps he is wrong. He is fooling himself. The problem here would be that God agrees with Abimelech's judgment.

Since God does not praise or encourage mere moral formalism, why would he intimate that Abimelech was innocent? Would Abimelech really be innocent had he tried with all him might to enter the sin door only to be stopped after a struggle with the bouncer?

Continuing with the bouncer analogy. Say you had a hard day at work and you want to go out for a beer after work, before you go home. Enjoying a nice ale is just the thing you need before you go home and to your real job---that of husband and father! Now, you happen to run into some of your fellow construction workers at the bar, 'One More That's It,' is the name. You don't have too many beers, but enough to get a buzz, say, 4. Now, you inform your buddies that it's time for you to go home. After some slight ribbing about being whipped, they let you go. Now, on your way to your car you notice a strip club (no, not a steak house!). You have a moment of weakness (replace the story about the construction worker with a philosopher instead and you would call it 'akrasia'). You debate it with yourself for a couple of minutes and you convince yourself that it would be just the thing you need to forget about your worries (perhaps you're behind schedule and the foreman is really pushing you). (How to get the perfume off your close doesn't cross your mind at the time, chalk that up to the 4 beers.) So off you go.

When you get to the door the bouncer informs you that the club is at full capacity. You query as to why. He informs you that Misty Mountains is there, everyone wants to get in. You remember that before you got married you had quite the thing for Misty, but marriage, kids---not to mention that alter call you went down for at last year's rally at the stadium when you and 500 other people stood crying in front of the preacher who pulled all the right heart strings---had turned you around. Your wife would kill you. And you promised her you would never do anything like this. But it would be just a peak, you tell yourself. You had to see Misty. So, you formulate a plan. As soon as the bouncer turns his back you will try to do a low crawl into the building, bypassing the bouncer. The time comes and you go for it. The bouncer hears some scraping and shuffling down below, turns around, and sees your sorry self trying to commando crawl into the building. He picks you up by your belt and tosses you into a row of trash cans. Since he outweighs you by about 75 pounds, and you don't feel that tough with coffee grounds in your hair and a banana peel on your lap, you decide to go home. After you arrive home you wife asks where you've been, you simply tell your wife that you went out with some of the guys. She knows the pressure you're under, and fully understands. She tells you to sit down, put your feet up, and she'll get your dinner. She’s a good wife, what were you thinking, you say to yourself. So you resolve to keep her in the dark. No harm no foul. And besides, it would only hurt her. You technically didn't do anything wrong, you tell yourself. You strengthen your resolve. This will never happen again, you tell yourself.

It is three weeks later and you barely remember what happened. You take your wife out to dinner and a movie. Your mom is watching the kids. As you're out with your wife a couple of guys walk by and start laughing. They try to give you a high five. They're obviously drunk. You don't have a clue what's going on, and your wife looks a bit uncomfortable. They kept saying, "Dude! That was awesome. You made my night. That was the funniest thing I'd seen in a while." Just then a light goes on, you have a pretty good idea what they're referring to. You just hope they leave, playing dumb in from of your wife. She then begins to talk, you cringe. She asks them what they're talking about. One guy says, "This guy tried to sneak into a strip club a few weeks ago to see Misty Mountains. The bouncer totally trashed him. [Group laughs] Trashed him! Threw this guy [points to you] into the street and into a row of trash cans." "We got to hand it to you though," he turns to you, "that was one of the most daring moves I've seen in a while. Chopper, the bouncer, is a maniac. You're lucky he didn't gut you!" They laugh and walk away. Your wife stares at you. "What!?," she asks. "Is this true?" The rest of the story gets R-rated from here! Hell hath no furry, 'n all.

Given the above scenario, would the wife have felt better if you had said, "Yeah, but did you hear those guys? They said that the bouncer 'kept me' from getting in. I didn't see a stripper and therefore I'm innocent." Seems to me that doesn't make the man innocent of all charges. Thus we cannot view Abimelech or God this way.

The position that best makes sense of the Biblical data here is that of the Calvinist. God decreed what would happen, thus not allowing for for alternative possibilities, while Abimelech was a morally responsible agent. If only in this one instance we can have determination and moral responsibility, then the Christian libertarian's case crumbles. I say 'Christian' because I don't see this passage convincing atheistic libertarians, at least pre-consummation.

So, we cannot have God "violating" Abimelech's freedom since that wouldn't get a verdict of innocence if Abimelech had tried to sin yet was strong armed from accomplishing his task (similar to the question: Would Eve still have sinned if she had not eaten the fruit out of desire to keep her figure? The answer is: Yes). We have Abimelech as morally responsible, the subject of moral praise or blame. We have only one option as a live possibility for Abimelech (he was "kept from" the other), thus not allowing alternative possibilities to become geneuine. The "keeping" that God does is best seen as his prior, eternal decree which determined all events which take place in the actual world (possible worlds are different ways God could have decreed the events). I find this the most satisfying reading.